Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy

[Uncensored2008]

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy | Moira Weigel

Throughout an erratic campaign, Trump consistently blasted political correctness, blaming it for an extraordinary range of ills and using the phrase to deflect any and every criticism. During the first debate of the Republican primaries, Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Trump how he would answer the charge that he was “part of the war on women”.

“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

LOL

The lies you Communists tell...

 

[Hum Dinger]

It just comes back to good manners.

No it doesn't. There's far more to it than that.

• We can't have an honest (and critical) conversation on race because anyone who dares to criticize a minority is called a racist.
• Our kids are going to colleges that are shielding them from opposing views at the very time they should be exposed to them.
• Our kids in college are shouting down and shutting up people who dare to express opposing views.
  
• People who are concerned about jihadism are attacked as being bigots.
• Poor behaviors by minorities are enabled and exacerbated by those who constantly spin and deflect for them.
• People are being publicly attacked and punished for conversations they thought were private.

It goes on and on and on.

Those are serious topics that affect people and have nothing to do with "manners". I don't know if you really think this is only about manners or if you're being obtuse. My suspicion is that, by pretending it's just about "manners", you're trying to minimize and trivialize it.

There's a particularly virulent PC zealot here who has convinced himself that all of PC boils down to not being able to tell dirty jokes. He's as willfully blind as the writer in your OP.

Either way, honest liberals admit it has gone too far. It's too late. The cat is out of the bag. PC zealots need to look in the mirror and examine how their behaviors contributed to Trump's victory.

So to call it a phantom issue, "just about manners", is blatant intellectual dishonesty.
.

I dont buy that list of bullet points that you have just put up.In my experience "pc" is often bleated by people who get called on their own behaviour when it falls short of acceptable.

I go back to my question. What do you want to say that you feel will cause you to be attacked over "political correctness" ?

You just wipe out all of the examples of why people are against PC. Poof. They're gone. They're not there. You don't see them.

Okay. I know how it goes.

I can pretend stuff too. Bananas are purple. We're good. There's no reason for any of this to concern you going forward, because it just isn't there.
.

But you made that list and nobody condemned you for it. For me it was too general, I can see times where it would be an issue.Just look at some of the responses on this very thread. But I can also not agree that a discussion could,or should, be shut down when there is a genuine point to discuss.

As an example -

"Muslims bombed Paris therefore all Muslims are terrorists"

Its a load of crap.
Is not worth debating and is offensive. The person making that argument has crossed the line and is obviously not very bright.

" Why are so many young Muslims drawn into radical groups" ?

Is a genuine question ,for which there are many answers, and is actually an important debate we should be having.

Which approach is likely to shed more light on the issue ?

Look at the language used by some to describe Gays. Its pretty poor and again driven by ignorance. Fundamentally its just bad manners.

"Bad manners" are displayed in abundance by both ends of the spectrum and in between.

More and more people have had it with PC/Identity Politics, and this election was clearly a manifestation of that. But if it somehow helps to pretend it doesn't exist, great.

I guess I could pretend that racism doesn't exist and "support" that dumb notion with a piece from some right wing nut who doesn't see it either.

I'd just rather be honest.
.

More and more people are angered by liberal leadership that's still fighting the battles of the 1960s and refuses to evolve. The far right has evolved for better or worse, but the liberal leadership still thinks it's 1967.

 

[Mac1958]

And aside from everything else, "Political Correctness" is simply a term that describes a group of consistent and recognizable behaviors.

Other examples of terms that describe groups of consistent and recognizable behaviors are "greed", "dishonesty" and "partisanship".

You can call it "ice cream" if you want, I don't give a crap.

But pretending the group of behaviors doesn't exist is a blatant lie, and an indication that they know the game is falling apart.

Good.
.

 

[Hum Dinger]

He doesnt really mean what he is spouting though. Nobody is really that dumb. He just feels he might upset you through it and that gives him a boost.
He gets called on his nonsense and immediately he is a "victim" of that PC.

