info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Foolishness of Political Correctness
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Ilya Shambat
Feb 5, 2024, 5:25:25 PMFeb 5
to
The proponents of political correctness like to portray anyone who takes objection to political correctness as a bigot or a neanderthal. Any expression containing even a hint of anger brings on that response. I am responding now to political correctness in a manner that is fully reasoned and that cannot be portrayed credibly as any such thing.
Political correctness not only fails to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect; it prevents them from being made possible at all. In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. For me to do so the next person will have to be able to tell me their honest opinions however offensive these may be. And if the next person cannot tell me their honest opinions because someone may find them offensive, then I will never understand the next person's perspective, and I would not know whether or not to extend to that person actual tolerance or actual respect.
What is achieved this way is nothing close to tolerance or respect. What is achieved this way is suffocating insincerity. And insincerity is a horrible thing to inflict upon a population. It makes Americans look to everyone else like scammers. Even I, who have fought this state of affairs ever since I knew what it was, could not escape this stereotype when I went to Australia.
Now there have been many arguments by conservatives that 1960s and 1970s liberalism degraded national character. Political correctness does that much more. People having sex and doing drugs does not necessarily make people worse human beings. Being taught to be insincere, however, very much does make people worse human beings. And that degrades national character for real.
Before political correctness in America, there were similar attitudes in Japan. According to their beliefs you get what you send out; so you cannot say or even think anything negative. But there are many situations in which you do have to say things that are negative. When a nuclear reactor explodes you have to tell people what actually has taken place. Doing anything else is not enlightenment, it is lying.
Similar themes have been tried in a fair country formerly known as Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was widely regarded as a civilized country, indeed the best country in the Communist bloc. The government preached something similar to political correctness, and it made sure that people conformed to it. Because people were not allowed to express their feelings, they could not move beyond their suppressed ethnic hatreds, which is what they had been feeling all along. The fair country called Yugoslavia was replaced with mass graves and rapes of every female aged 4 to 70. This was not accidental; it was a logical outcome of the politically correct policies that the Tito government had put into place.
I am from Russia, and Russians are generally regarded as the rudest people in the world. I have encountered in any number of places – especially the American South – the attitude that politeness is the same thing as respect; but a credible case can be made that rudeness is actually more respectable than politeness. When you are rude I know where you are standing, whereas when you are polite I am left guessing. If you think that Russians, or Jews, or myself personally, are evil, then I would rather hear that than to see you pretending to be nice to me while waiting to stab me in the back. That way I know what I am dealing with, and I can find workable ways to deal with it.
Now I do not necessarily advocate unchecked rudeness, as that can be off-putting to people and often deter useful input. But that outcome is far more reliably accomplished by the attitude that no opinion that anyone can consider offensive should be expressed. The outcome of the preceding, once again, is nothing close to tolerance or respect. The outcome of the preceding is suffocating insincerity. And that, once again, is very bad for the country. It makes everyone dishonest, and as such it degrades national character.
Besides, once again, making all but impossible its stated goals of achieving tolerance and respect.
Of course the participants in political correctness do not begin to follow their own stated claims of respect or tolerance. I have been viciously misrepresented by these people as everything that I am not. A sociopath, a racist, a misogynist, you name it. I have even been slandered ridiculously as a pedophile. Yet very few of these people have done anything to help women at the receiving end of real abuses such as severe brutality, death threats or corrupt courts taking away their children. Very few of these people have maintained close, lasting, serious friendships with people who were black, or people who were poor, or people who are socially ostracized. Very few of these people have done anything to confront real misogyny such as that of Eminem or Michael Murphy. I have done all of the above.
The same people who call themselves feminists have been abetting the most viciously misogynistic ideology on the planet – Jihadist Islam. The same people who call themselves feminists have been excusing inner city thugs in their crimes against women. Of course they do not see the outcome of their policies; however the people who fund them and vote for them do.
At this point the participants in this abominable movement will want to portray me as a dangerous person. I certainly hope to be dangerous to them; I hope that more people be dangerous to them, both on the Left and the Right. These people have inflicted a very real form of fascism upon countries that are intended to be free; and if America's founders were alive today they would see them for how gravely they have violated the constitutional intent.
As well as, once again, degrading the national character.
As well as, once again, making all but impossible their own stated goals of tolerance and respect.
