"Politicial correctness" is the ultimate form of condescension and arrogance

There are many forms of "political correctness" and this term means many things to many people. Usually it takes the form of cumbersome word-games or illogical laws. I'll pick one example I just came across in another thread: the Royalty of the UK changed their title from "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of the Faiths" because they didn't want to "discriminate" between people who might not happen to be members of the Church of England. Many in the UK have also advocated allowing Sharia Law in because "who are we to say our legal system is any better?"

Such moves are probably conceived of as "humble" and "tolerant" but the fact is they all go one way: taking power from the "bad guys" of that horrible old bogyman "Traditional Western Civilization" in order to increase rights and respect for "historically marginalized persons" of whatever pursuasion. The bizzare thing is that the people with the power seem to be "freely giving it away," which runs counter to all assumptions about human nature one can learn from history.

On the face of it, it seems like a kind of humility, but really it is the ultimate in arrogance because the REAL feelings in the hearts of people who espouse these doctrines is something like: "We are so strong and secure, so we cannot possibly be threatened in any way by these poor, disasvantaged waifs. So we'll toss them some crumbs to be fair."

This is monumental inner arrogance, absolutely stunning, because it REFUSES to acknowledge that any potential competitoror enemy of "traditional culture" could EVER be strong enough to threaten it. Instead, such possible competitors are treated like loveable little muppets, to be coddled and patted on the head. It bespeaks an ABIDING DISRESEPECT for the power of one's potential adversaries. It alsorepresents EXTREME HUBRIS because it implies that one's current position is so amazingly powerful that NOTHING could ever be of serious threat to it.

In the end, paradoxically, these types of doctrines are the ultimate in discrimination because they imply an assumed, automatic, and abiding SUPERIORITY of the one dishing out the "PC" to such an extent that they actually have power to give away like tossing confetti into the air. One day they (or, more likely, their children, if they are politically incorrect enough to have any at all, that is) will wake up and discover their position is and always has been a lot shakier than they have arrogantly assumed for decades.

I never thought of it in those terms, but it is likely. I've tried many times over the years to figure out the motivation of politicians when it comes to being pc. That they are arrogant is certainly a leading factor.

I'm happy to say that I'm not in scheme mode every second of every day, so I can't really relate to why they are so pc. I'd be afraid for my soul if I thought the way most politicians do.

I used to say that the status quo and PC is the downfall of our society, even relating it to the mark of the beast. Once you accept this way of thinking you are a subject of the system and all the material wealth it brings. You go against this system, and it will crush you.

PC is just postmodern relativist crap, lol.

I always thought PC was just spastic gay talk ---

nope - it is.

This kind of thread just shows a lack of understanding about the politics of social boredom - you don't hear rape victims of the war in Darfur complaining about the "glass ceiling", you don't hear people being stoned to death, or starving Zimbabweans complaining about negative stereo types in modern advertising impacting on the self image of young woman - no - its a past time of bored house wifes in London -