Is politically correct (PC) a form of lying?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by wellwisher, Jan 20, 2012.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    These are universals. They will always be held as the highest of human values. Cultural sensitivity or awareness is disparaged by calling it "political correctness", under a conservative program to undermine the Honor you mention.

    Cultural awareness simply means we honor one another for following the virtues you list above. The man with the paralyzed tongue is not a "moron" and the woman in dreadlocks is not a "crack ho". When you discover that one of them invented modern physics and the other is Whoopie Goldberg, you are quick to change your position. So what's wrong with that picture?

    This is all we are saying.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    isn't this the thing , the values that are mentioned above are old values

    nowadays none so much matter
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    So if you are worried about a decline in values, you should support the idea of cultural sensitivity. You should hope for equality and social justice. The conservatives who bash this, calling it "political correctness", are the same people who constantly attack honor, which you said is a declining value. If you want to help the world increase in honor, then you should do something to promote the rights of oppressed people, not to stifle them. One way to do this is to speak on behalf of people who have less than you, and to explore and offer ways to help them. Wouldn't that demonstrate honor?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    I think this is too narrow a view to look at the matter of PC, as it neglects to consider the circumstances and purpose of the communication.

    Those dichotomies between "PC" and "truth" are often false ones, IMO.

    Take this, for example:

    My first consideration would be what each of the parties desires to accomplish in this communication.
    Is it to come up with a workable solution, and the idea under discussion is a suggestion for that?
    Or is it to establish the power hierarchy in the relationship, or other terms of the relationship?
    People often try to satisfy several purposes in each instance of communication, hence the confusion and dissatisfaction.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    PC screening on the terms of public discourse forces suspension of judgment by people who lack sufficient and accurate information.

    It thereby prevents a species of lying, the kind in which the liar pretends to knowledge they do not posses as a basis for the assessments they retail in their language.

    It may be that Jeremy Lin - his person, family background, habits and attitudes, command of English, religion, diet, hopes and aspirations, dress and deportment, character in general - so fits the stereotypes inherent that "chink" is a reasonable term of reference.

    But it isn't very likely that the people using the term know that, eh?

    The ability to suspend judgment is no esoteric skill of the mentally transcendent; it grounds not only the heights of wisdom, but ordinary maturity and reasonable adult character. Without it, you're at best immature, at worst a stereotypical ignorant bigot - words which one cannot use normally and routinely and casually on TV in reference to, say, Fox News anchors. If we are going to discard PC regulation of public discourse, why not begin there, in the clearest and best documented circumstances of its empty role as enforcement of a meaningless and misleading politesse?
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2012
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Because FOX represents the best hopes for white supremacy in its modernized media-blasting incarnation. That and bigots like Rush Limbaugh.

    They invented the term "political correctness" as a slur, to devalue what any decent person holds sacred, beginning with social justice, an idea that trumps the white supremacy movement, and leaves it kicking and screaming.

    The label "PC" has insinuated itself into the dialogue, even by those who are tired of arguing its etymology. But I would prefer to say "cultural awareness" or "social awareness" or "decency and respect", since it's only a step or two away from innate common sense, not some grandiose policy of indoctrination and oppression, as they like to gnash teeth and rend garments over.

    Maybe this just a prolonged period of the terrible twos, and that maturity you speak of will gradually dawn on them.
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Yes, of course, wynn, the purpose of criticizing a person for their outward characteristics is entirely about power.

    To even pretend that it is not is to deny the entire history of human oppression.

    Or is this where you say: but we cannot actually know [insert history, science, religion], as that would require a reliance on empiricism which [insert nome du jour] established in [cite] as unreliable....?

    Anything for the cause, I suppose...:shrug:
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Sweets, you know that you beat me in the power game anytime.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    I doubt it. And of course your reply evades the fact that we were discussing outward characteristics, the hallmark of white supremacy. Pigmentation, a few variations in hair follicles, cartilage, eyelids, cheekbones and lips: and you're out of the club.

    That would be the racial bias; ethnic slurs may derive merely by inflection, dress, or choice of food.

    Then you have the age and gender slurs, disability, and so forth.

    All of these are allowed under white supremacy, which establishes the predictable attributes of their stereotypical alpha male as the benchmark for insulting everybody who appears different to the slightest degree.

    What else are the affirmative here protecting if not white supremacy?
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    I've also met black supremacists, Hindu supremacists (especially nasty towards whites!), rich supremacists, male, female, homo, hetero, MENSA etc. etc. supremacists. Uh. With practically everyone having something over which to be a supremacist, what's left ...
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Which one of those groups invented the term "politically correct"?
  15. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    The fashionistas, any title with 'executive' in it, business/first class passengers, yuppies in remote areas, rock stars/film stars after winning a Grammy or an Oscar or doing something dumb like imprinting their hands in wet cement, athletes after sponsoring their first commercial for a major mega-corporation, non-smokers, macrobiotic zealots...
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    The inventor of the term isn't as relevant as those who promulgate it favorably.
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Only if you choose to protect the supremacists.
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Let's see. The term "atheism" was invented by theists.
    Needless to say, theists do not view the term "atheism" favorably.
    If we focus on atheists and their understanding of atheism, are we thereby proctecting theists?
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    There is an interesting parallel between religious reactionaries and white supremacist reactionaries, both of whom abhor progressive ideas such as atheism and tolerance.

    And it's well known that white supremacists blend religion into their hubris, particularly as it supports the notion that God favors supremacy, although these people are not intelligent enough to properly cast God as a Semitic supremacist, not an anti-Semitic Nordic supremacist.