I have close friendships with a number of classical liberals, including some with major personal achievements, and none of them have any use for political correctness. One statement I've heard from a young Jewish lady is that political correctness is an embarrassment to liberalism; and that it is indeed. Liberalism was never meant to be the same thing as fascism, and liberalism was never meant to be the same thing as forced insincerity.
A person who actually seeks to achieve things such as respect and tolerance will not be telling people to not say anything that somebody may consider offensive. He will allow people to say exactly what they are feeling and thinking, however offensive these things may be. Then people will understand one another's actual perspectives; and then they will know whether or not to tolerate or respect one another.
Political correctness makes this outcome impossible. And that means that it is the biggest thing that stands in the way of the commendable goal of achieving tolerance and respect.
Ilya Shambat
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Political correctness not only fails to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect; it prevents them from being made possible at all. In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. For me to do so the next person will have to be able to tell me their honest opinions however offensive these may be. And if the next person cannot tell me their honest opinions because someone may find them offensive, then I will never understand the next person's perspective, and I would not know whether or not to extend to that person actual tolerance or actual respect.
What is achieved this way is nothing close to tolerance or respect. What is achieved this way is suffocating insincerity. And insincerity is a horrible thing to inflict upon a population. It makes Americans look to everyone else like scammers. Even I, who have fought this state of affairs ever since I knew what it was, could not escape this stereotype when I went to Australia.
Now there have been many arguments by conservatives that 1960s and 1970s liberalism degraded national character. Political correctness does that much more. People having sex and doing drugs does not necessarily make people worse human beings. Being taught to be insincere, however, very much does make people worse human beings. And that degrades national character for real.
Before political correctness in America, there were similar attitudes in Japan. According to their beliefs you get what you send out; so you cannot say or even think anything negative. But there are many situations in which you do have to say things that are negative. When a nuclear reactor explodes you have to tell people what actually has taken place. Doing anything else is not enlightenment, it is lying.
Similar themes have been tried in a fair country formerly known as Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was widely regarded as a civilized country, indeed the best country in the Communist bloc. The government preached something similar to political correctness, and it made sure that people conformed to it. Because people were not allowed to express their feelings, they could not move beyond their suppressed ethnic hatreds, which is what they had been feeling all along. The fair country called Yugoslavia was replaced with mass graves and rapes of every female aged 4 to 70. This was not accidental; it was a logical outcome of the politically correct policies that the Tito government had put into place.
I am from Russia, and Russians are generally regarded as the rudest people in the world. I have encountered in any number of places – especially the American South – the attitude that politeness is the same thing as respect; but a credible case can be made that rudeness is actually more respectable than politeness. When you are rude I know where you are standing, whereas when you are polite I am left guessing. If you think that Russians, or Jews, or myself personally, are evil, then I would rather hear that than to see you pretending to be nice to me while waiting to stab me in the back. That way I know what I am dealing with, and I can find workable ways to deal with it.
Now I do not necessarily advocate unchecked rudeness, as that can be off-putting to people and often deter useful input. But that outcome is far more reliably accomplished by the attitude that no opinion that anyone can consider offensive should be expressed. The outcome of the preceding, once again, is nothing close to tolerance or respect. The outcome of the preceding is suffocating insincerity. And that, once again, is very bad for the country. It makes everyone dishonest, and as such it degrades national character.
Besides, once again, making all but impossible its stated goals of achieving tolerance and respect.
Of course the participants in political correctness do not begin to follow their own stated claims of respect or tolerance. I have been viciously misrepresented by these people as everything that I am not. A sociopath, a racist, a misogynist, you name it. I have even been slandered ridiculously as a pedophile. Yet very few of these people have done anything to help women at the receiving end of real abuses such as severe brutality, death threats or corrupt courts taking away their children. Very few of these people have maintained close, lasting, serious friendships with people who were black, or people who were poor, or people who are socially ostracized. Very few of these people have done anything to confront real misogyny such as that of Eminem or Michael Murphy. I have done all of the above.
The same people who call themselves feminists have been abetting the most viciously misogynistic ideology on the planet – Jihadist Islam. The same people who call themselves feminists have been excusing inner city thugs in their crimes against women. Of course they do not see the outcome of their policies; however the people who fund them and vote for them do.
