Quote# 143237

Political Correctness never was about being offensive, every living person will sooner or later be offended by someone or something. It is all about language manipulation and censorship to promote an agenda, camouflaged as appropriateness. It is using flowery euphemisms to soften injustices and immorality and to sway opinions by redefining words to accomplish goals. It does not immediately change what people think, it only changes what they can say. Eventually, however, it eliminates opposing thoughts altogether because if you control the language, you control how people think. That is why Political Correctness is promoted by the radical reformist movement; they can keep changing the goal posts in attempted to eventually change societies thinking.

For example, the use of the acronym LGBT even in an opposing presentation is, in fact, supporting the pro-sodomy movement because pro-activists established it. The list of sexual orientations is a long one, however, pro-sodomy activists chose LGBT because the acronym pulls select behaviors from the complete list of other orientations including pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia/bestiality, etc. (from "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, pp. 566-582). It separates the idea of “bad or immoral behavior" and ties it in with "the person" which plays right into the hand of Identity Politics, the “Social Justice” ideology and the Politically Correct movement. Activists did this in order to lessen the stigma of sodomy. In actuality, we are letting them control the language by using it. The term “social justice” is in parenthesizes because there is really no such thing as social injustice, there is merely injustice.

Another perfect example of the madness of Political Correctness is the initial redefining of “physical violence” to cover verbal abuse, then the eventual redefining of, or the attempt at redefining, verbal abuse to include “offensive to”, which brought about the whole “microagression culture” on many college campuses followed by “safe zones” (even if there was no intended malice in the offense). This has now lead to moving the goal posts once again to demand the use of specialized, and “newly created and defined” pronouns.
Those influenced by the Politically Correct Cyclone have even gone full circle with racism. They now justify hate of white people based solely on their skin color yet fully celebrate Black History Month. Certain transgender groups are now objecting to “bisexual” because it presumes the existence of only two genders and feminists are at odds with transgenderism because it promotes more than two genders. Yet feminists protest side by side with radical Islamists who defame, defile and even deform women through genital mutilation.

So is it honestly at all surprising that many conservatives would like nothing more than to sit down and honestly examine why you disagree with their position, however, many of the opposition are not interested in the conservative viewpoint on any issue, they simply want you to agree with them and if you are unwilling to do so, they feel the need to force into compliance?

TheOfficeOfTheNight, Deviantart 14 Comments [4/14/2019 6:30:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Shakesmyhead

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Malingspann

Political Correctness never was about being offensive.

4/14/2019 8:04:30 AM



Political Correctness never was about being offensive, every living person will sooner or later be offended by someone or something. It is all about language manipulation and censorship to promote an agenda, camouflaged as appropriateness. 


That explains why we're supposed to be PC when it pertains to Christian terrorists and paedophiles. We are to not call them out, expect other right wing assholes to condemn them, nor call people like Chopurcockuv enablers. Because it isn't PC to.

4/14/2019 9:11:35 AM

Swede

No, Political Correctness was, and is, behaving decently to other people.

LGBTQIA+ people exist, whether you like it or not.
They are not similar to "pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia/bestiality, etc", as none of those three are about consenting adults. The first are normal variations, the latter are paraphilias, non-consensual violations.

Where the heck is the sodomy in asexuality? Oh, and why do you want a stigma on sodomy? If practiced between consenting adults, it harms no-one, and is none of your business.

As to “offensive to” and “safe zones”; how about "women have the right to decide over their own bodies", "evolution is a fact", "all humans aer equal". You have never ever wanted to find a place where no-one says these things, right? A place that is "safe" from views like those, right?

Not thinking pale-pink skin being speshul is not hatred of white people, dolt. I'm a Swede, born to Swedish parents, have Swedish grandparents and great-grand-parents and great-great-grand-parents. My skin is not WHITE, it's pinkish-beige. Not that most black people are really BLACK, either. Most are dark-brown, some are even more blueish than black.

Transgenders are not (necessarily) bisexual, and certain lesbian groups are objecting to transwomen. That doesn't mean that bisexuality or transwomen don't exist. Catholics and Protestants have been at each others' throats for centuries; are there actually no Protestants nor Catholics?

No feminists would ever side with female genital mutilation. Fewer and fewer muslims do, too. Feminists might say that Muslims are humans too, and deserve equal rights. That does not mean that they support radical Islamists. Quite a few radical "Republicanists" want to defame, defile and even kill women for having abortions. Are you not human beings that deserve equal rights?

You've never heard the argument for free speech, have you, dolt? Rights are universal; if you want them, you'll have to fight for the rights of everyone else to have them too. One can disagree with another person's viewpoints and position, and still fight for that person's right to voice them. And no, we are not interested in the conservative viewpoint; if you want to voice it, you have to be there to voice it; no-one is coming to you to ask for it. And yes, everyone wants to convince people "on the other side" to agree with them. Arguing is not violation of free speech, it is USING free speech. You have not right not to be contradicted.

