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.

 

Modern Political Correctness

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ketsuko

Then why is it that the only "choice" the pro-choice crowd ever advocates for is abortion?

I never see pro-choice people arguing in favor of adoption or abstinence which are also both choices.

And this is why we on the right call it pro-abortion.



Maybe because you choose not to hear their argument???

Maybe because Abortion is what the "Pro-life" crowd is screaming about???

Maybe because Adoption isn't being addressed by either side and everyone knows that is already included in having a choice???

Maybe because abstinence is a failed policy idea proven over and over again while education about sex and the realities of it does work???

Have you bothered to asked Pro-Choice activists the same question because I'm not an activist??


I'm just curious because when you do bring up those things, adoption is dismissed, and no one believes anyone can abstain.

And I'm not talking about abstention until marriage, btw. I'm talking about simply abstaining if you realize that the person you are about to be with is not one you wish to share a child with. You know, better safe than sorry.

Cut the hook-up culture out.




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Political Correctness is cultural Marxism according to Accuracy in Academia. I was not aware of that term. Ironically the first site that gave me a definition was Metapedia which Wikipedia describes as having far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, white separatist, antisemitic, and neo-Nazi points of view. Most of what I searched came from a right-wing angle.

Quotes from Accuracy in Academia.

"We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious."

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

The Origins of Political Correctness

I presumed that this website would be unbiased but I think it is biased and also right-wing. I always think of academic articles as being unbiased (maybe I am being naive here).

A Guardian article attempts to offer an objective perspective although it is a left-wing UK newspaper.

The culture war that so defines current debates between the left and right sides of politics has its history in the barmy theory of ‘cultural Marxism’

"The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways."

'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for right-wingers who love to play the victim

There is also conspiracy theory in relation to Cultural Marxism which is mentioned in the Guardian article.

'Cultural Marxism' is obviously a right-wing term.

As much as I dislike the extreme right, I also dislike the extreme left.




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not having sex is obviously a good way to not have unwanted children. Nobody is arguing that. Everyone knows this already. However, that isn't exactly a reliable method or policy. If it was then this whole topic would never exist.

Pro-Choice is about having all choices available. Promoting one over another isn't part of it. That is up to the person making the choice. Pro-Choice is about making sure they have all possible choices to choose from so that I also have all choices to choose from. I get to choose what is right for me and you for you and them for them. That's it.

If you want Adoption, great, have at it. Nobody is going to try and talk you into Abortion. Same goes for whatever choice the chooser is choosing for themselves.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

True, but only one poses a threat to free speech today.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sorry, I was getting off topic a bit.

Which two things are you talking about??? PC vs. CC or Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice???



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I wasn't aware this thread had to do with abortion. If I can catch up I may comment on it.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: mOjOm

I wasn't aware this thread had to do with abortion. If I can catch up I may comment on it.


I believe you responded to a comment that said this topic was about the Left and Right contributing to the PC nonsense. But you said only one poses a threat to free speech today.

Can you expand on that? What is that "one"?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: mOjOm

I wasn't aware this thread had to do with abortion. If I can catch up I may comment on it.


It's not supposed to be. That's what I mean by getting off topic. Me and Ketsuko got off an a tangent for a sec.

I actually think PC and CC both stifle free speech and don't approve of either exactly. I understand the idea of using language without intentionally trying to offend others. But even that is a choice IMO. If you want to use offensive language that is your choice. But you have to expect some reactions in return that may be offensive as well.

PC at best is just trying to be non-offensive and at worst is playing Language Police. The first is something I think we can all deal with the second not so much.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sorry, I was getting off topic a bit.

Which two things are you talking about??? PC vs. CC or Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice???


All right then, now that we're back on topic,

We have established that each side has terms they prefer to use in some cases.

Now we have to go to the second part, enforcement of that terminology. Has someone forced you to call it pro-abortion yet? If not, then while it may the correct term amongst conservatives, then it isn't up to the power level of political correctness which is enshrined in campus speech codes, corporate HR directives, and other similar places.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




I believe you responded to a comment that said this topic was about the Left and Right contributing to the PC nonsense. But you said only one poses a threat to free speech today.

Can you expand on that? What is that "one"?


I don't think there is a "conservative correct" anymore, if there ever was. The PC folks who are limiting freedoms, for instance the campaigns that corporations and universities buckle to, are coming from the left.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Fair enough, but I would disagree.

As I laid out in my OP, it is my contention that the conservative PC came later to contrast the Leftist PC that bloomed in the 1970's.

