The secret origins of political correctness

blupblup

You cannot, and the law should not allow it either, discriminate against people based on Gender, sexual orientation, race or any other such factor.
That's why we have laws in place, for equality.... a lot of hard work went in to getting this far.
why would you undo all of that to go back to a time when bars and pubs had these signs up?

As stated, us anti-PC folk have no problem with basic civil rights. We instead ask: Where is the line drawn? Under PC now even teenagers are suing if they are not admitted to dance clubs.

The conspiracy-theory presented here is: There is no line being drawn.

Skyfloating

So Im in my shop full of China, a drunkard comes in and I say "I dont serve drunk people". He says: "Im not drunk. Thats discrimination. Im going to sue you". And I get fined. Its the same basic principle...

It's really not. The drunk person in your example is in no way analogous to a person discriminated against because of their sexuality or colour. Can you genuinely not see the difference?

PC is a term that only conservative people and ignorant people use. They find it appalling that their racist speech must be labeled and condemned ..

JuniorDisco

Once again - you cited an example where a teacher threatened children with censure for not going on a day trip. You said this was commonplace and generally accepted.

Incidentally you claimed to have 'hundreds' of examples of children "every day" being threatened with "PC" censure. And yet you are unable to show anything more than a single example in a single school.

From what I've seen in the news, in threads here and in daily life, it is rather common for people to get FIRED from their jobs, schoolchildren to get disciplined, journalists to come under attack for not adhering to PC. It is so commonplace that I was able to find thousands of examples within only a few minutes of googling.

It is so common that I personally know two people who lost their jobs on PC grounds. One of them told a joke that was considered sexist by his female boss. This was at a party and people were rather drunk. But as we know, PC has no sense of Humor, so he was shown the door. The other guy, an artist, lost his reputation when he tweeted something inappropriate about disabled people. My heart goes out to these people...people who were not thought-contolled enough, who blurted out something inappropriate they thought might be funny...only to be severely punished by the PC-thought-police.

You have said and you believe that it is not commonplace, that such are isolated examples, that PC does not exist. I say, we are only seeing the beginnings. Give it another few decades and you`ll start seeing it too.

JuniorDisco


It's really not. The drunk person in your example is in no way analogous to a person discriminated against because of their sexuality or colour. Can you genuinely not see the difference?

Putting sexuality and color aside for a moment, because I dont think there is hardly anyone here that disputes that its wrong to discriminate on account of color or sex, tell me, where is the line drawn?

If they dont admit me to a dance club because they dont like how I look, can I sue? (Lookism)

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco

Once again - you cited an example where a teacher threatened children with censure for not going on a day trip. You said this was commonplace and generally accepted.

Incidentally you claimed to have 'hundreds' of examples of children "every day" being threatened with "PC" censure. And yet you are unable to show anything more than a single example in a single school.

From what I've seen in the news, in threads here and in daily life, it is rather common for people to get FIRED from their jobs, schoolchildren to get disciplined, journalists to come under attack for not adhering to PC. It is so commonplace that I was able to find thousands of examples within only a few minutes of googling.

It is so common that I personally know two people who lost their jobs on PC grounds. One of them told a joke that was considered sexist by his female boss. This was at a party and people were rather drunk. But as we know, PC has no sense of Humor, so he was shown the door. The other guy, an artist, lost his reputation when he tweeted something inappropriate about disabled people. My heart goes out to these people...people who were not thought-contolled enough, who blurted out something inappropriate they thought might be funny...only to be severely punished by the PC-thought-police.

You have said and you believe that it is not commonplace, that such are isolated examples, that PC does not exist. I say, we are only seeing the beginnings. Give it another few decades and you`ll start seeing it too.

Once again you haven't engaged with my response to your example - an analysis you specifically asked for. Why do I have to be exact but you can get away with not bothering to engage with the facts? Facts that you brought to the table.

