The failure of political correctness

[paigetheoracle]

Political correctness fails because it 'tries' to be fair (Like Communism failed for the same thing). In 'trying' not to offend anyone (be all inclusive), it means no-one is challenged and the lowest common denominator is everyones goal ('Why struggle to reach the top, when you get rewarded for staying on the bottom?'). It rewards laziness (self-indulgence) and encourages crime (moral cowardice/shame) through taking the easy option (lowering the goalposts or in the case of limbo dancing, raising them), rather than effort and control (Pride/good citizenship): Diligent industry as opposed to boring indolence. This is why in Britain, if not America, art subjects are taking over from the sciences as subjects studied plus literacy and numeracy have gone out the window (computers are not to blame for anything except correcting spelling of those that accept it and standardising English across the globe). Our best young feel bullied and unappreciated (suicidal) and our worst are running riot and being rewarded for bad behaviour (free radical damage). In society the law fells sorry for the 'poor' criminal and punishes the 'bad' rich person for defending themselves. All of this is abrogation of responsibility by society itself. TV programs on dog training, supernannies, brat camps and even Dog the Bounty Hunter, show that it's bad for those abandoned to their fate by those who fail to instill purpose and self-discipline in their lives as children (parents first, teachers and the rest of society second). 'Good fences make good neighbours' to quote Robert Frost. Why? Because they create identity and stability in the lives of those affected: A child with no barriers runs all over others and is run over by others because they have no self-awareness (nothing to hold them down and keep them in place and no inner or outer 'home' from which to view the world: War orphans destroyed by conflict and worn down by continual motion (refugees, with no country (safe place) to settle and discover their possibilities)).

 

Political correctness is wanting to be 'seen' to be doing the 'right' thing. It is mock justice that pays lip service alone to the problems of the world. It is hypocrisy of the highest order, steeped in self-importance and a victim of its own vanity (The Emperors New Clothes Syndrome). It is the deeply flawed personality trait known as the Narcissistic Personality Syndrome - somebody or something that needs help not that can in all honesty give it. It is only interested in how things 'should' be (idealism), not how they truly are (realism). As such it can never change the world for the better because it refuses to admit the true nature of the problem (Head buried in the sand, it is continually crept up upon and kicked in the backside by the very reality it hides from). Political 'incorrectness' is bullying by word or deed, intending to suppress free speech or thought (humour disarms things - taking them seriously arms them (belief [see post by me on this subject for cross reference] versus disbelief and seeing things as ridiculous (trivial/ unimportant in the grander scheme of things i.e. when facing eternity and infinity ): The more you try to hide, the more you're trying to protect and the more reactively violent you behave). Humour is the antithesis of political correctness. It aims to knock down (show as absurd) our prejudices rather than create or hold onto them (our barriers to free and open exchange as opposed to pre-tension). Political incorrectness is projecting our prejudgements (fears) into the outside world , that is not taking responsibility for them (In other words blaming and attacking others rather than controlling our reactions and analysing them, seeing what they are and where they came from, so that we can deal with them [Learn from them about ourselves as well as the 'real' outside world, that we are trying to push away, to avoid experiencing]).

[ughaibu]

Does PC protect those discriminated against for being un-PC?

[Fatstep]

A person should be aware of the cultural differences, but should not try to make everyone happy. One will go insane trying to please everyone and in the end will have a bad life. I'm not saying you should deliberatly offend other cultures/races, but think about yourself before others when voicing opinions, if you allow others' differences to affect your opinion then you are not truly voicing your opinion.

[viscount aero]

+10

 

political correctness, however well-intended, perhaps, at it's outset, has largely become borderline fascist and intolerant in it's insidious means of finding it's way into nearly everything today. we can no longer say "black man" because that is bordering on a crime. but blacks can call themselves "nigga" all day. yet none of them are actually "african american." that is a fabricated term without any meaning.

 

another such fascist example is to equate "global warming deniers" with "holocaust deniers." not only is global warming assumed to be true right away [which is politically-correct], if you are not of the al gore persuasion you are immediately suspect and treated as if you are a thought-criminal. or worse, a holocaust denier. people like sean penn and larry king are of this belief system, ie, the al gore fan base.

