Liberalism, equality and diversity and political correctness.. are they really such a bad thing?

In theory they should be a good thing, but in practice they're just used as an excuse for bullying people

It depends on how you spin them.   Most people making bad choices have no idea that they are breaking the laws of human decency.

Political Correctness was created for those who never learned manners.

Yes, "political correctness" is a bad thing.


Of course, what I mean by "political correctness" is its use as a buzzphrase by people who wish to use bigoted language without social sanction. For example:

Person A: Lower Elbonians are all theives and liars!

Person B: How can you say that? That's a mean and bigoted statement.

Person A: Well, I'm just refusing to be "politically correct!"

In my experience, about 99% of all complaints about "political correctness" boil down to the above scenario. People who hold bigoted thoughts (which is 99.9999999% of all people) and who want to voice them, but who don't want to face the social sanctions they know will accompany their voicing their bigoted thoughts, so they use the "political correctness...BAD!" canard as a shield. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 16, 2016 12:27 PM MST

Thankyou, Daydreamer!
As an Australian, I was perplexed by the same phenomenon when I first came here.

It turns out that in the USA, the term "liberal" has become so old-fashioned that it is now almost meaningless. Liberalism has divided into so many subgroups that I can't find or count them all. It is used very broadly as a term of abuse against anyone who supports a left of centrist approach to a social welfare safety net and who stands for any means of assisting equal opportunity and reducing systemic disadvantage.

On the right of the spectrum - You can find (a tiny minority of) characters here who are deeply conservative Christians, who's faith makes them radical anarchist prepers, who do not vote, but if they had to would vote Republican on the grounds that less government bureaucracy means less corruption - and support unlimited freedom of speech and the right to own all kinds of weapons. To me, the odd thing about this is that, historically, anarchy started out as a non-state variety of communism, of small-scale collectivism in which workers owned their means of production. A minimal government,  a collective of representatives, would link together the things that needed wider co-ordination. Somehow, an offshoot of communism has ended up attracting republicans!

You can find other rightists here who are standard conservatives in all respects. To me they seem to be in the minority on this site -- but that might be because they don't respond as much on the mainboard -- are somewhat less active.

The right believes that a social safety net is the cause of government debt and all the economic woes. It believes that social welfare makes people dependent and prevents them making the effort to look after themselves. As far as I can tell, they have no knowledge of the proportion of taxes that goes on fighting wars overseas. Hardly anyone seems to know that ever since deregulation, no government has had any control over the economy: that corporations are now the ones which really hold the reins of economics and the world's fate.

It seems that people on the right literally hate people on the left and vice versa.

Another feature of US politics is the tendency to verbal abuse. People on both sides of the spectrum will raise an issue and couch it in very emotional language, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes with a catch 22 that makes any sane answer impossible. It makes an intelligent, polite response a real challenge. And sometimes I despair. Almost every day, I consider leaving. It would be so-oo much more interesting and enjoyable if people would debate the actual issues using research, evidence, examples and sound reasoning.

There is a general perception that more rightists are also likely to be white-supremacists and anti-Muslims. But I notice that this is not predictably so. I've met (here) people who are strongly liberal in almost all respects but absolutely terrified of Muslims -- completely unwilling to recognise the diversity in Islamic positions and attitudes or that less than 2% of those who follow Islam have any sympathy for ISIS and it's ilk.

I count myself as classically liberal in the original sense of the word. I am a Green, pro-feminist, anti-racist, and an atheist in favour of religious freedom. I favour freedom of speech, but I do not accept that such freedom should include the right to abuse people. Abuse simply does not work. It hurts. It kicks people in the gut of their self-identity. It rankles and festers till it becomes hatred and turns into a violent poison. And it can be infectious. People want to retaliate to try to get rid of the emotional pain.

In my view, it is preferable to try to understand how and why people think differently. And it is preferable to explain the reasons why we hold our views. If others don't want to listen, or listen but don't agree, that is their right. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 31, 2016 2:08 PM MST