Try to answer what I wrote. It would at least be polite, especially after you demanded I make a specific response in the first place.

You say you are able to find thousands of examples of people being fired for using non-PC language. Are you saying that you wouldn't fire someone for calling a fellow employee the "N Word" for example, or that you would, but there are thousands of examples where you wouldn't fire them and a "PC" person would?

And I'd love to see some evidence of the "thousands" because I can't find any. One of your own empirical observations is even just someone losing their "reputation" so it doesn't even count by your own criteria!

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


It's really not. The drunk person in your example is in no way analogous to a person discriminated against because of their sexuality or colour. Can you genuinely not see the difference?

Putting sexuality and color aside for a moment, because I dont think there is hardly anyone here that disputes that its wrong to discriminate on account of color or sex, tell me, where is the line drawn?

You're saying it's not wrong to discriminate on that basis. Or you're at least saying that you don't want to make it difficult to do so. You are supporting bigots' right to refuse to serve gays or black people because - well, I don't know why, but apparently due to some odd reverence for ideological fiscal purity.

If they dont admit me to a dance club because they dont like how I look, can I sue? (Lookism)

I don't know, and I'm not that concerned with your Friday night out. The right of black people to go to school or shop for groceries is kind of a bit higher on the list.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I wish it could...I really wish it could.

Pedophiles are Pedophiles. Enough said.

TheToastmanCometh


I wish it could...I really wish it could.

Pedophiles are Pedophiles. Enough said.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Feel free to elaborate...

Poor folks being hassled for using "Christmas" again.

If the PC-crowd is so damn worried about the word "Christmas" they should stop using it.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


It's really not. The drunk person in your example is in no way analogous to a person discriminated against because of their sexuality or colour. Can you genuinely not see the difference?

Putting sexuality and color aside for a moment, because I dont think there is hardly anyone here that disputes that its wrong to discriminate on account of color or sex, tell me, where is the line drawn?

If they dont admit me to a dance club because they dont like how I look, can I sue? (Lookism)

there are restaurants i've been to, under dressed, without knowing.
i needed a tie or a jacket, usually. i was always well dressed but not in that way.

they had some for the customer to wear so they wouldn't be turned away.
i was grateful, probably so were the others, that needed them.

was i pissed? NO! but i started asking about the dress code from then on, when i made a reservation at a new place.

now, people would raise holy hell!

Skyfloating
Have you ever heard of Lookism?. If you think one person is better looking than another, you are a bigotted "lookist", because you are discriminating instead of seeing everyone as the same/equal. How dare you say someone is good-looking but not another, you judgmental pig!

Have you heard of Ableism?. You are in ableist if you view disabled people as less able in some respects. You better let the guy in the wheelchair play on your football team so that they dont brand you an evil "ableist"!

Did you know that Genderism, i.e. seeing men and women as biologically different, is considered offensive by some? There are now Scandinavian Day Care centers who forbid giving children toys or clothing by gender. So if you prevent boys from wearing pink and give them a water-pistol instead of a pony, you may be a closed-minded "genderist", an enemy of the progress of humankind!

The way society thinks has been rapidly changing. Things considered obvious, such as the fact that gender is not only a "social construct" but a biological reality, are increasingly becoming Taboo. If current trends continue we will be living in a very different place and state of mind only a hundred years from now.

Did you know that "gender-neutral" restrooms are popping up around the world as not to "discriminate" against the transgendered? You wonder how women will feel sharing the restrooms with men or whether they might be afraid of that. But women are not being asked whether they felt "discriminated" by separate restrooms. The minority group of transgendered are more important than woman in general. Just like muslims were never asked whether they felt "discriminated" by the term "Merry Christmas" before it turned into "Happy Holiday". No poll was taken, it was simply "assumed" that "Merry Christmas" is "offensive" to anyone who does not celebrate Christmas.