Yes, the people who voted for him are that dumb.

If he really doesn't mean the things that he says, then what basis is there for voting for him? Just a blind hope that he's something that you hope he is with no evidence whatsoever?

I believe Trumps true character is a New York Mogul, a globalist and an elitist. He's lied his way into making you believe he's anything other than that.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Political Correctness means many different things to different people. It's an almost meaningless term.

The first I heard of it was from Mao's little red book. Basically it meant to think twice before you speak so they don't shoot you.

Next, it's liberal politicians being very very careful to never ever say anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere. This got to a point where liberal politicians were saying exactly NOTHING! They talked and talked but were careful to say NOTHING. Why they're so afraid of offending Conservatives I don't know, Conservatives wouldn't vote for the anyway.

Next, there's corporate PC. Don't say or do anything to offend your fellow employees. Do not create a hostile environment, do not harass women. I agree with this type of PC. An employer hires you to work. It's not up to you to chose who you fellow employees are, it's not up to you to bully, harass or give them a hard time. It's up to you to work with the people that your employers has chosen to hire.

Next, there's right wing PC. This was evident during the Republican Presidential primary debates. So many of the moderate candidates were wiggly wiggly to not say ANYTHING to offend or disagree with the party's far right constituency. I was funny to watch them. You could tell that they didn't believe the things they were saying and not saying the things they believed. Trump monopolized on this! He said all the things the the far far right wanted to hear - despite the fact that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying - he isn't an idiot he just acts like one. A whole new type of PC.

There is no "far far right" in countries influenced by the Enlightenment, dumbass.

ISIS is the far far right and only the new left tolerates their shit.

This is exactly what I mean by Trump's new PC. You're saying absolutely idiotic things that have no basis in reality. Just being nasty and stupid.

No, moron, the left does not tolerate ISIS. No more than you do. The Obama administration has been using the best military strategy possible to eliminate them. Carpet bombing is idiotic unless you just want to commit mass murder. We have precision guided weapons nowadays. WWII was a long time ago technologically.

If there is anyone who is reversing the enlightenment is the far right. Logic, reason and truth are their enemy. They live in a world of believing whatever they want to believe in defiance of facts. They live in a world of paranoid delusions and fantasy.

Sorry, but the far left is just as guilty of reversing the enlightenment as the far right. The enlightenment saw the dissemination of the idea that governments should treat each individual equally and with basic human dignity. Social Justice, the new far leftism as it is manifest here in the US, is essentially built around an oppressor-oppressed narrative that's used to justify unequal treatment of different people based on the circumstances of their birth, and in some instances even used to push the idea that, again based on these birth circumstances, it's sometimes just to suspend the humanity of individuals just for belonging to certain demographics.

I'd say that the social justice left and the alt right were essentially mirrors of each other, but oddly I see proponents for both of these points on the political spectrum blasting hate at the Jews, so the image isn't -perfectly- inverse. That said, it's the same race/gender based animus, just aimed generally in opposite directions, and neither group is ever far from calling for genocide.

 

[ptbw forever]

Political Correctness means many different things to different people. It's an almost meaningless term.

The first I heard of it was from Mao's little red book. Basically it meant to think twice before you speak so they don't shoot you.

Next, it's liberal politicians being very very careful to never ever say anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere. This got to a point where liberal politicians were saying exactly NOTHING! They talked and talked but were careful to say NOTHING. Why they're so afraid of offending Conservatives I don't know, Conservatives wouldn't vote for the anyway.

Next, there's corporate PC. Don't say or do anything to offend your fellow employees. Do not create a hostile environment, do not harass women. I agree with this type of PC. An employer hires you to work. It's not up to you to chose who you fellow employees are, it's not up to you to bully, harass or give them a hard time. It's up to you to work with the people that your employers has chosen to hire.

