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 secret origins of political correctness

page: 2
91
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

theantediluvian

This is simply not true. Do you deny that there is a cause or do you believe that it's being fought by non-progressives?



There are many, many causes progressives could fight for that are similar to the "Free Palestine" cause. One of them is "Free Tibet". The reason they are MUCH quieter on "Free Tibet" is because it was not pushed by the Communist International. After all, Tibet is in Communist China.




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   

beezzer


Free speech should be free. Just look at the Westboro Baptist threads where people are all for banning what they said. I think Westboro are idiots.



From what I can tell, some of these groups are actually "controlled opposition" or "fake opposition" type fronts.

The idea is to create a super-bigoted "enemy" in order to justify PC in a Problem-Reaction-Solution scheme.

Sounds paranoid doesnt it? I`ll try to back up this claim in some thread, some day.

edit on 18-11-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

beezzer
"That offends me."

The phrase, "That offends me", is at the heart of the matter. Isn't it?

Is PC designed to protect those that are offended?

Since when did being offended constitute victimhood?


The deeper agenda imo, is the idea that a human being is not inherently responsible for how he feels, what he does or says. He is a soulless being, without will or choice. One of the many prerequisites to install this ideology is to act as if it were not his choice whether he is offended by words or not, as he were not responsible for his obesity, as if guns kill people, not humans, etc. Seeing the human as a soulless automaton of the collective or choice-less animal is the underlying agenda imo. The end-result is dis-empowerment of the average individual...for the benefit of whoever happens to be in power.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

theantediluvian
They're examples of defense mechanisms of conservative ideology used to discredit liberalism.


FWIW, it is my observation that Progressivism (the far-far-far-left) has infiltrated liberalism (the normal left), has changed the meaning of the word. What used to be considered liberalism is now called "classical liberalism" to indicate that the new "liberalism" is something different. And it is. As far as free market economy is concerned, it is not "liberal" at all. As far as free speech is concerned, its "PC speech codes" are not liberal at all.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Phrases like "personal responsibility", "self-determination" are often bandied about here on ATS. I use them to justify or to support independence from government.

I also see these terms as an anathema to the progressive ideology because it negates a dependence to the state.

Do you suppose that is why groups like the Tea Party are branded as domestic terrorists, (American Taliban)?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
One thing I wanted to add to this thread. I find that when I lead a balanced life, things work out better for me - and at any rate, balance is just a law of the universe. I haven't been balanced lately due to moving and everything. I may never be again.

But that's besides the point - every "strength" has an equal and opposite weakness. If someone is P.C., they aren't going to have the opportunity to get to know their own or other's viewpoints, for example.

There are other examples. I'll just use myself as an example, because I don't feel like insulting a group of people.

I'm not always the best at being able to read a whole thread and keep up with conversation on there and know who says what, and know who is who, or say things that make sense, or say relevant things and it isn't because I don't want to but because it is very hard for me.

I dunno. To an outsider let's say that someone views that as being arrogant. They see that as a "strength" let's say. Well, if it ever came down to it, every trait I listed there is actually a weakness.

I would promote a positive, peaceful and leaf-like solution if something becomes a problem, but I'm saying one can take a step back and get a better view of the tactical situation this way.

-----

Let's take another example - the N.S.A. wants to wiretap everyone, and have everyone's data, and know everything. Well, the accompanying weakness there is that they now suddenly don't have a way to filter that information and find anything important. It actually allows one to hide in plain sight. The more stressed out they get trying to gather more information, the less likely they are to see minor things or care about minor things.

Let's take another example - the corporate prison system in the U.S. A prison system ran by corporations wants to get around 95% capacity because they profit off of everything from slave labor to a monopoly on food inside the gates. So, let's say that means that everyone starts getting arrested left and right for minor things.

Well now, suddenly, being in jail or prison is not socially taboo. So hop on over and make some new friends. Do some networking. Just like the N.S.A. wiretapping got overly-ambitious, now the prison system is becoming that way in the U.S.





edit on 18amMon, 18 Nov 2013 05:55:13 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Phrases like "personal responsibility", "self-determination" are often bandied about here on ATS. I use them to justify or to support independence from government.

