The New Totalitarians Are Here, Dissecting Political Correctness

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You do know that Thomas Jefferson would have zero problem with political correctness right?

That is one hell of a presumption. One that is wrong.

TJ would have a problem with PC today.

It wasn't very politically correct to dis the crown way back then.

Hell that is why the 1st amendment even exists.

For 'we the people' to say what we think. Regardless of who it was.

a reply to: infolurker

Freedom of expression was never really strong. In US colonial times, blasphemy was considered a crime. In the civil war era, Lincoln censored the press. I'm not sure how things were in time after that and in other places, but I do know in the USA its still a crime to speak against a judge, and to remain silent when judge says you can't remain silent. Its also a crime to tell someone where they can buy drugs without a prescription. A judge can put you under a gag order to restrict what you can say, which by definition is a restriction on speech.

But we have not really gotten to the speech that matters, because the US has mandated speech, especially for businesspeople. If you own a business, there are hundreds if not thousands of information you are required to provide to government agencies. They require businesses to express them self in certain ways, which is used by governments as their primary tool for extortion and power.

The IRS will furthermore mandate individuals to express them selves to the authorities to ensure they are properly extorted. My locality mandates I fill out a property tax form and a number of other required information because I "own" property (actually the government owns it and rents it to me calling the rent "property tax"). The US census mandates you tell the government how many people live in your household. Mandatory speech is pervasive when it comes to the government ensuring you are properly milked and bilked.

There is also mandatory speech that most if not 90%+ of people do support: license plates on cars. There is also mandatory censorship that 90%+ of people support: copyrighted materials cannot be shared without the owners permission. File-sharers are sued and lose on a regular basis, even when money was never involved. I'm not in agreement with the 90% on those issues.

Where I do agree is that threats and fraud should be illegal. But it really isn't the speech or even the content of the speech, but rather the intention of the person to harm you for their own benefit that should be illegal.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Very well put, I like to read psychological studies on human behavior and feel that PC just goes against some of the most basic behaviors of human psychology.

This also involves the changing definition of tolerance, which I will post from my response on another thread. The changing definition of tolerance is almost like newspeak in George Orwell's 1984, which is really what PC is, but not we have New Tolerance.
"The old view of tolerance assumed that (1) there is objective truth that can be known/ 2) various people, groups and perspectives each think they know what that objective truth is and (3) as people/groups disagree, dialogue and debate their conflicting views of the truth, everyone involved will have an opportunity to learn, grow, change and possibly arrive together at the truth." Basically we could have a civil discussion, and in the end learn and grow, or agree to disagree. I could disagree with your political views, lifestyle, whatever, and you disagree with mine, and we could still be friendly and have a beer.

But today that has all changed in this PC world. "The new tolerance is different from the old tolerance. The new view of tolerance assumes that (1) there is no objective truth that can be known; (2) various people, groups and perspectives do not have the truth but only what they believe to be the truth and (3) various people, groups and perspectives should not argue and debate their disagreements because there is no truth to be discovered, and to assume otherwise only leads to needless conflicts and prejudices." Now I am being called a bigot right out the gate for having convictions and stating my opinions. It's not so much that I can disagree with you but be your friend, New Tolerance says I have to agree with you, validate you, accept you and your opinions as valid, and pat you on the back and promote you. New tolerance says if you are not 100% for me, you are against me, and new tolerance does not appreciate opposing views. ***quotes from Mark Driscoll***

Dictionary.com defines bigotry as: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." This might as well be the definition of New Tolerance.

a reply to: infolurker

Unfortunately they have already captured and corrupted the minds of the young and the simple, it is only a matter of time now.

a reply to: AnonymousMoose

The modern concept of tolerance does not require the complicated identity theory and postmodernism that you're claiming.

Tolerance has meant and only means being who you are and acknowledging that others are who they are without causing undue harm either way.

Its an acknowledgement that we don't all get everything we want all of the time.

You're not doing anything here but a bit more high-brow right-wing version of PC ... enjoy trying to change what words and phrases mean so that you feel better about it.

It's not fooling anyone.

a reply to: infolurker

What is needed is a huge dose of patience. The immediacy of these momentary concerns does not mean that it will be remembered as anything other than a progression in societal values.

It appears to me what many consider alarming trends is just their apprehension about ANY change. Applecarts will be thrown over as long as society is dynamic. Those who expect retention of the old patterns due to them being tried and true FAIL. The reason that this disturbance in the current set of values is occurring is because those values are not necessarily in tune with where we are going.

Clinging to the old due to fear of the new is a normal response for those who may lose something or don't want that pea under their mattress. This is true across every discipline and ethical framework.

To use one saw, 'SCIENCE ADVANCES OVER ONE DEAD BODY AT A TIME.' You can use this in politics too. These changes so odious to some will replace their aspects as they enter and are entertained in the eternal dirt bath. They will be as naught.

I can understand the existential terror of someone becoming redundant. Discovering that your beliefs are NOT valued by history and that you have been at best a foolish foil of the Elite would grind one's bones. To discover this, in an adult's transitioning, means that you retain some flexibility in your perspectives. You can modify yourself to stay relevant.

The number of folks who can not do this seem to rest at about 40% in my experience. They use faith, feelings and beliefs to aid them in their journey to their deaths. These devices such as stereotyping, prejudice, intransigence, mal-adapting facts to conform, factoids, repetition and group insanity have a purpose. We can not re-evaluate every aspect of reality when we go to the grocery store for a dozen eggs. We all use those tools to simplify choice making.