Next, there's right wing PC. This was evident during the Republican Presidential primary debates. So many of the moderate candidates were wiggly wiggly to not say ANYTHING to offend or disagree with the party's far right constituency. I was funny to watch them. You could tell that they didn't believe the things they were saying and not saying the things they believed. Trump monopolized on this! He said all the things the the far far right wanted to hear - despite the fact that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying - he isn't an idiot he just acts like one. A whole new type of PC.

There is no "far far right" in countries influenced by the Enlightenment, dumbass.

ISIS is the far far right and only the new left tolerates their shit.

This is exactly what I mean by Trump's new PC. You're saying absolutely idiotic things that have no basis in reality. Just being nasty and stupid.

No, moron, the left does not tolerate ISIS. No more than you do. The Obama administration has been using the best military strategy possible to eliminate them. Carpet bombing is idiotic unless you just want to commit mass murder. We have precision guided weapons nowadays. WWII was a long time ago technologically.

If there is anyone who is reversing the enlightenment is the far right. Logic, reason and truth are their enemy. They live in a world of believing whatever they want to believe in defiance of facts. They live in a world of paranoid delusions and fantasy.

The "far right" to you morons is anyone who absolutely rejects the major dogmas of the day, namely 3rd wave feminism and Islamophilia/extreme white guilt.

Islam at face value is very much against the Enlightenment, much less ISIS.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

He doesnt really mean what he is spouting though. Nobody is really that dumb. He just feels he might upset you through it and that gives him a boost.
He gets called on his nonsense and immediately he is a "victim" of that PC.

Yes, the people who voted for him are that dumb.

If he really doesn't mean the things that he says, then what basis is there for voting for him? Just a blind hope that he's something that you hope he is with no evidence whatsoever?

I believe Trumps true character is a New York Mogul, a globalist and an elitist. He's lied his way into making you believe he's anything other than that.

The basis for voting for him, as I see it, is that he's as yet an unproven quantity, where Hillary is a known evil. We had a choice between a shit sandwich and door number 2, I took door number 2. If it turns out to be a shit sandwich behind that door, what did I lose?

 

[Hum Dinger]

Could we all agree, at least, that after this last election feminism is dead as a beached whale?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Could we all agree, at least, that after this last election feminism is dead as a beached whale?

The fact that feminism didn't manage to take a presidential election doesn't mean it's dead. 3rd wave feminism didn't stop being canonical to academic social sciences just because Hillary lost. Europe and Canada are still just as likely to influence our politics with their growingly insane feminism-based legislative misadventures as they ever were. Hillary losing represents the end of feminism like Obama winning represented the death of racism.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No politically correct is another phrase under which which white men are required to treat women and minorities as equal, and which they feel violates their insecurities and fails to address their proper station as the masters of the universe. White men blame women, minorities, trade agreements and undocumented workers for stealing their jobs, but really it was greedy rich white guys. And a total failure to acknowledge that these jobs were being replaced by automation.

LOL. PC doesn't force me to do anything because I don't follow it. I have no issue calling people whatever phrase I want to.

Bullshit. You DO follow it...or you would be unemployed!

 

[Lastamender]

The anti PC charade is used by Republicans to excuse boorish behavior

It is not me....its just that you are too sensitive

PC actually comes from a Marxist think tank from the 1930's in Hungary. It is designed to undermine and eventually take down Western civilization.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Political Correctness means many different things to different people. It's an almost meaningless term.

The first I heard of it was from Mao's little red book. Basically it meant to think twice before you speak so they don't shoot you.

Next, it's liberal politicians being very very careful to never ever say anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere. This got to a point where liberal politicians were saying exactly NOTHING! They talked and talked but were careful to say NOTHING. Why they're so afraid of offending Conservatives I don't know, Conservatives wouldn't vote for the anyway.

Next, there's corporate PC. Don't say or do anything to offend your fellow employees. Do not create a hostile environment, do not harass women. I agree with this type of PC. An employer hires you to work. It's not up to you to chose who you fellow employees are, it's not up to you to bully, harass or give them a hard time. It's up to you to work with the people that your employers has chosen to hire.