I also see these terms as an anathema to the progressive ideology because it negates a dependence to the state.

Do you suppose that is why groups like the Tea Party are branded as domestic terrorists, (American Taliban)?


Probably although the original etymology of the word "terrorist" as I saw it was someone actively working towards violent attacks on a population.

The last time I checked, a terrorist cell was well-aware of their terrorist activities, and had to have some prerequisites, like a few rocket launchers, definitely some AK's, an arms dealer, a black book full of useful contacts including explosives experts, stuff like that.

I find it hard to believe that someone could be considered a "terrorist" without knowing they were one. It sounds to me like Homeland Security is wasting their time again.

Either that, or blatantly lying so that they can use the legal loopholes created to take away terrorists' rights to start harassing people for political reasons illegally.

Sorry, I'm just really pissed off at Democrats right now, even though that's who I usually identify with.

I support a progressive agenda, but none of this B.S. is necessarily progress, at least I'm not convinced about that at the moment.
edit on 18amMon, 18 Nov 2013 06:00:07 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 18amMon, 18 Nov 2013 06:01:35 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

"is the idea that a human being is not inherently responsible for how he feels, what he does or says."

Taken to the extreme it has allowed psychiatry to take away power from the legislative and allowed doctors to to decriminalize criminal behaviour; ie criminal acts - state of mind. This in turn allows for the big profits to be made in pharmaceuticals and the govt subsidies that flow to Pharma.

I get the idea of Soviet involvement, but I would put to you it has earlier roots in the works carried out by the Tavistock Institute of London, Freuds ideas of liberation of Eros. Much falls on JD Rockeller and the creation of modern schooling, turning young minds to accept a 9-5 mentality as a precursor to workiing in factories.

“Competition is a sin” – John D. Rockefeller Sr.
www.oldthinkernews.com...

I respectfully suggest that by limiting or focussing on the Soviet/US cold war mindset you fail to get to the more insidious nature of the beast. That it is a worldwide phenomenon, where anything goes nothing is absolute, there is no moral compass.


normalizing pedophilia through the education system'

www.savethemales.ca...
henrymakow.com...

Lets not forget the ultimate goal is to do away with individuality and nationhood. One World Order.

The "Too big to fail" was the ultimate irony in using taxpayers dollars to bail out the wealthy Banks. (Theft)
A shiny example of how language is manipulated . Quantitative easing (Money printing- your dollars buy less)




The deeper agenda imo, is the idea that a human being is not inherently responsible for how he feels, what he does or says. He is a soulless being, without will or choice. One of the many prerequisites to install this ideology is to act as if it were not his choice whether he is offended by words or not, as he were not responsible for his obesity, as if guns kill people, not humans, etc. Seeing the human as a soulless automaton of the collective or choice-less animal is the underlying agenda imo. The end-result is dis-empowerment of the average individual...for the benefit of whoever happens to be in power


SO TRUE



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


During the government shut-down, Tea Party candidates were called hostage takers and terrorists for their ideological beliefs.

In our PC world, there are just a few sub-groups that can still be defamed and insulted.

Most of those can also be considered groups that are against statist beliefs.

Coincidence?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





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.


Apparently they don't get irony either.....

A lesson to be learned perhaps?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Skyfloating, how does this all tie in with the obvious PC-ness being enforced here on ATS?

Is it the same sort agenda driven mess like you describe in your OP?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

beezzer


Phrases like "personal responsibility", "self-determination" are often bandied about here on ATS. I use them to justify or to support independence from government.

I also see these terms as an anathema to the progressive ideology because it negates a dependence to the state.

Do you suppose that is why groups like the Tea Party are branded as domestic terrorists, (American Taliban)?


