PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Post Reply New Topic

The construct of Political correctness was formulated by Jewish and Liberal elites and psychiatrists like Dr. Ewen Cameron between the 1950's and 1970's firstly in an effort to prevent the same recurrances of 'racist'/nationalist lexicons that went hand in hand with the Fascist movements of the early 20th century. The idea was to keep structuralized Fascism, at least in Western Countries, as a dead ideology, by even putting a stifle on the same kind of 'offensive' language to prevent people from even discussing such ideas by socially stigmatizing them............. It was decided that they would completely rewire individuals through propaganda in the schools and media, and instead of having pupils internalize nationalistic and patriotic feelings in schools, they would instead propegate and have the new generations internalize multiculturalist values and acknowledge that "we are all the human race." Indirectly, they used the concepts of peer pressure(which most people respond to,) to let the large and small groups regulate themselves and weed out their own dissenters....... expressing 'racist' views would have dire social, professional, academic, and political consequences. They never made it an official government doctrine (at least in the USA) that would contradict the 1st Amendment, but instead they were much more savvy in how they eventually applied it.

This was done of course by targeting the most popular and influential of the youth and internalizing them with the new multiculturalist values. Naturally, the rest of their peers would respond to peer-pressure and follow suit. Fascism would hopefully never be more than a fringe-extremist movement as a result.

The elites and intellectuals who created this had mostly good intentions actually. They genuinely wanted to do something that they felt would remove those nationalist factors they saw as essential to the cause of the World Wars. They made the mistake though of only applying PC to the white race and not minorities, thus creating an 'Eloi and Morlocks' situation.

Long-story short, but with the new situation we have of the massive 'invasion,' PC is now actually revived after kind of being in discredit for some time......... but now its largely applied in public circles to prevent any official reaction against this "Voluntarily becoming of a minority," (as liberals say with gusto.)

With PC, even if you wanted to verbally protest and speak out against "The change," if you weren't half as eloquent as I am, you'd just feel frustrated and stifled, and then you may just resign yourself and eventually 'accept.' Many people feel very nervous and suspicious about their unwelcome 'new neighbors,' but to protest is out of line with the 'color me human' ideology that the vast majority of pupils get spoon-fed with these days in American schools. Most people just wind up spitting back the same party line that they've been indoctrinated with that 'there is no such thing as race,' even though the book was arbitrarily closed on any revisionism of the principles of Eugenics years ago. If you want to protest the demographic change, there is such a deck stacked against you, and largely based on the PC ideology that will really force you to pick and choose your words carefully.

And if that was not enough, there is a huge double-standard and Whites are far more constrained by PC than the other races are. This will cause a huge problem years down the road when minority populations are still agressively seeking their own ethnic-aggrandizement of power and resources. For many obvious reasons, becoming a minority is just not an option.

no. i have not, in fact, seen kyle. perhaps you will find him elsewhere.

HATE SPEECH!! ! HATE SPEECH!! ! You said "Jew"! !!

I'm not allowed to name any "certain criminal group." That would be hate-speech.

Okay, I'll name a few: there's the Hells Angels, Mongols, Vagos, Crips, Bloods, MS-13 (whisch I think is part of La Emme), and the Allreano Felix cartel. It's not hate speech, it's the truth.

PC points topic

Debating an issue does not have to resort to name calling, and overgeneralizations. These strategies are inaccurate and are little more than strawsticking.

Debating the views of the person is a beeter approach and more likely to sway opinion than attacking the person making those views. For example, I know what Fred Phelps is (unprintable) but a more rational approach is to pick his views apart and then destroy them.

I cannot say I have loved every member of every racial, ethnic, religious and or sexually diversified group that ever lived. However, to blame the group each person belongs to as the reason for the behaviour of the individual is ridiculous. This is also wrong if a person blamed his/ her race, orientation, ethncity, socioeconomic group or neurodiversity for his/her behaviour. Explaining away one's wrongdoings is a copout, inaccurate and foolish.

The above approach takes more work, I know but it is a way of finding the evidence necessary to change things and solve problems. I realize that in some human groups it is more difficult to find differences amongst members (WBC, Radical Islamic terrorists aka al Qaeda), but this is the challenge to those who are trying to find working solutions to understanding complex dilemmas.

Sometimes making a blanket statement about a group and naming people that are an exception to the rule is not only easier but also every bit as accurate as naming a long list of individuals that act a certain way.

Easier sure. As long as you keep your list of exceptions short.

Your blanket statement is a lie if it ignores exceptions and implies 'all'.

Also, one evidence of the "propaganda" arethe OSHA posters that are mandatory for public display in most workplaces.

These days they always show a VERY diverse group of 12 or so individuals, usually featuring like a black lady in a power-suit, an asian-lady in a hard hat, etc. And it always shows the minorities and women employed in authoritative and assertive occupations that exude a sense of new power.

There will be one white guy all by his lonesome, and he's always wearing some uniform designed for a menial task of some sort, usually a fry-cook or a janitor. Its obvious that White males are being hinted at that they are now on the outs and are only suited to be the lowest rung, while the minorities and women are now the ones in the driver's seat of society. It shows decisively a black lady as a business-man, a mixed-race looking lady as a doctor and so on, so forth.

Its pretty obvious by the constant propaganda that White males are being told that they have nothing more to culturally contribute to society, and that their roles have been exhausted and it is time for them to pass on the torch.

Other examples of the propaganda include the new "diversity history" and "diversity English" school curriculum. Really though, the blatant over-placement of marginal achievements and mediocre minority-written novels like "The Joy Luck Club" are so obvious that I'd almost be offended by the constant token overtures to every minority group if I was forced to sit through all of that again. I would personally find it incredibly patronizing(if I was a minority) the level to which they obviously cherry-pick and try so hard to distort the facts so that every group gets a slice of the pie.

The level to which they constantly insert repeated regular references to minority and female acheivements in virtually every lesson in every textbook is just so contrived........... My AP euro History textbook in the 10th grade had a chapter titled "the Role of blacks in 13th century Europe." I mean, come on.............. Its such obvious placement.

White males are usually shown as the leaders in most other media. So something that shows others that they can aspire to something higher than the bottom rung of the ladder is good IMO.

On one hand you complain about people at the bottom not behaving well but then you also complain if anyone suggests that they could or should do better.

^ I just think it is such blatantly contrived propaganda.

Proper-ganda topic

Many ethnic groups are underrepresented in positions of power and authority in real life, so to show them in "reel time" can be construed as paying lip service to inclusion. So in a way this is phoney. A better way to encourage inclusion is to show real people in real jobs, or in educational programmes leading to real opportunity, and real people to provide encouragement, not mockups with actors. These are the role models many minorities need to help them succeed.

Does a poor white guy need a role model? There are plenty from times past, and many in the media that he can see and emulate.

Call me naive or whatever, but wouldn't it be a better world if both blacks and whites stopped making such a big deal about race. As far as I can tell it's mainly black and white americans who are so obsessed with racial identity.

You should get out more. Do you remember what happened between the Hutu and the Tutsie? And what about the clashes between Muslim and Hindu in India? How about the clashes between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster? Bigotry, race hate and group hate are common to the human race which is the only race by the way.

ruveyn

I was talking about the US.

Why single out the U.S.?

ruveyn