Next, there's right wing PC. This was evident during the Republican Presidential primary debates. So many of the moderate candidates were wiggly wiggly to not say ANYTHING to offend or disagree with the party's far right constituency. I was funny to watch them. You could tell that they didn't believe the things they were saying and not saying the things they believed. Trump monopolized on this! He said all the things the the far far right wanted to hear - despite the fact that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying - he isn't an idiot he just acts like one. A whole new type of PC.

There is no "far far right" in countries influenced by the Enlightenment, dumbass.

ISIS is the far far right and only the new left tolerates their shit.

This is exactly what I mean by Trump's new PC. You're saying absolutely idiotic things that have no basis in reality. Just being nasty and stupid.

No, moron, the left does not tolerate ISIS. No more than you do. The Obama administration has been using the best military strategy possible to eliminate them. Carpet bombing is idiotic unless you just want to commit mass murder. We have precision guided weapons nowadays. WWII was a long time ago technologically.

If there is anyone who is reversing the enlightenment is the far right. Logic, reason and truth are their enemy. They live in a world of believing whatever they want to believe in defiance of facts. They live in a world of paranoid delusions and fantasy.

Sorry, but the far left is just as guilty of reversing the enlightenment as the far right. The enlightenment saw the dissemination of the idea that governments should treat each individual equally and with basic human dignity. Social Justice, the new far leftism as it is manifest here in the US, is essentially built around an oppressor-oppressed narrative that's used to justify unequal treatment of different people based on the circumstances of their birth, and in some instances even used to push the idea that, again based on these birth circumstances, it's sometimes just to suspend the humanity of individuals just for belonging to certain demographics.

I'd say that the social justice left and the alt right were essentially mirrors of each other, but oddly I see proponents for both of these points on the political spectrum blasting hate at the Jews, so the image isn't -perfectly- inverse. That said, it's the same race/gender based animus, just aimed generally in opposite directions, and neither group is ever far from calling for genocide.

The biggest issue that separates the left from the right is that the left believes that government should evolve and right does not. The enlightenment and the creation of the U.S. Constitution happened at a time when the majority of the world's population lived off the land. America was a sea faring, agrarian and pioneering nation. People's lives were more affected by the weather than by the stock exchange.

The industrial revolution changed everything about existence for humanity. When the mortgage companies screw up, workers in the auto industry lose there jobs. Everyone is economically interdependent. It became clear early in the industrial revolution that pure capitalism was an absolute disaster for the vast majority of the people. Just after overthrowing rule by monarchies, industrialization condemned then to a whole new type of slavery. That's when solutions were invented to make industrialization survival for the majority of the people. Liberalism proposed modified capitalism...i.e. the government starting just enough regulation and programs to make industrialization survivable. Communism proposed absolute ownership and control by the government...in a way that was as bad or worse than pure capitalism.

So when you say that the enlightenment proposed that the government only go as far as treating individuals equally instead of favoring people of lesser circumstance you are correct. Liberalism is an evolution of the enlightenment. It takes the economics of industrialization into account and realizes that if people are not economically equal...or at least have a fair chance economically, they are not being treated equally by the government.

The government allowing a persons status to be determined by the circumstance of their birth is another way of reinstating monarchy. People's status should be based on their personal achievements and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve.

 

[Lastamender]

Political Correctness means many different things to different people. It's an almost meaningless term.

The first I heard of it was from Mao's little red book. Basically it meant to think twice before you speak so they don't shoot you.

Next, it's liberal politicians being very very careful to never ever say anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere. This got to a point where liberal politicians were saying exactly NOTHING! They talked and talked but were careful to say NOTHING. Why they're so afraid of offending Conservatives I don't know, Conservatives wouldn't vote for the anyway.

