12
   

Political Correctness And The Death Of The Truth In Society

 
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 03:57 pm
Why can't anyone in our society speak the truth regarding Hispanic and black destructive social pathologies? Does this mean that we are living in a society now like the one George Orwell prophesied in his book 1984?

What does this say about the future of a society based on lies?

Why do we have to lie?

Why do we have to let free speech and free thought and truth begin to die?

What does this say about the possibility of philosophy if we are punished for speaking the truth?

To call someone a 'racist' today is similar to what it used to mean in the Inquisition where to call someone an unbeliever in Christianity meant severe penalties. There is no free speech or free thought allowed in either case.


The problem is that someone who wishes to speak the truth may not be a real 'racist' at all. He may just simply believe that he is speaking the truth.

Preventing people from speaking the truth does not make the truth -the subject matter of which they are speaking -disappear. It makes us look ridiculous.

Preventing people from speaking the truth by imposing legal and civil penalties is indicative of a creeping totalitarian society. The American people are too afraid of speaking the truth and the door to a big brother, neo-totalitarian society is now wide open.

The American people are blind to this creeping totalitarianism. They will laugh about it and turn it into a pornographic joke. The truth is that the acceptance of political correctness is a great source of America's decadence and decline and it is intrinsically connected to a Pornographic Media, Unrestrained Capitalism and Greed, Abusive Political Power and a creeping Police State.


Political Correctness is a form of anti-morality and decadence.
--
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 9,393 • Replies: 138

 
Jebediah
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 04:05 pm
@Pythagorean,
PC lies are an overreaction to other lies. Some sort of balance will work its way out one hopes.
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 04:10 pm
@Pythagorean,
Political Correctness is a form of morality and general good-will politeness. It also helps avoid making harmful inductions plagued by anecdotal experience, and reactionary diatribes against it remind us all that racism is still alive today.


I mean, really: with an opening question like what you just posted, how do you expect anyone to react to this? I'd ask what you think the "truth" is, but that awful opening gives me a pretty good indication. Geeminee, this is a depressing read.
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:12 pm
@Pythagorean,
I don't think Political Correctness causes all that much lying. More like discretion. Going out of your way to say that the difference in education levels between white people and black people can be accounted for by differences in socioeconomic status, for example. It's true and it acknowledges that racist beliefs were very common recently.

I think people shying away from facts because they sound like something a racist would believe is a problem. But that doesn't seem specific to PC. People will shy away from facts because they sound unchristian, unamerican, too patriotic, etc.

I don't see any evidence for "the death of truth" either, that is I don't see that our society is much different from previous societies.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:17 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170511 wrote:
Why can't anyone in our society speak the truth regarding Hispanic and black destructive social pathologies?


What pathologies are we talking about?
Pythagorean
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:49 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;170563 wrote:
What pathologies are we talking about?


The kind of pathologies that makes one who utters the truth about them a 'racist'.

Let's begin my crucifixation with the rates of illegitimacy in the black community.

-

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 08:53 PM ----------

Huxley;170517 wrote:



I mean, really: with an opening question like what you just posted, how do you expect anyone to react to this? I'd ask what you think the "truth" is, but that awful opening gives me a pretty good indication. Geeminee, this is a depressing read.



He's already implied that I am a 'racist' here, just by bringing up the topic. He is the neo-totalitarian insider.

-
Reconstructo
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:58 pm
@Pythagorean,
Let's imagine that everyone becomes as beige as they are pink, and as brown as they are pink. An inverted spectrum experiment, sort of. I don't think that anyone blames the melanin in human skin, so I'm not implying that. And certainly this melanin has a symbolic effect that influences our behavior....

I think we have to look at wealth, education, and the myth involved with skin tone, and avoid focusing too much on actual skin tone. American blacks aren't very black compared to Africans, and I think it's because they are "white" to some degree. We are more mixed than we think, perhaps. So blackness and whiteness are largely symbolic abstractions?
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:59 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170584 wrote:
The kind of pathologies that makes one who utters the truth about them a 'racist'.

Let's begin my crucifixation with the rates of illegitimacy in the black community.

