August 18, 2018 at 12:04 pm #137329
Bolshevik GirlsParticipantGoints: 819
Political correctness is a compound term that gets thrown around a lot nowadays, usually by those opposed to a discourse which avoids addressing socio-political issues deemed to be of a pressing nature. To call someone “politically correct” is to accuse him or her of timidity in regard to problems that must be faced head-on.
The accusation of political correctness is a disease that all democratic societies must come to terms with. The substratum of most societies is a mass of individuals whose manners are uncouth, who have little or no education, whose analytical skills are inadequate, and who often carry grievances. Sadly, the principle of universal suffrage grants these animal-like creatures the right to vote and their grievances give rise to populist politicians. These populist politicians speak the crude language of the embittered masses and a symbiotic relationship between a populist agitator and the crowd comes into being, threatening the very foundations of democracy.
The accusations of political correctness will always emanate from those who identify themselves with the majority of a society. They will decry what they view as special privileges granted to minorities, and they will want an open debate on this politics of appeasement.
We must ask ourselves why special privileges are granted to minorities in the first place. As we reflect on this matter, we must keep in mind that the political vision of the ignorant masses extends to the coming weekend, whereas the political vision of a true statesman – men such as Bismarck, Atatürk, and Putin – is solicitous of the centuries that are to follow.
Uneducated Europeans tend to pout about the privileges afforded to the immigrants, but these privileges are but trifles in comparison with the privileges granted by China to her minorities. The Chinese one child policy does not apply to the Uyghur Muslims, who are allowed to have two children. Time is allotted to the Uyghurs for the observance of their prayers while they are at work. The Uyghurs are paid higher wages than the Han Chinese in Xinjiang owing to the fact that mutton is more expensive than pork. The Chinese Communist Party does not grant these privileges to the Uyghurs because they are philo-Islamic; these measures serve the purpose of bringing about the cohesion of the state.
Russia, likewise, grants many privileges to its minorities. In the case of country as vast as Russia, the granting of privileges to the minorities is an absolute necessity. Russia does not have the infrastructure – nor is it economically feasible – to rigorously police every corner of the country. The loyalty of the minorities living on the Russian periphery must be won by showing them that the state cares for their well-being.
If China and Russia allowed these policies to become subject to public debate, there would surely be many a fool, whose political vision does not extend any farther than to the coming weekend, who would object to this preferential treatment of the minorities. Precisely for this reason China and Russia should never allow these policies to become subject to open debate.
Also in the West, there are preferential policies aimed at the minorities. It is legitimate to point out the flaws to these policies, but one should be wary of confounding the reasoned critique of these policies with the criticism of those at whom these policies are aimed.
The rejection of political correctness is rooted in the desire to give vent to one’s primal rage; we are dealing with hooliganism plain and simple. Political correctness is the adherence to a civilised discourse, whereas its opponents reject it in the name of free speech. But free speech, it must be remembered, is not an end in itself; free speech is a means to an end, and like any means it must be utilised in a responsible fashion. The uncultured advocates of free speech assume the role of victims when they are rebuked for making irresponsible utterances. They claim that their democratic rights have been trampled on, but the fact of the matter is that the exercise of prudence in regard to one’s speech is part and parcel of the human condition. Indeed, this art of discernment in speech is what distinguishes man from the beast. And those who master this art have found ways of getting around the censors in societies exercising the severest kind of thought-control.
There was a famous Russian saint who would always keep a tiny rock in his mouth with a view to restraining his speech. People would do well to follow this saint’s example. Far more important than the freedom of speech is the ability to keep one’s mouth shut.
August 18, 2018 at 11:42 pm #137429
Empty soulParticipantGoints: 3,887
“Political correctness is the adherence to a civilised discourse, whereas its opponents reject it in the name of free speech. But free speech, it must be remembered, is not an end in itself; free speech is a means to an end, and like any means it must be utilised in a responsible fashion. The uncultured advocates of free speech assume the role of victims when they are rebuked for making irresponsible utterances“.