Did you know that some schools have banned having "winners" during games and sports activities as not to "discriminate" against those who lost a game? This is all part of a new and emerging psychology that says that "competition" and "competitive sports" are old-fashioned remnants of "exploitative win-lose based systems", whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess the kids, who usually love competitive sports, were never asked.

All these examples and incremental changes are part of the larger movement of "political correctness" (PC). It is generally assumed that these social changes are not deliberately engineered, much less secretly. The public assumes they are indicative of "modern times" and some kind of natural progress toward a more open and tolerant society. And at first sight, it would appear that way. I however state, that PC is secretly engineered and has nothing at all to do with creating a more open and tolerant society, even if on the surface it appears that way. I believe that PC has secret origins and was developed in the 1920s by the Cheka (predecessor of the Soviet KGB) specifically to undermine The United States of America. In my view it is the most successful feat of clandestine psy-op social engineering of the Century. It was further developed by the Frankfurt School and other Neo-Marxist agendas and now the fruits of this old plan have only started manifesting in the last few decades.

In my view, this is what PC Progressivism purports to be:

And this is what it actually is:

PC is a Soviet mind-virus that has undermined Americas leading role as well as muddied its Politics (both Democrat and Republican). If you understand how this virus works, you will also understand why "Merry Christmas" turned into "Happy Holiday" but "Happy Hanukah" and countless other Holidays stayed the same. You begin to understand why "progressive" groups chant "Free Palestine" but never "Free Tibet" (because Communists rule there). Why Hillary Clinton is considered an example of female empowerment but never Margeret Thatcher. Why Obama is an example of Black Empowerment but never Colin Powell. Why ultra-conservative muslims are preferred over mildly-conservative Americans. Why racism, sexism and capitalism are fought almost exclusively in America, but not in other countries. You see, the goal of Soviet-KGB-installed "Progressivism" and "PC Culture" was not REALLY to battle racism, sexism and capitalism. Otherwise they`d have first battled sexism in Africa, battled racism in India, battled Capitalism in Western Europe. They'd have battled racism, sexism and capitalism (the three supposed enemies of progressivism) where they are most prevalent. But because Soviets goal was the destruction of American culture, primarily America was targeted.

PC was created in Soviet Russia for the purposes of the Cold War psy-war, not for the purposes of truly bringing about equality, black rights, womens rights, LGBT rights, etc. Civil rights were already well on their way without the Soviet propaganda.

George Orwell (who was a genuine liberal...not one of these "PC Progressives") predicted modern PC more than 50 years ago:

“Newspeak is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit free thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as ‘thoughtcrime.’”

*

The totalitarian arbiters of PC are not smart enough to realize that suppressing free thought does not get rid of unwanted thoughts, it amplifies them. For example, never once in my life have I considered using racial slurs or derogatory language toward women, the disabled, etc. That's because I was brought up to be respectful to all people. But the humorless total Taboo all such topics is making me think twice about it.

what i don't get, is the genderism deal, with the bathrooms.

does a woman HAVE to stand at a urinal, to pee?
does a man need a urinal to pee?

hell, the men's room is usually less busy than the ladies room, lol!

if your dressed like a man, use the men's room, if you're dressed like a sheila, use the ladies room.

geeeze! who checks you out, anyway?

Skyfloating
Poor folks being hassled for using "Christmas" again.

If the PC-crowd is so damn worried about the word "Christmas" they should stop using it.

Once more I'll address your specific point, but I have a feeling you just chuck these things out without reading them, assuming they support your argument. Once again this one doesn't.

What happened was that Tulsa changed the name of their parade from Christmas to "The Parade of Lights". Some people started another parade with the word Christmas in the title, presumably because like you they were annoyed at the disappearance of the term from the official title.

But no one is being 'hassled' for using the word Christmas or prevented from saying it. And Tulsa have in fact reinstated 'Christmas' into the official parade name. So once again what actually happened bears little resemblance to your take on it.