Opinion: Vladimir Lenin saw that the two enemies of dependence-on-Government were a) dependence on family and even worse, b) no dependence at all. So in the 1920s, the first thing he did was disseminate literature about "sexual liberation". For example, women were taught en masse that they could become rich most easily through Prostitution. Men were taught that the idea that it is "bad" for society when too many children are born out of wedlock is an "antiquated religious idea" and that such religious ideas are for "population control" and against emancipation. It was thus that family-as-safety-net was gradually replaced by Government-as-safety-net and the entire Eastern Block fell under the iron fist rule of Communism. An even greater danger than family and religion-oriented conservatives was posed by libertarians who recognized no authority at all. Such people were partially catered to by pretending that Communism is anti-authoritarian.To this very day people who subscribe to far-far-far-left causes believe they are doing so in defiance of "the powers that be" and that this will somehow magically "empower" them. But the only thing that experientially empowers the individual is self-responsibility. So anyone championing self-determination and responsibility is the natural enemy of the progressive-PC-agenda, to the point of branding such people as "terrorists".



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Ive always separated my personnel view from my professional actions.

I may say you are more attractive than another and that is my prerogative, political correctness has nothing to do with this unless it influences my professional actions.

So this thread is all hooey! (in my personnel view)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Aliensun
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I disagree with your premise. PCness was the first effort to make us all "equal" or "just as good as the next person no matter individual differences of any kind, sex, race or disability or ability.

That line of reasoning has been changed to "Diversity" being the new rule.





But look at the "theater" near you where this plays out.....gender neutral restrooms. Is it really and truly answering any higher questions about gender equality that the sexes can use the same toilet areas?

Gender specific rest rooms and locker rooms simply demonstrate some sensibilities and never where part of enforcing classic gender standings. But some group of brain surgeons saw gender specific rest rooms as part of the perpetuation of "sexism" and classic gender reinforcement? No of course not. Its just that the door to the rest room is a great place to post Marxist/Feminist propaganda. Everybody is going to see it eventually.


Reminds me of the Tool song...

"Something kind of sad about the way things have come to be,
desensitized to everything what's become of subtleties."



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by darkbake
 


During the government shut-down, Tea Party candidates were called hostage takers and terrorists for their ideological beliefs.

In our PC world, there are just a few sub-groups that can still be defamed and insulted.



Yes, all that PC is or shall become, because of its true nature, is a pole shift. Or worse. The "old system" was at worse a system of separation but behind the mask of PC one should see the glowing eyes of the "purge" monster.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
This thread doesn't seem to take into account either the value of good manners, or the apparent need for many who lack them, to find excuses for...or to celebrate...their shortcoming.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

JohnnyCanuck

This thread doesn't seem to take into account either the value of good manners, or the apparent need for many who lack them, to find excuses for...or to celebrate...their shortcoming.


As I said in the OP, I have never once in my life used a racial slur, for instance. My respect toward all human beings forbids it. But that wasnt enforced externally, it was a choice I arrived at within. BIG difference.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

TheConstruKctionofLight

I respectfully suggest that by limiting or focussing on the Soviet/US cold war mindset you fail to get to the more insidious nature of the beast.


The points you bring up in your post are excellent and I agree to some extent with all of them, especially the role of the pharma-industry.

I am deliberately limiting the focus to the Soviet part in the overall grand scheme, well-knowing that there is a bigger game afoot. The reason is that not much attention has been put on this particular foot of the octopus. Doing so has proven helpful to detect PC-Propaganda in the daily news.

So the purpose of the OP is not to provide a comprehensive world-conspiracy-theory but to highlight PC.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

JohnnyCanuck

This thread doesn't seem to take into account either the value of good manners, or the apparent need for many who lack them, to find excuses for...or to celebrate...their shortcoming.


What would be better for society?

Self-imposed good manners?

Or government mandated behavior?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

darkbake

Political correctness does not keep people from thinking anything, especially if it is something they can see for themselves. It only keeps those people from speaking their views in public.

What does this mean? It means that they are going to take their views underground, where they are going to polarize, because there is no interaction with other viewpoints, and then they are going to become dangerous. That's right, political correctness leads to dangerous and hidden cells of racists, sexists and more, that are off the radar.


Yup. I couldnt agree more. PC-ness fans the flames of racism, sexism, etc. by pushing it into the subconscious...or underground.




top topics



 
91
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join