You don’t half come out with some shit Alois.
Political correctness has nothing to do with civilised discourse.
Political correctness is the non flinching adherence to a socio-political ideology concerned with avoiding offence in matters of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.
For example. It wasn’t very civilised of the British police to let many thousands of Muslim men all across England get away with systemically drugging and raping white children for years because they didn’t want to offend Muslims.
In the above the “uncultured advocates of free speech” did not assume the role of victims, they were the victims and their pointing out of the fact that the perpetrators were all Muslims and the victims all white children was not an irresponsible utterance because it was a necessary connection to make in order to prevent further perpetration.
Black on black crime is another example here.
London, England has a massive problem with blacks hurting and killing each other and yet political correctness stops the necessary preventative measures from being put in place because it is deemed to be racist and therefore politically incorrect to profile and target black people.
As a result of the above and the resulting yearly increases in crime London is no longer “civilised”.
“The accusation of political correctness is a disease that all democratic societies must come to terms with. The substratum of most societies is a mass of individuals whose manners are uncouth, who have little or no education, whose analytical skills are inadequate, and who often carry grievances. Sadly, the principle of universal suffrage grants these animal-like creatures the right to vote and their grievances give rise to populist politicians. These populist politicians speak the crude language of the embittered masses and a symbiotic relationship between a populist agitator and the crowd comes into being, threatening the very foundations of democracy“.
If you truly believed a lack of education was the problem you would be advocating for better education and opportunities for the masses rather than branding them “animals” and consigning them to a position of worthlessness.
You also talk about democracy a lot and appear to hold it in esteem and yet you argue against the mechanisms of it(majority vote) knowing full well that democracy without the masses voice and vote is not a democracy, its a plutocracy.
In my opinion then Alois your rejection of free speech is rooted in the desire to give vent to one’s primal rage towards the indigenous working class population.
The indigenous working class population is after all the majority demographic and that obviously scares you because giving them a voice and the freedom to act potentially fucks you over as a result.
August 21, 2018 at 6:03 am #137827
Bolshevik GirlsParticipantGoints: 819
@empty-soul are you a homosexual? Send me your Skype ID; I will show you my uncircumcised cock. For you as an American it will be a great honour.
August 21, 2018 at 6:30 am #137832
Empty soulParticipantGoints: 3,887
I believe it was Kant who first proposed the idea of showing ones own cock as a form of protest and if I am not mistaken Hegel was the one who added to it by asking of his critics if they were ‘homosexuals‘.
I am glad your German philosophy expertise has served you so well.
August 22, 2018 at 4:02 am #138048
Lord WankdustParticipantGoints: 1,901
The people who built a country, who created its infrastructure, the people who do most of the living, breeding and dying, bringing up families, teaching the young and taking care of the old are the politically correct. Free speech belong to them. They are primarily the working classes (not in the definitions created by Marx but broadly speaking… those who actually work).
Political Correctness however is the tool used by oppressors to create shields for themselves and their kind… it is the shoehorn they use to slide on straightjackets to the Working Classes… thus straightforward criticism … becomes “Hate Crime”.
Pointing out the hypocrisy in a Member of Parliament’s speech becomes… Cyberbullying.
Pointing out how obese someone is… is now “shaming”, “shape-ist” or somehow discriminatory despite the fact that other people on Earth have to go hungry in order for the obese slob to eat enough for three people… the fat shit then demands free Dialysis, a mobility scooter and a full-time carer to fetch them Happy Meals.
The tarrifs, quotas and sliding scales of Positive Discrimination for minorities, disableds and the slow are a different matter… but somehow have become the same as Political Correctness in some people’s myopic eyes. You know the sort of people… yes… them. They are different things entirely and cannot be compared… any more than Hegel, Kant and a Polar Bear can be tested on a knowledge of Epic Viking Poetry and then asked to explain it in the form of dance and the results marked by a severed Brazilian head with a cock in each eye socket.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.