Sorry - I don't understand this at all. 'Political Correctness' seems to mean that some all-powerful being (God? Murdoch? the Pope? Mrs Palin?) prevents people from calling other people rude or disgusting things as a jolly jest, thus destroying all American free speech. Marx is not this all-powerful being - in fact he is just a historical figure constantly lied about by people who haven't read him - so what have the two in common please?
Wow--we are not only not on the same page but we're in 2 different books.
Political Correctness has nothing whatsoever to do with an "all-powerful being." It is a politically contrived state of mind designed to destroy free speech. It has been rightfully compared to Italy's fascism by professional historians. Political Correctness is the lexicon of Liberals. Certainly not free thinking people but rather bitter, self-serving, intolerant control seekers.
Karl Marx is known for his economic theories that are read today. He was the first to compare the value of labor against gold values. He didn't lie about anyone rather he had economic and political views which were under constant debate. Having an opinion is not lying.
Again, you said that "political correctness" was the invention of the right-wing. I responded by saying that Karl Marx ( who historically shared the responsibility of bringing Communism to the Soviet Union and not a member of the right-wing) was the first major figure to bring the idea of "political correctness" to modern social controversy.
You need to re-read our posts. The flow is there and Karl Marx, "political correctness" and current Liberal manipulation of the media, are absolutely connected.
Now, if you still don't understand the connection, I think we should either change the topic or not talk at all.
The term "Politically Correct" was invented by neo-conservatives in the 1980's
It was used by conservative to denigrate and silence what they considered to be liberal adherence to multiculturalism. It was originally used in regards to colleges and universities, but was so effective in changing the political dialogue they have been using it in a much broader sense.
So yeah, it is "politically contrived", contrived by neoconservatives.
You should at least do some research before commenting. It is better to say nothing than to make such gross errors.
History proves that by 1970, New LeftNew Left, feminists,
Maybe I could take you seriously if all of your information was taken word for word from wikipedia (without citation?). I just think it's hilarious when people pretend they knew something they looked up 5 minutes ago. :rollinglaugh:
Yes, the term politically correct was used prior to 1980's but it's popular usage today was begun in the 1980's. Allan Bloom's book, I don't recall the name of it, but it is often cited as the beginning of it's popular usage by conservatives as a criticism of multiculturalism in colleges and Universities.
The term had been used by soviets, but it had a different usage than it does today, and was the term specifically chosen by conservatives because of it's usage by the soviets (as to compare liberals to soviets of course).
You didn't come close to the "age" issue and it is apparent why.
It is one thing to learn something 5 minutes ago, and another to offer evidence 5 minutes ago.
I was right before I offered the reference. Now you can't remember the name of Alan bloom's book. You should at least take the time to look it up in Wki. But, I can't accuse you of not knowing who Alan is--can I. That's because I don't NEED to be right.
Another point, it was the left who promoted "PC" as it was called, on the campuses in the 70's.
The "left called it "PC", as the socially "correct" approach to social interfacing.
This attitude was forced upon college and high school campuses by the left. This spilled over into employee rights to sue innocent employers. When these issues came to courts they were thrown out but the left language began spilling into legislation. This brought out "date rape."
When it was initially promoted, it was not a pejorative term--they were crazy but this was just another social opinion. In fact, the left wrote many books promoting "PC" as a way to become a more "sensitive" country. Dictionaries described new "PC" terms.
At least you admit it didn't start in 1980 I guess that is sign we're moving in the right direction.
All of this was to attack the insensitive conservatives. Conservatives reluctantly went along with it then. Conservatives who where not "PC" were called racists, bigots etc. The tide has moved away from "PC" but only in the last 20 years because it was a dismal failure.
As to your last point, conservative Americans learned what "PC" was from the Left and not the soviets. That's just silly.
But we have another step forward--Soviet Communism was and is promoted by the Liberals.
Again, this was never the issue.
Only ever sarcastically or ironically, even your page you copied confirms this.
Ha!
So "Politically correct" is the socially correct term? hahaha
Yes, if you were old enough you would know this. You're making yourself look very ignorant by insisting to be right.
As I've pointed out, this term as it is used today was contrived by conservatives. Liberals didn't originally use it in reference to multiculturalism in universities until conservatives started to criticize it. Before then PC just meant to "toe the party line" and even then it was used sarcastically.
You obviously don't care about real history, only what occurred in your lifetime. If you don't want to learn anything of the past, don't enter into these discussions.
Examples?
The examples I have offered, you ignored. Again, facts do not matter to you.
That's a joke.
American liberals promote soviet communism to about the same extent that American conservatives promote Fascism.
