The central pivotal political question of our time

It is the central argument of our time, the centre of political disagreement, heavily debated in the United States, largely ignored in the United Kingdom in public space. This post is to open up the debate.

There was a time when one neo-evangelised in the face of slavery and dictatorship and in the name of liberal democracy. Subsequently, this questioning of reality led to a post-modem deconstructionist philosophy known to some as political correctness and which is now at the centre of the culture wars in the United States.

Its proponents believe that censorship is a necessary evil which act as a preventative measure to avoid discrimination against disadvantaged group. They believe that people who vilify political correctness do so, so that white, heterosexual, Christian males can maintain their privilege.

Its opponents believe that it is a "paradox of tolerance"; promoting tolerance to such an extreme that these actions become another form of intolerance, a kind of cultural oppression, "cultural Marxism", something similar to Stalinist, Maoist or Nazi regimes. It is noteworthy that such regimes had a concept of political criminal offenses and judicial punishments which is entirely in keeping with political correctness. The also had propaganda news organisations which propagated their state propaganda much the same was as political correctness is propagated by the BBC.

The death penalty was possible in these regimes for transgressors, however Western political correctness has not stooped to this level yet, but it is not far off. Various entities sponsor terror groups like Antifa to commit violence against disbelievers in our culture and these groups are largely tolerated by society because they portray themselves as "fighting Nazis". Such groups launched numerous attacks upon Trump supporters. One could argue that society uses these groups as a form or physical punishment against transgressors. One can only pray that there is a special place in hell reserved for such people.

The liberal movement in the 1950s centrered largely on opposing authoritarianism, for example in Theodore Adorno's book the Authoritarian Personality which analysed authoritarian traits of American whites became one of the central works in the Social Sciences and Humanities in the 1950s in the States. The movement was dominated by a number of other postmodern academics such as Derrida (two states can exist at the same time), Foucault, Gramsci (a march through the institutions) and Herbert Marcuse.

The criticism of this club involves the allegation that they became a mirror of that which they opposed. They reject criticism, the argue for a transformational nature of language to alter attitudes and beliefs, and in some cases disciplinary or criminal action against those which transgress against their doctrine.

In recent study conducted by Jordan Peterson and Christine Brophy of the University of Toronto's Department of Psychology, it would found that political correctness (and its followers) can be generalised into two distinct groups, PC-Egalitarians and PC-Authoritarians. PC-Egalitarians tend to find a cultural basis for group differences, for example they often attribute group differences to social injustices. They want to change language and beliefs to compensate from what they see as inequalities caused by culture. PC-Authoritarians tend to attribute biological differences to group differences. Given that biology is immutable and unchangeable to humans (with the exception of certain practises such as genetic modification e.g. GM foods), PC-Authoritarians attempt to form a more autocratic form of governance that PC-Egalitarians to achieve uniformity. PC-Authoritarians press for harsher punishments and sentences as justice for transgressors; to rain hellfire on innocent people simply because they disagree, in some cases injuring or maiming them.

Both groups have in common that "offense sensitivity" is the detector of transgressors and used to identify and measure PC offenses which need to be punished.

Liberal left authoritarians account for significant amounts of political violence in the United States today, yet right wing violence accounts for a small fraction of a percentage of political violence. Due to the prejudices levies by political correctness, the perception has been altered to see the largely well behaved right wing of politics as the perpetrators of violence.

The suggestion is that large parts of the liberal left have adopted "pathological altruism". This is where extreme compassion is combined with a faulty sense of right and wrong, a propensity to pass judgement and the use of double standards between groups, forgiving all transgression of in-groups and acting highly aggressively towards those in the out group.

It is suggested that this information may greatly help to heal the political divide in the West today.

This is a public service announcement.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The communist Gramsci and co aren't liberals, the term has been corrupted and claimed by the left. Wrongfully because the left had equality as a priority, and this necessarily gets in the way of Liberty, which liberalism is about.

Thread solved.

Political correctness is just a code name for white genocide.

