Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That's mostly incoherent. ...

Apologies.

What is C18? ...

18th century.

If you don't know what is meant by PC by now then there's nothing much I can do about that. ...

It mainly means to me that one's language is consistent with one's politics but I also understand it as a move to making the public verbal abuse of minorities less acceptable.

PC certainly isn't about being 'nice' or 'kind'. ...

Didn't say it was.

Our own darling resident distilledSJW has been helpful enough to demonstrate just how 'kind' and 'rational' they are. ...

How come it's ok for you to use jargon?

And by saying 'the right-wing hate it' is just another way to silence criticism and argument. ...

Not really, just an observation of my interactions with those who often use the term.

That's like saying liberals are 'right-wing' because they value free speech. ...

If it means they value a world where its socially acceptable to verbally abuse minorities then I guess I would think them this.

Besides, 'the right' hate everything and everyone, and wear their racism as a badge of honour.

Not all I think. My fault for generalising, apologies.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That's mostly incoherent. ...

Apologies.

What is C18? ...

18th century.

If you don't know what is meant by PC by now then there's nothing much I can do about that. ...

It mainly means to me that one's language is consistent with one's politics but I also understand it as a move to making the public verbal abuse of minorities less acceptable.

PC certainly isn't about being 'nice' or 'kind'. ...

Didn't say it was.

Our own darling resident distilledSJW has been helpful enough to demonstrate just how 'kind' and 'rational' they are. ...

How come it's ok for you to use jargon?

And by saying 'the right-wing hate it' is just another way to silence criticism and argument. ...

Not really, just an observation of my interactions with those who often use the term.

That's like saying liberals are 'right-wing' because they value free speech. ...

If it means they value a world where its socially acceptable to verbally abuse minorities then I guess I would think them this.

Besides, 'the right' hate everything and everyone, and wear their racism as a badge of honour.

Not all I think. My fault for generalising, apologies.

Is it 'socially acceptable' to 'verbally abuse' anyone? This is PC to a T. And do I now have to waste more time explaining what 'jargon' is? This is pathetic. Sorry, but 'relativism' doesn't extend to 'anything goes with word meanings, depending on who's using the word and what they want it to mean'. That's American stupiding down, and I'm having no part of it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

uwot wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:What else could it be but ironic?

I think it is clear that 'political correctness' means different things to different people. I agree that there are 'politically correct' people, ranging from the smug to the violent, that need to be resisted. In my opinion, they are playing into the hands of Brexiters, Trump, the Alt-Right, religious fundamentalists and associated right wing nuts, by giving them the headlines they need to support their narrative, that freedom of speech is under attack, by anyone to the left of Mussolini. After all, few people look at more than the headlines.

Freedom of speech is under attack. I'm not on the 'right', and I'm saying it.

I'm not on the right either, and I am agreeing with you:

As I wrote:I agree that there are 'politically correct' people, ranging from the smug to the violent, that need to be resisted.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It only means 'different things to different people' because too many people are too stupid to understand what it means.

Do you think that by dismissing those who challenge your understanding as stupid, that you are likely to persuade them?
I'm not on the right, you're not on the right, but here we are arguing about something in a way that only suits the purposes of people who are on the right. I would suggest that this has to some extent been engineered by people on the right, and that we have fallen for it.

uwot wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

uwot wrote: I think it is clear that 'political correctness' means different things to different people. I agree that there are 'politically correct' people, ranging from the smug to the violent, that need to be resisted. In my opinion, they are playing into the hands of Brexiters, Trump, the Alt-Right, religious fundamentalists and associated right wing nuts, by giving them the headlines they need to support their narrative, that freedom of speech is under attack, by anyone to the left of Mussolini. After all, few people look at more than the headlines.

Freedom of speech is under attack. I'm not on the 'right', and I'm saying it.

I'm not on the right either, and I am agreeing with you:

As I wrote:I agree that there are 'politically correct' people, ranging from the smug to the violent, that need to be resisted.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It only means 'different things to different people' because too many people are too stupid to understand what it means.

Do you think that by dismissing those who challenge your understanding as stupid, that you are likely to persuade them?
I'm not on the right, you're not on the right, but here we are arguing about something in a way that only suits the purposes of people who are on the right. I would suggest that this has to some extent been engineered by people on the right, and that we have fallen for it.

Makes no difference to me. I've spent enough time and energy patiently explaining a concept that some people are just unwilling or incapable of understanding. And 'right' and 'left' are now meaningless as well, thanks to American stupiding down. It's 1984 and Newspeak. And please don't call PC 'the left'. How exactly is it 'left'? If they didn't go so overboard, were not such self-righteous hypocrites, or actually practiced what they preached then I suppose they would be ok. What would that make them? Rational and reasonable? Or does everyone HAVE to belong to a 'wing'?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Makes no difference to me. I've spent enough time and energy patiently explaining a concept that some people are just unwilling or incapable of understanding. And 'right' and 'left' are now meaningless as well, thanks to American stupiding down. It's 1984 and Newspeak. And please don't call PC 'the left'. How exactly is it 'left'? If they didn't go so overboard, were not such self-righteous hypocrites, or actually practiced what they preached then I suppose they would be ok. What would that make them? Rational and reasonable? Or does everyone HAVE to belong to a 'wing'?

Are you asserting that socialism is a movement of the Right?

Orwell got the language ball rolling by correctly identifying the totalitarian nature of socialism.

