Where do you consider political correctness to fall on the political scale?

Hard left most definitely, most of the right don't give a f*** and fight against it :lol:

Except I don't seem to remember most of the left bringing it up in about every situation possible.

What a bizarre question.

 

Political correctness is a (perjorative name for a) philosophy with left-wing origins that has been adopted by parties and movements all over the political spectrum. Its left-wing origins are a fact.

 

It's popular all over the political spectrum because when it goes by its other names, tolerance, openness, respecting other people regardless of their background, it unsurprisingly plays well.

What a bizarre question.

 

Political correctness is a (perjorative name for a) philosophy with left-wing origins that has been adopted by parties and movements all over the political spectrum. Its left-wing origins are a fact.

 

It's popular all over the political spectrum because when it goes by its other names, tolerance, openness, respecting other people regardless of their background, it unsurprisingly plays well.

 

This.

Hard left for me

I was originally going to say hard left, but then I had second thoughts - maybe I should have used categories of authoritarian/libertarian, or perhaps progressive/reactionary.

 

Given that PC is about promoting certain ideas & eliminating others, it seems closer to authoritarian then libertarian to me - certainly not typically progressive.

Hard left most definitely, most of the right don't give a f*** and fight against it :lol:

 

ISTM that happens only because it expanded beyond its original intent, of promoting tolerance, into actively attacking people/ideas that oppose it. e.g., for decades it has been a standard tactic of the left to shut down debate by crying 'racism' even where opponents concerns are legitimate.

I was originally going to say hard left, but then I had second thoughts - maybe I should have used categories of authoritarian/libertarian, or perhaps progressive/reactionary.

 

Given that PC is about promoting certain ideas & eliminating others, it seems closer to authoritarian then libertarian to me - certainly not typically progressive.

 

Bullshit.

 

It's not about removing rights, it's about stopping others with racist/sexist/homphobic/general "don't give a toss about anyone" attitudes and actions from carrying out intolerance and acts of inequality and actively discriminating.

 

It's about giving people fairness not about removing other people's rights and giving them to minorities.

 

Stop using long words to make it sound like it's got some ulterior political agenda and purpose behind it. It's not clever and it's still BS.

ISTM that happens only because it expanded beyond its original intent, of promoting tolerance, into actively attacking people/ideas that oppose it. e.g., for decades it has been a standard tactic of the left to shut down debate by crying 'racism' even where opponents concerns are legitimate.

 

Reactionary bullshit spouted by a few extremists (whether far left or far right) doesn't in any way stop equality being a good thing.

 

Trying to argue that is like trying to argue that the referendum vote and democracy was a bad thing because it was hijacked by mouth-frothing extreme far right liars. The problem isn't with the freedom and democracy, it's with the liars and propagandists who hijack it to further their own aims.

 

Popchartfreak: "always happy to cut through bullshit and speak plainly".

 

You're welcome.

Bullshit.

 

It's not about removing rights, it's about stopping others with racist/sexist/homphobic/general "don't give a toss about anyone" attitudes and actions from carrying out intolerance and acts of inequality and actively discriminating.

 

It's not done a very good job of that, though.

 

It's about giving people fairness not about removing other people's rights and giving them to minorities.

That may have been how it started *out*, but I contend that accusations, often spurious, of racism are now used to close down legitimate debate.

 

Stop using long words to make it sound like it's got some ulterior political agenda and purpose behind it. It's not clever and it's still BS.

 

Why should I stop saying what I absolutely believe to be true?

 

You absolutely believe that Brexit will be a failure, so how is your belief any more or less valid than mine?

Reactionary bullshit spouted by a few extremists (whether far left or far right) doesn't in any way stop equality being a good thing.

 

I've never said otherwise - I just don't believe that PC is the right way to get that idea across.

 

Found this website which lists various media outlets & their perceived political slant...

 

Mostly US ones, but some others too.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/search/

 

FYI, how they rate the BBC :

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

That is bull. They literally have Tory plants in Questiontime, invite Farage onto EVERYTHING, they'd get him on Countryfile if they could, and follow the right wing rag attacks on Labour and ignore the Tory scandals as best they can, oh, and never bother with rectifying the mistakes when it becomes clear an attack on Labour was just a smear campaign.

Remember it’s an American website, so to them the BBC is left of centre because that’s where the centre is in European politics. As a continent our left right spectrum is different to that of the US

That makes more sense.

 

European studies show a pro business, pro right, pro Tory, pro establishment/ status quo bias to BBC reporting plus the revolving door between the BBC and Torydom

This is quite subjective. I’d argue PC kicks in from the centre onwards. The goal post on PC has shifted. No one would think twice at using derogatory words to describe gay people say 30 years ago, for example. Now it’s considered that such slurs only are typically used by the alt-right. By contrast, hard left goes into borderline overly virtuous and can end up causing problems and shutting down debate rather than educating.

Edited July 16, 20186 yr by ScottyEm

I've never said otherwise - I just don't believe that PC is the right way to get that idea across.

 

Then give a good way of doing it.

I voted hard left as I didn't read the question and thought he was askin aboot our beliefs oops

Then give a good way of doing it.

 

I regard PC as being a 'blunt instrument' being used to try & bludgeon change, and therefore being far from the best way to achieve it. We all know that telling people they *mustn't* do something will have precisely the opposite effect to the one desired, so education is clearly a better way of doing it.

 

However, it can't *just* be a matter of teaching tolerance to native populations, but one of encouraging immigrants to assimilate, too.