-


A pathology is a disease, and illegitimacy is having children out of wedlock. You will not be crucified for talking about how illegitimacy rates are higher in black communities and what the causes are, you might be for talking about the pathologies of black communities. So you see it isn't about truth, it's about language. You are careful about how what you say could be interpreted, the same as with any sensitive issue.

That some people react to "intolerant sounding language" when the other person isn't being malicious in any way is unfortunate.
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:13 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170584 wrote:


He's already implied that I am a 'racist' here, just by bringing up the topic. He is the neo-totalitarian insider.

-


It wasn't for bringing up the topic, period. Reread your first sentence. You take as self evident in this question that the black and hispanic communities have destructive pathologies, and you focus upon these two groups and these two groups only.

I would find a question of the form: "Does PC help or hinder society?" followed by a "No, because the value prevents criticism of certain groups or individuals" followed by good evidence to support said claim to be a reasonable introduction to discussing the virtues of PC. Instead, what you wrote implicates that the black and hispanic communities qua race have destructive pathologies as a priori truth. Can you see how that comes across as racist?
Pythagorean
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:13 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;170593 wrote:
A pathology is a disease, and illegitimacy is having children out of wedlock. You will not be crucified for talking about how illegitimacy rates are higher in black communities and what the causes are, you might be for talking about the pathologies of black communities. So you see it isn't about truth, it's about language.


The truth is that I know what the word pathology means. You are changing the subject by narrowly redefining a word.

Why are we skirting around the subject? Why can't we just say, for example, that the black 'rapping pimp' that is glorified in popular culture is an outright manifestation of pure evil and should be completely eradicated from society? Why pretend that these pathologies don't matter to society or, worse that they don't exist?





Quote:
You are careful about how what you say could be interpreted, the same as with any sensitive issue.



I am interested in what it is that makes it a 'sensitive issue'. You seem to be playing games.

Quote:
That some people react to "intolerant sounding language" when the other person isn't being malicious in any way is unfortunate.



It is astonishing to me that someone living in American could not be fully aware that speaking negatively in any way about black people makes them automatically 'racist'. I simply don't believe that you aren't aware of this fact.

-
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:29 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170603 wrote:
The truth is that I know what the word pathology means. You are changing the subject by narrowly redefining a word.

Why are we skirting around the subject? Why can't we just say, for example, that the black 'rapping pimp' that is glorified in popular culture is an outright manifestation of pure evil and should be completely eradicated from society? Why pretend that these pathologies don't matter to society or, worse that they don't exist?


The language is very strong. Pathology, pure evil, etc. It isn't a matter of pure evil. Not using that kind of extreme language isn't pretending they don't matter or don't exist.

Quote:

I am interested in what it is that makes it a 'sensitive issue'. You seem to be playing games.
Race and gender are sensitive issues aren't they?

Quote:
It is astonishing to me that someone living in American could not be fully aware that speaking negatively in any way about black people makes them automatically 'racist'. I simply don't believe that you aren't aware of this fact.
Huxley helps your point, but I still disagree with "in any way". For most people, simply going out of your way to say that it isn't anything inherently to do with race, but rather poverty and culture, will do just fine.


There are people who are racist, and since I am not a racist, I will use language that won't be interpreted as racist if the person I am talking to might take it that way. Simple. That is PC in a nutshell.
0 Replies
 
Pythagorean
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:31 pm
@Huxley,
Huxley;170602 wrote:
It wasn't for bringing up the topic, period. Reread your first sentence. You take as self evident in this question that the black and hispanic communities have destructive pathologies, and you focus upon these two groups and these two groups only.

I would find a question of the form: "Does PC help or hinder society?" followed by a "No, because the value prevents criticism of certain groups or individuals" followed by good evidence to support said claim to be a reasonable introduction to discussing the virtues of PC. Instead, what you wrote implicates that the black and hispanic communities qua race have destructive pathologies as a priori truth. Can you see how that comes across as racist?


It doesn't matter how you phrase it, you are calling me a racist precisely because I challenged your politically correct mind-set. You are even rewriting my post while at the same time pretending that freedom of expression is not limited by Political Correctness. This would be laughable if it was not so wide spread. I challenge anyone with an unbiased mind to look at my opening text to decide for themselves whether or not it is racist.

