I think everyone knows I have a mancrush on Chez, bad teeth and all, and wouldn't seriously smear him with any odious invectives, not that I understand Marxism enough to describe it as such.

What I'm interested in doing, because he and I and many of you have a disagreement about PC, mostly in regard to how it's used (and very often abused imo), is to look at some of the specific arguments against, conspiracy theories and all, and let you smarty pants tell me why they're wrong.

You guys also don't have a great handle on what "PC" really means either. Like, chez continually using "PC" in a non-pejorative manner is a big giveaway that he's gaslighting the forum. Actual liberals don't describe themselves that way.

I guess we'll never hear from TS now just he can't talk about because PU is so PC these days...

Have you considered some of the alternate narratives about PC are full of holes in principles and values?

It's not like a narrative that promotes fear and alarm about whole groups of people is going to magically improve so as not to have an element influence, impress, or reinforce any one's irrational fear and alarm about whole groups of people.

One idea is refer to actions taken as propaganda correction, rather than political correction. Set aside the vernacular though, and think about the what information is going around and what influence it can have.

Do we people hate dangerous people? People do fear and hate dangerous people, yes. Better identify dangerous people accurately or innocent, harmless people are going to come correct.

Uh, Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. Understanding of Marxism isn't relevant.

If you allow what you call 'PC' to sometimes not be 'abuse', then you & chezlaw are going to be in complete agreement.

The problem is that in US English the term is 100% used as a pejorative. In US English 'PC' is simply shorthand for "PC Police run amok'. It's kinda like GNU and Unix. It's always a tautology too. And you can't 'win': someone arguing for 'PC' is arguing for "going too far"; while someone arguing against 'PC' is arguing for "not going too far". Cliffs: in US English usage it's simple minded propaganda used to derail conversations.

OTOH chezlaw uses the term in a different manner. I'll assure you that when chezlaw advocates for 'PC', he isn't advocating for "going too far".

However, you FoldnDark have directly said you'd like to talk chezlaw out of his 'PC'. When you say that, are you imagining in your head that chezlaw is in fact advocating that we "go too far", and you are some kinda voice of reason telling him we should not "go too far" ??

I'm more inclined to chalk this up as a US English -vs- UK English thingee than chezlaw proactively punking all the deplorables.

Remember this isn't a please.

My form of PC is up for discussion though. Not least because it's very interesting

It's primarily about language use. I take it further than most because I take far more account of cognitive biases, often unconcious, and how they are reinforced by being nonPC and can even be compensated for a bit by being very PC. These cognitive biases are not remotely benign when it comes to socially vulnerable groups.

It is a technique for changing how people think and with any such technique there's the risk of going too far. In practice that doesn't seem to be much of a danger to me but others see it differently.

Yes, I agree, PC has become a very divisive term, and should probably not be used anymore in the interest of political correctness (sorry couldn't help it)

I'll actually back General Pinochez here a little in that PC doesn't carry as much baggage here in the UK. People tend to use the phrase "political correctness gone mad" whenever they want to whine about something.

NSFW but this much linked video from Stewart Lee is worth alisten. We come from similar places in time and space.



This is good too an funnier (still NSFW)

By that 'Cultural Marxism' definition, PC is sociology within cultures we don't agree with.

No. In popular usage it's always been a divisive term. It's propaganda, just like "Cultural Marxism". That's what this shiz is consciously designed to do. From today's Wikipedia article...

I'll repeat what I mentioned earlier. A whole lotta this propaganda relies on a certain sorta loltastically farcical makeup entomology. Like that fiction writer's silly spew you quoted earlier regarding the 'SJW'-ers making up this second definition of the r-word. As I mentioned, unfortunately for the silly fiction writers, there's a historical record of how words are used, and how those uses have changed over the years.

With a little simple googling you would have quickly learned that no, the 'SJW'-ers didn't make up a second definition to the r-word... unless G.Wallace was a 'SJW'-er (which I guess could be true however). You would have learned that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory. And you would have learned that no, 'PC' hasn't become more or less divisive over time.