At this point the participants in this abominable movement will want to portray me as a dangerous person. I certainly hope to be dangerous to them; I hope that more people be dangerous to them, both on the Left and the Right. These people have inflicted a very real form of fascism upon countries that are intended to be free; and if America's founders were alive today they would see them for how gravely they have violated the constitutional intent.
As well as, once again, degrading the national character.
As well as, once again, making all but impossible their own stated goals of tolerance and respect.
I have close friendships with a number of classical liberals, including some with major personal achievements, and none of them have any use for political correctness. One statement I've heard from a young Jewish lady is that political correctness is an embarrassment to liberalism; and that it is indeed. Liberalism was never meant to be the same thing as fascism, and liberalism was never meant to be the same thing as forced insincerity.
A person who actually seeks to achieve things such as respect and tolerance will not be telling people to not say anything that somebody may consider offensive. He will allow people to say exactly what they are feeling and thinking, however offensive these things may be. Then people will understand one another's actual perspectives; and then they will know whether or not to tolerate or respect one another.
Political correctness makes this outcome impossible. And that means that it is the biggest thing that stands in the way of the commendable goal of achieving tolerance and respect.
Ilya Shambat
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
oldernow
Feb 5, 2024, 5:42:02 PMFeb 5
to
On 2024-02-05, Ilya Shambat <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
The self-righteous social fundamentalists shunning and/or otherwise
enforcing political correctness in these times are hypocritically
those who had conniption fits over "born again" Christians of the
1980s allegedly doing the same.
--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com
> ...
> Political correctness makes this outcome impossible. And
> that means that it is the biggest thing that stands in
> the way of the commendable goal of achieving tolerance
> and respect.
Nice analysis!
> that means that it is the biggest thing that stands in
> the way of the commendable goal of achieving tolerance
> and respect.
The self-righteous social fundamentalists shunning and/or otherwise
enforcing political correctness in these times are hypocritically
those who had conniption fits over "born again" Christians of the
1980s allegedly doing the same.
--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com
D
Feb 6, 2024, 5:36:08 PMFeb 6
to
to not think certain things.
I try shock therapy sometimes and say the word "negro" to people. Some go
silent, some become afraid and look around, and some... the interesting
ones... ask my why I sad the forbidden word, and then we're off having a
very interesting conversation about what society tries to force us to
think and if that is a good thing or not.
Truthslave
Feb 6, 2024, 8:27:41 PMFeb 6
to
All i see are more buttons being pushing.
A confused quest to find those who blindly agrees, and those
who question meaning.
If there were analysis, there would first be an agreement on what
exactly was being Analyzed.
I see a label changing with the times.
A label as a banner or black flag, a rallying cry,
to mean any thing, or all things, everything and nothing.
I see the sound passed from one generation to the next, and our
managed reflexes. Whatever it once meant, has long since passed on,
into the relm of nonsense.
Without a clear idea , all we are left with is dissonance and the
controls found there.
Truthslave
Feb 6, 2024, 8:45:13 PMFeb 6
to
On 06/02/2024 22:36, D wrote:
> Analysis you say.
>
> All i see are more buttons being pushing.
> A confused quest to find those who blindly agrees, and those
> who question meaning.
>
> If there were analysis, there would first be an agreement on what
> exactly was being Analyzed.
>
> I see a label changing with the times.
> A label as a banner or black flag, a rallying cry,
> to mean any thing, or all things, everything and nothing.
>
> I see the sound passed from one generation to the next, and our
> managed reflexes. Whatever it once meant, has long since passed on,
> into the relm of nonsense.
>
> Without a clear idea , all we are left with is dissonance and the
> controls found there.
>
[corrections]
> Analysis you say.
>
> All i see are more buttons being pushing.
> A confused quest to find those who blindly agrees, and those
> who question meaning.
>
> If there were analysis, there would first be an agreement on what
> exactly was being Analyzed.
>
> I see a label changing with the times.
> A label as a banner or black flag, a rallying cry,
> to mean any thing, or all things, everything and nothing.
>
> I see the sound passed from one generation to the next, and our
> managed reflexes. Whatever it once meant, has long since passed on,
> into the relm of nonsense.
>
> Without a clear idea , all we are left with is dissonance and the
> controls found there.
>
Analysis you say.
