what do you think about politics and political correctness?

Post Reply New Topic

The thing is "political correctness" turns out to be a way for white men to tell people they have traditionally treated like dirt not to complain about it.

The Washington Redskins is as stupid name from a stupid past. Time to let it go. The "small number of people" who don't like is actually quite large and if you aren't one of them, it's kind of obnoxious to say "you don't count" to the ones who are.

There are a lot of places (roads, mountains, other geographic features) in the US and the former Brit colonies called "niggerhead." That's tradition we don't need, except in a museum to remember how nasty things used to be.

The people who complain about "political correctness" are mostly saying it's politically incorrect to complain about language. This is not an infinite loop worth going down.

Why not just try not to be a jerk and try not take offense too easily?

Rest assured, the idea didn't catch on. It would be hard to find a job ad, business leader or politician over here that didn't hold aloft the notion of hard work as a duty for us all. Though reliability might have slipped into a poor second place.

I agree it's silly to ban these things on the grounds of offense to those who can't or won't deliver those virtues. But I wish something could be done about the over-use of the hard work ethic. I can't see how it could possibly be fair to demand a hard day's work for a mediocre (or worse) day's pay, but I think it happens a lot.

@unsure123

:but I think, neurotypicals, want and will and try conquer the evil in the otherself first. And very often, it is not evilness, but goodness to conquer the evil in oneself. Neurotypicals generally misunderstand their evilness is caused by us.


@r2d2

I feel a problem,
some optimisms are absurd and unserious.
no specific effort may makes no change.
if we mistake a problem, we cannot fix it.
general optimism cannot be asd's optimism.
we need specific treatment.
we need to find small still unfound optimistic way.
generally people participate only an already existing optimistic way.
that cannot change the situation.
waiting changes nothing.
otherwise, some responsible sincere person just took it.
i don't want you or everyone to rely on others who take such a responsibility.

politics and political correctness,
I feel politics is similar to engineering or craftmanship, but i have had no idea politics can help specific problems in myself so i haven't been interested in.
but now i feel i want to try to care of politics.
for learning neurotypicals thinking style.
and political correctness,
in one side, this is important because we need to recognise a problem correctly.
and the other side, this is dangerous, because this can as well makes a problem worse.
we need optimism with it.
otherwise, political correctness with negative thinking, or even with science, change a problem worse.
science cannot be sincere with our problem.
they are only just reveal our existence and information.
sometimes, and for neurotypicals case very often, it makes people stop to think, and makes a problem worse.

The vast majority of those opposed to the name are not offended by it -- they are merely convinced that they are offending others by it.

From http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/redskins-manufactured-controversy-9395:What's that? 90% of Native Americans polled DON'T find it offensive? And 25% would support the team less if they changed the name?

Well if it's in Irving Kristol's rag, it must be right--or at least neocon/libertarian. But that doesn't make it correct--or a good argument.

Didn't mean anything bad in the 18th century (what's Latin for black?) and it only bothers a minority! Why should the majority ever care about that?

The whole thing reminded me of this Onion satire:
Link to satire containing many deliberately offensive words

^^^^
priceless.

In an ideal world, what you say may be true, but in the real world, people are touchy about just about anything and political correctness is the fashion of the day like the clothes you wear, or the interior decoration inside your house. Being politically correct then is to engage in the fashion of the day, which is to lose sight of any sense of objectivity or absolute truths.

If you explain to someone why it is wrong to call people by certain terms, then the way they think about them should also change.

For example, if you say "it's wrong to insult women who have sex a lot by calling them "sluts", because there's nothing wrong with women having a lot of sex", then you're both educating people about the harmful language and the thoughts behind it.

Simply banning hateful words like "fa***t" is little use, but explaining that it has been used to repress homosexuals at the same time? Same story with "ret*d".

Generally, not being offensive is quite simple with a little effort, and is you really want to address an issue, people are going to be less offended if you say "I think trannies have the right to a sex change" than if you say "I think all trans* people should be segregated so I don't have to be disgusted by them".

That's basically what I was saying above.

The hive mind is always moving the goal-posts as a means of controlling thought.

If you brought a very good and accepted person from 100 years ago into our society, then they would immediately be accused of "intentionally" wanted to harm other people, or some group (sub hive).

What some people posting here need to realize is that if they were suddenly moved to 100 years into our future, then they would be in a similar situation, except it would likely be much worse due to the exponential nature of memetic evolution. They would probably be accused of being toxic, and likely removed from society.

Our place on the timeline is not special. It's all a matter of perspective.

Or, another way of looking at the same idea is that a person from 100 years ago would modify their behavior in contemporary society when they became aware of prevailing social mores.

Likewise, a person from this society thrown a century into the future would have to adjust to the mores of that era.

This might be particularly challenging for someone on the spectrum because some of some ASD deficits involve perception of and communication about those mores, but that doesn't make it OK to be a jerk.

