Hi to all
I have just joined this forum and I am as you would guess left leaning in my political views, and ready to be educated. That said I will call out any view that I disagree with. What I will not do is throw insults around as I dont think it helps support your point of view.

Now to the present discussion, could some one explain why an opinion is labelled "politically correct" if it is from a left perceptive. However an opposing view from a right wing perspective is not.

Chris

@LEGO, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:31:30 AM;

@Loudmouth, Monday, 22 August 2016 9:07:50 AM

Thanks to you both; sums up things pretty well !

Oh, and Big Nana (Friday, 19 August 2016 1:26:59 PM) was IMO a bit too close to the truth when stating: "The current insistence on PC seems to mask some deeper need to feel morally superior across as many fields as possible, which leads me to think they are trying to cover their own internal deficiencies."

Hi Lefty One,

Okay, we'll give you one month free of insults :) You're right, if an argument is valid, it doesn't need to side-track into personal attacks.

Yes, why has the notion of PC been captured by people claiming to be left-wing ? Maybe what gets under some people's skin is the shallowness of many PC stances: the current discussion over free speech and offense etc. is a good example: should people's right or ability to speak their minds be confined by some injunction never to offend anybody else ? What is 'freedom of speech'; if it doesn't include the right to say or write something which somebody else might find confronting, unexpected, upsetting ? And thereby take offense at ?

On the other hand, controversial ideas are bound, by definition, to upset somebody. Every year, or whenever they hold the Festival of Slightly Dangerous Ideas (I think at Sydney Uni ?), there must be quite a few people who are a little upset by the mildest ideas which they find ever so confronting. One is tempted to suggest that what they need is a weak cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie-down, while the rest of us get stuck in. Without disagreement, there is no development. Long live conflicts of the mind, and vigorous discussion. Where are the balls of yesteryear ?

Joe

Don't worry, Lefty One, you came to the right place if you want to be challenged on you socially regressive attitudes.

Why is the term "politically correct" used to define left wing attitudes? The same way that any nationalist or patriotic causes are labelled "right wing." Of course, you don't have to be right wing to be patriotic and nationalistic, Hitler was a socialist, but the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi party) is therefore erroneously considered "right wing". . So too, the Chinese Communist Party is very nationalistic, but by some application of doublethink, they escape the term "right wing." (or Nazi)

The term "politically correct" was coined to describe those left wing causes so beloved by those who consider themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to everybody else. They are the ones who think they know everything. That they are the keepers of the gate of all that uis good and holy, and that they, and only they, know how to create utopia.

This new Brahmin caste is populated by a diverse range of people. They are very prominent within the cloistered halls of academia, where they award each other plum sinecures, award themselves all sorts of honours, and generally behave like paedophile priests who protect each others backs.

They infest every award ceremony you can mention. Remember the Helen Demidenko fiasco where an Aussie girl had to give herself an ethnic name to have any chance of getting literary recognition? The public service is full of them, just look at the ABC. Until recently, they were very prominent within the mass media. But this has changed over the years as people's tolerance for socialist propaganda has eroded so much that blogs, Youtube, and the Murdoch press is now much more trusted by ordinary people. Many of them have become prominent within the legal fraternity, former High Court Judge and homosexual Michael Kirby was the most dissenting judge in Australian history.

The primary politically correct rule of thumb is that all human conflict is caused by Oppressors (meaning white, heterosexual, male Protestant Europeans) who oppress minorities.

Hi Lefty One and LEGO,

As an ex-Utopian, I would suggest that all Utopias quickly become fascist, exterminating all those who don't fit the Magic Blueprint. Furthermore, I suggest that Utopias are never progressive but definitely regressive - attempts to fix the world in place, once and for all, to abolish change beyond the limits of the Blueprint, to abolish uncertainty, doubt, discussion, debate, query as anti-Utopian (which of course they are) - but accused perhaps falsely as reactionary, an attempt to bring back some mythical Golden Age, and about as progressive as the Catholic Inquisition, with which it bears many resemblances, in terms of certitude and intolerance.

Perhaps a more useful schema would be Hayek's, at its simplest a triangle of positions: progressive, conservative and reactionary. On this schema, progressives and conservatives (those who are sceptical of far-reaching change) are as likely to be on the same page, or similar pages, as any other combination. Progressives and reactionaries co-operating, you ask ? Well, yes, the Nazis and Stalin; the Maoists and the Pakistani dictatorship over Bangla Desh in 1971; Mussolini being both the founder of the Socialist Party newspaper, Avanti, AND founder, barely eight years later, of the Fascist Party.

Of course, conservatives and reactionaries often combine, but so do progressives and conservatives, during the Second World War for example. Most of us have, somewhere in our attitudes, elements of progressive AND conservative ideology, usually unexamined. And perhaps some reactionary strands as well.

Another aspect of all this is that reactionaries often are at loggerheads: Hitler invaded many European countries which had manifestly fascist governments; when the Nazis occupied Austria, Mussolini rushed 40,000 troops to the Brenner Pass. Stalin and the Nazis cosied up to each other, then the Nazis invaded. If the Axis powers had won the Second World War, they probably would have turned on each other.

[TBC]

[continued]

Right and Left are frankly useless terms these days. Who is 'Left' in the Syrian war ? Was Saddam 'Left' just because the US invaded Iraq ? How can one describe the fascist Serbian assaults on Bosnia and Kosovo as 'Left', just because the US opposed them (eventually) ? Is Mugabe 'Left' just because he slags the British ? Somehow, is it 'Left' to defend rigid Islam (and implicitly ISIS, because, after all, it is anti-US), probably the most backward religion ever devised ?

Closer to home, in what way is homosexuality 'Left' ? Is it reactionary or 'Left' to criticise aspects of Aboriginal policy ? [Of course, homosexuals should not be thrown off tall buildings, so one wonders how the 'Left' squares that with its tacit sympathy for Islam and ISIS - or 'Left' feminists its misogyny].

It's a complicated world. Pat formulas don't cut it. Every issue has to be weighed on complicated scales.

Cheers,

Joe