Next, there's corporate PC. Don't say or do anything to offend your fellow employees. Do not create a hostile environment, do not harass women. I agree with this type of PC. An employer hires you to work. It's not up to you to chose who you fellow employees are, it's not up to you to bully, harass or give them a hard time. It's up to you to work with the people that your employers has chosen to hire.

Next, there's right wing PC. This was evident during the Republican Presidential primary debates. So many of the moderate candidates were wiggly wiggly to not say ANYTHING to offend or disagree with the party's far right constituency. I was funny to watch them. You could tell that they didn't believe the things they were saying and not saying the things they believed. Trump monopolized on this! He said all the things the the far far right wanted to hear - despite the fact that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying - he isn't an idiot he just acts like one. A whole new type of PC.

There is no "far far right" in countries influenced by the Enlightenment, dumbass.

ISIS is the far far right and only the new left tolerates their shit.

This is exactly what I mean by Trump's new PC. You're saying absolutely idiotic things that have no basis in reality. Just being nasty and stupid.

No, moron, the left does not tolerate ISIS. No more than you do. The Obama administration has been using the best military strategy possible to eliminate them. Carpet bombing is idiotic unless you just want to commit mass murder. We have precision guided weapons nowadays. WWII was a long time ago technologically.

If there is anyone who is reversing the enlightenment is the far right. Logic, reason and truth are their enemy. They live in a world of believing whatever they want to believe in defiance of facts. They live in a world of paranoid delusions and fantasy.

Sorry, but the far left is just as guilty of reversing the enlightenment as the far right. The enlightenment saw the dissemination of the idea that governments should treat each individual equally and with basic human dignity. Social Justice, the new far leftism as it is manifest here in the US, is essentially built around an oppressor-oppressed narrative that's used to justify unequal treatment of different people based on the circumstances of their birth, and in some instances even used to push the idea that, again based on these birth circumstances, it's sometimes just to suspend the humanity of individuals just for belonging to certain demographics.

I'd say that the social justice left and the alt right were essentially mirrors of each other, but oddly I see proponents for both of these points on the political spectrum blasting hate at the Jews, so the image isn't -perfectly- inverse. That said, it's the same race/gender based animus, just aimed generally in opposite directions, and neither group is ever far from calling for genocide.

The biggest issue that separates the left from the right is that the left believes that government should evolve and right does not. The enlightenment and the creation of the U.S. Constitution happened at a time when the majority of the world's population lived off the land. America was a sea faring, agrarian and pioneering nation. People's lives were more affected by the weather than by the stock exchange.

The industrial revolution changed everything about existence for humanity. When the mortgage companies screw up, workers in the auto industry lose there jobs. Everyone is economically interdependent. It became clear early in the industrial revolution that pure capitalism was an absolute disaster for the vast majority of the people. Just after overthrowing rule by monarchies, industrialization condemned then to a whole new type of slavery. That's when solutions were invented to make industrialization survival for the majority of the people. Liberalism proposed modified capitalism...i.e. the government starting just enough regulation and programs to make industrialization survivable. Communism proposed absolute ownership and control by the government...in a way that was as bad or worse than pure capitalism.

So when you say that the enlightenment proposed that the government only go as far as treating individuals equally instead of favoring people of lesser circumstance you are correct. Liberalism is an evolution of the enlightenment. It takes the economics of industrialization into account and realizes that if people are not economically equal...or at least have a fair chance economically, they are not being treated equally by the government.

The government allowing a persons status to be determined by the circumstance of their birth is another way of reinstating monarchy. People's status should be based on their personal achievements and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve.

Then you object to Affirmative Action? It has put the unqualified in positions of responsibility.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Political Correctness means many different things to different people. It's an almost meaningless term.

The first I heard of it was from Mao's little red book. Basically it meant to think twice before you speak so they don't shoot you.