All i see are more 'button beings' pushing.
A confused quest to find those who blindly agrees, and those
who question meaning.
If there were analysis, there would first be an agreement on what
exactly was being Analyzed.
I see a label changing with the times.
A label as a banner or black flag, a rallying cry,
to mean any thing, or all things, everything and nothing.
I see the sound passed from one generation to the next, and our
managed reflexes. Whatever it once meant, has long since passed on,
into the realm of nonsense.
who question meaning.
If there were analysis, there would first be an agreement on what
exactly was being Analyzed.
I see a label changing with the times.
A label as a banner or black flag, a rallying cry,
to mean any thing, or all things, everything and nothing.
I see the sound passed from one generation to the next, and our
managed reflexes. Whatever it once meant, has long since passed on,
Without a clear idea , all we are left with is dissonance and the
controls found there.
types organized around the machine. appendages to the AI.
D
Feb 7, 2024, 5:22:11 AMFeb 7
to
saying.
Best regards,
Daniel
oldernow
Feb 7, 2024, 8:00:25 AMFeb 7
to
On 2024-02-07, Truthslave <T...@home.com> wrote:
> Analysis you say.
>
> All i see are more buttons being pushing. A confused
> quest to find those who blindly agrees, and those who
> question meaning.
I've no argument with what other see, i.e. believe.
> Analysis you say.
>
> All i see are more buttons being pushing. A confused
> quest to find those who blindly agrees, and those who
> question meaning.
> If there were analysis, there would first be an agreement
> on what exactly was being Analyzed.
constitutes analysis might be less rigorous. And then sometimes
people are just trying to have some word fun they consider clever.
So........
> I see a label changing with the times.
> A label as a banner or black flag, a rallying cry,
> to mean any thing, or all things, everything and nothing.
conceptuality contexts sometimes referred to as individual minds?
> I see the sound passed from one generation to the next,
> and our managed reflexes. Whatever it once meant, has long
> since passed on, into the relm of nonsense.
> Without a clear idea , all we are left with is dissonance
> and the controls found there.
created by insisting there's some common, objective meaning to
words. Next to nothing in my life experience supports that belief.
I can't even make it through a couple, three consecutive days without
my wife and I at odds over what is in fact mutual pretense that words
contain meaning, when in fact we endow them with private meaning.
Which, of course, renders this transmission attempt - not to mention
its author - pretty silly.... ;-)
Truthslave
Feb 7, 2024, 11:13:19 PMFeb 7
to
I seek to make the intangibles of this relationship, real, something
considered, better known, thought about..
Ai as tool is one thing, we are in control, we know its limits.
Its another toy promising a brighter future.
Ai though has so many aspects, the same way gm has many aspects, or
any other technology, good or ill, better or worst.
What sets Ai apart is the absence of feedback. Those who create these
tools wont know how they are used. When these tools become procedural
or aspects of societal automation, they open the doors to a bleak
existence no one is able to keeps track of. Existential doesn't come
close to discribing it.
So there's that.
I say philosophy, the new philosophy should be one concerned with
creating language for these evolving relationships. A philosophy of
men and machines. The psychology of surveillance, on either side of
its use, accountability in our increasing ai centric world.
My coinage the 'button beings' should speaks for itself. 'They' are
necessary adjuncts to the ai, which otherwise can't impact the lives
of those it monitors.
These 'button beings', add to the data, even as they respond to the
data. They are cogs with a limited aspect of the system, playing a
part with no regard to all the other 'button beings', they rely on,
or who now relies on them.
But enough for now on them.
As for the label 'political correctness', i would say that is now all
it is. A label.
Whatever it once stood for, has long been forgotten. Its now a sound
one reacts to upon hearing it. Bemused by, angered by, threatened by.
Our rights, their claims, their freedom, our histories.
We can only tussle with the 'ill defined', all claiming purpose from
the confusion.
Imagine if this label did not exist but the same reactions existed.
Those reactions would be better understood in relation to the specific
circumstance being reacted to.
we would question the merits or otherwise of those reactions, those
often dogged allegiances to the past, would be judged from a position
of modernity, the greater demands of modernity.
Political correctness, as i understood it back in the 70s acted as
a prism on the past. It was about the language, its control as it
was used. It was about the subtle ways we accept, and absorb language,
without really considering its effects on our collective psyche.
