It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The New Totalitarians Are Here, Dissecting Political Correctness

page: 1
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
A breakdown of what is actually being done.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” By any definition that Jefferson could have envisioned, today’s political correctness can only be regarded as “tyranny over the mind of man.” Forget freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of privacy, political correctness demands that we don’t even have freedom of thought or opinion.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

Political correctness feeds on the fear of speaking views that diverge from PC “truth.” Although the primary forces behind political correctness are those who develop and convey ideas—college professors and administrators, Hollywood producers and directors, celebrities, mainstream news anchors, and so on—we all perpetuate political correctness when we succumb to the fear of contradicting PC “truth.”

So where does this fear come from? And what is the source of the prevailing opinions that we fear to contradict? Public opinion is often molded through a calculated process of psychological manipulation that takes two main forms: saturation and suppression.

Saturation is the practice of repeating a deception relentlessly and injecting it into every corner of public life so that it becomes accepted as truth. Saturation usually requires the control of most communications outlets.

Suppression is the flip side of the PC coin. We know it as the practice of quashing ideas that compete with the PC message, usually through speech codes, shout-downs, or smears. The process of suppression creates the conditions essential to the survival of the PC message. If we think of PC as bacteria, suppression is like the dark room and the culture required for the bacteria’s growth and replication.

No matter how implausible an idea may seem, it can gain acceptance in the minds of the citizens as the forces of PC relentlessly hype the idea in the public square. Simultaneously, the voices that might challenge and analyze the idea must be suppressed—accusations of bigotry and hatred often do the trick—so that the PC idea has a chance to incubate and then affect public opinion. The twin processes of saturation and suppression, if diligently applied, can produce the illusion of a huge public opinion shift, or a “cascade.”

When a free society falls under the sway of these manufactured cascades, many people stop behaving as free thinkers. People become less focused on truth and more focused on their social survival.

Human beings tend to comply very quickly when threatened with labels of vilification—i.e., “bigot” or “hater”—that serve to get one socially labeled as a non-person. That’s because we know and fear social ostracism as a death trap.



en.wikipedia.org...
The Spiral of Silence:


Spiral of silence theory stipulates that individuals have a fear of isolation, which results from the idea that a social group or the society in general might isolate, neglect, or exclude members due to the members' opinions. This fear of isolation consequently leads to remaining silent instead of voicing opinions. Media is an important factor that relates to both the dominant idea and people's perception of the dominant idea. The assessment of one's social environment may not always correlate with reality.




thefederalist.com...



Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion.



Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment.

That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.

That’s terrifying, because it means that for a fair number of people in what’s supposed to be a democracy, “winning” in any normal political sense simply isn’t enough. They are not really trying to capture something as pedestrian as political equality, nor are they satisfied if they get it. They are not really seeking a win in the courts, or a legal solution, or a negotiated settlement. Those are all just merit badges to be collected along the way to a more important goal: what they really want, and what they in fact demand, is that you agree with them. They want you to believe.

It is not enough for these Americans to say: “I have had my day in court and prevailed.” In effect, they now add: “You do not have the right to hold a different opinion, even if you lose in the public arena. You may not hold on to your belief as a minority view, or even as a private thought. And if you persist and still disagree, I will attack you without quarter and set others on you to deprive you of your status in your profession, of your standing in your community, and even of your livelihood.”

They’re sending a clear warning that there’s plenty of room in the bonfire. It is a vow that you will be held to account for your personal thoughts, even if you’ve already been defeated in a democratic or judicial contest.


No, even after losing, you will be forced to admit the error of your ways. You must accept that you’ve sinned. You must discard your own values and accept the ideas of your betters. You must denounce yourself for undermining the construction of a better world.

You, too, must love Big Brother.




This is a great book on the subject (from 1956 documenting these methods used by Nazis and Communists):

archive.org/stream/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd_djvu.txt[editby ]edit on 8-7-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
It is because of integration.

The facts are that the governments demanding PC want their lands to be lands of many cultures where people all get along and aren't questioning their authority.

The reality of the matter is that cultures are different, there are vast seas of differences between some cultures and some just a few. To prevent schools and employers etc. getting sued and groups of people feeling unintegrated, they created PC, which is basically a system pretending all cultures as the same even though they aren't.

So when *insert UK name* watches a documentary on African tribes at school and says '''ewwww yukkkkk'' at them drinking from live cows, walking around naked standing on goat ****, eating raw meat and sleeping on a dirt floor, they are told that they ''can't say that'' as it ''isn't PC'' similarly for a Muslim child watching a Christian child eating a bacon sandwich, they are told they cannot say ''ewwwww yukkkkk you ate something dirty'' and for all the other potentials to be offended at because of cultural differences.

The opinions are still there though, just that they are told they aren't allowed and if anyone strays from the narrow path of saying their opinion it makes them ''bad'' (not really) and an army of self righteous ''I have more victim points than you'' feels it their 'right' to loudly proclaim you as a ''racist'', ''bigot'', ''sexist'' etc to the world.