Next, it's liberal politicians being very very careful to never ever say anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere. This got to a point where liberal politicians were saying exactly NOTHING! They talked and talked but were careful to say NOTHING. Why they're so afraid of offending Conservatives I don't know, Conservatives wouldn't vote for the anyway.

Next, there's corporate PC. Don't say or do anything to offend your fellow employees. Do not create a hostile environment, do not harass women. I agree with this type of PC. An employer hires you to work. It's not up to you to chose who you fellow employees are, it's not up to you to bully, harass or give them a hard time. It's up to you to work with the people that your employers has chosen to hire.

Next, there's right wing PC. This was evident during the Republican Presidential primary debates. So many of the moderate candidates were wiggly wiggly to not say ANYTHING to offend or disagree with the party's far right constituency. I was funny to watch them. You could tell that they didn't believe the things they were saying and not saying the things they believed. Trump monopolized on this! He said all the things the the far far right wanted to hear - despite the fact that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying - he isn't an idiot he just acts like one. A whole new type of PC.

There is no "far far right" in countries influenced by the Enlightenment, dumbass.

ISIS is the far far right and only the new left tolerates their shit.

This is exactly what I mean by Trump's new PC. You're saying absolutely idiotic things that have no basis in reality. Just being nasty and stupid.

No, moron, the left does not tolerate ISIS. No more than you do. The Obama administration has been using the best military strategy possible to eliminate them. Carpet bombing is idiotic unless you just want to commit mass murder. We have precision guided weapons nowadays. WWII was a long time ago technologically.

If there is anyone who is reversing the enlightenment is the far right. Logic, reason and truth are their enemy. They live in a world of believing whatever they want to believe in defiance of facts. They live in a world of paranoid delusions and fantasy.

Sorry, but the far left is just as guilty of reversing the enlightenment as the far right. The enlightenment saw the dissemination of the idea that governments should treat each individual equally and with basic human dignity. Social Justice, the new far leftism as it is manifest here in the US, is essentially built around an oppressor-oppressed narrative that's used to justify unequal treatment of different people based on the circumstances of their birth, and in some instances even used to push the idea that, again based on these birth circumstances, it's sometimes just to suspend the humanity of individuals just for belonging to certain demographics.

I'd say that the social justice left and the alt right were essentially mirrors of each other, but oddly I see proponents for both of these points on the political spectrum blasting hate at the Jews, so the image isn't -perfectly- inverse. That said, it's the same race/gender based animus, just aimed generally in opposite directions, and neither group is ever far from calling for genocide.

The biggest issue that separates the left from the right is that the left believes that government should evolve and right does not. The enlightenment and the creation of the U.S. Constitution happened at a time when the majority of the world's population lived off the land. America was a sea faring, agrarian and pioneering nation. People's lives were more affected by the weather than by the stock exchange.

The industrial revolution changed everything about existence for humanity. When the mortgage companies screw up, workers in the auto industry lose there jobs. Everyone is economically interdependent. It became clear early in the industrial revolution that pure capitalism was an absolute disaster for the vast majority of the people. Just after overthrowing rule by monarchies, industrialization condemned then to a whole new type of slavery. That's when solutions were invented to make industrialization survival for the majority of the people. Liberalism proposed modified capitalism...i.e. the government starting just enough regulation and programs to make industrialization survivable. Communism proposed absolute ownership and control by the government...in a way that was as bad or worse than pure capitalism.

So when you say that the enlightenment proposed that the government only go as far as treating individuals equally instead of favoring people of lesser circumstance you are correct. Liberalism is an evolution of the enlightenment. It takes the economics of industrialization into account and realizes that if people are not economically equal...or at least have a fair chance economically, they are not being treated equally by the government.

The government allowing a persons status to be determined by the circumstance of their birth is another way of reinstating monarchy. People's status should be based on their personal achievements and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve.

Then you object to Affirmative Action? It has put the unqualified in positions of responsibility.

