Has Politcal Correctness Turned into Prejudice?
Before I go to bed, I just wanted to share an observation. As one example, about this time last year all kinds of men were being done in for sexually harassing women. All PC. But since then, an incredible number of women have been mouthing off about how evil men are on facebook posts about entirely different subjects...i.e.,
post: many can't find a home to buy since houses burned down in wildfire
comment: all f**ing men should be ashamed of how they treat women like sh**s too.
What I notice is that men can't say this is wrong without a horde of vile women gathering into group assault with expletives and foul language worse than I ever heard in a men's locker room. And no women say it's wrong. And this is just an example. The same is true for any PC issue of race, creed, wealth, or sex. Have others noticed this and think it has gone too far?
post: many can't find a home to buy since houses burned down in wildfire
comment: all f**ing men should be ashamed of how they treat women like sh**s too.
What I notice is that men can't say this is wrong without a horde of vile women gathering into group assault with expletives and foul language worse than I ever heard in a men's locker room. And no women say it's wrong. And this is just an example. The same is true for any PC issue of race, creed, wealth, or sex. Have others noticed this and think it has gone too far?
Comments (43)
Ye old vagueries and universal declarations
I think they're mostly justice motivated, but any crowd has its crabs bringing down the averages.
Well, taken as a whole, men are evil. Turn on your TV, and observe who it is that is ripping so many societies to shreds. The marriage between violent men and the knowledge explosion will inevitably bring civilization crashing down, as is already happening in places like Syria and Yemen etc.
Yes, yes, yes, not all men are evil, so you don't have to type that. But that's not going to matter once the evil men crash the system.
Quoting StreetlightX
I would only alter it to "Uhg, another fragile snowflake politicking about the evils of politicking". You are just as political, and arguably worse since you don't even seem to notice your own political assumptions in how you frame and discuss these things.
Oh boy, you got me good.
Quoting Walter Pound
I mean, yeah, I wonder what it would look like for someone to be clearly politically motivated? Again, pathetically ironic. Anyone who thinks their notion of Justice isn't politically motivated is a liar or a fool.
If you didn't know, it is inherently left wing and with it comes only left wing definitions of "justice."
If you didn't know, that's called hypocrisy.
Quoting MindForged
Yeah, I know this wasn't a reply to SX, but it works as a reply and I agree. :smile:
When did I ever say that only the left begs the question with definitions and loaded terminology?
Quoting MindForged
Actually, I believe that people must first defend their definitions before they start arguing over whether their political opponents demonstrate X or Y behavior.
Quoting MindForged
Since social justice falls within the political umbrella of the left, it is incorrect to say that I am doing this. Left wing doctrines are inherent to the definition of social justice- just like how individualist doctrines are inherent to right libertarianism or minarchism.
Quoting MindForged
I never present my own definition of justice; I only expose how leftists beg the question when they use their own definition of justice to judge who supports justice and who does not.
Quoting MindForged
Actually, its called being logical.
Joyous day, quote function deploy:
Quoting Walter Pound
That clearly implies that only the left does this and now you're trying to say otherwise. Interesting.
Quoting Walter Pound
Besides you, of course. After all, your first post in this thread did argue about your political opponents demonstrating such behaviors:
Quoting Walter Pound
Again, this is either hypocrisy or you're changing what you believe, which is good but don't pretend otherwise.
Quoting Walter Pound
"Uhg, I can't believe the left has a politically motivated conception of justice because justice obviously shouldn't include social justice, that thing only leftists include in their theories of justice."
How... "logical" of you. I forget that being subject to the exact same criticism while being ignorant of it is the thing rational people try to do. Hypocrisy or making a trivial observation (e.g. everyone does this) and thus it serves no purpose in pointing it out. Congrats.
If I said, "only leftists do x" then you would have a point. Thank goodness I never said that only leftists beg the question.
Quoting MindForged
When did I say that I was against affirmative action or socialism? If you read carefully, you will see that I point out that social justice is not a politically neutral term and that is why I mentioned affirmative action and socialism- since both can be covered under someone's understanding of social justice.
Quoting MindForged
Can you quote where I ever define justice as opposing socialism, affirmative action or anything else?
Quoting MindForged
It really is embarrassing that you have to make up quotes of things I never said, but if you reread what I wrote, then you will see that I actually think that the definition of the word "justice" must first be argued for before anyone condemns their political opponent for not supporting "justice."
Let me make things easy for you. If a libertarian said, "anyone who does not support laissez-faire capitalism does not support liberty" that libertarian is defining "liberty" in a question begging manner to support his own economic position.
When leftists define justice as wealth redistribution and high taxes, and so on, he too is begging the question for the sake of his own political goals.
Both these people first need to define their terms and actually make an argument for why their definitions are correct before they start condemning their political opponents as either tyrants or fascists.
Then as I concluded you are making a trivially true statement that should be so inconsequential that making it as if it mattered is silly. Most people don't say "and since most of them are leftists it is clear that they are politically motivated" and expect others to take that to be directed at anyone but the group they named (leftists, in this case).
Quoting Walter Pound
I didn't say anything about those two issues. My statement was about you complaining about people "must first defend their definitions before they start arguing over whether their political opponents demonstrate X or Y behavior". This is exactly what you are doing though if your opponents are leftists who do this. You haven't asked anyone to defend their definitions, you're just pointing out their definitions are have a political slant to them: like everyone else. A trivial point.
Quoting Walter Pound
Here's a fun game. Complain about something and call it annoying, and then ask people why they think you are against that thing. That's what you've done here.
Quoting Walter Pound
OF COURSE YOU NEVER SAID IT. I was mocking you not quoting you verbatim, like come on this is obvious. Do you really think people don't ever defend their ideas of justice? Do you really think they can't condemn a political opponent for holding a poor view of justice beforehand?