That is why I was confused by your assertion that the Leftist PC came after the Conservative PC.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If being pc is self-policing, as you put it, that would be one thing. But people do not use it to self-police. They use it to police others. And then attack, abuse, and shame them if it is determined, often quite randomly, that they have been less than pc. You yourself do this quite often. Racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, etc, are all words I have received from you on numerous occasions. None of that involved self-policing. It was policing me. And when I call out the 'pc police' people sit there and shrug their shoulders like they have no idea what I could possibly be talking about. Wrong answer.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Fair enough, but I would disagree.

As I laid out in my OP, it is my contention that the conservative PC came later to contrast the Leftist PC that bloomed in the 1970's.

That is why I was confused by your assertion that the Leftist PC came after the Conservative PC.


It's not only conservatives saying PC is stifling free speech. Many libertarians and liberals are as well. I would agree some conservatives may call someone PC without enough reason to do.

No, we've had blasphemy, inquisitions, witch burnings and so on that could be labelled PC. Those times are over, and they've taken a different form.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So far one term that has been agreed upon was "Freedom Fries". Which was agreed to be PC from the Right.

Another example which I think also applies, but not sure if everyone agrees on is "Islamic Terrorism". Some on the Right insists on that term being used and get pissed when it's not used. Some on the left say it's not about "Islam" therefor that language is not correct. The point being though that it is a form of Right Wing PC.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Another example I think would apply is the insistence from the Right that Protesters were Looters or thugs or whatever. They would not stop calling people who protested Ferguson Looters even though they had nothing to do with the looting. They just kept putting everyone into the same group which just happened to be lumping them in with criminals.

You could also say the same goes for the term "Terrorist" or "Home Grown Terrorist" as well. If you're brown skinned muslim you'll be labeled a terrorist almost immediately but if you're a "White Christian American" you're just a loony or lone nut but never a terrorist.

It's really just the control of speech and what terms are used. It comes from both Left and Right and it is everywhere. Some use it without thinking about it, some use it intentionally, sometimes it's used to be polite and sometimes it's used to insult. I think that is the point of this op, but then again who knows for sure at this point what the hell anyone is talking about..

edit on 17-12-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



If being pc is self-policing, as you put it, that would be one thing. But people do not use it to self-police. They use it to police others. And then attack, abuse, and shame them if it is determined, often quite randomly, that they have been less than pc.


That's what I said in the OP. I simply expanded that to apply to both sides of the debate.



You yourself do this quite often. Racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, etc, are all words I have received from you on numerous occasions.


I'd ask you to find any statement in which I called you any of those things. I'm very careful about what I say and very confident that I have not used those words in the context you describe.



nd when I call out the 'pc police' people sit there and shrug their shoulders like they have no idea what I could possibly be talking about. Wrong answer.


No clue what that means.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

We called the people in Fergusons looters, thugs and rioters because what started as a protest become a riot in which the participants looted and burned their own town, including businesses started by their fellow townsfolk. To many of us, at that point the participants became thugs whatever they had started the event as.

See?

The language we use changes just like the situation does and did. They started out as protestors in a protest. They ended up as thugs engaged in a riot looting and burning their own homes and businesses.

edit on 17-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



It's not only conservatives saying PC is stifling free speech. Many libertarians and liberals are as well.


I never said "only conservatives".



No, we've had blasphemy, inquisitions, witch burnings and so on that could be labelled PC. Those times are over, and they've taken a different form.


True, but that "new form" is not limited to one side of the political spectrum.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not everyone who was protesting started looting. In fact day after day there were peaceful protests that didn't have any looting at all happening.

The result of which made it so when a guy decided to drive his car though a group of them and run over a teen age girl nobody gave a damn because in their mind all those people were just criminals.

You can continue to believe that your perspective is correct and that you changed your language in an unbias way but that is just more denial. The fact is that the majority of those people out there and in other cities weren't looting. Yes, there were looters who used it as a shield or excuse to loot stuff, but it was hardly a majority.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

They were blocking the road.

So, now you are saying that even when we change the language to describe what we see without bias, we are still wrong? This is PC from the leftist POV. You take it to the moral level, so when you catch someone not following your preferred speech imperatives, you feel that person is not simply mistaken, but immoral. And that gives you the moral imperative to basically "shove your morality" down their throat.

I may disagree with you from my side of things, but that's it. You are mistaken or wrong, not evil.


edit on 17-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join