Political Correctness And The Death Of The Truth In Society

@Pythagorean,

Huxley wrote:

Induction is a messy business, and really, isn't logically valid. At least I know of no current description that rigorously defends induction logically.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'd really like to know what you mean by this. Do you mean that if I induce that the brakes on my car will stop my car tomorrow, just as they did today, I am not being rational?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;170977 wrote:

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'd really like to know what you mean by this. Do you mean that if I induce that the brakes on my car will stop my car tomorrow, just as they did today, I am not being rational?

No, I think it's rational. I... was probably not staying on topic enough myself. I was more referring to the "Problem of Induction", demonstrated by Hume. So.... yeah.... way off topic with respect to this thread.

0 Replies

@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.

Let's be clear: You are the one who first implied that I am a 'racist'. And then you changed the subject to language and meaning which you now have the gall to call an 'olive branch'. This is absurd. Either there is a problem in the black and Hispanic communities in America or there isn't. That is the question. You have refused to even address the subject of Political Correctness. You have rather exhibited to the unbiased observer that you yourself subscribe, at least to some degree, to the Politically Correct ideology as should be clear from your attempt to label me as a 'racist' in the first instance.

Huxley;170970 wrote:

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.

As I've stated before the question is not whether I am a 'racist' or not the question is whether these pathologies are to be located where I located them. Just as now, the question is not over the nature of induction as such, but is over whether or not my particular example is true or false. Of course, I know very well that you believe it to be false. So why pretend? Or, better, why deny or hide your pretense? Why can't we speak directly?

Huxley;170970 wrote:

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.

"Social systems" are rendered much more difficult to understand, and "solid conclusions" are rendered more difficult to obtain by persons who obfuscate the social data and the attending conclusions based upon Politically Correct foundations. You have a priori rejected any and all meaningful correlation between pathologies and black and Hispanic cultures. The best you can do is to launch Sophisms, object to language and meaning, and attempt to blur the focus.

Huxley;170970 wrote:

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?

If this is the case, then why do you refuse to discuss openly the culture of the black and Hispanic communities? Why do you keep changing the subject? At least you are not hiding your obvious bias behind pornographic humour, I will give you that much. But that is all I give you.

-

-

0 Replies

Isn't the discussion about whether some phrases (more often, now that politics seems bent on capturing language for its own purposes) get in the way of clear thinking about a problem when they become both slogans and a statement about reality that "close off" an open dialogue?

Just as a racial slur, for example, denies by its false abstraction any sort of reasonable distinction between the individuals so classified, in a way so can politically correct descriptions. Both mask in generalities the multiplicities and complexities of real human beings, both seem to dehumanize the individual existent despite the different motivations behind it.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

Isn't the discussion about whether some phrases (more often, now that politics seems bent on capturing language for its own purposes) get in the way of clear thinking about a problem when they become both slogans and a statement about reality that "close off" an open dialogue?

Just as a racial slur, for example, denies by its false abstraction any sort of reasonable distinction between the individuals so classified, in a way so can politically correct descriptions. Both mask in generalities the multiplicities and complexities of real human beings, both seem to dehumanize the individual existent despite the different motivations behind it.

Nevertheless, some generalizations about different peoples are true, whether or not they are slurs or compliments is irrelevant. To generalize about people (or anything at all, for that matter) is, of course, not to ascribe a particular property to each or the persons, or even to the same extent. That is why a generalization is a general statement, but not a universal statement. So, to say that (say) for example that New Yorkers are impatient is not to say that each and every New Yorker is impatient, nor that those who are are impatient to the same degree. It is, rather, to say that we can predict, with some degree of assurance, that a New Yorker will prove to be more impatient than other individuals. "With some degree of assurance" is an important qualification. You have to be clear about the logic of generalizations. But some generalizations about groups of people happen to be true. In fact, it is unlikely, if you come to think of it, that they would not be true.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean,

Thanks for opening the door to frank discussion of this interesting, important and complex issue. I've been trying to post a studied reply for two days, but I failed to anticipate the extent of research and advancement of knowledge over the past 15 years.