The meaning, the implication, the tired habitual formations of
thought, binding us to the centuries old past. It, before it was
lost to the absurd, was about change, it was about a way to see
the part played by the past on the present and future discourse.
Then things shifted towards the absurd, it shifted as individuals
sought to add to, or invent for themselves new aspects of this general
principle. what set out to deconstruct the language, was was derailed
but the new reconstructions, which became ironic in their application.
There were no rules to say what was, or what was not. [kind of like
ai, but i wont digress.]
It seems to me the intellectual foundation for this movement, either
lost its way, or was forgotten, or simply gave up on any control or
definition, and so 'it' became all things and nothing. we now laugh
with the times.
I've gone for a bit, i could go further but i'll stop. Hopefully ai
can follow well enough to understand me. ;0)
oldernow
Feb 8, 2024, 8:46:19 AMFeb 8
to
On 2024-02-08, Truthslave <T...@home.com> wrote:
> As for the label 'political correctness', i would say that
> is now all it is. A label.
>
> Whatever it once stood for, has long been forgotten. Its
> now a sound one reacts to upon hearing it. Bemused by,
> angered by, threatened by. Our rights, their claims,
> their freedom, our histories.
I was there. :-)
> As for the label 'political correctness', i would say that
> is now all it is. A label.
>
> Whatever it once stood for, has long been forgotten. Its
> now a sound one reacts to upon hearing it. Bemused by,
> angered by, threatened by. Our rights, their claims,
> their freedom, our histories.
It stood for egos that made an extra effort to be seen to be aligned
with larger groups of egos banded together by the belief that
their beliefs about social matters - especially morality -
were the "right" ones and, thus, unaligned beliefs were
the "wrong" ones, sufficiently wrong to shame/guilt in
public, and quite probably socially shun/cancel the
possessors thereof.
Its essence is ancient and persistent through history, being fueled
by ego and collections thereof. Only its label changes. These days
we call it "wokeness".
But it's just plain old self-righteousness gone fundamentalist
for/by its fanning its own flames, i.e. by its constituent egos
repeatedly murmuring their self-righteous morality mantras.
D
Feb 8, 2024, 4:59:16 PMFeb 8
to
Could you please tell me more about your philosophy? Is it a philosophy of
language? Are you walking in the foot steps of Wittgenstein?
Best regards,
Daniel
D
Feb 8, 2024, 4:59:54 PMFeb 8
to
political correctness.
Arindam Banerjee
Feb 9, 2024, 7:36:52 AMFeb 9
to
On Tuesday 6 February 2024 at 09:25:25 UTC+11, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> The proponents of political correctness like to portray anyone who takes objection to political correctness as a bigot or a neanderthal. Any expression containing even a hint of anger brings on that response. I am responding now to political correctness in a manner that is fully reasoned and that cannot be portrayed credibly as any such thing.
>
> Political correctness not only fails to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect; it prevents them from being made possible at all. In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. For me to do so the next person will have to be able to tell me their honest opinions however offensive these may be. And if the next person cannot tell me their honest opinions because someone may find them offensive, then I will never understand the next person's perspective, and I would not know whether or not to extend to that person actual tolerance or actual respect.
There is a shloka is Sanskrit, meaning that pleasant (deceitful) lies and unpleasant (harsh) truths should not be uttered.
> The proponents of political correctness like to portray anyone who takes objection to political correctness as a bigot or a neanderthal. Any expression containing even a hint of anger brings on that response. I am responding now to political correctness in a manner that is fully reasoned and that cannot be portrayed credibly as any such thing.
>
> Political correctness not only fails to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect; it prevents them from being made possible at all. In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. For me to do so the next person will have to be able to tell me their honest opinions however offensive these may be. And if the next person cannot tell me their honest opinions because someone may find them offensive, then I will never understand the next person's perspective, and I would not know whether or not to extend to that person actual tolerance or actual respect.
An honest opinion is usually an unpleasant truth. One who receives it already knows it - so no point telling them they are fat, old, bald (as I am) or stupid and mean (like most people).
The whole point of democracy with secret ballot is that one does not know what the next person's perspective really is. That is a great boon, really, when we need to work together without friction rising from unnecessary talk.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
0 new messages