The secret origins of political correctness

reply to post by KaDeCo


As added BS, I will add personal experience here....

Twice a year I have a side job where I work for a textbook company and we go around the region and buy textbooks back from students. Long story short is this: I see exponentially more books on "diversity", race, class, gender, etc etc than I do books on business, math, science, and engineering.

If anyone has doubts, I would be happy to show pics of the stacks of bs books on diversity compared to books on important subjects that actually matter in the real world. It isnt school specific either, throughout the two months a year I do this, I hit probably close to a dozen schools, same sad story at every campus.

Skyfloating
The PC-Brigade would like to ban the word "bossy", but only when it is said to females.

"This can't be real" I at first thought, but it is.

They don't actually want to ban the word, in the sense of legally preventing its use. They just want to discourage it with regard to girls because they feel it is used to put them down. Plus t's an eyecatching slogan designed to get people to share and link to their campaign, and in your case it worked.

JuniorDisco
You seem to have carved out a position whereby your idea of gender is at odds with scientific fact,

I realize you guys think the existence of male and female is "at odds with scientific fact". And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco
You seem to have carved out a position whereby your idea of gender is at odds with scientific fact,

I realize you guys think the existence of male and female is "at odds with scientific fact". And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

You think that "we" think that "male and female" don't exist? Why on earth would you think that? Or are you just constructing one of your usual straw men?

JuniorDisco



You think that "we" think that "male and female" don't exist? Why on earth would you think that? Or are you just constructing one of your usual straw men?

You just admitted that you think my position (that gender is either male or female) is at odd with scientific facts.

Skyfloating


You just admitted that you think my position (that gender is either male or female) is at odd with scientific facts.

edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Nutjobs want to add 20 different types of "gender description" in an attempt to normalize their abnormalities.

Pay no attention to those types.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco



You think that "we" think that "male and female" don't exist? Why on earth would you think that? Or are you just constructing one of your usual straw men?

You just admitted that you think my position (that gender is either male or female) is at odd with scientific facts.

edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Nope. I said that your notion that gender is fixed by physical characteristics at birth is at odds with scientific fact. Your further notion that elephants sometimes recognising some of these characteristics is compelling evidence for your thesis is... well, it's absolutely extraordinary.

reply to post by doubletap


Next black people will want to use the same bathrooms. And women might even get the idea they can vote.

JuniorDisco


Nope. I said that your notion that gender is fixed by physical characteristics at birth is at odds with scientific fact.

Yes, you are saying "gender is not fixed by physical characteristics". Its your right to say that, to me its just important that the position you are taking is crystal-clear to all people who want to learn about the PC-mindset.

You can read it with your own eyes here folks. "Gender is not fixed by physical characteristics!" They really believe this stuff.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Your opinion does have some serious adherents in medical and scientific circles, but very few. Your idea that you are part of some sort of sensible, scientific majority, is baseless. The vast majority of doctors, scientists and theorists agree with me. And for sound reasons.

JuniorDisco


Your opinion does have some serious adherents in medical and scientific circles, but very few. Your idea that you are part of some sort of sensible, scientific majority, is baseless. The vast majority of doctors, scientists and theorists agree with me. And for sound reasons.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the vast majority of scientists believe gender is not indicated by physical characteristics (namely the genitals)?

reply to post by Skyfloating


From wikipedia:

Gender identity is the gender a person self-identifies as. One's biological sex is directly tied to specific social roles and expectations

There is a body of social and hard scientific work that now almost universally endorses this. I could write you a brief precis but why not just read the wikipedia entry as it forms a good summary.

en.wikipedia.org...

JuniorDisco

Gender identity is the gender a person self-identifies as. One's biological sex is directly tied to specific social roles and expectations

There is a body of social and hard scientific work that now almost universally endorses this. I could write you a brief precis but why not just read the wikipedia entry as it forms a good summary.

en.wikipedia.org...

Your quote clearly says that a person self-identifies as a gender, rather than being born as one. It also refers to biological sex - which is the sex one was born with.

So there are two conditions here: One, the biological fact of gender. It is what is it, regardless of your opinion and regardless of a persons self-identification. The second is someones thoughts and emotions, their self-identification. I can "self-identify" as anything, the possibilities are limitless. But that doesn't change my genitals. Sure, some men are a little more female, and some women a little more manly. But their genitals are what they are - from birth.

reply to post by Skyfloating


You're confusing sex and gender, aren't you?

