Discussion » Questions » Politics » Liberalism, equality and diversity and political correctness.. are they really such a bad thing?
Benedict Arnold

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

I am always hearing people use liberalism, protecting equality and diversity and political correctness being used as an insult.. I truly don't get it.. Someone mentioned colleges and the education establishment as being rife with this terrible *disease*..  but in the same breath they accuse those who are liberal and or diversity as elitist.. I don't see how you can have it both ways..

My thinking is... protecting diversity and equality is actually it's a good thing! ANd it brings the opposite of elitism..

You bet we strongly encourage and support girls who want to study science and maths.. you bet we don't tolerate any racism... Why wouldnt we?? Why shopuld a girl be made to feel she cannot study physics because it's supposedly a boy's subject? Why should a black student be made to feel uncomfortable and victimised just because he happens to be black? IS he less deserving of education? Does his colour make him less intelligent?

AND that old chestnut political correctness.. that gets a really bad rap doesnt it.. but have we forgotten that most of what we now call politically correctness was brought in for a reason.. all those nasty insulting things we used to be able to say..calling black people names. calling people from Pakistan names... calling women stupid and dumb... and now have to think twice about..have you ever asked yourself.. should we REALLY be allowed to say those things? Do we really want a world where anyone who is different or a minority or weaker for any reason should face constant harassment and humiliation by insensitive boars?

Those who support equality and diversity are the opposite of elitist.. we are for inclusion and helping everyone have the same chances.. if we encourage girls to study science and black, asian, russian etc to study in our colleges isn't that by definition the opposite of elitist 

Quite honestly I welcome most political correctness.. the things we used to get away with were wrong and hurt a lot of people.. whats WRONG with treating people fairly.. wouldnt YOU want to be treated fairly if it were you? DO we all have so much trouble now putting ourselves in others shoes and empathising that we really think it's ok to be downright nasty to anyone who isn't supposedly like us?

I know my views won't be popular at this time.. when so many here seem to support Trump who embodies sexism, racism and a fair few isms besides... but honestly.. treating people fairly is the right thing to do...as a human being..sorry for those who think otherwise 

Posted - November 16, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 2219
    In theory they should be a good thing, but in practice they're just used as an excuse for bullying people
      November 16, 2016 9:32 AM MST
    3

  • Well my fellow born upon our fair Isle... I can honestly say that while you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.. I haven't found that to be the case.. I work in education and I have not found bullying of any kind tolerated.. yes we don't tolerate those who are racist.. that's because they are guilty of bullying others.. 

    Interested in your experiences and what you would do in the case of say a racist.. a student who continually makes unpleasant insulting comments about say asian students and who calls them names... what should a college do about that in order not to be seen as bullying the racists and not allowing all to have free speech?
      November 16, 2016 9:38 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    It depends on how you spin them.   Most people making bad choices have no idea that they are breaking the laws of human decency.

      November 16, 2016 10:28 AM MST
    1

  • 79
    Political Correctness was created for those who never learned manners.
      November 16, 2016 10:39 AM MST
    1

  • 3934
    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
      November 16, 2016 11:34 AM MST
    0

  • 2219
    No, political correctness is the offensive practice of the chattering classes of treating matter of fact descriptions of race which should be neutral or a matter of pride for the race concerned as if these descriptions are ipso facto offensive. 

    Their wrath should have been directed to terms that are actually offensive.

    The offence in the above case is branding innocent Elbonians as criminal; would the argument apply for a complimentary description such as hardworking. 


    There are races that I consider to be so, and I used to use their name as a term of respect, until the politically correct wallahs started branding it as somehow racist.
      November 16, 2016 3:15 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @Malizz -- re: "...matter of fact descriptions of race"

    Given that:

    A) "Race" is an artificial social construct

    B) The people who make these "matter of fact" statements almost invariably rely upon personal anecdocte (subject to all sorts of sampling errors, cognitive biases, and correllation = causation inferences). Hence, these so-called "matter of fact" statements are almost invariably prejudicial generalizations (whether positive or negative).

    And, yes, substituting your prejudicial stereotypes for empirical reality IS prima facie offensive. The flip side of "Wow, African-American NBA players are amazing athletes!" is "White Men Can't Jump!"
      November 16, 2016 3:25 PM MST
    0

  • 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
      November 16, 2016 12:17 PM MST
    1

  • 3934
    @hartfire -- Perhaps this will help you understand the phenomena you observe....;-D...

      November 16, 2016 12:29 PM MST
    1

  • Thank you, OldSchool!
    That's the most eloquent description of the divide that I've ever heard - and I live 100% on the side of empathy.

    It does suggest that patriarchal religions are more likely to produce the rightist view. Yet even this is not predictable - since within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there are broad and popular liberal sects.

    Excon posted a video in a blog several weeks ago which explains the empathic view beautifully in a series of simple statements with cartoon sketches.

    Maybe we are beginning to open up some more productive discussions.
      November 16, 2016 12:49 PM MST
    1

  • 3934
    @hartfire --- Elsewhere, Lakoff argues this construct basically wipes out the notion of a "politial moderate"

    Instead, we are ALL mixtures of Strict Father/Authoritarian views on some issues and Nurturing Parent/Communitarian on other issues. People with a greater mix of Strict Father tend to be "conservative" (by conventional definitions) while people who lean more Nurturing Parent tend to be "liberal" (by conventional definitions). But people who are 100% of either are rare.

    This construct is also VERY useful in understanding why the often obviuosly contradictory positions of some people happen. For example, in the United States, "white collar" crime such as securities fraud, insurance fraud, embezzlement, etc. actually cause far more monetary loss than "blue collar" crime (robbery, mugging, car theft, etc.). Yet, whenever advocates of "get tough on crime" speak out, they almost always neglect white collar crime.

    I think Lakoff's observations give us an indication why. As Lakoff notes, under the Strict Father mental construct, people who are economically succcesful in life are granted default probity under Strict Father thinking (you were moral, therefore you were disciplined, therefore you were successful). Hence, when a "successful" person commits, say, insurance fraud, it's an abberational slip-up by a deemed moral person. Conversely, when a poor person steals a TV set, the act is emblamatic of a fundamental character flaw of the poor person (who wouldn't BE poor if he/she were moral therefore disciplined therefore successful).

    The fact the insurance fraud hits victims for $500,000 while the TV set theft is $50 doesn't overcome the mental construct. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 31, 2016 2:18 PM MST
      November 16, 2016 1:22 PM MST
    1

  • Thank you, OldSchool. What you say is very interesting and makes good sense.
    It makes me want to study cognitive science and linguistics to develop the ability to see things with this kind of insight directly. I've ordered his books.
    I will admit that there is a part of me that would just love to write a new constitution for democracy that would guarantee  an empathic society - (and knows that such a task is beyond my skills in negotiation.)
    I think the human brain suffers from the reptilian influence of the top of the brain stem, whence comes the instinct for domination. It works like puppies in a litter, fighting for access to the bitch's milk. The one that grows faster and stronger gets a head start in bullying and the rest are forced to accept their roles in the developing pecking order. One sees the pattern among barnyard hens and crododiles.
    I prefer to believe that we can't rise to be truly human until will we learn how to restrain those impulses in favour of consistent altruism and empathy.
      November 17, 2016 12:00 PM MST
    1