If you are unintentionally being a jerk and can't help it, you may get a pass because of your disability, but that doesn't mean you are right and everyone else is wrong or stupid.

It also encourages (expects) deception, manipulation, and other psychopathic behaviors.
A psychopath can manipulate more efficiently if using political correctness to conceal their true intent.
The fact that ignoring political correctness now results in inflicting emotional pain, is of added benefit to the psychopath.

As far as sensitivities to minority groups go, keep in mind that those operating outside of political correctness are also a minority who are now being oppressed.

This is a large tangle of algorithms that will continue to increase in complexity as long as deception is a social requirement.

Deception is a requirement because society believes that truth is offensive, painful, and unacceptable from each other. Fix that and problem is solved.

People on the AS do not easily connect up with hive mind information and do not easily adopt the latest versions, or perhaps not any version in complete form.

Are you saying that adopting the latest version of the hive mind (group think) can be defined as correct thinking?

Also, do you think it more accurate that a majority can label a difference as being a jerk? or that the minority label the majority as being jerks for their oppression?

I don't believe there is a "hive mind."

I think there is a big difference between group think and being polite.

I think using language that you know will offend people and claiming it's a virtue because you are successfully avoiding being "politically correct" is being a jerk.

If you are rude to people and use offensive language because you have impaired social communication and don't realize that you are being rude, then I think people who know this about you will make allowances for your differences and may say "he isn't being a jerk, he just doesn't know any better" --but this is not because your rude language is unimpaired by the influence of a collective delusion, but because you can't be held accountable for things you don't perceive. You failure to perceive them doesn't mean they are not real or that your impaired perspective is more objective or correct.

The original sense of "politically correct" was about people being forced to say things they did not believe on pain of judicial action by totalitarian states. The new sense is mostly right wing people claiming that people who reject their use of sexist, racist and homophobic language are infringing on their freedom in much the way those totalitarian states did and do. This is bogus. Yes, there are examples of people being silly in trying too hard not to be offensive, but the people who complain hardest about it actually do want to be offensive, so I find their arguments disingenuous--or at least unconvincing.

The same could be applied to denial of the effects of the hive mind.

A core difference between freedom and the hive mind is that the former is about control over oneself, and the latter is about control over others.

Another key difference is the realization that truth is not self-serving, and thus could possibly hurt your feelings sometimes. That is opposed to the position of modifying the truth (deception) in order to control an outcome of self-servitude.

This is a system that has been in place and evolving, with the effects being increased layers of deception being added. This adds uncertainty to the system, and that is a primary fuel of the self-serving nature of the system. It always grows.

To quote PK Dick :


Just because you don't believe in the notion of collective consciousness, that doesn't make it any less real.

In The Ego and Its Own (1841), Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions – including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society – were mere illusions, "spooks" or ghosts in the mind. Stirner suggested that "spooks" operate control the individual much like a hive mind and that we can only be truly free if we free ourselves from these "spooks".

In The Selfish Gene (1976) first coined the term "meme" in reference to the same concept. Dawkins pointed out that memes (in spite of their non-corporeal form) exhibit self-replicatory and other evolulionary behaviors that are strikingly similar to that of genes. Memes are copied by imitation, teaching and other methods. The copies are not perfect: memes are copied with variation; moreover, they compete for space in our memories and for the chance to be copied again. Only some of the variants can survive. The combination of these three elements (copies; variation; competition for survival) forms precisely the condition for Darwinian evolution, and so memes (and hence human cultures) evolve.

Large groups of memes that are copied and passed on together are called co-adapted meme complexes, or memeplexes. Like the gene complexes found in biology, memeplexes are groups of memes that are often found present in the same individual. Applying the theory of Universal Darwinism, memeplexes group together because memes will copy themselves more successfully when they are "teamed up". "Religions" and "ideologies" are very persistent and advanced memeplexes.

Works like Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895), Trotter's Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War (1916) were very influential in the development of group dynamics, crowd psychology, sociology and other fields of study that focus on the hive mind. In the 1920's, Bernays elaborated on the findings of Le Bon and Trotter as well as those of his uncle Freud to conceive advanced propaganda techniques that allow the masses to be manipulated without them being aware of it, perfecting the art of propaganda. He published on his findings in eg. Propaganda (1928) and Public Relations (1945), and is commonly known as the father of public relations.

In Propaganda, Bernays wrote :



-------



I agree. I just disagree with your notion of what "Political Correctness" is all about. As I see it, "Political Correctness" is no more or less than enforced Groupthink and totally unrelated with being polite.

We live in a society where the prevailing mental condition is controlled insanity. This insanity is controlled largely through the direct manipulation of language and thoughts, using techniques that are eerily similar to those described by Orwell in his dystopian classic 1984.

Traditional censorship is directly enforced by governments. It is hard to enforce rigorously because the government literally needs to be everywhere and see/hear everything to do so. "Political Correctness" is a 21st century Newspeak term that stands for nothing more or less than censorship through peer pressure.

