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: 20
91
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


You guys were there waving your silly flag and crying about progressivism when women got the vote, when they stopped making black people use different bathrooms and you're still here now. Your absolutism is a sham.


Im one of the most liberal folks you can imagine with relaxed views on immigration, abortion, drugs, sex...a real "live and let live" kind of guy. And yet, just because I dare question the thoroughly orwellian implications of PC, you categorize me as a racist and chauvinist.

Your post is of great help to the many readers who happen upon this thread wondering about the foul tactics of the Dark-Red-PC-Brigade.
edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


It wasn't me who employed the exact argument used to endorse the South African apartheid regime. I'm sure underneath it all you're a wonderful chap, but you have some deeply odd and very poorly evidenced views about PC. Indeed the fact that in quite a number of pages you've been unable to even prove its existence should probably worry you a bit.




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

JuniorDisco


It wasn't me who employed the exact argument used to endorse the South African apartheid regime.


Point out racist and chauvinist posts of mine with a link and a quote. Go right ahead.

You won't find any. Its just your typical malicious PC-slander.
edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Except I didn't call you a racist or a chauvinist. So in fact you're slandering me.

Odd how you guys are so obsessed with accusing others of calling you bigots. When so often it turns out that no one called you any such thing. A phantom accusation from a phantom PC army.
edit on 20-2-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Junior, you continue to miss the forest for the trees. Soviet propaganda was not about creating social movements, it was about co-opting existing social sentiments/trends, and setting them down a path that would undermine the US. They knew human nature would do most of the work for them. Seed a few ideas, fuel the Marxist fire, and before long all you have to do is sit back and let the idiot masses demand the destruction of their own way of life.

A key part of the plan was control of the public education system, saturating it with socialist ideologies and dumbing down expectations year after year. That's how you get the idiot masses.

The Progressive Party you are referring to was the predecessor to the modern Democrat party. Like many people, you are caught up in the labels. Progressive, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat -- these are simply labels for organizations with political goals (most of the time, labels are carefully crafted by the group that will wear them). Sometimes labels are even re-used but in reverse; in the 19th century, liberals stood for freedom of the individual and conservatives wanted to expand laws and power of government.

Look beyond the label. Look at the platform.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

JuniorDisco


Except I didn't call you a racist or a chauvinist. So in fact you're slandering me.


This is what you said to me on the previous page:



You guys were there waving your silly flag and crying about progressivism when women got the vote, when they stopped making black people use different bathrooms and you're still here now.


Its not the first time in this thread you imply the same.

I`m still waiting for the first PC-advocate to value honest debate and prefer sincerity over slander and lies. But thats probably never going to happen, because childish emotionalism is in its very nature.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

OpenMindedRealist
Sometimes labels are even re-used but in reverse; in the 19th century, liberals stood for freedom of the individual and conservatives wanted to expand laws and power of government.

Look beyond the label. Look at the platform.


The tyrant has been alive and well for thousands of years, always appearing under a new guise and label, but always with similar incremental effects. He`ll use any movement...conservativism, liberalism, socialism, nationalism and even anarchism to advance his cause. So "look at the platform" is really good advice on detecting it.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Another article from the Blaze...before some of you completely dismiss it without investigation, know that the article consists of direct quotes from Melanie Phillips’ book “The Guardian Angel.” Melanie is a center-leftist who grew disgusted with the extreme-left, dishonest, modern Progressive ideology. The entire article is worth reading and pertains to the topic at hand, but I will quote the most relevant part:


But how could this be? This was the Guardian, shrine of anti-racism, custodian of social conscience, embodiment of virtue. How then could they be guilty of racism – and moreover, dress it up as anti-racism? Of course, this is the core of what we now know today as ‘political correctness’ – where concepts are turned into their polar opposite in order to give miscreants a free pass if they belong to certain groups designated by the left as ‘victims’. They are thus deemed to be incapable of doing anything wrong, while groups designated as ‘oppressors’ can do no right. According to this double-think it was simply impossible for the Guardian folk to be guilty of racism, since they championed the victims of the Third World against their Western capitalist oppressors. But when those Third World unfortunates became the victims of the Third World tyrants ruling over them, the left remained silent – since to criticise any Third World person was said to be ‘racism’. This twisted thinking is what now passes for ‘progressive’ thinking in Britain and America. Thus the left actually abandons the oppressed of the world to their fate, all the time weeping crocodile tears for them – while sanctimoniously condemning ‘the right’ for its heartlessness! It is this hijacking of language and thought itself that has done so much to destroy any common understanding of the political ‘centre ground’, the lethal confusion that has so unfortunately polarised political debate into vacuous caricatures that have precious little to do with reality…


www.theblaze.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindedRealist
 


Another nice article. Thanks for finding this stuff.

You seem to be an open minded realist.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Junior, you continue to miss the forest for the trees. Soviet propaganda was not about creating social movements, it was about co-opting existing social sentiments/trends, and setting them down a path that would undermine the US.


So when you said

"A convincing case can be made (for example, this thread) that American progressivism was born out of social movements which were seeded by Soviet propaganda"

you were just talking nonsense?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm not sure why I have to point this out, because I think you're not totally thick, but when I said that "you guys" were there, I didn't actually mean that you were there. I was illustrating the retrograde pedigree of your arguments.

