Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    No, ,you're just picking and choosing what you want to constitute 'political correctness', as the right does, it's the whole point of the term for them. If you express the view that sex outside of marriage is shameful or immoral are you not trying to make people feel guilty?
    No, that isn't what this is about.

    This is about how "political correctness" is a direct attack on the heritage of the West.

    And you do know that such opinions have no chance of being expressed without someone being called a "fascist" somewhere down the line.

    The issue of immigration is the perfect example. As Alasdair has already shown by his outbursts, those who oppose mass immigration are "racists" or "xenophobes".
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No...
    Yes, yes it is. I've demonstrated already that if you offer a particular political view as correct you're indulging in political correctness, in that respect it's something we all do. Right-wingers try and reduce this 'political correctness' to the stuff they don't like and ignore the fact that their 'defence of marriage' or whatever is also 'political correctness'. Your very denials in the face of the facts prove my point, thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Yes, yes it is. I've demonstrated already that if you offer a particular political view as correct you're indulging in political correctness, in that respect it's something we all do. Right-wingers try and reduce this 'political correctness' to the stuff they don't like and ignore the fact that their 'defence of marriage' or whatever is also 'political correctness'. Your very denials in the face of the facts prove my point, thank you.
    No, as I said you are reading into it too literally.

    Look at the post above, look at the example of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said and then tell me that there isn't a politically correct, multiculturist agenda.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, as I said you are reading into it too literally.

    ...
    Nope, you just don't like the fact that you indulge in as much 'political correctness' as anyone else might. If you are going to claim my defence of 'multiculturalism' is 'political correctness' then I'm entirely justified in claiming your attack on it, or your defence of 'monoculturalism' is also 'political correctness'. The fact is the right want to limit the label of 'political correctness' to the things they are hostile to - which is what you're doing right now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Nope, you just don't like the fact that you indulge in as much 'political correctness' as anyone else might. If you are going to claim my defence of 'multiculturalism' is 'political correctness' then I'm entirely justified in claiming your attack on it, or your defence of 'monoculturalism' is also 'political correctness'. The fact is the right want to limit the label of 'political correctness' to the things they are hostile to - which is what you're doing right now.
    No, I don't because I don't just disagree with some of the politically correct opinions, I agree with some of them.

    But I suggest you read "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt" by Paul Gottfried, it will open your eyes to what the PC agenda is and why it should be opposed.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, I don't because I don't just disagree with some of the politically correct opinions, I agree with some of them.
    ....
    Now you're indulging in circular reasoning. I'm arguing that any political view which is expressed as the correct one can be given the label 'political correctness' but that those on the right have found it convenient to take up the term partially so as to condemn those political assertions they don't like. As I say, if you can call a defence of 'multiculturalism' 'political correctness' I can call an attack on it 'political correctness' because in both cases a political position is taken up as if the correct one.

    Should I feel guilty for having sex and not being married?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'm arguing that any political view which is expressed as the correct one can be given the label 'political correctness' but that those on the right have found it convenient to take up the term partially so as to condemn those political assertions they don't like.
    But this is silly, because the term no longer means 'a political view which is correct' but rather refers to a specific point of view, namely, roughly what the Guardian would think on any particular issue. It is now a rigid designator rather than a definite description, as they'd say in the philosophy of language. 'Political correctness' is now functioning as a single semantic unit in much the same way that 'butterfly' does; it does not mean 'fly that likes butter.'
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    "Political correctness" is, generally, a compliance to the general ideological atmosphere of the times, commonly sustained by government policy. Oswy can play his little word games all he likes, but "political correctness" is not a subjective notion.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    "Political correctness" is, generally, a compliance to the general ideological atmosphere of the times, commonly sustained by government policy...
    While I don't agree this is more easily defended. It would, of course, mean that in a 'general ideological atmosphere of the times' which was conservative and promoted by conservative government policies, such conservatism would be 'political correctness'.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    While I don't agree this is more easily defended. It would, of course, mean that in a 'general ideological atmosphere of the times' which was conservative and promoted by conservative government policies, such conservatism would be 'political correctness'.
    When exactly are we talking about here? With a conservative/traditionalist atmosphere then Don_Scott's comments would, probably, be "politically correct" (depending on whether or not the establishment upholds these values). But you can't just say something is "politically correct" for an individual. It is an "individual correctness" if anything, that conforms to an ideological atmosphere that doesn't exist. It would be akin to me saying your Marxist ideals are politically correct for you as an individual, when it wouldn't be for the current government (but would be for a Marxist state). In the end, it's all dependent on the present establishment and its "fallout". And, in the present, the issues Don_Scott mentioned aren't politically correct. All that matters is the present, not some random imaginery government plucked out of nowhere.

    Edit: Also, to put this down entirely to the establishment is a bit narrow too. It's not a political issue as much as a socio-political one, with supplementary contributives to PC by the media, civil servants, probably the clergy (although less so these days), and other influential societal groupings.