Really all they are doing is an attempt at shaming people for human nature, for having opinions and realising that there are cultural differences and it is not the same as hating those that are different.

The only real way to solve it is for culturally homogenous societies, where those that aspire to abc go live in abc land and those of xyz opinions to xyz land and they each have their agreed cultural ethics, ways and rules.

Seeing as that isn't likely the real solution is tolerance and that is the opposite of PC which is basically intolerance under a thin veneer of righteousness.

ETA People have opinions, that is human nature and if all those opinions are suppressed and talking about them denied, it causes pent up emotions which are counterproductive.
edit on 8-7-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Don't know. The solution around here is to ignore PC, laugh at each other and ourselves, and admire our differences, else push people out if they are too much to handle. It works, maybe not for corporations, but ... being... people... they are bad people, so maybe we should just push them out as well?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

This pretty much sums it up:


Forget freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of privacy, political correctness demands that we don’t even have freedom of thought or opinion.


It is only when we remain silent or refuse to debate that we let PC become a problem -- and that's true for both sides in this left/right paradigm.

And, of course, when we let ego get in the way of truth, when we refuse to re-examine and re-evaluate our own beliefs, when we fool ourselves into thinking that might makes right. Good people can disagree; great people can find common ground.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

The Spiral of Silence is real and amazing. I saw it at my workplace and my professional association at meetings and conferences. Its an amazing phenomenon. Some speaker would go off on a PC topic; talk for an hour, and then at the question and answer session, no one raised a hand, no one asked a question. If there was a discussion period after, perhaps at a luncheon, people around the tables discussed the weather and who had retired, or been laid off.

I see it at work here at ATS. On certain type thread topics, we'll see the PC cops swoop in and demand adherence to the PC viewpoint. Everyone else either shuts down, or doesn't bother to comment at all based upon the type of thread. Its all very predictable.

As to certain topics and ideas, the PC crowd has won such an overwhelming victory that because of the Spiral of Silence, they can't even tell anymore who agrees with them and who dissents because people will nod in agreement to avoid confrontation, all the while harboring entirely different or opposing beliefs or views.

Very interesting topic. I suspect its only going to get worse. But.....I posit and explore the idea that as this situation worsens, it will precipitate an acceleration of migration on the part of the non-PC people, both an internal migration and some accelerating emigration where its possible. Sad, but I guess its inevitable.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I am really beginning to think a better term for this would be 'Cultural correctness'...it is a devious pop culture that seems to be driving it.

It's a hive mind conformist mindset at the end of the day, and the reality is that individualism is what is being gradually eliminated.

"Be like us, agree with us, join the hive".....it's all very Borg-like.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I abhor political correctness and I shun and counteract it everyday. All of America should do the same.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I hate it also,i said happy Christmas to the woman in H.R. and she told me "no it's happy holiday" and then tried telling me i wasn't allowed to say it so of course i replied back that she can not tell me how to think and there is freedom of speech in this country.
It was not her fault really,it was Corporate P.C. out of control and enforcing it's warped views upon it's employees.

P.C. may have a done a decent job in getting people to be more sensitive to one another but the problem is most of the garbage being spewed out nowadays and trying to be foisted upon the public is coming from mentally unstable intellectually corrupt loon balls who have this notion that anyone who is disagrees with them is a racist or a sexist.
Half the people coming forward with these lunatic ideas on what's right and what's wrong are using it as part of a master plan to shut down an individuals freedom and critical thinking.
It's mostly used for an insidious agenda by people who are as deceptive as the day is long usually of a totalitarian disposition although wearing a liberal mask at the same time.
For every new nut job P.C. cause that springs up we should always ask ourselves Qui bono(in whose benefit)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: SlapMonkey

For every new nut job P.C. cause that springs up we should always ask ourselves Qui bono(in whose benefit)


I think we all know the answer to that, and it's not "we the people."



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

You do know that Thomas Jefferson would have zero problem with political correctness right? Because telling someone to be politically correct is using your 1st Amendment right. There is no federal bans being instituted around telling you you can't say such and such. It is all social shaming, which is again all just using the 1st Amendment.

In any case, from what I've seen from complainers about political correctness is that most of the people who have a problem with it are upset that they can't causally say offensive things or stereotype people without social backlash anymore.
edit on 10-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Do any of you favor a reasonable discussion of the topic, or do you want merely to continue to titillate yourselves with the doom-porn exhibited thus far?

I won't bother you if the answer is no.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It does get tiring pointing out how Political correctness isn't a 1st amendment issue...



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

It does get tiring pointing out how Political correctness isn't a 1st amendment issue...


I just don't want to interrupt the general flow of the thread by trying to actually discuss facts rather than fear-porn.

It's not only that "PC" is not a First Amendment issue, it's that it assumes this great dark unified force that would dwarf the Illuminati, the Reptilians, and the Lords of Vril.

