New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Political Correctness......

Zam-Zam

Senator
.....may be political but is seldom correct. This was an enjoyable read, so I thought I'd pass it on - some won't like it, but then, that's the idea:


If you’re Social Justice Warrior, you’re a liar. You actively spread absurd falsehoods about the nature of men, women, sex, and culture that can’t withstand even the slightest scrutiny. You change history and conceal facts to fit preferred narratives, even when it costs human lives. You claim the best of intentions yet achieve the worst of outcomes. And through it all, you hate the very nation and political system that have granted you the liberties you so grotesquely abuse.

If you’re a Social Justice Warrior, you’re intolerant. Because your lies can’t withstand scrutiny, you wall yourself off in comfortable enclaves and then ruthlessly suppress dissent within your chosen communities. From that secure ground, you then strike out, seeking to expand your territory by walling off the arts, the academy, pop culture, and even athletics, silencing because you can’t persuade and punishing those you can’t silence.

If you’re a Social Justice Warrior, however, you’re also ultimately impotent. While you’ve intimidated many institutions, you actually control few. Only in the most cloistered of communities, including in your academic strongholds, do you represent a majority. You gain power by causing trouble, by making it easier to comply with your demands than to defy your tantrums. And that works until it doesn’t — until your demands become so absurd that you become the joke, until you’ve been proven so toothless that defiance becomes a path to power and popularity.

If history is any guide, then mendacious and intolerant ideological movements tend to have relatively short cultural half-lives, especially when they don’t actually attain total control over law enforcement or the means of mass communication. The modern wave of political correctness is doomed. In fact, it has already peaked — it has nowhere to go but down.




Complete text: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426452/political-correctness-peaks-social-justice-liberals
 
I think it depends on how you define social justice and what you do to achieve it for your fellow man. Seems like the author has one small group in mind, and whoever they are, they behave badly.
 
I think it depends on how you define social justice and what you do to achieve it for your fellow man. Seems like the author has one small group in mind, and whoever they are, they behave badly.


I'm sure the author was targeting a group that behaves badly. I'm less-sure about how small of a group they are.
 
Agreed. Unfortunately, by constantly throwing out the race card every time a conservative disagrees with a liberal, the liberals have watered down the term to the point even true racism is lost in the mix of false racism accusations.
 
I think it depends on how you define social justice and what you do to achieve it for your fellow man. Seems like the author has one small group in mind, and whoever they are, they behave badly.
True. Yes on one group (not a small one), conservatives, and disagreed they are behaving badly as a group. That's broad brushing making it as false as a LWer accusing a RWer of being a racist for disagreeing with them on economic issues.
 
True. Yes on one group (not a small one), conservatives, and disagreed they are behaving badly as a group. That's broad brushing making it as false as a LWer accusing a RWer of being a racist for disagreeing with them on economic issues.

I guess my take on the essay is different because in it I see the author criticizing some ideas that come from the left and not the right. And I don't see a discussion of races or racism.

Just IMO, but if you go to the far left, you see bizarre definitions of social justice that involve forcibly taking from some people and giving what you stole to others, which ends in simply changing who is suffering injustice....but the philosophy is dependent on a group always suffering. There's a punishment aspect there. And if you go to the far right, you don't see any interest in social justice. The non religious among the far right take the eff you I got mine attitude and the religious among the far right depend on different flavors of prosperity theology to wash their hands of the whole issue.
I'm talking about the extreme ends of the left and right spectrum. I think most of us fall in the middle somewhere and just want oppressed and thrown away people to have the means to dignity that we all take for granted.

Glenn Beck once said "If your church has the words 'social justice' in their doctrine, then run away from that church." And then he had to backtrack away from that and apologize because there are good churches that do discuss and teach true social justice and how it's everyone's responsibility to help our brothers and sisters achieve it.
 
I guess my take on the essay is different because in it I see the author criticizing some ideas that come from the left and not the right. And I don't see a discussion of races or racism......
You might want to reread my post @gigi: "....That's broad brushing making it as false as a LWer accusing a RWer of being a racist for disagreeing with them on economic issues". It was an analogy.
 
I think it depends on how you define social justice and what you do to achieve it for your fellow man. Seems like the author has one small group in mind, and whoever they are, they behave badly.
There is no "social" justice. There is only justice. When folks speak of "social justice", "economic justice", etc. - we're in for a load of hooey.

Either a thing is just or it is not. There are no flavor a of justice.
 
There is no "social" justice. There is only justice. When folks speak of "social justice", "economic justice", etc. - we're in for a load of hooey.

Either a thing is just or it is not. There are no flavor a of justice.

I think it depends on who's talking and what they're saying.
 
.....may be political but is seldom correct. This was an enjoyable read, so I thought I'd pass it on - some won't like it, but then, that's the idea:


If you’re Social Justice Warrior, you’re a liar. You actively spread absurd falsehoods about the nature of men, women, sex, and culture that can’t withstand even the slightest scrutiny. You change history and conceal facts to fit preferred narratives, even when it costs human lives. You claim the best of intentions yet achieve the worst of outcomes. And through it all, you hate the very nation and political system that have granted you the liberties you so grotesquely abuse.

If you’re a Social Justice Warrior, you’re intolerant. Because your lies can’t withstand scrutiny, you wall yourself off in comfortable enclaves and then ruthlessly suppress dissent within your chosen communities. From that secure ground, you then strike out, seeking to expand your territory by walling off the arts, the academy, pop culture, and even athletics, silencing because you can’t persuade and punishing those you can’t silence.

If you’re a Social Justice Warrior, however, you’re also ultimately impotent. While you’ve intimidated many institutions, you actually control few. Only in the most cloistered of communities, including in your academic strongholds, do you represent a majority. You gain power by causing trouble, by making it easier to comply with your demands than to defy your tantrums. And that works until it doesn’t — until your demands become so absurd that you become the joke, until you’ve been proven so toothless that defiance becomes a path to power and popularity.

If history is any guide, then mendacious and intolerant ideological movements tend to have relatively short cultural half-lives, especially when they don’t actually attain total control over law enforcement or the means of mass communication. The modern wave of political correctness is doomed. In fact, it has already peaked — it has nowhere to go but down.




Complete text: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426452/political-correctness-peaks-social-justice-liberals
What is the definition of a social justice warrior?
 
I think it depends on who's talking and what they're saying.
Ok. I respect your opinion (and I'm an obvious fan of you as poster). :)

But a thing is either just or it is not. Allowing political operatives to nest notions of justice among agenda items is consistent with neither logic, nor righteousness.

Parsing and slicing is the province of Pharisees and worse. Let us remember and observe first things. :)
 
Ok. I respect your opinion (and I'm an obvious fan of you as poster). :)

But a thing is either just or it is not. Allowing political operatives to nest notions of justice among agenda items is consistent with neither logic, nor righteousness.

Parsing and slicing is the province of Pharisees and worse. Let us remember and observe first things. :)
If a thing is just or not, why is it important what qualifier is put before "justice?
 
Thank you for arguing my precise point, Bobby.
Exactly correct. :)
So what is a social justice warrior? If it doesn't matter what the qualifier is, why call out "social justice warrior"? Isn't someone who supports justice simply someone who supports justice?
 
Political correctness is tyranny with manners. Charlton Heston.
 
So what is a social justice warrior? If it doesn't matter what the qualifier is, why call out "social justice warrior"? Isn't someone who supports justice simply someone who supports justice?
Yes. Why would one seek application-specific justice? And how is that even possible? I look forward to the calling out of such self-interested parsers. :)
 
Back
Top