    What exactly is your idea of political correctness?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    When exactly are we talking about here? With a conservative/traditionalist atmosphere then Don_Scott's comments would, probably, be "politically correct" (depending on whether or not the establishment upholds these values). But you can't just say something is "politically correct" for an individual. It is an "individual correctness" if anything, that conforms to an ideological atmosphere that doesn't exist. It would be akin to me saying your Marxist ideals are politically correct for you as an individual, when it wouldn't be for the current government (but would be for a Marxist state). In the end, it's all dependent on the present establishment and its "fallout". And, in the present, the issues Don_Scott mentioned aren't politically correct. All that matters is the present, not some random imaginery government plucked out of nowhere.

    Edit: Also, to put this down entirely to the establishment is a bit narrow too. It's not a political issue as much as a socio-political one, with supplementary contributives to PC by the media, civil servants, probably the clergy (although less so these days), and other influential societal groupings.

    What exactly is your idea of political correctness?
    Sorry, I couldn't follow much of that.

    Anyway, here's a mini-essay I wrote a while back here at TSR setting out why I think the term is a problematic one:


    Political Correctness.

    Most of us think we know what ‘political correctness’ is. The conventional wisdom is that this useful term tends to identify what is understood as a relatively recent emergence of opinions and attitudes which, in one way or another, can be regarded as politically motivated attacks. Most often these political attacks are deemed to be directed at the ordinary everyday behaviour of ordinary everyday people, just living their lives. Political correctness, it is thus understood, tries to tell us that it is wrong to use a certain (apparently) ‘offensive’ word, or wrong to behave in a way that someone or other (not us) might find ‘threatening’ or ‘belittling’. In short, political correctness represents an utterly inappropriate attack on the mundane, even innocuous, aspects of human life as lived by good, decent people, and is thus an attack on ‘common sense’ itself.

    But there’s another way to understand this expression.

    The accusation of political correctness - and it is always an accusation - allows us, so we think, to identify the invasion of ideology (usually, though not necessarily, associated even if in some vague sense with liberal or left thinking) into spheres of human life which don’t need such vulgarly political interference. But there’s a problem. It’s impossible to make a claim of political correctness without this claim, inevitably, representing an assertion that some other point of view is actually correct, and when taken to logical conclusion, politically correct. And there’s the rub. When we point a finger at what we deem to be evidence of the ‘politically correct’ we might as well point that finger back at ourselves, for we, too, are offering a political correction in that very act. When we lament that not being allowed to tell sexist jokes in the office is an example of political correctness we are promoting the idea that being able to tell sexist jokes is, or should be, politically acceptable, and thus politically ‘correct’. When we criticise that we can’t make humorous references to ‘Golly Wogs’ thanks to the killjoys of political correctness we are in that very criticism asserting that such terms should not be subject to censorship, that they are politically legitimate, and thus politically ‘correct’.

    The reason why so many fail to see the real political situatedness of using the term ‘political correctness’ is that superficially, when such an accusation of political correctness is made, it is understood as being made from an entirely neutral, or ‘indifferent’, vantage point, but this just can’t be so. To object to any political position is to assert another one, even if only in reference to that position. If we criticise those who are offended by racist language we are making a political defence of racist language, if we criticise those who are offended by the lampooning of homosexuals we are making a political defence of the right to lampoon homosexuals. There is no neutral space from which to criticise the politically correct and so the accuser is, inevitably, if ignorantly, offering their own politically ‘correct’ alternative position.

    When we recognise the inherently political nature of using the term ‘political correctness’ as accusation we can thus recognise that it is an attempted fraud. It attempts to identify a certain political view is illegitimate because the claim asserts to be made from a politically neutral vantage point – something we know to be impossible.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Sorry, I couldn't follow much of that.

    Anyway, here's a mini-essay I wrote a while back here at TSR setting out why I think the term is a problematic one:
    Indeed. That is an interesting perspective. But I wouldn't say, necessarily, that an accusation of the 'politically correct' aura of the times, automatically equates to the upholding of an alternative standpoint. It's a rather two-dimensional perspective. You can criticise those things considered 'politically correct' without upholding the diametrically opposed view. And even if you do then this wouldn't be a form of 'political correctness', it would be an 'individual ideological correctness'. In my view, something only qualifies as 'politically correct' if it is the mainstream view. People who show an opposition to this mainstream view may well be asserting their own 'individual correctness' and may well want this to become 'political correctness' - but until it is then it will remain nothing but the individual's ideal. If that ideal became 'politically correct' then people will, undoubtedly, disagree with it still. The shoe will be on the other foot. But these opponents are not upholding 'political correctness' as much as it is their personal 'individual ideal'. I guess your point deals with potentiality more than anything. I don't think the notion of 'political correctness' can be subverted by mere potential. For example, if a Marxist state miraculously managed to appear, it would spread its own political correctness among the populace, but people opposing this are merely upholding the potential for 'political correctness' - when it is, in fact, nothing but their own ideal. If the Marxist state was subverted, and the opposing viewpoint became the mainstream, then, and only then, would it become 'political correctness'. When the potential is actualised.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    ...You can criticise those things considered 'politically correct' without upholding the diametrically opposed view. And even if you do then this wouldn't be a form of 'political correctness', it would be an 'individual ideological correctness'. In my view, something only qualifies as 'politically correct' if it is the mainstream view...
    Ok, but you're at least agreeing that to criticise something or other as 'politically correct' is necessarily taking up another political position of some sort, and that's what I think others here are missing altogether. There's a danger of getting into semantics but for me if you take up a political position then it's political, whether others share that position or not. I also think that reference to 'the mainstream' is problematic in your conception because plenty of political positions easily labelled as 'PC' are not necessarily mainstream, like those who prefer to call 'Christmas' 'Festival Season' instead (or whatever), most people aren't actually doing that.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grim_the_Reaper)
    I find it hilarious that many of UAF's founding members are part of Labour.

