Political Correctness and Communism

[EnglishPete]

Just found this diagram here which is one of the clearest explanations I've seen of the similarity between Soviet Communism and Political Correctness and how they both ultimately come from the same human impulses and represent the same kind of politics.

[Reaganfan]

I'm not sure there's a direct correlation. However, I will say I think the left has lost their minds a bit on identity politics. Hillary Clinton would have won the election had she run as her husband's campaign of 1996. Of course, her husband's '96 campaign said "We should end Welfare as we know it", and "The era of big government is over". He signed the DOMA that year, and also received FOP police endorsements for his tough on crime stances.

Everything I just described is now considered "racist", "homophobic" and "intolerant" by the left of today's Democratic Party.

I think the problem that has liberals in meltdown right now is that America didn't vote for their vision. They made Donald Trump out as "deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, ect....and America responded by electing him with over 300 electoral votes.

That means either A.) American's didn't buy into the Democratic logic or B.) Americans didn't care.

Either way, it's an agonizing defeat for liberals and they don't know how to deal with that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not sure there's a direct correlation. However, I will say I think the left has lost their minds a bit on identity politics. Hillary Clinton would have won the election had she run as her husband's campaign of 1996. Of course, her husband's '96 campaign said "We should end Welfare as we know it", and "The era of big government is over". He signed the DOMA that year, and also received FOP police endorsements for his tough on crime stances.

Everything I just described is now considered "racist", "homophobic" and "intolerant" by the left of today's Democratic Party.

I think the problem that has liberals in meltdown right now is that America didn't vote for their vision. They made Donald Trump out as "deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, ect....and America responded by electing him with over 300 electoral votes.

That means either A.) American's didn't buy into the Democratic logic or B.) Americans didn't care.

Either way, it's an agonizing defeat for liberals and they don't know how to deal with that.

No, she would have lost even worse if she'd run on school uniforms, V chip, DOMA, abortion limitations, and the like. She had to fool the more gullible liberals into thinking she was remotely liberal.

[Intell]

This is beyond dumb.... Nice fantasy bro...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This thread really illustrates how far superior Naso is at his schtick than pjones. Sorry mate, you think some goofy limey can just take that niche? Please.

[Shadows]

How dumb are people? If you run on something on 50's doesn't mean it will work in the 70's. So slavery was okay once, can someone run on that platform today?

Homophobia etc won't work today. The Democrats won the votes by 3M & Trump was hated by the electorate. Hillary was the reason Dems lost, a ham sandwich would have beaten Trump. And in 2020, Dems will win comfortably if they switch to a strong progressive credentials & have a charismatic scandal free candidate

[EnglishPete]

This thread really illustrates how far superior Naso is at his schtick than pjones. Sorry mate, you think some goofy limey can just take that niche? Please.

[EnglishPete]

I'm not sure there's a direct correlation. However, I will say I think the left has lost their minds a bit on identity politics. Hillary Clinton would have won the election had she run as her husband's campaign of 1996. Of course, her husband's '96 campaign said "We should end Welfare as we know it", and "The era of big government is over". He signed the DOMA that year, and also received FOP police endorsements for his tough on crime stances.

Everything I just described is now considered "racist", "homophobic" and "intolerant" by the left of today's Democratic Party.

I think the problem that has liberals in meltdown right now is that America didn't vote for their vision. They made Donald Trump out as "deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, ect....and America responded by electing him with over 300 electoral votes.

That means either A.) American's didn't buy into the Democratic logic or B.) Americans didn't care.

Either way, it's an agonizing defeat for liberals and they don't know how to deal with that.

What's being talked about here goes back much further than 20 years. What used to be called the 'New Left' had its start in the fifties and sixties. They demonstrated outside the 1968 DNC when they didn't get the candidate they wanted. By 1972 New Left ideas had captured the imagination of the wider left and they got the candidate they wanted. Both times they helped Richard Nixon to win.  The ideology was not popular and caused them to lose elections so it had to be toned down, in public at least. This message was further hammered home by the election losses in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1994.

However whilst New left ideology was losing elections it was still gaining ground. Although, just like soviet communism, its advocates think they are fighting for the interests of 'the oppressed' in reality the interests they represent are those of the bureaucratic class, again just like Soviet communism.

So whilst the New Left were losing election after election, causing the Democratic Party to disguise this aspect of its ideology in elections like 1996, its supporters and adherents in the bureaucratic class - in government, in academia, in big corporations, in schools and in the charity/non profit sectors - were doing everything they could to promote and indeed enforce this ideology. This is what became known as political correctness and it was in full swing well before the 1996 election.

[Torie]

Just found this diagram here which is one of the clearest explanations I've seen of the similarity between Soviet Communism and Political Correctness and how they both ultimately come from the same human impulses and represent the same kind of politics.

Where did your chart come from? Do you have a link? The reason I ask is that someone reported your post, with a racism rap. I do find the chart questionable myself (as a substantive matter, I find it simplistic, and well, just silly), but knowing its source would have some relevance here I think. Thanks.

[Person Man]

In 2005, even PP said that Roe v Wade "went too far". In 2006, Democrats won Congress. Even when diehard partisans thought until Late September that they were expecting a "Moral Victory" for them. I would have been happy if they were able to cut the majorities in each house by half. In 2008, a liberal black man from Chicago became the first Democrat since LBJ and the first President since HW to win both 300+ EVs and an absolute majority of votes. Now gay marriage is legal and there is no longer universal "zero tolerance" on marijuana.

Where did your chart come from? Does you have a link? The reason I ask is that someone reported your post, with a racism rap. I do find the chart questionable myself (as a substantive matter, I find it simplistic, and well, just silly), but knowing its source would have some relevance here I think. Thanks.

