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.
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
from the same wki...I'll leave you all to ponder this
By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo.
The term "political correctness" in its modern pejorative sense became part of the US public debate in the late 1980s, with its media use becoming widespread in 1991. It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in academia in particular, and in culture and political debate more broadly.
Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term "Thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination."
"Political correctness" here was a label for a range of policies in academia around supporting multiculturalism though affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority "hate speech", and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as "canon busting").
These trends were at least in part a response to the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements.
That response received significant direct and indirect funding from conservative foundations and think tanks, not least the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded D'Souza's book.
In the event, the previously obscure term became common-currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities (public and private) of the U.S.
Herbert Kohl (1992) pointed out that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term "politically correct" in the early 1990s were actually former Communist Party members, and as a result familiar with the original use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended "to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic."
reply to post by Gryphon66
And in accurate summary, modern conservatives simply used the term 'politically-correct' (because modern liberals had already added it to the lexicon, in the same way that 'war against women' is used by both parties despite having differing opinions on the issue) when describing how PC policies were harming the country.
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.
...political correctness has gone too far...
...there is simply NOT some universal dark cabal that is working at a unified level of coordination in all media, education, and politics, that connects the modern liberals, Democrats and progressives with the Bolsheviks, Stalinists, or really, even Marx.
This is correct. History shows us that socialism/Marxism/tyrrany-by-guilt will arise on its own in any society that prospers. It is an extension of human tendencies, namely exploitation of generosity and desire for power and money.
Political-correctness is also a function of human nature. People normally don't want offend those around them, and it is generally not in one's best interest to exhibit behavior viewed as socially unacceptable. If you can influence social 'norms' then you can influence behavior, and therefore thought.edit on 23-2-2014 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)
Junior, you incessantly demand evidence of political-correctness, yet you ignore every bit that has been presented. Can you see how it might appear that you are not prepared to have an honest discussion?
As to your misinterpretation of my previous posts -- you have carried your preconceived notions through this entire thread, and you are going to hear what you want to hear. Frankly I don't care to waste time trying to set you straight, so long as I believe that my points are not lost on readers who actually consider them.