It's funny that I mutated a word into propaganda and because that word has some real value for people these days in my estimation. Then hahaha, you bring the word divisive on the scene. Does the use of the term PC belong in a divisive narrative? Then it is a divisive use of the term.

big question. If an intention of PC is make legitimate structure for people to communicate with leverage against out-dated language barriers (divisions), then on a scale between dividing and unifying, how divisive is that PC really if it indeed can and does make such structure?

WTF is this yellow triangles business.

They mark threads which allow making it about the arguer, insulting, trolling etc.

The rest of the threads are far more content focused. The same old noise that degenerates so many threads is going to be heavily curtailed.

I suppose this is a good place to state, for the nth time ITF, that I don't have a problem with PC as you describe it. I tend to practice it voluntarily for the same reasons as most people, out of empathy for groups who have widely different experiences than I. It's basically just civility.

My criticisms come from when it is abused to impose politics on others and "win" arguments, which is really just a way to avoid them. You can't say this, or talk about that! That doesn't do a lick of good, and drives good people crazy. Chez knows I think the good intentions behind PC have been widely abused and probably contributed to Brexit and Trump.

There's a different form of PC which is the polarising and even hateful kind. Where it ceases to be about language use and instead it's all about being abusive towards others. That does contribute to an environment in which people like trump can flourish.

The PC we traditionally have had in the uk has been nothing but a positive as far as I can see. The divisive, hateful approach has started to infect uk politics more but it's still very mild compared to the USA.

LMAO, please show one "good" person who can't say something they want too because of PC.

If you want something interesting search youtube for Stewart Lee "On Not Writing". There's also a couple of very good interviews he did with Alexei Sayle and Alan Moore. There's a lot of good insight into the growth of alternative comedy, and I think a few references to how freeing it was in some ways to be able to move away from the expectations of politically incorrect comedy.

I'm not sure bees are responsible for that much propaganda.

By all means carry on like a free bird foldn. Basic respect for our human differences got weight.

I think my friend Chez is more like Oswald Mosley:

mosley

He certainly is seduced by the dictatorial powers inherent in having a modship. Never trust a limey with power. That said, he may be more comparable to say a Franco, or better still, Salazar. I have unwavering support for his draconian policies and heavy handed bludgeoning of the ignorant masses. It's what they deserve.

Bill's dad smelt of elderberries.

Sadly there's not much left by Lee that I haven't watched and read.

Apart from Jerry springer the opera which I zoned out from when it got mentioned because I asumed it was some Elton type musical nonsense.

/thread

I don't have a very deep understanding of the literature behind the social justice movement, although I've read a few articles on Critical Race Theory, and had some discussions with my cousin, who has a degree in AA studies. Those conversations have gone rather well and have been enlightening, as have most of ours, and so a couple things come to mind.

First, (and I won't accept your resignation to the label SJW, btw), do you agree with me there is a huge difference in the study of these social justice topics, exploring the history and philosophic theory, and with the politization of them, ie translating them to what we should do here and now?

With that thought in mind, I feel like we run into a huge roadblock there because most of the study looks rather young, relatively speaking (what 30-40 years?), and I don't get the idea it has really undergone much valid criticism, and that it may even actually be shielding itself from valid criticism in two important ways:

1) In academia, as many including Jonathan Haidt have pointed out, there is a striking lack of political diversity in the social sciences, so with such homogeneity of ideas, that tends to create a huge bubble in critical thought that it should be easy to see would harm the testing and development of any theory, ie, getting at the truth.

2) And worse still, (to bring this to the thread topic) political discourse set up around these fledgling theories is filled with rampant human emotion, demands to carry out real world solutions to problems much of the world has had little time to come to understand, and most importantly doesn't trust those who are most vocally demanding the changes (see SJW), because they simply won't allow any disagreement without that being a sure sign of their white privilege, white supremacy, and outright hatred!

IOW, it all just seems to be getting a little bit ahead of itself.