JuniorDisco


You're confusing sex and gender, aren't you?

The dictionary definition of gender is "biological sex". I realize that there is a great effort by the communistoids to change that definition, but most people still understand what is being talked about when we say "gender".

Its sad to see how confused you are on the subject. It just goes to prove that the PC-Agenda is already in the process of muddling the brains of Academia and its students.

I hate to say it, but by the time you visit a Junior Disco, you should already have a good idea of the difference between men and women.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


You're confusing sex and gender, aren't you?

The dictionary definition of gender is "biological sex". I realize that there is a great effort by the communistoids to change that definition, but most people still understand what is being talked about when we say "gender".

Its sad to see how confused you are on the subject. It just goes to prove that the PC-Agenda is already in the process of muddling the brains of Academia and its students.

I hate to say it, but by the time you visit a Junior Disco, you should already have a good idea of the difference between men and women.

Thank god that "most people" are here with their common sense to prevent scientific and social research from stopping people climbing out of the narrow little boxes you've built for them.

You're wrong about the dictionary definition, you're wrong about the biological and social science, and you're wrong about the origins of the thinking that all this comes from. That your arguments resemble exactly those of some of the authoritarians you're trying to distance yourself from is ironic, I guess, but it's also a bit sad.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Also love the way you guys rely on dictionaries as though they were passed down from Mount Sinai and are the unalterable word of god. The people who hate gay marriage do the same - "But it says in the dictionary that it's only men and women!!!" Ignoring the shudderingly obvious fact that dictionaries are written by people, that language, attitude and science change and the words we use alter along with that.

Of course there are always some reactionaries digging their heels in, wanting to keep everything comforting and the same, scraping about in arguments about "definitions", "freedom of trade" or blaming the communists or whatever comes to hand that might halt a bit of sensible, generally compassionate progress.

JuniorDisco


Also love the way you guys rely on dictionaries as though they were passed down from Mount Sinai and are the unalterable word of god. The people who hate gay marriage do the same - "But it says in the dictionary that it's only men and women!!!" Ignoring the shudderingly obvious fact that dictionaries are written by people, that language, attitude and science change and the words we use alter along with that.

Of course there are always some reactionaries digging their heels in, wanting to keep everything comforting and the same, scraping about in arguments about "definitions", "freedom of trade" or blaming the communists or whatever comes to hand that might halt a bit of sensible, generally compassionate progress.

This little rant is completely beside the point, as we were not discussing homosexuals nor did I ever reference dictionaries in this thread. Your tendency is to mix all these things up...racism, classism, sexism, capitalism, genderism, homophobia...as if they were the same topic. But they're only the "same thing" in marxist propaganda-speak. I have no issues with race or homosexuals whatsoever even though you keep trying to imply that I do.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Dude, you mentioned the dictionary in your previous post.

And you might want to distance yourself from homophobes -and indeed I'm not in any way saying you are one - but the contours of your arguments look awfully similar to some of theirs. Odd that.

originally posted by: Skyfloating
According to the Intelligence Analyst Kent Clizbe (who wrote a book on this subject titled "Willing Accomplices") . . .

He has been interviewed on Red Ice Radio, Radio 3Fourteen.

The Description:

Kent Clizbe served as a staff CIA case officer in the 1990s and as a contractor after 9/11. He has worked in various capacities in intelligence positions. His specialty is Counter-terrorism and Islamic Extremism. Kent has also worked Counter-intelligence, Counter-proliferation, Counter-narcotics, and other targets. His educational background includes a BA in Southeast Asian Studies-Linguistics and an MA in Linguistics and Business, as well as graduate studies in Instructional Design. We'll discuss his book Willing Accomplices, How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America. Clizbe details counter-intelligence research and cultural analysis and explains how KGB covert influence operations, began soon after the Russian revolution and resulted in today's political correctness. He'll explain how Soviet espionage planted the seeds of America's cultural destruction through the transmission belts of culture. We'll hear about the master mind of Willi Münzenberg and how his operators recruited, co-opted, manipulated, and guided a network of willing accomplices who spread the hate-America-first message. Münzenberg's creed is today's PC progressive's talking points. Later, we'll discuss how multiculturalism also fits in line with the PC progressive's agenda.