I agree that there has been too much of a tendency for corporations to promote less capable people just to appear to give equal opportunity. I've known lots of highly competent minority people, but they are often not the ones to be promoted. I do think that companies should view people absolutely equally and promote the most capable people.

On the other hand, there really isn't any such thing as 'Affirmative Action', unless you're referring to JFK's executive order to federal contractors. What is called affirmative action is individual policies by individual institutions. It would take considerable government over reach to force those institutions to change those policies.

 

[TheDude]

Could we all agree, at least, that after this last election feminism is dead as a beached whale?

Gee I hope so. But no, it's not dead. It suffered a setback.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Political Correctness means many different things to different people. It's an almost meaningless term.

The first I heard of it was from Mao's little red book. Basically it meant to think twice before you speak so they don't shoot you.

Next, it's liberal politicians being very very careful to never ever say anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere. This got to a point where liberal politicians were saying exactly NOTHING! They talked and talked but were careful to say NOTHING. Why they're so afraid of offending Conservatives I don't know, Conservatives wouldn't vote for the anyway.

Next, there's corporate PC. Don't say or do anything to offend your fellow employees. Do not create a hostile environment, do not harass women. I agree with this type of PC. An employer hires you to work. It's not up to you to chose who you fellow employees are, it's not up to you to bully, harass or give them a hard time. It's up to you to work with the people that your employers has chosen to hire.

Next, there's right wing PC. This was evident during the Republican Presidential primary debates. So many of the moderate candidates were wiggly wiggly to not say ANYTHING to offend or disagree with the party's far right constituency. I was funny to watch them. You could tell that they didn't believe the things they were saying and not saying the things they believed. Trump monopolized on this! He said all the things the the far far right wanted to hear - despite the fact that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying - he isn't an idiot he just acts like one. A whole new type of PC.

There is no "far far right" in countries influenced by the Enlightenment, dumbass.

ISIS is the far far right and only the new left tolerates their shit.

This is exactly what I mean by Trump's new PC. You're saying absolutely idiotic things that have no basis in reality. Just being nasty and stupid.

No, moron, the left does not tolerate ISIS. No more than you do. The Obama administration has been using the best military strategy possible to eliminate them. Carpet bombing is idiotic unless you just want to commit mass murder. We have precision guided weapons nowadays. WWII was a long time ago technologically.

If there is anyone who is reversing the enlightenment is the far right. Logic, reason and truth are their enemy. They live in a world of believing whatever they want to believe in defiance of facts. They live in a world of paranoid delusions and fantasy.

Sorry, but the far left is just as guilty of reversing the enlightenment as the far right. The enlightenment saw the dissemination of the idea that governments should treat each individual equally and with basic human dignity. Social Justice, the new far leftism as it is manifest here in the US, is essentially built around an oppressor-oppressed narrative that's used to justify unequal treatment of different people based on the circumstances of their birth, and in some instances even used to push the idea that, again based on these birth circumstances, it's sometimes just to suspend the humanity of individuals just for belonging to certain demographics.

I'd say that the social justice left and the alt right were essentially mirrors of each other, but oddly I see proponents for both of these points on the political spectrum blasting hate at the Jews, so the image isn't -perfectly- inverse. That said, it's the same race/gender based animus, just aimed generally in opposite directions, and neither group is ever far from calling for genocide.

The biggest issue that separates the left from the right is that the left believes that government should evolve and right does not. The enlightenment and the creation of the U.S. Constitution happened at a time when the majority of the world's population lived off the land. America was a sea faring, agrarian and pioneering nation. People's lives were more affected by the weather than by the stock exchange.

The industrial revolution changed everything about existence for humanity. When the mortgage companies screw up, workers in the auto industry lose there jobs. Everyone is economically interdependent. It became clear early in the industrial revolution that pure capitalism was an absolute disaster for the vast majority of the people. Just after overthrowing rule by monarchies, industrialization condemned then to a whole new type of slavery. That's when solutions were invented to make industrialization survival for the majority of the people. Liberalism proposed modified capitalism...i.e. the government starting just enough regulation and programs to make industrialization survivable. Communism proposed absolute ownership and control by the government...in a way that was as bad or worse than pure capitalism.