Why is it 'racist' to speak the truth about the levels of criminal behaviour in the Hispanic and black communities? Just because they are black and Hispanic? I don't get it. The question should be whether they are riddled with pathologies or not. Instead the question is whether someone who thinks they are is an automatic 'racist'.

I'm not saying that being black or being brown makes you bad. I am saying that the American Hispanic and black neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods. And you are saying that I am a racist for stating this obvious truth.


-

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 09:45 PM ----------

Jebediah;170609 wrote:
The language is very strong. Pathology, pure evil, etc. It isn't a matter of pure evil. Not using that kind of extreme language isn't pretending they don't matter or don't exist.


Now, speaking a truth that is as plain as the day is long has become "extreme".

Jebediah;170609 wrote:
Race and gender are sensitive issues aren't they?


What makes them so?

Jebediah;170609 wrote:
Huxley helps your point, but I still disagree with "in any way". For most people, simply going out of your way to say that it isn't anything inherently to do with race, but rather poverty and culture, will do just fine.


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it does have to do with race and that culture and race are no scientifically separable things. In this case you are advocating lies pure and simple. Why limit what people can say in the first place? Why are you denying the power of the word 'racist'?



Jebediah;170609 wrote:
There are people who are racist, and since I am not a racist, I will use language that won't be interpreted as racist if the person I am talking to might take it that way. Simple. That is PC in a nutshell.



Yes, and Huxley is trying to teach you a lesson that you should really learn. Again, I find your seeming lack of knowledge on this important social issue a bit unbelievable.

And even as you state that you must be careful with language itself, you imply that P.C. is something other than what it obviously is.

-
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:55 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170612 wrote:

Now, speaking a truth that is as plain as the day is long has become "extreme".


If it isn't plain to me then I don't think it is as plain as day.

Quote:
What makes them so?


Historical and present day circumstances.

Quote:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it does have to do with race and that culture and race are no scientifically separable things. In this case you are advocating lies pure and simple. Why limit what people can say in the first place? Why are you denying the power of the word 'racist'?


Why would we say something so false for the sake of argument? Yes, if we assume something false for the sake of argument than I am advocating lies pure and simple.


Quote:
Yes, and Huxley is trying to teach you a lesson that you should really learn. Again, I find your seeming lack of knowledge on this important social issue a bit unbelievable.


Sure I see people do that a lot. But many people are reasonable about such things. Criticizing PC is fairly common.

Quote:
And even as you state that you must be careful with language itself, you imply that P.C. is something other than what it obviously is.

-


You've lost me I'm afraid.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 08:21 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170603 wrote:

Why are we skirting around the subject? Why can't we just say, for example, that the black 'rapping pimp' that is glorified in popular culture is an outright manifestation of pure evil and should be completely eradicated from society? Why pretend that these pathologies don't matter to society or, worse that they don't exist?
-

I say that this pimp-image is just one breed of many such images that span the culture from rich to poor. Woman as object (flesh as commodity), sensual indulgence as freedom and purpose, conspicuous consumption, money as the Good.

A rich white man lives off capital, spends his time seducing poor girls with his Bentley and designer suits. Doesn't impregnate them for financial reasons especially but certainly isn't going to marry them either. He doesn't work. He leaves big tips, though. He drinks nothing that cost less than 200 dollars a bottle. Occasionally he will hire certain girls for group entertainment, but there are expensive girls, the cleanest bought flesh available, for his capital is large. He likes drugs, too, but he can usually get them legally, because his doctors are well paid, and in cash if they prefer.
He spends some of this capital on those lobbyist that keep credit cards from being restricted on their interest rates. Lord knows he doesn't want that to happen! Because that's where his money comes from in the first place. He lives on this abstraction money. He's 100 percent legal, though, thanks to his brilliant but expensive accountant who finds all those wonderful loopholes. How dare they try to tax him so much!
0 Replies
 
Pythagorean
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 08:47 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;170620 wrote:
If it isn't plain to me then I don't think it is as plain as day.


You are playing with words.