Yes, while Liberalism basically promotes socialism, there are several pockets that still insist that Communism is the utopia of government. Traditionally, Communism denies private property ownership as its major distinction from Socialism. Otherwise they hold the same core values.
This is nothing but severely exaggerated political rhetoric, and is completely transparent to anybody who has even a modest level of objectivity.
Well, you have again brought me to the point of indifference. You can't even remember the issue--and you still want to argue??? That shows that your true goal is being right--regardless of how ridiculous your position becomes.
What was the issue?
Yes, if you were old enough you would know this. You're making yourself look very ignorant by insisting to be right.
You obviously don't care about real history, only what occurred in your lifetime. If you don't want to learn anything of the past, don't enter into these discussions.
Examples?
The examples I have offered, you ignored. Again, facts do not matter to you.
Yes, while Liberalism basically promotes socialism, there are several pockets that still insist that Communism is the utopia of government. Traditionally, Communism denies private property ownership as its major distinction from Socialism. Otherwise they hold the same core values.
Well, you have again brought me to the point of indifference. You can't even remember the issue--and you still want to argue??? That shows that your true goal is being right--regardless of how ridiculous your position becomes.
I think we're done.
Old enough? You don't even know how old I am, and if your argument relies on assumptions of age, then you must really be grasping at straws here.
I'll respond to you for your own benefit.
You are most likely under 25 years old attending a junior college. At this stage of maturation being "right" is crucial. You are laying the foundation of intuiting what is right and wrong as part of the maturation process. Being "right" means you are on course of collecting more "rights" than "wrongs," validating the base of your identity.
We all go through it but only those older can recognize its manifestation.
Insisting now that you're older, will only make you immature for your age.
You can see how your age tells me a great deal why evidence or logic does not sway your view. This is why you shift criteria and redefine words throughout the discussion in the hopes of stabilizing your sense of individuality.
In truth, we can all sense our individual maturation level through these discussions.
So, keep in mind that older people will see this pattern in you until you open up to the possibility that being wrong is not personal to you. It's how you handle being wrong that determines the integrity of who you are.
You can say I'm wrong or you can prove me wrong by providing a reputable source that confirms your claim and rejects mine. You haven't really provided any counter-argument besides accusing me of not knowing history. This is less than convincing.
Here is an example: You don't offer counter evidence. You don't offer evidence at all. Yet you demand that I do. Is this not a double standard?
You said the left wrote "many books promoting 'PC' as a way to become a more 'sensitive' country"
Here try to deny these. They were very easy to find.
Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming, Edna Andrews, American Speech, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Winter, 1996), pp.389-404.
Camille Paglia says it best-- Accessed 2 February 2007. “My message to the media is: ‘Wake up!’ The silencing of authentic debate among feminists just helps the rise of the far right. When the media get locked in their Northeastern ghetto and become slaves of the feminist establishment and fanatical special interests, the American audience ends up looking to conservative voices for common sense. As a libertarian Democrat, I protest against this self-defeating tyranny of political correctness.”
* Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern Tales for Our… by James Finn Garner (27)
* Once Upon a More Enlightened Time: More Politically Correct… by James Finn Garner (12)
* The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What… by Diane Ravitch (7)
* Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America (Oxford… by Robert Hughes (6)
* Blue Angel: A Novel by Francine Prose (5)
* Politically Correct Holiday Stories: For an Enlightened… by James Finn Garner (5)
* Illiberal Education by Dinesh D'Souza (5)
* Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the… by Stuart Taylor (4)
* Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the… by John M. Ellis (3)
* Workshop of the Second Self by Gary Wolf (3)
* Flying Blind: How Political Correctness Continues to… by Michael Smerconish (3)
* The Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America's… by Alan Charles Kors (3)
* Muzzled: From T-Ball to Terrorism--True Stories That Should… by Michael Smerconish (3)
* The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook:… by Henry Beard (3)
* The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom (3)
* Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our… by Roger Kimball (3)
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods (3)
* The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free… by Tammy Bruce (3)
And then I asked you for examples of said books. So far you have provided none. You can lie, but anyone is capable of looking back through the thread and seeing that you have not given a list of books. The only thing you offered was the name of a single essay....that does not constitute "Many Books".
How about these?
Ruth Perry, (1992), “A short history of the term ‘politically correct’ ”, in Beyond PC: Toward a Politics of Understanding , by Patricia Aufderheide, 1992
Schultz, Debra L. (1993). To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the “Political Correctness” Debates in Higher Education. New York: National Council for Research on Women. [1]
Chisholm v State of GA, 2 US 419 (1793) Findlaw.com - Accessed 6 February 2007. “
Flower, Newmas (2006). The Journals of Arnold Bennett. READ BOOKS,. ISBN 9781406710472. The Journals of Arnold Bennett - Google Books
Schultz citing Perry (1992) p.16
Joel Bleifuss (February 2007). "A Politically Correct Lexicon".