Modern forms of censorship are not directly enforced by government but by ordinary folks like you and I. By convincing the masses that certain opinions are "evil" and "vile", the government delegates most censorship to the public. When convinced that a certain opinion is "evil" and "vile", the individual will not only censor himself but even police his environment and report any Thoughtcrime (aka heresy) to the public via his/her prefered channel (today, that's usually the Internet).

21st century censors use numerous terms to distinguish between various kinds of Crimethinkers. Such terms include but are not exclusive to "terrorist", "conspiracy theorist", "bigot", "homophobe", "transphobe", "misogynist", "racist", "antisemite", "Holocaust denier", "HIV/AIDS denier" and "Climate change denier".

Each of these terms are references to a specific type of "Thoughtcrime", and being given ANY of these labels in ANY mainstream social context is close to social suicide, which results in an increasing amount of "Thoughtcriminals" keeping their personal opinions to themselves or expressing them only in the most intimate of circles. The end result is that freedom of speech is snuffed in a way more effective than any form of traditional censorship could ever achieve.

-------

Today, traditional censorship is applied only in those ultra-rare cases when "Political Correctness" is deemed insufficient to silence the debate on a controversial topic. A classic example would be the case of Roger Garaudy. Born to atheist parents of both Catholic and Jewish heritage, Garaudy became a Protestant at age 14. During World War II, Garaudy joined the French Resistance, for which he was imprisoned in Djelfa, Algeria, as a prisoner of war of Vichy France. He later lectured as a professor at the University Clermont-Ferrand from 1962 to 1965 and at the University of Poitiers from 1969 to 1972.

Following WW2, Garaudy joined the French Communist Party. As a political candidate, Garaudy succeeded in being elected to the National Assembly and eventually rose to the position of deputy speaker, and later senator. He became a leading party theoretician and authored more than 50 books, mainly on political philosophy and Marxism. Nevertheless Garaudy was expelled from the Communist Party in 1970 following his outspoken criticism of the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

In interviews, Garaudy publicly expressed his opinion that the attacks of 11 September 2001 were organized by the United States government. He also repeated his claim that the genocide of Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War was invented as a myth by Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle to justify the destruction and occupation of Germany.

In 1996, Garaudy published The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics (1996), wherein he undermined the foundational principles that underlie the creation of the state of Israel and the Zionist movement at large. Because of his Jewish heritage, his academic background, his Communist background and his reputation as a hero of the French resistance during WW2, slandering the man as an "antisemite Neonazi" just wouldn't do it. So he was brought to court and accused of "Holocaust denial", which is a crime in France. French courts subsequently banned any further publication and on 27 February 1998 fined him 240,000 French francs. Additionally, he was sentenced to a suspended jail sentence of several years. Garaudy was 85 years old then.

Because of his conversion to Islam in 1982, Garaudy is especially popular in the Islamic world. For example, the infamous Libyan leader Gaddafi stated that Garaudy is Europe's greatest philosopher since Plato and Aristotle. and former Syrian vice-president Khaddam has called Garaudy the greatest contemporary Western philosopher. Yet, his work is mostly unknown in the West today, because our oligarchs have done everything in their power to prevent you from reading it!

Garaudy is but one of many authors whose works have been blacklisted / censored in one way or another by the leaders of the supposedly "democratic" West. His case is rather unique only because the combination of his reputation as a hero of the French resistance, his academic background, his background in Marxism as well as his Jewish heritage makes it impossible to slander him as just another bigot, which is usually all it takes to end a debate.

-------



Consider, for example, Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (1995), Lynn's Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (1996), Jensen's The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998) and many other classic works on the heritability of intelligence and behavior and the trend towards Idiocracy. How many of these books have you actually heard of, let alone read?

Consider, for example, Pearson's Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (1991) or Sacks' and Thiel's The Diversity Myth (1995) or MacDonald's The Culture of Critique (1998) and many other classic works on the gradual takeover and corruption of intellectual movements and institutions by Marxists. How many of these books have you actually heard of, let alone read?

In the media, any scholarly works that don't fit the mould are typically first ignored. When that doesn't work, the media picks up on a work only after the masses are already talking about it, slandering the author and accusing the publication as "conspiracy theorist", "homophobic", "misogynist", "racist" or whatever other label is considered most suitable, without actually getting into the actual statements being made. After that, "Political Correctness" will ensure most people don't get to actually read those scholarly works.

People in the "Autism spectrum" are generally less succeptible to the endless piles of mindbending propaganda that has polluted the minds of the unsuspective masses. By not being part of any hive mind the same way "normal" people are, we are both less emotionally attached to abstractions and less likely to submit to peer pressure and ignore opinions deemed unfit for human consumption by the oligarchs. As such, people in the "Autism spectrum" more likely to become "Thoughtcriminals".

And that, my friends, is one of the main reasons why many of us are pressured to get therapy and/or take mind-altering substances.