You are saying that my language is extreme while at the same time implicitly excusing the pathologies such as the illegitimacy rates or the public profanities. Now these illegitimacy rates and these profanities are the real extreme. However, you choose to stand truth on its head and defend them against anyone who speaks the truth about them. This is an advocation of lying about the obvious. You are saying that it is more extreme to talk frankly about murder rates in the black community than it is to actually commit those murders. Limiting speech as you are doing will not solve any problems but only make things a lot worse.



Jebediah;170620 wrote:
Historical and present day circumstances.


You refuse to openly identify the circumstances. You refuse to say that it is taboo to speak the truth about this insanity of homosexual permiscuousness and perversity and black and Hispanic crime rates.



Jebediah;170620 wrote:
Why would we say something so false for the sake of argument? Yes, if we assume something false for the sake of argument than I am advocating lies pure and simple.


Then all you have to do is to prove that race and culture are scientifically separate things. The truth is that no one can separate them and you are obviously advocating Politically Correct lies and trying to cover it up with various dodging tactics.






Jebediah;170620 wrote:
Sure I see people do that a lot. But many people are reasonable about such things. Criticizing PC is fairly common.


You fail to address the power of the word 'racist' in today's society. You fail to understand what I am saying. Even when Huxley's example is staring at you right in front of your eyes.



Jebediah;170620 wrote:
You've lost me I'm afraid.


You keep mentioning language to me. I wonder why?


Jebediah;170609 wrote:
The language is very strong.



Jebediah;170609 wrote:
I will use language that won't be interpreted as racist if the person I am talking to might take it that way.


Why do you protect crime, violence, illegitimacy and pimp behaviour on the one hand yet condemn me for speaking the plain truth about these things on the other hand? This is ridiculous that you espouse Politically Correct views and then deny that you are doing so at the same time. As I said, it would be laughable if it were not so widespread.


-
0 Replies
 
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 01:08 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170612 wrote:
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, you are calling me a racist precisely because I challenged your politically correct mind-set. You are even rewriting my post while at the same time pretending that freedom of expression is not limited by Political Correctness. This would be laughable if it was not so wide spread. I challenge anyone with an unbiased mind to look at my opening text to decide for themselves whether or not it is racist.


It does matter how you phrase things. That's how you convey meaning. I rewrote nothing. I challenged your initial assertion, and for good reason. You didn't support it -- you took it as given, and you continue to take it as a given. I challenged your initial assertion on the basis that I suspected your given premise was supported by anecdotal bias which linked race to bad behavior.

Quote:

Why is it 'racist' to speak the truth about the levels of criminal behaviour in the Hispanic and black communities? Just because they are black and Hispanic? I don't get it. The question should be whether they are riddled with pathologies or not. Instead the question is whether someone who thinks they are is an automatic 'racist'.


Well, now you're at least questioning whether they are or are not riddled with pathologies. That's good, in my book. Let's stay there, as you request. The "racist" remark was a jab in your direction to make you rethink what you wrote -- in my opinion, "racist" has become such an ugly term that we can't even talk about whether we have racist opinions or not -- as if we have to fit the mold of 1960's racism in order to still be considered racist. This, unto itself, is a bad thing. We should discuss race, and we should discuss it with the understanding that it's probable we hold racist views. The 60's weren't that long ago, after all. The viewpoints and experiences of our parents and grandparents likely still affect us.

Quote:

I'm not saying that being black or being brown makes you bad. I am saying that the American Hispanic and black neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods. And you are saying that I am a racist for stating this obvious truth.


That's good that you're now looking at this from the perspective of neighborhoods, though I'd still say you should research this and see if all black and hispanic neighborhoods are as bad as you say. Read your first sentence again, which does not mention neighborhoods:

Quote:
Why can't anyone in our society speak the truth regarding Hispanic and black destructive social pathologies?


This reads as if the social pathologies are in the skin color of these individuals. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, now, but can you see how this sentence comes across? Clear communication is important, even more so with respect to sensitive topics.
Pythagorean
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:28 pm
@Huxley,
Huxley;170918 wrote:
It does matter how you phrase things. That's how you convey meaning. I rewrote nothing. I challenged your initial assertion, and for good reason. You didn't support it -- you took it as given, and you continue to take it as a given. I challenged your initial assertion on the basis that I suspected your given premise was supported by anecdotal bias which linked race to bad behavior.


