Pro-life terrorism in the US

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Scott Good

Or do you mean that by calling someone on their racist remarks, we don't address the larger social context?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

We're talking about two different things here, even though we call both "racism." I'm talking about systemic inequities in society, the exclusion of groups of people from positions of influence in their communities on a completely arbitrary basis. You're talking about people saying naughty words.

It may come as a surprise to you that political correctness and hate-speech censorship have a long history of being not only comically ineffective against institutionalized inequities, but also detrimental in the long run to the very people they aim to protect. Weimar Germany had extensive laws against hate-speech, under which hundreds of offending parties were prosecuted (including one Joseph Goebbels). Bavaria banned the speeches of Adolf Hitler at one point. Yet, despite all this vigorous action against racist and anti-Semitic speech, the Nazis still came to power. Hate-speech laws in the UK that were initially supposed to protect immigrants from the predations of the National Front in the 1930's were later used to prosecute striking miners under Thatcher's regime. And hate-speech legislation in Canada has been used to close radical gay and lesbian bookstores.

As I said before, political correctness doesn't address real social inequities. It merely pretends that if were all really nice to one another, things will get better. It's a cozy fantasy for people who don't know any better (and allows people to assume a mantle of virtue against a perceived enemy), but nothing resembling the truth. The real work of empowering disenfranchised populations has been done in the context of identifying and correcting actual systemic inequities in housing and lending, hiring and advancement, and education.

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Chilperich,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk in terms of "liberal elites" and their "politically correct" agenda. Could you be a little more specific?

I thought I was being specific, since I assumed that most people would know what expressions such as "liberal elites" and "political correctness" mean, even if they reject the value judgements implicit in such terms (as I, you will have gathered, do not). I think that the best concise guide to the ideological capture of supposedly liberal bodies and institutions by the politically correct (whom their critics might alternatively characterise as Cultural Marxists, with their intellectual and ideological roots in the Frankfurt School of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, etc.) is The Politics of the Forked Tongue: Authoritarian Liberalism by Aidan Rankin (New European Publications, 2002).

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I consider myself very progressive politically. And I too deplore political correctness, which I see mainly as a way for people to whitewash social problems by sanitizing the way they're discussed in society. For example, a great hue and cry goes up if a celebrity says something insensitive about blacks or gays (in fact, it's probably bad enough to use terms like "black" or "gay"), and we're allowed to feel virtuous in our outrage because it substitutes for any concern we should have for systemic inequities in our society. Lip service becomes the only way we deal with racism or homophobia, not because it's effective but because it's cheap.

I'd be interested to know what you personally understand by the term "progress", an inherently contested term surely less concrete and well-defined than say "liberal elites" or "political correctness". I suspect that you deplore political correctness for entirely different reasons to those of a social and cultural conservative (such as myself), much as a Wahhabi Muslim detests Western democracies for entirely different reasons to an Anarcho-Syndicalist. It is not so much the premises of political correctness that you dispute, but the sincerity of its commitment to enacting its professed principles in the real world. A social and cultural conservative would generally reject or subject to a close sceptical scrutiny many of those premises, and the specific language in which they are couched (e.g. "racist", "homophobic", etc.).

Originally Posted by Balthazar

You mention Sigman's book, but you're very vague about his actual ideas. What is it that confers such maverick integrity on him and his crusade against the "official, politically-correct establishment line"? I'm also not exactly sure why you think that sex education is "a form of ideological indoctrination into politically-correct moral and behavioural norms," either. Could you clarify a little?

Unless I were to write a precis of the book, running to several probably tedious pages, I can only convey a very general (or "vague") impression of its animating ideas. His ideas are maverick insofar as they are at odds with those of the ruling liberal elites and the mass media, education system, "caring professions" and other social agencies who either explicitly articulate or implicitly share (and act upon) them. He rejects in particular what he regards as unrealistic views of male and female sexuality, which he believes to be a priori constructs derived from politically-correct ideology rather than scientifically grounded principles obtained from careful observation and analysis. Whether they have "integrity" will almost certainly depend upon your degree of sympathy for his basic premises and general conclusions.

I have stated my belief that sex education is a form of ideologically motivated indoctrination intended to shape the beliefs and behaviour of its recipients. You will either share or (more likely) reject this belief, but I am not aware that I could state it any more explicitly than I already have.

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

I think that the best concise guide to the ideological capture of supposedly liberal bodies and institutions by the politically correct (whom their critics might alternatively characterise as Cultural Marxists, with their intellectual and ideological roots in the Frankfurt School of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, etc.)

Well, it sounds as though their critics would be wrong to characterise them as such.

Adorno's view of music (and thus of culture etc.) would, from everything I've seen, be extremely unfashionable amongst liberal elites.

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

I have stated my belief that sex education is a form of ideologically motivated indoctrination intended to shape the beliefs and behaviour of its recipients.

Why?

I barely remember any of that at school, and I doubt many other people do either. It didn't, unlike other topics dealt with in PSHE (physical and social health education), come across as tendentious. Rather, it was like a tabulation of STIs, and their respective dangers and symptoms. Surely such information could only ever be useful?

I think in attributing to sex education the role of 'indoctrinat[ing]' people, you're vastly overstating the importance of it.

I think it's more realistic to think that young people's views of sex and their sexual behaviour are formed by anything but school lessons... the media, society, friends, family etc.

So, school lessons would only ever be a reaction to the far more important formative influences listed above.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

I think that the best concise guide to the ideological capture of supposedly liberal bodies and institutions by the politically correct (whom their critics might alternatively characterise as Cultural Marxists, with their intellectual and ideological roots in the Frankfurt School of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, etc.) is The Politics of the Forked Tongue: Authoritarian Liberalism by Aidan Rankin (New European Publications, 2002).