    Fascists believe in a DNA database, ID cards and 42 days detention.

    Things that are supported by Labour.

    The BNP, to their credit, oppose all three.

    It's quite clear who the fascists are, and the UAF is a joke with members of the most fascist-like party in the UK dominating it.

    The UAF are basically Labour's Brownshirts.
    Red Ken's their chairman. It's quite obvious.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    ... People who show an opposition to this mainstream view may well be asserting their own 'individual correctness' and may well want this to become 'political correctness' - but until it is then it will remain nothing but the individual's ideal...
    I'd simply say you're arbitrarily choosing to drop the 'political' and without good cause. Just because an individual takes up a position doesn't make it less political, not in my view. But in any event I don't think the conflict over 'political correctness' manifests itself in that way, both positions accused of 'political correctness' and those which stand in opposition to them usually occupy a well-recognised space taken up by entire groups in society. If you oppose, for example, the banning of Irish jokes from the office then you're defending a cultural practice that was rather widespread and is probably even today widely recognised. What examples would you give of opposition to political correctness which have a very individualist quality, just out of curiosity?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Grim_the_Reaper)
    I find it hilarious that many of UAF's founding members are part of Labour.

    Fascists believe in a DNA database, ID cards and 42 days detention.

    Things that are supported by Labour.

    The BNP, to their credit, oppose all three.

    It's quite clear who the fascists are, and the UAF is a joke with members of the most fascist-like party in the UK dominating it.

    The UAF are basically Labour's Brownshirts.
    Do you oppose fascism? Do you oppose racism?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'd simply say you're arbitrarily choosing to drop the 'political' and without good cause. Just because an individual takes up a position doesn't make it less political, not in my view. But in any event I don't think the conflict over 'political correctness' manifests itself in that way, both positions accused of 'political correctness' and those which stand in opposition to them usually occupy a well-recognised space taken up by entire groups in society. If you oppose, for example, the banning of Irish jokes from the office then you're defending a cultural practice that was rather widespread and is probably even today widely recognised. What examples would you give of opposition to political correctness which have a very individualist quality, just out of curiosity?
    I'm only using the term 'political correctness' to denote what I mentioned above. About it being the fallout from establishment policy and general ideological atmosphere. I agree that an opposing view isn't any less 'political' - ultimately, it is just an issue of semantics. It's just a label. There's 'political correctness' - that defined above - and that which is not 'political correctness'. I think the individualist quality comes from the fact that opposition to 'political correctness' is extremely diverse. Where PC usually adopts one ideological position, opposition to it can come from all over the political spectrum, with a range of different intensities. Although it's probably not entirely individualist - there will be groups of people sharing the same ideological standpoint in opposition to 'political correctness' - the diverse range of opposition essentially means we must address the lowest common denominator - that is the individual. Again, opposition to PC is purely cognitive - and therefore, nothing but potentiality. I believe it can only adopt the role of 'political correctness' if it is actualised as the general ideological atmosphere/fallout from establishment politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, many forms of political correctness are attacks upon the traditional morality of old. If I believe that some political position is correct, that doesn't make me "politically correct" in the way the word is used.

    For example, consider how Alasdair declared everyone who opposed mass immigration to be a "racist" or how Ayaan Hirsi Ali declared that anyone opposed to abortion will support genocide (the irony is hilarious!). Just because I say that I'm opposed to mass immigration or to abortion, that doesn't make my opinions "politically correct" in the sense we are talking about.

    Poltical correctness is essentially an attempt to marginalise those who disagree with the broadly socially liberal "consensus" of the Guardian/College Campus variety.

    It comes directly from the Frankfurt School.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Do you oppose fascism? Do you oppose racism?
    Err..yes. Where did I say I supported such things?

    I was merely pointing out that UAF is run by people who label opponents fascists when they're a political wing of a party that arguably acts the most fascist-like of all British political parties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grim_the_Reaper)
    Err..yes. Where did I say I supported such things?

    I was merely pointing out that UAF is run by people who label opponents fascists when they're a political wing of a party that arguably acts the most fascist-like of all British political parties.
    What Labour is doing isn't fascism, it is a natural consequence of the welfare state.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.