I am entirely in agreement with you.

With political correctness we suffer from this corruption on words.

I had to write the piece using certain words that would be understood in today's climate.

I agree that the word liberal actually means what we call today classical liberal or libertarian. Liberalism today is used as a code name for Gramsci's march through the institutions.



Posted from TSR Mobile

I oppose this pc thing as well. We mustn't let the supposedly benpensanti leftist hypocrites suppress our freedoms. An example would be laws against "homophobia". I'm pro choice and in favour of rights and liberties, but everyone should have the right to express their opinion, especially if it's different from the common one. And things can get more complicated than "I like/don't like gays", so we shouldn't impose the dominant view under the threat of a punishment.

Now while we have the leverage, meaning the Trump movement and Brexit (regardless of whether one agrees with them or not) we need to just uproot, kill and bury this beast of political correctness. It's a very serious matter because left unchecked, people are gutless and it will escalate further than it has already into a full blown terror by ideology, state and media.

Can I call you all Little Islander British pigs?

Sure you can. You are a free person and no one should dictate what you say.

But just to be balanced you should I suppose then also call Tibetans, Palestinians, African nationalists, South American people who have indigenous interests and the Japanese - little insular pigs.

Crikey - why would I want to do that. I live in a civilised society. Feel free to crawl back into your pit.

I find it so hard to understand why this is such a contentious issue. Today it seems to be called political correctness. When I was growing up in the 80s it was called good manners. In Victorian times it was called etiquette. Why is being polite and respectful in the way we talk to other people such a big deal? No one is saying you can't be rude - you absolutely can, but understand that if you are rude to people, at best you will be shouted back at and at worst, you will get a slap.

Oh so if it's only your society you comment on I guess you must like Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump as well as your fellow human beings? No, so you don't like British little islander pigs, Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen but you like Hindu BJP Indians, Tibetans with national concerns, Palestinians with national concerns, Africans / South Americans with national/ indigenous concerns.

I wonder how you have categorised these things and what these categories have in common.

I have no problem with people who have national issues. But with over 170,000 words in the English language, it is quite easy to express those issues without resorting to derogatory language.

You appear to be a little annoyed that I called you a British Little Islander Pig. Why is that?

>Calls someone a pig
>Then lectures about good manners

If ever there was a microcosm for the ridiculous hypocrisy of the PC brigade, there it is.

Personally I just think of insults and negative comments as a part of life and something that is mostly harmless.

But the important point is that political correctness was not set up to deal with people getting offended. Offence sensitive is simply a political tool to level out groups as liberals see it, to stop some groups from oppressing other groups. It's designed to remove the power from what they see as the dominant groups, hence they usually apply it in one direction not the other.

There are a lot of words in the English language, but uneducated people or the working class may not have the ability to use these words properly. It has in any respect created a dynamic whereby most of the population are terrified of publicly approaching these areas.

A brilliant description. And is that not a good thing? Using social pressure to ensure people speak respectfully to each.

The end goal is not about ensuring that people speak to each other nicely. The end goal is to address things like the gender pay gap, diversity in companies, acceptance of gays, tolerance for Islam etc.

Yep. All worthy aims no?

It's a matter of opinion whether they are worthy principles. Let's assume that they are noble principles. It is an inverse morality that say you must censor and use force or coercion to enforce them.

Ayn Rand said that people should have absolute freedom except for pursuits where they impact the life or liberty of another and the use or force or coercion is absolutely and morally wrong.

What is more if we punish people for offending someone's sensibilities, who is to say what the right sensibilities are? Why are the sensibilities of the group that enforce the punishment correct? And wha gives them the right to enforce them? It's just another form of fascism, with the liberal left intelligentsia enforcing their will through force.

That is really sad. That you feel equality is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it is the very corner stone of a civilised society. You are calling for freedom of speech but you are not prepared to offer people freedom of expression, be it in religion, sexual orientation or gender. I don't get that.

Why is freedom of speech more important than freedom of expression?