Like this is thing. If someone thinks or infers that some view entails Absurdity X, its perfectly reasonable for them to discard the view that entails Absurdity X. There can be disagreement and people can hash it out, but the idea that there needs to be a debate before they think their opponent is against justice is stupid. Everyone knows that their opponent doesn't think they are against justice, no one defines themselves as evil or unjust. But just as they don't consult the rapist about whether or not they're doing a good thing before condemning them, so too do political opponents rightly not play a meaningless philosophical game before decrying their opponents as unjust.
"Hang on, fellow Jews. Can we really call these Nazis enemies of justice as they round us up? We need to argue this first." (This is me mocking you again, just to make it extra clear. Yes it's rude, but I'm not dealing with a serious proposal so why not.)
This is why people should first argue over the correct definition of justice before anything else.
Just look at the description you offer: social justice. Fairness in the way people treat one another. And this offends you? I wonder why?
"Political correctness" is a slightly silly synonym for "courtesy". And the purpose of courtesy is to allow plain speech without the interchange degenerating into violence. It's a way of getting on with other humans, we being a social species. Your intolerance of others trying to treat others fairly is difficult for me to understand.
How do you propose we treat people fairly?
Do we do it as the libertarians want to do it or as the socialists would like to do it or as social democrats would like to do it?
Should we only strive to ensure equality before the law or should equity be the driving force behind fairness?
I think there is indeed a culture of victimhood and outrage on the left, a PC culture that hides behind social justice and equal rights. I think it is also true that these are a fringe minority and its an error to attribute the actions/veiws of all sociel justice movements to this fringe element. Actual good comes out of Metoo and people striving for equality and social justice, even though those things are co-opted by the fringe in service of an authoritarian, virtue signaling and facist agenda.
The people who loudly and aggressively attack anyone who doesnt conform to their leftist views are just that, loud and aggressive. They arent numerous, they do not represent the majority left and they only have power in so much as others on the left, the media and corporations worried about losing profits from a dirtied public image give to them.
[I.e. it is political, of course. Almost everything is. But fairness is well-enough understood by all of us to travel alone, without the need for it being assigned or denied to libertarians, socialists or cyclists.]
Bo**ocks! This is like me accusing fascists and capitalists of paedophilia, just because they're the people I most disagree with. Please confine yourself to describing what people-like-you think, and leave those with whom you disagree to express their own views.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I am repeating how particular leftists and liberals/progressives have responded to that kind of definition of fairness; they view it as inadequate.
I think the OP has more than just “in general” in mind. I think he is talking about a specific phenomenon or movement on the left, “SJW” activists who promote a specific ideological
agenda in a toxic way. Im not sure its as widespread throughout the left as Walter seems to think, but it IS a thing to anyone paying attention. I would even call it dangerous, since it is something being taught in academia.
Right, I'm aware of that and I'm not a fan of it, but I'm just adding/broadening it out to note that I'm not a fan of people moralizing or being negatively judgmental/self-righteous in general. What he's talking about is a problem, but it's just one subset of people moralizing and being negatively judgmental towards others.
I disagree that it is just a subset as you described. Its more than that, if thats all those people were doing they would be much easier to ignore. There is a systematic effort to not only push the agenda but to remove peoples ability to resist it. I dont want to overstate the case, like I said I do believe it to be a minority, but I dont think its overstating to call it facsim with all that entails. Its about social control and it comes from people in positions of power over young minds.
Indeed those exist. And note how they have done little to nothing alleviate people - even political philosophers - from making a snap judgement that some person or movement are unjust. These theories aren't made.in a vacuum. As with most philosophy they more often have views they believe are roughly correct, and then construct a theory which largely preserves these views.
If a Leninist and a Rawlsian are disputing justice theories they're never going to agree because they have fundamental differences. Their argument will only make this more obvious, meaning they'll still just call the other unjust in the end anyway.
I didnt identify what facism is, I just referenced it. You dont have enough information to say whether or not im using the term properly, since I didnt specify what exactly makes them facist.
It is not the opposite idealogical side either, I did not suggest a counter idealogy and again you do not have enough information to actually support your statement. Whats my idealogy?
You also implied that I said or at least think that thinking everything is subservient to identity is facist, which I didnt/dont.
Ill be waiting for you to say something of substance if you care to try again but I wont waste my time correcting another batch of poorly thought out statements/accusations. Sorry im
not here for that, although I have observed others who seem more than willing. Try them.
You said that what these SJWs, believe entails fascism:Quoting DingoJones
I didn't call you a fascist nor did I identify your political ideology. I said you're overstating the consequences while insisting you aren't overstating it. Fascists are almost uniformly regarded as being of an extreme right wing ideology, where powerful business and industry are pulled into and operate under the auspices of an authoritarian state. Comparing these are very silly. SJWs are, funnily, somewhat minimally left wing because they most often pay attention only to the social arena and economics comes up only inasmuch as it relates to socially discriminatory outcomes. But they are still left wing and thus I don't see how their views entails the contrary of their views unless you elaborate.
Quoting DingoJones
No I didnt. For all you're complaining you've misrepresented what I said, not the reverse. I was talking about "SJWs" as being people who make everything subservient to identity, not you. I was saying there are good reasons to criticize those people, but not (as you did) to call them or the consequences of their views fascistic.
Women's liberation, gay liberation, Unionism, abolition, temperance, women's suffrage, etc. are all examples of movements emerging when economic and political circumstances allowed for these movements to develop. (Note: Sometimes economic and political factors caused these movements, other times they just opened the door.
Many rightists join leftists in calling for racial, economic, and social justice.