[ughaibu]

I think denial is a separate issue and, essentially, I think that denial of the holocaust, global warming, evolution, moon landings, etc, can be considered as a single class of behaviour.

[Fatstep]

I think denial is a separate issue and, essentially, I think that denial of the holocaust, global warming, evolution, moon landings, etc, can be considered as a single class of behaviour.

 

So, you believe someone who denies global warming is in the same class as people who deny the moon landings? That's a little too much of a generalization.

[viscount aero]

I think denial is a separate issue and, essentially, I think that denial of the holocaust, global warming, evolution, moon landings, etc, can be considered as a single class of behaviour.

 

then this thinking is exactly the kind of neo-fascist state of PC. global warming, which is a misnomer at best, is a device wielded by the left to further their political aims. you dare not cross them as a skeptic of global warming or you are tantamount to a neo-nazi.

 

equating all of the things mentioned is not accurate and i implore that you re-examine this.

[HydrogenBond]

I think political correctness is sexist in that it is more condusive to the female mind than to the male mind. I like the goal of political correctness, which is to not judge each other but to learn to get along, like one big family. Political correctness achieves this goal by disguising reality with a good verbal make-up job. Like in real life, once the make-up is on, if it is a tought act to follow, (without make-up). It has to stay just right and has to be applied each day.

 

When a guy loves a gal, he doesn't care if she has make-up. He sees the beauty inside that shines through her face. But her loving man's opinion, although important, is not enough. She also has to cater to other females. Females are often more critical of each other than are guys, and their social bonding involves make-up. The females are expanding the female bonding ritual by trying to paint culture with verbal make-up.

 

Don't get me wrong. I prefer a natural face, with some basic make-up, maybe a little eye liner and some lipstick. During fancy occations an extra coat of paint is nice. But I don't think reality needs to be such a formal occation all the time. Sometimes natural is more appealing. Don't say no make-up to a female. War paint is an important part of female bonding and her influence over nonloving men. But too much make-up can also draw unwanted attention from low life. That has become the downside of too much verbal make-up, requiring a constant tweak of color.

 

As for me, I am not an actor, a drag queen, or going to a costume party, so I really don't wish to wear verbal make-up. It is not right for me, even though it looks good on females and maybe drag queens. I shave each day, wash my face, comb my hair. That is enough for me.

[CraigD]

I think denial is a separate issue and, essentially, I think that denial of the holocaust, global warming, evolution, moon landings, etc, can be considered as a single class of behaviour.

Though I think I understand the reasoning behind ughaibu’s opinion, an explanation seems in order. Why, Ugh, do you think denial of these many dissimilar claims are a single class of behavior?

So, you believe someone who denies global warming is in the same class as people who deny the moon landings? That's a little too much of a generalization.

There’s a critical distinction between the claim that several behaviors are of a single class, and that people who exhibit one or the other of these behaviors are of a single class.

 

For example, I offer that people who throw paint on the furs of women leaving the theatre in protest of animal cruelty, and people who throw bricks through the windows of abortion clinics, are exhibiting related behaviors, because both behaviors are characterized by emotional agitation and the premeditated destruction of property. I would not, however suggest that the paint-throwers and the brick-throwers should be class together as people, without defining that class very narrowly and unusually.

[rocket art]

... and their social bonding involves make-up. The females are expanding the female bonding ritual by trying to paint culture with verbal make-up.

 

weird...

[viscount aero]

Does PC protect those discriminated against for being un-PC?

 

no

 

 

the PC movement is neo-fascist, disguising as liberal and sensitive. but it's far from egalitarian.

[ughaibu]

CraigD: The positions concerned require the denial of things classifiable as facts, these facts are countered by conjectures or tangential facts, proposed to support the conclusion of a viewpoint already held.

[Lancaster]

CraigD: The positions concerned require the denial of things classifiable as facts, these facts are countered by conjectures or tangential facts, proposed to support the conclusion of a viewpoint already held.

 

Thank you. I'm not sure why everyone jumped to the conclusion that he was classifying those actions morally. You could classify killing someone and saving someone's life in the same category because they both cause a great deal of emotion, it does not imply that they are morally equal.