I already knew, based on my continuing interest in anthropology, that the "big three" races are believed to have separated roughly 70,000 years ago (perhaps even earlier). The present politically correct idea that all three races, including all smaller ethnic subgroups, developed the same strengths and abilities, this ideal that all people are reasonably equal in all abilities, seemed, therefore, implausible to me.

The American Psychological Association published a public policy advisory in 2005 suggesting that (I'm paraphrasing) idealistic affirmative action policies based on the "discriminatory model", which presumed "equal socially valued outcomes", be tempered by a "distributional model" based on realistic "underlying group characteristics".

The stereotype of Asians as better than whites in math and physics has been (generally speaking) upheld by academic evidence. Does this mean whites are inferior to Asians in all things? I don't think so -- I mean, have you ever listened to traditional Oriental music? "Caterwauling" is a generous descriptive.

So why have past advances in math and science come largely from Western society? I haven't read any formal analysis, but my off-the-cuff guess would be that Asian/Oriental sociocultural norms have been traditionally so restrictive as to discourage abstract thinking (sociologists have questioned an apparent lack of abstract thinking in some Oriental cultures), but now the the second post-WWII generation of Asians in Western culture, fully adapted to Western intellectual freedom, are excelling in disciplines believed to require high levels of abstract thinking.

Some strengths and deficiencies and differences, particularly between ethnic subgroups of the same race, are perhaps largely cultural. But, all things being equal, some aren't -- including a few differences between the "big three" races. The sooner we accept this truth, supported by overwhelming evidence, studied and accepted internationally now by mainstream scholars, the sooner we can begin honestly evaluating the differences between American racial, ethnic, and cultural subgroups, then enact realistic solutions to real social problems. An honest evaluation, if well intentioned, could result in a win-win situation for all (at least, most) American citizens, but only if we are willing to discard outdated beliefs and face some politically incorrect truths.

CONFUSION: I just self administered one internationally accepted "culture-independent general intelligence test", and I failed. By Western intelligence standards, I'm mentally challenged. But I'm MENSA?

For further information, the basic Wikipedia article on race and intelligence is one good starting points; also googling "affirmative action" can prove quite revealing, and disturbing, especially case law studies. Or, follow "the evolution of man", especially new genetic studies and theories. Very interesting (IMO) but often confusing, especially when Heidelberg Man (homo heidelbergensis) gets thrown into modern man's genetic mix, which was believed to have originated 150,000 years ago in Africa -- but Heidelberg Man existed in Europe about 600,000 years ago? I re-read the article, which postulated that HM or proto-HM left Africa at least 600,000 years ago, then returned to Africa about 200,000 years ago to become part of our common ancestors... I dunno...

rebecca

1 Reply

@melonkali,

I've not yet read this myself, but here's a link to the APA metastudy, published in 2005, alluded to in my previous post.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

I don't believe that Whites are superior to Blacks any more than I believe Asians are superior to Whites. All races, and (nearly) all ethnicities have strengths and weaknesses. Since our American society was founded on White Western European culture, our "sociocultural norms" are White-Western-European-friendly.

It's patently clear that 50 years of American affirmative action education measures have largely failed in the Black community, causing frustration and resentment in both the Black and White sectors. We keep trying the same methods over and over again, increasing in degree to the point of absurdity, somehow expecting different results. Akin to trying to make a non-English speaker understand what you are saying (in English) by saying it louder and louder until you are shouting. Perhaps a better alternative would be to learn a bit about the other person's language?

rebecca

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

The main point being made in 1984 is that whoever controls the language, in effect, controls society. That is what is happening today. People CAN be enslaved by language. By making some words untouchable per se the society can be controlled and manipulated in ways the authority might see fit.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Actually, political rectitude is a product of the militancy of the late 1960s. The New Left, as it was known, had failed (in the eyes of young American leftists) to provide a viable political opposition to Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. The militants of the the "Black Power" and feminist movements, and particular the anti-war groups (of which there were hundreds) wanted to find a common ground to allow them to work together. This entailed, however, being willing to look the other way--many people alleged that the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground were sexist and patriarchal--for feminists to work in coalition with such groups, they had to ignore that. The American Indian Movement was working frantically to create a new, "alternative" history of the relationship between aboriginals and Europeans, and the price of their "solidarity" with other leftist groups was that their new version of history would become the accepted version.