Wikki
Newspeak is the language of Oceania, a fictional totalitarian state ruled by the Party, who created the language to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc).[1] In George Orwell's world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalised such concepts as thought crime, contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Walker wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Makes no difference to me. I've spent enough time and energy patiently explaining a concept that some people are just unwilling or incapable of understanding. And 'right' and 'left' are now meaningless as well, thanks to American stupiding down. It's 1984 and Newspeak. And please don't call PC 'the left'. How exactly is it 'left'? If they didn't go so overboard, were not such self-righteous hypocrites, or actually practiced what they preached then I suppose they would be ok. What would that make them? Rational and reasonable? Or does everyone HAVE to belong to a 'wing'?

Are you asserting that socialism is a movement of the Right?

Orwell got the language ball rolling by correctly identifying the totalitarian nature of socialism.

Wikki
Newspeak is the language of Oceania, a fictional totalitarian state ruled by the Party, who created the language to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc).[1] In George Orwell's world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalised such concepts as thought crime, contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Could you define 'socialism'?

Communism is what human nature does to socialism. Pig nature does it too, metaphorically.

Of course, not all human's natures. Just the little tyrants.

Just those stupid enough to believe in an ideology that has never worked out for folks.

Head in the clouds, feet in the mud. Where does it get a socialist? Nowheresville, man.

Socialism never worked for humans, but every dog has its day.
- Perhaps that day will be when robots rule the world and humans have been properly conditioned.

Let me try to clarify:

1. The term "politically correct" is used in a particular sense in the US,
when someone loathingly uses a term he is forced to use in order to avoid unpleasant consequences then this person is "only politically correct".

In Germany the term "politically correct" is used when someone uses self-discipline in order to spare other people´s feelings.
The ethnic group of "gypsies" prefers to be called "Sinti and Roma" so you take care to call them what they want to be called (also if you have no real preferences personally and do not think that "gypsy" is an insult of any kind). So the politically correct term in the German sense of the word is "Sinti and Roma".

2. Any terms that create hate among social groups should be avoided.
If you don´t call it "politcal correctness" what other term do you suggest ?

Peace.

duszek, I have to say I don't particularly like the descriptive phrase, 'politically correct'.

I think the aspirational concerns to improve the English language by thinking more about the effects of certain words was/is valuable.
However, I am not sure that this aim is necessarily of any particular political persuasion. Other terms have been suggested: 'culturally (or socially) correct ( or neutral or sensitive )' from the site I mentioned earlier.

As with any term, it is susceptible to revision, abuse or hijacking. Again, it's all to do with context...

duszek and mj,
and everyone else …

A true progressive seeks progress through change.
A true conservative seeks to preserve what works.
A conservative does not seek to change language away from original meaning.
A progressive seeks to change language from original meaning.

In reality, political progressives are radicals.
They have appropriated the meaning of the word, progressive.
Like sheep's clothing.
Before that, they appropriated the word liberal.

The political people who have appropriated the word, are not necessarily progressive in the true meaning of the word. They do what they do and call that progress by association with the word, just as they did with the word liberal.

The reason they are not progressive is in the pudding. Look at the progress they've made. Look at the flavor of the world with the progressives in charge, as defined by their actions and not the true meaning of the word. Chaos and destruction backed by the philosophy that says, you’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omlet. Trouble is, idiots concocted the recipe.

Let’s see what happens to France.

Socialism is...

...a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

There are others but they all pretty much say the same thing.

"Is the term "redneck" politically correct?"

As PC is manure foisted by certain, overbearing types to shame others and get them to think 'acceptably', I can't imagine why any sensible, self-directing person would give a shit.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Is it 'socially acceptable' to 'verbally abuse' anyone? This is PC to a T. ...

Felt like it used to be and doesn't quite feel the same way nowadays. Although times appear to be aheading back from what little I can see and hear.

And do I now have to waste more time explaining what 'jargon' is? ...

SJW or 'social justice warrior' is what?

This is pathetic. Sorry, but 'relativism' doesn't extend to 'anything goes with word meanings, depending on who's using the word and what they want it to mean'. That's American stupiding down, and I'm having no part of it.

And yet you are using a term like 'politically correct' differently from what it originally was in the C18th due to a quote from the 70s and differently from the 70s quote?

henry quirk wrote:As PC is manure foisted by certain, overbearing types to shame others and get them to think 'acceptably', I can't imagine why any sensible, self-directing person would give a shit.

Well I kinda agree but over here it wasn't to get people to think acceptably but seemed to be to get them to stop voicing it towards those minorities they disliked in public.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Could you define 'socialism'?

Totalitarianism is the point of Orwell.
It is also the point of PC.

Your interest is the cause and effect of PC:
- Effect: PC dumbs down language, thought, and nuance.
- Cause: Language totalitarianism enforces abuse of language through PC, to control the population.

Democracy, capitalism, socialism, dictatorships, are ideologies that exist in principle.
- Ideals are not immune from human nature, warts and all.
- The abuse of an ideology is caused by human nature, warts and all.
- Socialism doesn’t mesh with human nature.
- The totalitarianism found in human nature abuses socialism into communism, abuses language into PC, and it abused the USA into Obamanism.
- It’s a tale of human-afflicted ideals wagging the reality dog.

Rednecks aren't PC.
- Rednecks are notorious for their freedom of language combined with limited vocabulary.
- Since VT isn't PC, could be VT is a redneck.
- Limited vocabulary + lack of PC + freedom of language + brevity + compassion = sophistication.
- Complicated formula.

In other words, rednecks are sophisticated as defined by action, rather than by limited comprehension of concepts.