3 ms·

Silencing other points of view. Safe spaces. Refusing to call radical Islam what it is. Just a few examples.

ch4s3 10y ago
Oh please, demagogue of every stripe try to silence dissenting views. And you're really upset about safe spaces? Who cares if kids at liberal arts colleges want to shelter themselves from whatever bothers them about the world, they're hardly hurting anyone. And "radical Islam" vs. whatever else you want to call someone else's world view is really just a name. With respect to "radical Islam", it hardly tells you anything if you use the term. Are you talking about Salafism, Jihadist-Salafism, Wahhabism, various religiously tinged forms of Arab Nationalism, etc. They're all very different things and when you call them all "radicalism" you risk wiping away important nuances that inform better decision making. Mostly, I think the term "political correctness" is asinine. I've literally never met a single person who claimed to be trying to be "politically correct," I've only ever heard it used as a pejorative used to brush aside other people's opinions and concerns. Historically it mean holding the party line above reason and compassion, and was repurposed in the 1970's to mean to have "correct" political thinking. See a quote from the time "a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist, too." Hardly objectionable, really. The phrase was turned around in the 90's to mean loosely "liberal bias" or "liberal concerns" Not to be confused with Neoliberalism, but rather center-left American politics. The term has really become more of a dog whistle than anything useful or meaningful. It's mostly used in political commentary to mean that the user of the term disagrees with another party's assertion that a particularly phrase, policy, etc is the product of bigotry. For example: John makes a statement about Asian-Americans, and Mary calls the statement racist. Mark replies saying that John isn't a racist, Mary is just being politically correct. However, this is a logical fallacy, as Mark has not address the merit or content of Mary's critique. I guess my point is that "political correctness" isn't a problem, in my view the use of the term is a lazy rhetorical device. It is used when one has no interest in engaging criticism, or doesn't like being called out on being a demagogue.

ch4s3 10y ago

Oh please, demagogue of every stripe try to silence dissenting views. And you're really upset about safe spaces? Who cares if kids at liberal arts colleges want to shelter themselves from whatever bothers them about the world, they're hardly hurting anyone. And "radical Islam" vs. whatever else you want to call someone else's world view is really just a name. With respect to "radical Islam", it hardly tells you anything if you use the term. Are you talking about Salafism, Jihadist-Salafism, Wahhabism, various religiously tinged forms of Arab Nationalism, etc. They're all very different things and when you call them all "radicalism" you risk wiping away important nuances that inform better decision making. Mostly, I think the term "political correctness" is asinine. I've literally never met a single person who claimed to be trying to be "politically correct," I've only ever heard it used as a pejorative used to brush aside other people's opinions and concerns. Historically it mean holding the party line above reason and compassion, and was repurposed in the 1970's to mean to have "correct" political thinking. See a quote from the time "a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist, too." Hardly objectionable, really. The phrase was turned around in the 90's to mean loosely "liberal bias" or "liberal concerns" Not to be confused with Neoliberalism, but rather center-left American politics. The term has really become more of a dog whistle than anything useful or meaningful. It's mostly used in political commentary to mean that the user of the term disagrees with another party's assertion that a particularly phrase, policy, etc is the product of bigotry. For example: John makes a statement about Asian-Americans, and Mary calls the statement racist. Mark replies saying that John isn't a racist, Mary is just being politically correct. However, this is a logical fallacy, as Mark has not address the merit or content of Mary's critique. I guess my point is that "political correctness" isn't a problem, in my view the use of the term is a lazy rhetorical device. It is used when one has no interest in engaging criticism, or doesn't like being called out on being a demagogue.