It's the moronic adhesion to thinking that has no purpose other than to perpetuate values that are being transitioned out, that annoys me. The sophistication of valid arguments are wasted on these folks because they are committed to willful ignorance due to their rock-ribbed adherence to BS. They will justify it by circular reasoning and quibbling about every fact that they refuse to accept anyway.

Essentially, we who want things to change with forward thinking are bogged down in our endeavors by those who are retro-looking (and loving it). This friction is a good thing and it is why I normally don't hate those sectors of regression. Any society needs a constancy so that we can function on a daily basis. The pace of change does need to be moderated. (Think Chernobyl.) Even morons have value. But they will eventually be replaced along with their views, because....well... they're morons.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AnonymousMoose
Tolerance has meant and only means being who you are and acknowledging that others are who they are without causing undue harm either way.

Except you can go through many threads in recent days here, and see in social media and elsewhere the hatred, the violence, the threats, and the overall tone of bigoted liberals who spew hate towards anyone whose point of view differs from their own.

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AnonymousMoose
Tolerance has meant and only means being who you are and acknowledging that others are who they are without causing undue harm either way.

Except you can go through many threads in recent days here, and see in social media and elsewhere the hatred, the violence, the threats, and the overall tone of bigoted liberals who spew hate towards anyone whose point of view differs from their own.

I'm one of the loudest ant-PC people here, but you can't honestly generalize it as liberals. Campus liberals are horrible, but the right has plenty of issues where they are overly defensive, and plenty of talking heads who want nothing but division.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You do know that Thomas Jefferson would have zero problem with political correctness right?

That is one hell of a presumption. One that is wrong.

TJ would have a problem with PC today.

It wasn't very politically correct to dis the crown way back then.

Hell that is why the 1st amendment even exists.

For 'we the people' to say what we think. Regardless of who it was.

The crown? Political correctness has zero to do with our government buddy. There are no laws in place preventing you from spewing the worst racist things in the world, and the law has sided with racists time and again to hold rallies, marches, and protests. You are still 100% allowed to talk all the hate you want on the internet (provided you don't piss off the site mods). Then when people become offended and say something, THEY are 100% allowed to do that as well. It is all applications of our 1st Amendment rights.

Thomas Jefferson was one of the most idealistic of our founding fathers. He would LOVE political correctness. Maybe study some actual history on our founding fathers and how they thought and behaved instead of some idealistic hero worship you may have for him.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The problem is, if they have their way, our culture and even our race will be absorbed.

That must be fought, and that is a war that is being fought and it is an information war. This conflict is becoming more and more mainstream these last years.

The other problem is, someone is orchestrating this. Saturation and suppression at such a level that is so coordinated and monolithic is likely not a coincidence. Power groups of different kinds, we know they're out there, we can see their work and almost feel their designs.

I think they're trying to control the new right/alternative right. The next anti-thesis, post-relativism, the rise and come back of nationalism and scientific racism. We'll see where that goes. I sympathise with quite a few of these ideas, European sovereignty especially, but if I were the kind to worry I'd be worrying about what manner of vile manipulations might lie behind all of these movements and ideas.

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AnonymousMoose
Tolerance has meant and only means being who you are and acknowledging that others are who they are without causing undue harm either way.

Except you can go through many threads in recent days here, and see in social media and elsewhere the hatred, the violence, the threats, and the overall tone of bigoted liberals who spew hate towards anyone whose point of view differs from their own.

There has not been one single thread here at ATS in which anyone of any political stripe has advocated violence. There have been no threats.

You are obviously conservative. Does that mean that when someone disagrees with you they're threatening you? Hating you? Etc.?

If your position is correct, are you not hating now, spewing threats at those who obviously disagreed with you in these "discussions"?

/shrug

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Why do you guys always ignore the cultural Marxist ideology that is behind the political correctness? It never gets acknowledged by liberals! It's not institutional politeness, it's an institutionalised ideology that has been allowed and encouraged to saturate every fibre of our society ever since WWII. Even if it wasn't part of some shady conspiracy it has still in its current form become a "self organized consensus" that is being paid fealty to by almost all official institutions in our society. It is not politeness, it is in effect mind control. It casts a net of thought control and it enforces agendas and politics that shape our society and has been doing that for decades. "Oh, it's just politeness". You must be kidding me with that bullsh*t when there's vast demographic replacements going on. You're giving all your ancestors the finger by being so lackadaisical about your own culture and race..

This cowardly conformity and self hate must truly be a sickness sent from the devil himself! So many people that are enemies to their own people.. may their shame hang onto their soul forever. Their acts have been noted in the books of life. The angels of the nations weep in silence.. rarely in the three times has such liberal evil and smugness been known before.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod because I'm not entirely sure what cultural Marxism is. I know it's based on the critical theory of Adorno et al From the Frankfurt school, but not entirely sure how it applies in the case of this thread. It's something that a lot of right wingers moan about, but rarely understand.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

It's the Newspeak and cognitive dissonance of modern liberals. It's the arbitrary and subjective defining of progress and then always moving the goalpost. It's the hidden sickness, it's the cowardice and herdlike behaviour of subjects and not free men, subjects clearly under the influence of dark gods. It's the hidden despotism of those that say they are good, it's the cognitive dissonance and projection of their own suppressed faults and prejudices. It's the gullibility of people believing that the guys saying they are the good guys are the good guys. It's social engineering, a very tangible thing.. you might lose your job over it. Or your culture and your way of life. Or you may be branded a heretic by your ancestors in the afterlife.