You are playing games. We can not speak as if we were adults due to the Politically Correct stranglehold. And 'anecdotal bias' is just another name you have given me for 'racist'. You cannot speak your mind and I cannot speak my mind, that is the result of the discussion between you and me; that is the agreement that you were eager to make.



Huxley;170918 wrote:
Well, now you're at least questioning whether they are or are not riddled with pathologies. That's good, in my book. Let's stay there, as you request. The "racist" remark was a jab in your direction to make you rethink what you wrote -- in my opinion, "racist" has become such an ugly term that we can't even talk about whether we have racist opinions or not -- as if we have to fit the mold of 1960's racism in order to still be considered racist. This, unto itself, is a bad thing. We should discuss race, and we should discuss it with the understanding that it's probable we hold racist views. The 60's weren't that long ago, after all. The viewpoints and experiences of our parents and grandparents likely still affect us.


This is Politically Correct double speak. I made my self perfectly clear from the beginning. You focus on language and meaning at the expense of excusing murder, hatred, and social devastation. As if mentioning the race of the murderer were more immoral than murder itself. This is shameful.



Huxley;170918 wrote:
That's good that you're now looking at this from the perspective of neighborhoods, though I'd still say you should research this and see if all black and hispanic neighborhoods are as bad as you say. Read your first sentence again, which does not mention neighborhoods:



This reads as if the social pathologies are in the skin color of these individuals. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, now, but can you see how this sentence comes across? Clear communication is important, even more so with respect to sensitive topics.


You banish the truth in the name of Political Correctness. Again, you are a neo-totalitarian insider, pure and simple.

-
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:34 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Why can't anyone in our society speak the truth regarding Hispanic and black destructive social pathologies?


Can you expound on this?
0 Replies
 
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:43 pm
@Pythagorean,
Oi vey... I tried to extend the olive branch, but your misinterpreted copy of 1984 just kept getting in the way.

I mentioned "anecdote" because it's a common mistake people make. Induction is a messy business, and really, isn't logically valid. At least I know of no current description that rigorously defends induction logically. Also, confirmation bias is a well known phenomena, and something one should address in their own inductions. No matter how many times you state "TRUTH!" and "Oh ye equivocators of truth, how I pity thee in thine immoral slumbers!", you still have to demonstrate that you have the truth. The fact that you're talking about a social system only complicates the issue further. Social systems are difficult to understand, and sound conclusions are hard to reach.

Also, neo-totalitarian insider? Like, do I receive the neo-liberal-fascist-commie weekly, updating me on what words have been eliminated from the New World Order's dictionary?
Jebediah
 
  0  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:49 pm
@Huxley,
Huxley;170970 wrote:
Oi vey... I tried to extend the olive branch, but your misinterpreted copy of 1984 just kept getting in the way.

I mentioned "anecdote" because it's a common mistake people make. Induction is a messy business, and really, isn't logically valid. At least I know of no current description that rigorously defends induction logically. Also, confirmation bias is a well known phenomena, and something one should address in their own inductions. No matter how many times you state "TRUTH!" and "Oh ye equivocators of truth, how I pity thee in thine immoral slumbers!", you still have to demonstrate that you have the truth. The fact that you're talking about a social system only complicates the issue further. Social systems are difficult to understand, and sound conclusions are hard to reach.

Also, neo-totalitarian insider? Like, do I receive the neo-liberal-fascist-commie weekly, updating me on what words have been eliminated from the New World Order's dictionary?


Thanks for this...for this whole post Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Thoughts on Political Correctness - Discussion by ebrown p
Lipstick vs. Uppity - Discussion by A Lone Voice
Word for a belief that ... ? - Discussion by Charli
Political correctness - Question by saab
Sports PC Run Amok - Discussion by Advocate
The NFL and political correctness - Discussion by maxdancona
Stormfront is Full of Lies - Discussion by JoeBruno
Nothing wrong with political correctness - Discussion by maxdancona
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Political Correctness And The Death Of The Truth In Society
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2019 at 01:24:14