4/14/2019 9:16:59 AM

Lucilius

"It is all about language manipulation and censorship to promote an agenda ..."

So, totally unlike screaming the racist and sexist epithets, which you're OK with?

4/14/2019 9:40:38 AM

Canadiest

This reminds me of searching out mad tv clips on YouTube and getting paranoid rw comments blocking out any content but bullshit "You could never do this on tv today" "SNL's to politically correct" and shit like that.

they simply have to act like victims constantly

4/14/2019 10:04:00 AM

Passerby

"Political Correctness" is a derisive use of language formulated to undermine the very effort to deconstruct the exact manipulation of language to shape opinion that the term represents along with casually repeated false equivalencies, suppositions, and whole-cloth narratives trying to pass themselves off as facts.

And everything ELSE you said just underscores that point.

4/14/2019 10:10:11 AM

Citizen Justin

"So is it honestly at all surprising that many conservatives would like nothing more than to sit down and honestly examine why you disagree with their position,"

Very funny.

4/14/2019 10:56:12 AM

Kanna

"Political correctness" has been around forever, long, long before that particular term for it was coined. Religion had a lot to do with it; in some parts of the world (largely in the Middle East and the southern part of the USA) it is assumed that you will follow the dominant religion. In those parts, punishments for anything said against religion range from societal disapproval to shunning to the death sentence.

Politicians on the right have long waved the flag and spoken in approving terms of "the bible, motherhood, and apple pie" (or in less public moments, they'd use the term "barefoot and pregnant") and against "feminism, atheism, and abortion" . This is entirely knee-jerk on their part. Until very recent days, those politicians were almost exclusively male, and almost exclusively espoused that party line without ever thinking about it, and without any shame that they dared to speak of half the human race so dismissively.

THAT is "political correctness", and I've seen it and heard it for over seven decades now. I'm getting pretty old, and so is that attitude.

4/14/2019 11:30:22 AM

Anon-e-moose

As of a few days ago, 'Upskirting' is now a specific criminal offence here in Britain.

Article 13 in the EU.

HM Government telling Facebook, Twitter etc to either voluntarily clean up their act re. content: or the matter taken out of their hands. The 'Purge' of certain subs on Reddit: even porn - and worse - on Tumblr.

Incelocalypse lasting just 111 days: even refused by Russia.

The main incels sub that was on Reddit now on it's third domain.

Andrew Anglin now effectively with no web presence.

If the Politically Incorrect aren't prepared to admit they're wrong: then they don't have the right to be surprised when Politicians do their job for them.

Why are you & all your ilk defending the Politically Incorrect, OP: SJW for them, much...?!

Why no criticism of the Incorrect Politician Donald Fart allowed on r/T_D, if you're all for Political Incorrectness? The Trumptards certainly come out of the woodwork whenever artist Phillip M. 'JollyJack' Jackson uploads to Deviantart a pic that isn't exactly praising that orange... thing.

4/14/2019 12:07:48 PM

creativerealms

That's a lot of bullshit.

4/14/2019 12:24:42 PM

Zinnia

@Citizen Justin:

They exist. I've had the misfortune of "arguing" with them. I put that in quotes because they simply ignore everything you say and explain how the sensibilities of middle-class white bigots matter more than anything else, frame it as a matter of civility or propriety or something similar, and then repeat their points ad nauseum as if you were a particularly slow child and they had no better way of teaching you.

Once time I got into an argument about international politics with one of them. It was closer to an actual argument this time, but it basically boiled down to "oppressed people always have 'proper channels' to make their oppression magically go away, they just don't use them because they're violent and thus need to be kept down". Also, when pressed, they couldn't say what those 'proper channels' actually were, only that there is always a proper channel for *everything*, therefore it stands to reason that there must be one.

4/14/2019 1:33:25 PM

Citizen Justin

@ Zinnia

That is hardly "an honest examination of why you disagree with their position".

4/14/2019 1:43:14 PM

Zinnia

@Citizen Justin:

Sorry, I misread that badly somehow. The type of people I was talking about were ones who claimed they wanted an honest discussion of the differences and not an examination, but after the initial part where they seemed honest and sincere they slip into some sort of bizarre "education" mode where clearly the liberal is just ignorant or misinformed or something. I think I somehow had a brain fart and interpreted "examination" as something along the lines of "give an exam" and therefore teaching, but whatever it was, I remember the text saying something different. Apologies.

4/14/2019 3:35:37 PM



"It is all about language manipulation and censorship to promote an agenda, camouflaged as appropriateness. "

That is so true. You can see it at work. You can see it when pro tyranny activists call themselves "pro-life", trying to make what they are seem appropriate.

4/15/2019 3:45:31 AM

1 | top: comments page