It's interesting that you take the moral high ground on "debate" when you've been unable to properly support your contentions and have repeatedly ignored my points and questions. And when you're the only one who has actually done any slandering I think it's a bit rich to call other people infantile.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

OpenMindedRealist
Melanie is a center-leftist


Sorry I have to go to the hospital. One of my ribs has cracked from all the laughing.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
"Russia Today" is here. Created at the Kremlin, the propaganda at the doorstep has been allowed in. The fact people are fine with it, is truly frightening.

I never will be, not ever.

Thanks for the OP



edit on 20-2-2014 by lernmore because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

JuniorDisco

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Junior, you continue to miss the forest for the trees. Soviet propaganda was not about creating social movements, it was about co-opting existing social sentiments/trends, and setting them down a path that would undermine the US.


So when you said

"A convincing case can be made (for example, this thread) that American progressivism was born out of social movements which were seeded by Soviet propaganda"

you were just talking nonsense?



Go back and re-read those two posts of mine. I said two things: Soviet propaganda co-opted existing social trends, and that modern Progressivism is the result.
I know these are not simple concepts, but if you are going to continue replying in this thread, please make an effort to form a few connections on your own.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

JuniorDisco

OpenMindedRealist
Melanie is a center-leftist


Sorry I have to go to the hospital. One of my ribs has cracked from all the laughing.


If you cared to read that article, you would see another quote from her book in which she describes what I call the 'spectrum drift' of political ideology over the years. What was considered far-left 50 years ago is now viewed as center-left, and what was thought of as center-right is now far-right. You've made it clear that you subscribe only to the modern spectrum.
edit on 20-2-2014 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   

OpenMindedRealist

JuniorDisco

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Junior, you continue to miss the forest for the trees. Soviet propaganda was not about creating social movements, it was about co-opting existing social sentiments/trends, and setting them down a path that would undermine the US.


So when you said

"A convincing case can be made (for example, this thread) that American progressivism was born out of social movements which were seeded by Soviet propaganda"

you were just talking nonsense?



Go back and re-read those two posts of mine. I said two things: Soviet propaganda co-opted existing social trends, and that modern Progressivism is the result.


No you didn't. You said "American progressivism was born out of social movements which were seeded by Soviet propaganda". This is patently nonsense. American progressivism was "born" before the Soviet Union existed, and not just as a party but as a social movement.


I know these are not simple concepts, but if you are going to continue replying in this thread, please make an effort to form a few connections on your own.


They are actually pretty simple. You're trying to make them sound complicated because you're attempting to cover up the fact that you're making things up.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

OpenMindedRealist

JuniorDisco

OpenMindedRealist
Melanie is a center-leftist


Sorry I have to go to the hospital. One of my ribs has cracked from all the laughing.


If you cared to read that article, you would see another quote from her book in which she describes what I call the 'spectrum drift' of political ideology over the years. What was considered far-left 50 years ago is now viewed as center-left, and what was thought of as center-right is now far-right. You've made it clear that you subscribe only to the modern spectrum.
edit on 20-2-2014 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)


I do, yes, because I understand that attitudes shift. As I say your and Skyfloating's arguments are part of a rich tradition of decrying women's rights, racial equality and so on. I'm not sure that's a heritage to be proud of.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Yawn...here we go again...are we still theorizing tha PC doesnt exist?

I won't go into the Culture Marxism from the Franfurt School as the genesis of PC...

Heres a link for all to considewr

en.wikipedia.org...

from the same wki...I'll leave you all to ponder this





An article by Larry Elder in FrontPage Magazine referred to an incident on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect where the term "white trash" was used in reference to guests on the Jerry Springer Show and asked 'Why Is It Okay to Say "White Trash?"'.[30] Commenting on this, and citing an instance of the term in a glossy magazine, blogger Ed Driscoll asked "Why Is "White Trash" An Acceptable Phrase In PC America?".[31]






In the Civitas think tank pamphlet, The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain (2006), the British politician Anthony Browne said that "the most overt racism, sexism and homophobia in Britain is now among the weakest groups, in ethnic minority communities, because their views are rarely challenged, as challenging them equates to oppressing them.[32][33] Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that the opinions of Anthony Browne were misleading and ludicrous about the societal realities of the peoples who are contemporary Britain.[32]

edit on 21-2-2014 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: clarification



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   


But if you think the entirety of liberalism is a colossal Soviet plot,
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


where did I say that???



b]One might as well say that the whole of American conservatism is a racist plot funded by the Nazis.


Now your screaming has reached a higher octave!



Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively), is a term coined by conservative philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.[1] According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.





posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   



where did I say that???


It was a conditional. I didn't really engage with your post particularly, it just seemed like a wall of information as opposed to an argument.






Now your screaming has reached a higher octave!


Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively), is a term coined by conservative philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.[1] According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.



I didn't compare the view to one held by Hitler or Nazis. I said that claiming left-wing thought had its nascence in a totalitarian plot was akin to claiming that right-wing thought had its nascence in a totalitarian plot.
edit on 21-2-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight
 


It is contended that 'PC' is a chimera invented by people trying to pretend that there is some kind of powerful leftist conspiracy, and you produce as evidence of its reality two people doing just that?



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join