In These Times. The Motto of Mad Men -- In These Times
Ellen Willis, “Toward a Feminist Revolution”, in No More Nice Girls: Countercultural Essays (1992) Wesleyan University Press, ISBN
"IDEAS & TRENDS; The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct - The New York Times". IDEAS and TRENDS - IDEAS and TRENDS - The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct - NYTimes.com.
D’Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998
"The Bell Curve Wars". The Bell Curve Wars.
"www.amazon.com". Amazon.com: The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook (9780787101466): Henry Beard, Christopher Cerf: Books.
Mihkel M. Mathiesen (2004). Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became Controversial. iUniverse Star. ISBN 0-595-29797-8.
"Multiculturalism and citizenship: responses to Tariq Modood | openDemocracy". Multiculturalism and citizenship: responses to Tariq Modood | openDemocracy.
"Political Correctness Gone Mad - Television Tropes & Idioms". Political Correctness Gone Mad - Television Tropes & Idioms.
mapp (9 December 2005).
"Political Correctness - Next Steps". Scoop: Mapp: Political Correctness - Next Steps. Retrieved 2007-04-19.
Kors, A.C. and Silvergate, H, "Codes of silence - who's silencing free speech on campus -- and why" Reason Magazine (online), November 1998 - Accessed 6 February 2007.
"William S. Lind says Political Correctness is a form of what Buchanan describes as cultural marxism". Academia.org. The Origins of Political Correctness :: Accuracy In Academia. Retrieved 2009-06-01. [dead link]
"The New Political Correctness: Speech By Mark Latham [August 26, 2002]".
That's a joke.
Now you can see where the joke is. I also cut out a great deal due to space.
American liberals promote soviet communism to about the same extent that American conservatives promote Fascism.
And there are some pockets of conservatives that insist we should nuke the entirety of the middle east (men, women, children and all), some I've met personally.
They could only be your friends.
So I suppose it would be accurate to generalize this as the belief of all conservatives?[/B]
This is the fuzzy logic I have been talking about.
I know the issue, i just want you to say it.
Again, the fear of being wrong is very strong
Yes, you should quit while you're behind.
I'll respond to you for your own benefit.
You are most likely under 25 years old attending a junior college.
At this stage of maturation being "right" is crucial. You are laying the foundation of intuiting what is right and wrong as part of the maturation process. Being "right" means you are on course of collecting more "rights" than "wrongs," validating the base of your identity.
We all go through it but only those older can recognize its manifestation.
Insisting now that you're older, will only make you immature for your age.
You can see how your age tells me a great deal why evidence or logic does not sway your view.
This is why you shift criteria and redefine words throughout the discussion in the hopes of stabilizing your sense of individuality.
In truth, we can all sense our individual maturation level through these discussions.
So, keep in mind that older people will see this pattern in you until you open up to the possibility that being wrong is not personal to you. It's how you handle being wrong that determines the integrity of who you are.
This is the fuzzy logic I have been talking about.
Again, the fear of being wrong is very strong
Also, unwarranted arrogance is part of your age.
Like I said, assumptions will only hurt your case.
No, please go on.... :p
I find your attempt to psychoanalyze me based on generic concepts quite amusing. It's nothing more than a convoluted attempt at an ad hominem.
I am no rookie when it comes to debate, and I know exactly what you're doing. When defeated or short-handed in a debate, one person will often make an appeal of age, asserting that they know better because they are older, sometimes they will even do this when they don't know the age of the other person (like you) as a last ditch effort to gain the upper hand.
Or maybe I am not swayed because your are unpersuasive. Your arguments have obvious holes in them. Have you considered that possibility?
Instead of trying to understand why I reject your assertions, perhaps instead you could work on gathering more evidence and making your argument more compelling.
I have no difficultly accepting the possibility that I am wrong, I have admitted to being wrong in the past, and I will admit to being wrong in the future.
You simply have not given compelling enough reasons to convince me (or anyone else for that matter) that you are correct.
What is this?
So I ask for a list of books written by "the left" and you give a list of books of which the vast majority are written by well-known conservatives?
You realize you are only UNDERMINING your own argument, right? You're shooting yourself in the foot.
This only goes to further support my argument, that this whole "Political correctness" nonsense was contrived by conservatives. It's a buzzword used for political leverage, that's all it is.
You're joking right? :what:
You just copied the reference page from the wikipedia entry. This is pathetic. :frown:
Thank you, that's precisely what I've been trying to point out to you.