So when you say that the enlightenment proposed that the government only go as far as treating individuals equally instead of favoring people of lesser circumstance you are correct. Liberalism is an evolution of the enlightenment. It takes the economics of industrialization into account and realizes that if people are not economically equal...or at least have a fair chance economically, they are not being treated equally by the government.

The government allowing a persons status to be determined by the circumstance of their birth is another way of reinstating monarchy. People's status should be based on their personal achievements and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve.

I agree with much of this, right up until you essentially say that the move from governments that show favoritism based on the circumstances of birth to governments that respect all individuals equally, is just a middle step on the road toward governments that show favoritism based on the circumstances of birth, but for reasons more acceptable by today's moral standards than those reasons they used before the enlightenment. Essentially, the stepping stones as you're presenting them are:

1. Governments treat some people well and oppress other people

2. Governments stop oppressing some people and move toward treating each individual equally

3. Governments treat some people well and oppress other people in order to MAKE all people equal


In my view the purpose of the enlightenment was never to MAKE everyone equal, and so regardless of that lofty goal, going back to targeted oppression for the purpose of creating economic equality is just a new excuse to relapse into an old habit. The proper progression, by my reckoning, would be:

1. Governments treat some people well and oppress other peope

2. Governments stop oppressing some people and move toward treating each individual equally

3. Governments TREAT each individual equally (and I mean that literally, as opposed to the impressively straight forward double-speak idea that treating them equally means treating them differently according to the circumstances of their birth)

I'm also not sure what you mean by "liberalism", but in terms of treating people differently to balance out their circumstances and ensure economically equal outcomes, the social justice philosophy that seems to guide the current left in these endeavors proposes that we establish this balance based purely on race and gender identity, which ensures that various individuals who don't share the assumed attributes of their race/gender intersection are inevitably disproportionately advantaged/disadvantaged by this push for equal outcomes. Favoring/fucking over certain individuals to achieve some collectivist parity ideal is hardly a further evolution in the same direction as the enlightenment.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You wanna give me a credible link on that?
.

Oh, certainly. I am nothing if not at your disposal, ma'am.

Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[NYcarbineer]

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy | Moira Weigel

Throughout an erratic campaign, Trump consistently blasted political correctness, blaming it for an extraordinary range of ills and using the phrase to deflect any and every criticism. During the first debate of the Republican primaries, Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Trump how he would answer the charge that he was “part of the war on women”.

“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

Trump played the PC card every time he got called on something obnoxious.

Time was when the so-called moral majority on the Right despised people like Howard Stern; now they've elected a Howard Stern wannabe as president.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy | Moira Weigel

Throughout an erratic campaign, Trump consistently blasted political correctness, blaming it for an extraordinary range of ills and using the phrase to deflect any and every criticism. During the first debate of the Republican primaries, Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Trump how he would answer the charge that he was “part of the war on women”.

“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

Trump played the PC card every time he got called on something obnoxious.

Time was when the so-called moral majority on the Right despised people like Howard Stern; now they've elected a Howard Stern wannabe as president.

Yeah, time was when the popular puritans were right wingers, and the left was all about freedom of speech. Now the right wing's screamin about being censored, and all the popular puritanism is coming from the left. Times they be a-changing!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy | Moira Weigel

Throughout an erratic campaign, Trump consistently blasted political correctness, blaming it for an extraordinary range of ills and using the phrase to deflect any and every criticism. During the first debate of the Republican primaries, Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Trump how he would answer the charge that he was “part of the war on women”.

“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

Trump played the PC card every time he got called on something obnoxious.

Time was when the so-called moral majority on the Right despised people like Howard Stern; now they've elected a Howard Stern wannabe as president.

So PC is Trumps "race card" ?