JuniorDisco


But no one is being 'hassled' for using the word Christmas or prevented from saying it. And Tulsa have in fact reinstated 'Christmas' into the official parade name. So once again what actually happened bears little resemblance to your take on it.

The fact that the name for an innocent festival needed to be changed in the first place is already hassling. This name-changing stuff goes on all over the place and every day.

What is your motive for pretending it doesnt exist?

Skyfloating

The fact that the name for an innocent festival needed to be changed in the first place is already hassling.

How is it "hassling"?

You said that people were being hassled for calling Christmas "Christmas". You exaggerated in order to imply that there was some kind of authoritarian clampdown on ordinary people using the word in everyday life. When in fact all that happened was a parade had changed its name.

Given that it has now changed its name back, how does this help your idea that PC runs things? Clearly the world is in fact happy to use the term Christmas and nobody really minds. It's just the same as your example in Staffordshire, except even worse for your case.

So far you've come up with two 'proofs' of a PC agenda where both have been retracted. Tell me, if we live in a world governed by "PC", how come your two tiny examples aren't the norm, and aren't even still current? Why does every one of your 'proofs' crumble to dust upon examination? Why do you have to exaggerate them to make them seem to support your cause?

This name-changing stuff goes on all over the place and every day.

What is your motive for pretending it doesnt exist?

How mature.

I'm not pretending it doesn't exist.Why do you feel the need to mischaracterise my position? I acknowledge that there are some ridiculous examples - the Staffs case is one -but unlike you I realise they are not the norm (as the Staffs case clearly showed) and that there is no agenda beyond one you've invented.

I've also carefully examined your example in detail. You, on the other hand, are palpably pretending it is something it is not. I assume for the reasons I describe above.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


You are correct that a worldwide totalitarian PC-Agenda is not what IS. I am not referring to what IS, I am referring to what is BECOMING IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUE unobstructed, unquestioned. Hence the OP repeatedly says "if current trends continue". The OP shows that there was an agenda, a deliberate plot and conspiracy to change American culture. This has already happened to some extent. And if current trends continue, it will get worse.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Lucky that you're manning the barriers with your familiar, apartheid-endorsed arguments for "free trade choice" and unstinting ability to trawl the internet for examples of Christmas not being banned, isn't it?

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Lucky that you're manning the barriers with your familiar, apartheid-endorsed arguments for "free trade choice" and unstinting ability to trawl the internet for examples of Christmas not being banned, isn't it?

Luckily I have nothing to do with endorsing apartheid, believing that Christmas is banned or trying to construct a defense of free trade.

Your next post would probably read "I never claim you did!"

I do wonder in which country you live, thinking that PC is a rare and isolated event.

Hows this for denial of biological reality:

Preferred Pronouns gain traction at US Colleges

On high school and college campuses and in certain political and social media circles, the growing visibility of a semantically committed cadre of young people who, like Crownover, self-identify as "genderqueer" — neither male nor female but an androgynous hybrid or rejection of both — is challenging anew the limits of Western comprehension and the English language.

They think if they self-identify as neither "He" nor "She" then that makes it true.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Lucky that you're manning the barriers with your familiar, apartheid-endorsed arguments for "free trade choice" and unstinting ability to trawl the internet for examples of Christmas not being banned, isn't it?

Luckily I have nothing to do with endorsing apartheid, believing that Christmas is banned or trying to construct a defense of free trade.

Your next post would probably read "I never claim you did!"

It will, because I didn't say you endorsed apartheid. I said that your argument was endorsed by apartheid. And I didn't say that you claimed Christmas had been banned. But you have clearly constructed a defence of freedom of choice in trade, indeed you proudly pointed out where you had above.

I do wonder in which country you live, thinking that PC is a rare and isolated event.

I wonder why you think it's particularly common, and why you think it's a conspiracy, when you even the few examples you cherry pick turn out to be exaggerated.