    White supremacy is threatened by tolerance, so it invented the term "politically correct", in its current context, as a smear tactic, to protect its racist agenda. Any person who uses the term PC, with the intent to disparage tolerance, is protecting white supremacy. Odds are, that many deliberately do this because they are either outright racists or closeted bigots.

    Furthermore, the proposal that tolerance (minimized under the slur "political correctness") is a form of lying, is itself a statement that supports the white supremacist agenda.

    Beyond the social justice agenda of the tolerance movement, which at most addresses social etiquette, is the disturbing fact that white supremacy--i.e., the desire to murder and mutilate merely on account of color--is still alive and well. And yet people bring these ideations into this forum, to disparage the values of tolerance, for no plausible reason except to stir the hive and enjoy the ensuing mayhem.

    What are white supremacist trolls doing here? Don't they have a their own cesspools of intolerance where they can vent their putrid spleens?

    Other than the possibility that you may align yourself with racists or bigots, what else might motivate you, or anyone else, to support them?
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The question, is PC a form of lying, was based on the observation that PC word play promotes special interests instead of all, using a dual standard. There are woman's right but no man's rights. Man's rights are called sexists. The black caucus is good but a white caucus is racists. Atheism is good but religion is evil. You can't talk against Muslims but there is a hunting season on Christianity. Notice the democratic and liberal agenda.

    If PC protected all based on edifying manners or behavior it would not be a political propaganda tool. That is the real motivation. This is why it is PC to rag on anyone who points out this truth, while PC to accept anyone who helps promote the lie.

    I look at people as individuals and not cogs in a group abstraction. The group abstraction is misleading when it comes to the individual. Martin Luther King saw the content of character as more important than color of skin. Character is an individual thing, earned by an individual. Character is not PC. Skin color is a group abstraction. The skin color approach of PC allows the cogs in the machine, to lack character, as long as the PC group abstraction has the proper illusion in place. This may involve revision of history.

    For example, my ancestors came from Europe before WWI. They never owned slaves nor where any of them in America when there was slavery. They were poor and when through the rights of passage all new immigrants go through including discrimination. According to PC illusions I needed to be punished for slavery because of my skin color. I don't accept this. The PC revisionist history places me in the plantation beating slave so I am racist. Deception is the nature of PC.

    At the time of Martin Luther King, the black family and community was strong. This is why King focused on character in his famous speech. The blacks demonstrated character. After liberalism and PC, the black family broke down, drug addiction increases, school drop out rates, crime and violence all increased. That really helped the cause.

    The blacks had more "real" negative social pressures in 1950 than 2010. The racism was ten time worse than the PC illusions of today, yet the black community and family had character. The question is why since liberalism and PC has the black community divided and loss character in favor of a group abstraction based on skin color which King never endorsed? PC is like an overly protective mother who steals individuality from her children.

    When I was young there were not many blacks in my area of the city, but of the few there were, many hung around in our group. There was no PC separation yet programmed into the brain. This allowed me to go into the local black bar at 14 and get served. The big black bartender would give us a small glass of beer for a quarter since we had little money. I was a white brother among the black brothers. Each treated the other as an individual.

    Even in college, since I ran track as a sprinter I was friendly with all the black brothers. The blacks stereo type of fast was true which became a fun way to rag on each other. My freshman year, a black senior sprinter, Booker T, mentored me in sprinting. He was really good. The other black friends would make fun of us, as the two bags, due to our easier short sprint training routine. One of my best black friends got into medical school after only three years as an undergraduate. He used to write me letter backwards, so I needed a mirror to read them. As the liberal and PC group abstraction appeared, a wall appeared but not of my own doing. I don't trust the PC illusionists.
  21. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member


    Equality is not promotion over anyone, it is about fighting the inequality historically practiced by white men(as well as the Christian religion). White men don't want others equal to them and call it "Political Correctness" to hide their real goal, keeping those they consider "others" from having a fair chance in our society. The current Republican attacks on women, gays, blacks and "libruls" is a perfect illustration of the perfidy they practice.

    Dr. King saw the content of character, the society he lived in definitely did not. A society where the only equality was among white men. You illustrate the falseness of your position with your own words.

    And the discrimination your forefathers experienced is just fine with you? It wasn't politically correct. No one is blaming anyone alive today for slavery, but it was only 50 years ago since blacks got any chance to vote, or even drink at the same fountain as whites. It's been an even shorter time before blacks were free of a system that arrested black men to work for the profit of companies and the state. That society certainly needed prodding by the politically correct to address those INEQUALITIES. The 60s also started the PC treatment of women, gays and Atheists as well. A good thing, without doubt. Equality for all is Political correctness, get used to it.

    Rubbish, it's hard to have stabile families or communities with over a third of black men either in jail or virtually unemployable because of a criminal record, while the rest are in low wage dead end jobs with very little chance of advancement. And when a community of blacks start having success a white riot burns it to the ground. Strange fruit sprouting from the trees helps drive home the point to those who get too uppity.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    yeah wellwisher!

    (Sing it, quickly they forget.)
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That isn't an observation, it's a fantasy - a delusion.

    You are overlooking the physical realities involved, setting up an imaginary world in which, for example, white Christian men have no rights and are constrained more than others by some vague body of enforcement focused on their language and no one else's.

    The ridiculous notion that no one can "talk against" Muslims may be the most obvious, but every single assertion there is quite obviously false, contradicted by universal and ubiquitous experience of daily life.

    You appear to need to feel singled out, picked on for abuse, for some reason. Why?

Share This Page