To say that "Pockets of GROUP Y support ______ therefore all of GROUP Y supports ______" is indeed fuzzy logic, it also happens to be the logic you used in your argument.
Which is why your argument was so flimsy to begin with.
And I suppose you are just so very eager to admit you're wrong, yes? :confused:
Ad hominem?
Thanks for proving that you are under 25 and have no clue how to hold a debate. Again, you continue to shift subject criteria. History means nothing to you and conservatives did not create the phrase "political correctness." Any student taking Urban Sociology 101 would know that.
And I do notice you won't divulge your age. Of course now you would only lie about it.
Also, the lists are mostly from social and political commentaries who are centrist. Of course I know you wouldn't know this because being true to form, you will ignore any and all evidence that might damage your self-image of perfection.
So, again were done. I prefer debating with someone who can offer a challenge.
Also, I used wiki because the information is so plentiful and I was not about to waste time on someone who would be ignoring the sources regardless of what they are.
Don't be so naive Anton. Of course I know how to debate which exactly why I've been able to so easily dismantle all of your arguments. Now you're upset because you don't have any counter arguments which is why you cling so desperately hoping that I'm younger than you, as if that lends absolutely any credibility to your argument.
I've been debating for many years. I've been in real life debates. I've even studied what makes an effective argument. I also know all of the little tricks and appeals people use, which is why they won't work on me.
Of course I won't. the same reason I haven't divulged my race and ethnicity, my education, my upbringing etc...
IT ISN'T RELEVANT.
It has nothing to do with the argument at hand, the only reason someone would need to know that information is if they wanted to attack the poster (me) rather than the arguments I am presenting. You may not realize this but by perusing said personal information and then being denied that information, in the eyes of any bystanders you've lost the debate. It's generally viewed as an act of desperation.
Now your being naive.
Sorry Dinesh D'Souza, Thomas Woods, Tammy Bruce, Roger Kimball, and Michael Smerconish are not "the left" or even centrist for that matter. You've only undermined your own argument by bringing them up.
The list I offered were writers responding to variations of left-wing Political Correctness written by Liberals. Of course that was too much work for you. The point was liberals began Political Correctness in the 1970's which prompted these writings.
Nevertheless, here are A FEW of the classic books from the women's liberation and feminist movement in the so-called Second Wave, from the 1950s through the 1970s who is responsible for male sensitivity training as part of the politically correct movement.
The Feminine Mystique
by Betty Friedan
Small Changes by Marge Piercy
Of Woman Born : Motherhood As Experience and Institution
by Adrienne Rich
Women of Ideas: And What Men Have Done to Them: From Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich by Dale Spender
Betty Friedan : And the Making of the Feminine Mystique
subtitle: The American Left, the Cold War, and Modern Feminism (Culture, Politics, and the Cold War)
The Sisterhood is Powerful by Robin Morgan is an Anthology of liberal writers.
German Greer: The Female Eunuck.
Kate Millet set the stage for sensitivity training in her book Sexual Politics written in 1970
Here, this is the first source I grabbed. Of course this won't do either I'm sure. But these are liberals promoting sensitivity training as a component of Political Correctness. I'm not going to do a book report for you though.
Also, one book would have been sufficient.
These women went on to create dozens of Feminists organizations promoting the breakdown of the patriarchal systems at home and government along with magazine and television coverage.
Liberalism was everywhere in the 1970's. With time, political correctness was hit with heavy criticism and especially by the Conservatives but only after the left-wing brought it back to life from Karl Marx.
Now, that is real history--the end of your education.
Okay now you're conflating feminism with political correctness, they are two different things. I didn't ask for books promoting feminism I asked for books promoting Political Correctness, written by "the left".
By the way, weren't you done talking with me like 7 posts ago?
Thanks for reminding me. I falsely saw a glimmer of hope and kept going.
Because you are too young, you simply cannot see the connection. However, anyone who actually studies the time period knows that feminists among other groups, started political correctness and they were the definition of what it was to be Liberal. Not much else to say except--yea were done at last.
And I am talking about people who are scientists in CLIMATOLOGY, 97% of whom believe humans significantly contribute to climate change.
30,000 is not even 1% of the total scientific community.
Nobody except right-wing nutters has ever experienced any such thing as this alleged 'political correctness' - it is a sort of urban myth made up by people who want to go on being racist, homophobic or whatever in a changed world.
Prove it. Post the unequivocal proof that 97% of climatologist believe humans significantly contribute to global warming.
How many people are in the scientific community? And what percentage is 30,000? And what percentage is 30,000 of scientist that study the climate?
BWAHAHAHAHA, wow, that was funny.