Most of all, people were anxious to present a united front against the war in Vietnam. Ironically, all of the dithering and the "looking the other way" proved in the event to have been useless, because opposition to the war did not become significant until housewives and executives, mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers began to vocally oppose the war. The militants of the -60s actually accomplished almost nothing. So called women's liberation was effective because women who were not militant, who were not "politically radicalized" opposed workplace oppression, sexist harrassment and demanded equal pay and provisions for parenting imperatives. The left in the United States had accomplished little to nothing, but they had created and fully embraced the concept of political rectitude.

It survives because it is such a useful political tool. The right uses it, too. It can be used very effectively to silence or marginalize those who don't hew to the party line. James Brady was long a political hewer of wood and drawer of water who was eventually rewarded with the post of Press Secretary to President Reagan. At one time, he acted as the campaign manager to Phyllis Schafly in her attempt to win a congressional seat--she is a far right-wing political activist who was a leader of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and is a darling of right-wing religious talk radio. But Brady was badly wounded and left paralyzed for life in the assassination attempt on Reagan in March, 1981. He and his wife became gun control activists, and he has been a high-profile supporter of hand gun control legislation. This is treason to many on the right, and he has been marginalized, anathematized and even described (Gasp!) as a liberal. Political rectitude is an equal opportunity tool for quashing internal dissent. No conservative Republican for the last 20 years has dared speak out against right-wing Christians in conservative politics.

That being said, the thesis in the initial post is idiotic. The behaviors to which the author refers are exhibited by poor whites as much as they are by blacks and Hispanics. Although the author may not be racist, the theme is definitely racist. The bad choices made by blacks and Hispanics to which he (?) refers are made by poor whites, too. These self-destructive behaviors are the product of poverty, fractured families and a lack of education--they have nothing to do with skin color or the ethnic origins of the self-victimizing people to whom they refer.

0 Replies

By the way, the reference to 1984 is quixotic at best. There is no clear relationship between double-speak and political rectitude. The first is tyranny imposed from above--the latter is consensual mummery.

0 Replies

@cg2028,

This is nonsense and smacks of political paranoia. Political rectitude was invented by people who were not in power. It is used by people on the right and the left, and has no reference to who controls the White House or the Congress. To call it a tool of oppression by "authority" is nonsense.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is nonsense and smacks of political paranoia. Political rectitude was invented by people who were not in power. It is used by people on the right and the left, and has no reference to who controls the White House or the Congress. To call it a tool of oppression by "authority" is nonsense.

Agreed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Setanta,

It is a pure matter of psychology. Controlling the ways that people may express themselves through words essentially allows control over the minds of the individual after a few generations. I realize it may be disrespectful to say certain things about certain groups of people but if I wish to say those things I should be allowed to and I should be protected in my right to do that. However, while I am protected in my right to say what I want I should not be protected from the repercussions of what I said. I should not be demonized because I used "the wrong word" which is a part of political correctness and limitation by government and society in saying what we really want. I am not PARANOID when it comes to the government because I believe when any government becomes too oppressive the people will solve the problem promptly whether those in power like it or not. It is a right, in my opinion, for people to be able to freely question authority and it's powers.

2 Replies

@cg2028,

Quote:

I realize it may be disrespectful to say certain things about certain groups of people but if I wish to say those things I should be allowed to and I should be protected in my right to do that.

You are protected in your right to do that.

Quote:

However, while I am protected in my right to say what I want I should not be protected from the repercussions of what I said.

Correct; you are not. This is what Political Correctness is all about: you can say whatever you like, but be ready for others to judge you based upon it.

You go on to state, though:

Quote:

should not be demonized because I used "the wrong word" which is a part of political correctness and limitation by government and society in saying what we really want.