I 've enjoyed Rankin's work ever since his epoch-making How White Men are Persecuted by the Multiculturalist-Feminist-Marxist Conspiracy (Red Herring Press, 1998). His ideas truly deserve to be heard by people who want to hear them.

[Scott Good]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

That's exactly what I'm saying.

We're talking about two different things here, even though we call both "racism." I'm talking about systemic inequities in society, the exclusion of groups of people from positions of influence in their communities on a completely arbitrary basis. You're talking about people saying naughty words.

Yes, we are talking about different things. Nothing I said is in contradiction to this. It is my belief that the issue of racism is not just about systems, but also ideas - call them memes if you wish.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

It may come as a surprise to you that political correctness and hate-speech censorship have a long history of being not only comically ineffective against institutionalized inequities, but also detrimental in the long run to the very people they aim to protect. Weimar Germany had extensive laws against hate-speech, under which hundreds of offending parties were prosecuted (including one Joseph Goebbels). Bavaria banned the speeches of Adolf Hitler at one point. Yet, despite all this vigorous action against racist and anti-Semitic speech, the Nazis still came to power. Hate-speech laws in the UK that were initially supposed to protect immigrants from the predations of the National Front in the 1930's were later used to prosecute striking miners under Thatcher's regime. And hate-speech legislation in Canada has been used to close radical gay and lesbian bookstores.

I realize that part of our communication problem is that just because I think that the "political correctness" movement has some validity (not all bad, and not all good), and that the words we use do have an impact on overall attitudes and therefor actions, does not mean that I support Hate Speech legislation. In fact, I am more interested in the right to freedom of speech. It does not surprise me at all that the use of law by the state to control people was abused, is abused, and will be abused. I'm actually quite interested in Anarchism, and this is one of it's main tenants - that state power will be abused.

But, in the public forum, I think it is right to challenge the use of certain words and their contexts for being discriminatory. And that the English language is embedded with racist and sexist terminology.

Languages evolve to represent the times, so, perhaps as we have established equal rights for all citizens, we can now move on to the next stage - how we interact in a free society.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

As I said before, political correctness doesn't address real social inequities. It merely pretends that if were all really nice to one another, things will get better.

Gosh, I must be so naive to think that kindness and care for others feelings and respect for both their culture and individuality are important and have daily impact on peoples lives! I should have know that the only way I can improve inequities is to .. well, is to what? All you talk about is the progress that WAS made. What about the progress TO BE made?

Originally Posted by Balthazar

It's a cozy fantasy for people who don't know any better (and allows people to assume a mantle of virtue against a perceived enemy), but nothing resembling the truth. The real work of empowering disenfranchised populations has been done in the context of identifying and correcting actual systemic inequities in housing and lending, hiring and advancement,

You keep saying this.

I thought another tenants of the political correctness movement was "Affirmative Action". Are you implying the state should intervene in business and create racial quotas? Should we have housing projects geared to racial sectors?

This all sounds suspicious to me. This indeed might create a backlash of bigotry as it will imply a loss to someone simply because of their race, not just a gain.

Rights for all - no one looses. Non discriminatory language - no one looses.

Not everything about the PC movement was good, but, some was.

It isn't cut and dry. And that is why I contested the original sentence that just throws all of these ideas into one collective basket. (and I am so tempted to go after "Liberal Elitism" next. Really, is everything bad about liberal elitism? Some things are, and some things aren't.)

Originally Posted by Balthazar

,and education.

Yes, and education. This is an interesting topic. I learned about discriminatory language in my school through various means (including music classes), and it quite an impact on me. It made me think deeply about what words and contexts of words could be exclusionary, and that we are born into a culture with deeply rooted sexist and racist ideas and terminology.

It's time to dig up some weeds.

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I 've enjoyed Rankin's work ever since his epoch-making How White Men are Persecuted by the Multiculturalist-Feminist-Marxist Conspiracy (Red Herring Press, 1998). His ideas truly deserve to be heard by people who want to hear them.

You made that up, Balthazar, you incorrible rogue! Admit it! (You had me fooled for all of 1/1000 of a millisecond.)

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Herzeleide

Adorno's view of music (and thus of culture etc.) would, from everything I've seen, be extremely unfashionable amongst liberal elites.

That's true, and you make a fair point. Times change, and the tide of fashion in politics and culture - as in other spheres - moves on. Adorno would be regarded as an elitist and conservative in cultural matters by our present liberal elites. (Incidentally, I have a CD of his freely atonal music - he rejected serialism - which I find hugely enjoyable.)

That said, they still have many of their intellectual roots in the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism (and in the philosophy of Antonio Gramsci, with his talk of a "long march through the institutions").

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Herzeleide

I think in attributing to sex education the role of 'indoctrinat[ing]' people, you're vastly overstating the importance of it.

I think it's more realistic to think that young people's views of sex and their sexual behaviour are formed by anything but school lessons... the media, society, friends, family etc.

Possibly (in your latter paragraph even probably), but I think the intention is there.

[Philidor]

You made that up, Balthazar, you incorrible rogue! Admit it! (You had me fooled for all of 1/1000 of a millisecond.)

Is that the same Aidan Rankin who joined UKIP but "found a bleak world of bigots who hated foreigners, gays and Muslims" and descibes his fliration with right-wing politics as "soul-theft"?

Renouncing the right is like waking from a disturbing dream or throwing off an especially nasty hangover. It is a life-enhancing, liberating experience. I wish it on many others.

Source