I don't have enough unbloodied forehead left to waste, frankly, LOL ... your mileage may vary. Good luck if you choose to fight the good fight.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I certainly can't disagree with you. That's for sure... The hyperbole is STRONG in this thread. As usual.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

I think a lot of us in the South have experienced it this week.
I saw a good guy who happens to have a confederate sticker on his truck- who has had that sticker on his truck for probably years now, who has been a good dependable worker that has got along well with everyone, in a job working out in the Georgia heat doing manual labor, for just a bit below $10/hr get told that if he did NOT take that sticker off his truck, he'd be fired.

The risks are not only social.
I've thought of this more in terms of the hive mind- fall in line with the hive or be cast out.
What's scary to me is how fast it developed over this flag issue, and I do not think it was a natural development.

When Amazon decided to quit selling the flag, it was 39,000 items that they refused to list. There's no telling how many vendors were hurt by that decision - they made that decision for all the people that sell there TOO. Same with eBay.
And I get that is their right- but did anyone think about what these people were maybe going to do for income or with an inventory they could no longer freely sell in the big marketplace? (Sure they can go to the small marketplaces, but the big ones effectively shut them out.) Did anyone care about them?

Now, I've always tended to vote liberal, but I heard a couple of liberals that I look up to state stuff about how people that didn't agree just needed to die.

I'm frankly shell shocked, and it has me worried. Now, I'm really not trying to go on discussing that flag, I don't even own one, that was just the example that came to mind. It's the chilling effect that a suddenly turning tide had on free speech that bothers me. Oh sure, anyone that wants to say stuff still can. The same is true in Saudia Arabia though - sure, if I want to get in the public square and start talking about astrological predictions, I still can. I'm gonna get killed, but I can do it.
If suddenly a good worker is threatened with being FIRED because of some little sticker that's been on his truck for YEARS that suddenly some very vocal group believes can only mean ONE thing, and boom - majority opinion, must be true. You're either in the hive or out- that IS oppressive and to me it is not very American. It wasn't a govt. job.

Thing that gets me is that it was a private job that segregates their bathrooms! THIS bathroom is for the Mexicans. THIS bathroom is for the blacks. The whites go in this one over HERE. And FTR it isn't the white folk enforcing it, it's the individual groups of workers!



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: hadriana
a reply to: TonyS

I think a lot of us in the South have experienced it this week.
I saw a good guy who happens to have a confederate sticker on his truck- who has had that sticker on his truck for probably years now, who has been a good dependable worker that has got along well with everyone, in a job working out in the Georgia heat doing manual labor, for just a bit below $10/hr get told that if he did NOT take that sticker off his truck, he'd be fired.

The risks are not only social.
I've thought of this more in terms of the hive mind- fall in line with the hive or be cast out.
What's scary to me is how fast it developed over this flag issue, and I do not think it was a natural development.


But you didn't list a risk that isn't social. Threat of firing is a social consequence between you and your employer's policies for continued employment. Would you argue that a company shouldn't have the freedom to fire someone for saying something perceived to be inflammatory or mean?


When Amazon decided to quit selling the flag, it was 39,000 items that they refused to list. There's no telling how many vendors were hurt by that decision - they made that decision for all the people that sell there TOO. Same with eBay.
And I get that is their right- but did anyone think about what these people were maybe going to do for income or with an inventory they could no longer freely sell in the big marketplace? (Sure they can go to the small marketplaces, but the big ones effectively shut them out.) Did anyone care about them?


Why should anyone care about them? The economy is and always has been dog eat dog. If you sell a product that becomes or is becoming irrelevant, you need to evolve or go out of business.
edit on 10-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would argue that rules that have such dire consequence should not be arbitrary, so that one day what is ok, the next day is not.
I would argue that it is a socio-economic effect, one that goes beyond what most people would consider MERELY social, because it pits one's livelihood and survival at stake.

And the "Why should anyone care about them?" comment is EXACTLY the reason I doubt I will ever vote liberal AGAIN.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hadriana

The fellow in your story has a Rebel Flag on his personal vehicle, has had it there for years, and suddenly his employer is telling him that if he doesn't remove it from his personal vehicle he will be fired?

Does his personal vehicle get used in the course of the company's business, i.e. does he represent the company while driving the truck?

If not, it sounds like a pretty clear wrongful dismissal case if they actually went through with it.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: hadriana
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would argue that rules that have such dire consequence should not be arbitrary, so that one day what is ok, the next day is not.
I would argue that it is a socio-economic effect, one that goes beyond what most people would consider MERELY social, because it pits one's livelihood and survival at stake.


Rules are always arbitrary. There are no "rules" in nature. We, humans, invented them. So there is no way to take the arbitrary adjective away from our rules.


And the "Why should anyone care about them?" comment is EXACTLY the reason I doubt I will ever vote liberal AGAIN.


That isn't a liberal sentiment though... It's a conservative sentiment. Conservatives let you live and fall by your own merits. Liberals are the ones who want to take care of everyone.
edit on 10-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nah, in this case it is definitely a liberal thing- The group in question that no longer matters are white, rural southerners.
It's definitely political, and it is definitely liberal.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join