This contradicts your above statement completely. If others WISH to demonize you based on the words you use, that's THEIR right to do so. It's your problem to put up with that.

There's nothing untoward about such a situation at all. You have the freedom to say what you wish and so do others; you'd better be ready for the repercussions of your words, just as they should be as well.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cg2028,

Nobody is controlling you, or anyone else, based on what you say, unless it involves a "clear and present danger"--to use the phrase used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1919 Supreme Court ruling. He used the metaphor of dangerous speech such as someone yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is not actually a fire. You can only be "controlled" in your free speech when it is dangerous and false.

Your claim about control over the minds of individuals is an example of puerile paranoia--the kind of thing that one can expect from a high school radical. In fact, you display that ignorance of human nature which is all too common and evident in history. Each new generation believes they are the first to discover important ideas, the first to sound the alarm of oppression, whether social or political, the first true believers and activists--whether on the left or the right. The evidence is, however, that each generation more or less starts with a clean slate. You can be manipulated by a lack of information, but no one is going to be able to control people's minds from one generation to another through control of words.

But the most idiotic of your contentions is that government is the villain in this piece. No part of government is responsible for political rectitude, and government does not enforce notions on what words can or cannot be used or said, beyond the burden of falsely endangering others with your speech--i.e., yelling fire in a crowded theater which is not in fact on fire. Government (in the United States at least) cannot make any move to control your speech, much less your thoughts, except to attempt to prevent you from acting criminally or inciting others to crime through your speech.

How's the weather up there on your noble soap box?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Correct; you are not. This is what Political Correctness is all about: you can say whatever you like, but be ready for others to judge you based upon it

If you were correct "offensive" comments would not be removed from servers, "offensive" comments would not be censored out of public discourse by the gate keepers...those who own the media, and those who say "offensive" things in public would not be removed from the event. The penalty for violating PC rules are not normally made criminal, but they are much more substantial than the disapproval that you are trying to advertise as the penalty.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Correct; you are not. This is what Political Correctness is all about: you can say whatever you like, but be ready for others to judge you based upon it
If you were correct "offensive" comments would not be removed from servers,

People have the right to remove whatever they want from their servers. You have the right not to post there anymore. Everyone enjoys the same rights in this case - Yay America!

Quote:

"offensive" comments would not be censored out of public discourse by the gate keepers...those who own the media, and those who say "offensive" things in public would not be removed from the event.

Nope, I'm still correct, and you're wrong. You can say whatever you like, and people organizing an event or TV show can do whatever they like in response to that. Yay America!

Quote:

The penalty for violating PC rules are not normally made criminal, but they are much more substantial than the disapproval that you are trying to advertise as the penalty.

No, they are not. They are whatever the person who is running the event/show/forum decide they should be.

You can say whatever you want on your own website, and many do. When you are using someone else's show or site as a vehicle for your expressions, you are bound by their rules.

I know life sucks for bigots and haters, but you guys just have to suck it up and move on, Hawk. We're going to keep condemning you and keeping your hateful rhetoric down.

Your initial proposition in your last post makes no logical sense, and was really just a vehicle for you to bitch about the fact that you cant' run around openly being a bigot they way you used to.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Your initial proposition in your last post makes no logical sense, and was really just a vehicle for you to bitch about the fact that you cant' run around openly being a bigot they way you used to.

I have every right to bitch when my constitutional rights are being interfered with. My right to freedom trumps your right to control everything and everyone around you. By a New York mile it does.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Your initial proposition in your last post makes no logical sense, and was really just a vehicle for you to bitch about the fact that you cant' run around openly being a bigot they way you used to.

I have every right to bitch when my constitutional rights are being interfered with. My right to freedom trumps your right to control everything and everyone around you. By a New York mile it does.

Oh really? And who said you didn't have the right to bitch? Not me, or anyone else on this thread.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Oh really? And who said you didn't have the right to bitch?

Everyone who attempts to control discourse, of which there are legions.

1 Reply

Political Correctness And The Death Of The Truth In Society

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know