Comparing Civil Rights to Communism. Because every advantage and disadvantage one has is the same and similiarly justified and similarly earned.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm not sure there's a direct correlation. However, I will say I think the left has lost their minds a bit on identity politics. Hillary Clinton would have won the election had she run as her husband's campaign of 1996. Of course, her husband's '96 campaign said "We should end Welfare as we know it", and "The era of big government is over". He signed the DOMA that year, and also received FOP police endorsements for his tough on crime stances.

Everything I just described is now considered "racist", "homophobic" and "intolerant" by the left of today's Democratic Party.

I think the problem that has liberals in meltdown right now is that America didn't vote for their vision. They made Donald Trump out as "deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, ect....and America responded by electing him with over 300 electoral votes.

That means either A.) American's didn't buy into the Democratic logic or B.) Americans didn't care.

Either way, it's an agonizing defeat for liberals and they don't know how to deal with that.

No, she would have lost even worse if she'd run on school uniforms, V chip, DOMA, abortion limitations, and the like. She had to fool the more gullible liberals into thinking she was remotely liberal.

[Santander]

This is as dumb as Runeghost's "Signs of Fascism" signature.

[pbrower2a]

I'm not sure there's a direct correlation. However, I will say I think the left has lost their minds a bit on identity politics. Hillary Clinton would have won the election had she run as her husband's campaign of 1996. Of course, her husband's '96 campaign said "We should end Welfare as we know it", and "The era of big government is over". He signed the DOMA that year, and also received FOP police endorsements for his tough on crime stances.

Identity politics would be more of a menace if people started demanding that government serve specific communities. That has not happened. There has been no drive to promote patronage in favor of certain 'ethnic' groups at the expense of white people. The rise of the large black and Hispanic middle classes is more analogous to the rise of Polish-Americans and Italian-Americans, neither of which got special breaks for belonging to distinctive communities. The Hispanic (except for Cuban-Americans) and especially black middle classes are more obvious (you cannot identify Polish-Americans except by surnames... I should know, as I do genealogy in an area with many people of Polish origin) by physical characteristics... but there's not much of a "hate Whitey" constituency in either.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone still proud to be white is literally deplorable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The electoral results do nothing to show that Donald Trump isn't  "deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic", etc. ... he proved the ideal demagogue for appealing to people with huge frustrations, including witness to the rise of a large non-white middle class that dislikes white losers.  Donald Trump appealed in part to mass vulgarity generally associated with ignoramuses. For many white people the only chance that they have of getting rich is buying a potential winner of the Super-Duper Megabucks Lotto... and Donald Trump lives that fantasy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe we Americans need some more education in economics (that there is no free lunch and that change is the norm in economic reality), psychology (so that we be less vulnerable to manipulation by sociopaths and psychopaths), and philosophy (so that we be able to recognize fallacious arguments, especially those involving overt contradictions). But that would take more than K-12 education.  K-14, which would include two years of community college, needs to be the norm. Really, 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds are generally unready for any but the most menial roles in economic life no matter how intelligent they may be. 

"Democratic logic?" There is no such thing, any more than there is "Republican logic". There is only logic. People who reject logic are gullible in the extreme.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There will be much agony in America because the government will now serve people who believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as it serves their sadism, greed, power lust, and ostentatious indulgence. For four years the image and reality of America will be the vile personality of Donald Trump.

[Hindsight was 2020]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

[Devout Centrist]

Don't make me lose brain cells.

[EnglishPete]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

Whatever

[pbrower2a]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

Mexican-Americans have been considered 'white' for legal purposes (the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has applied throughout the territories annexed from Mexico with respect to voting rights, housing, and intermarriage) since 1848. There were large Hispanic populations in California, New Mexico, and Texas by local standards in 1848, and such people are still there. Most African ancestry in America comes from people taken in the piracy known as the slave trade.  I doubt that any Asian-American community qualifies as a "Hell-hole" on the whole.

In the old "Is Connecticut the Best State?" thread I noticed that white people in West Virginia fare less well than Hispanics in Virginia, blacks in Maryland, First Peoples in California, or Asian-Americans anywhere... so if anyone wants to look for the part of America becoming a "Third World hellhole" one need only look to some very-white bastions in the Mountain South (which includes Appalachia and the Ozarks, largely).  

[Devout Centrist]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

Make no mistake, he's unashamedly racist

[EnglishPete]

Identity politics would be more of a menace if people started demanding that government serve specific communities. That has not happened. There has been no drive to promote patronage in favor of certain 'ethnic' groups at the expense of white people. The rise of the large black and Hispanic middle classes is more analogous to the rise of Polish-Americans and Italian-Americans, neither of which got special breaks for belonging to distinctive communities. The Hispanic (except for Cuban-Americans) and especially black middle classes are more obvious (you cannot identify Polish-Americans except by surnames... I should know, as I do genealogy in an area with many people of Polish origin) by physical characteristics... but there's not much of a "hate Whitey" constituency in either.   

 This is exactly the reverse of the truth. There has been a considerable drive to promote patronage in favour of certain non-white ethnic groups. Firstly there is direct government patronage which often comes in the form of government funding for various 'community groups' and 'community organisers'. I don't know what sort of scale this occurs on in the US but in the UK it forms a very considerable part of the funding of what might be called the 'professional left' (i.e. people paid to promote leftism). Many of these 'community organisations' are explicitly targeted in their work at specific ethnic groups. However no such 'community organisation' is set up to cater to the needs or interests of white people. Not only would it not get government funding but it would most likely be banned on the grounds that it discriminated against people with 'protected characteristics'.

That brings us to the next point which is 'protected class/protected characteristic' law. In theory this type of law is normally written in a way that is neutral i.e. It offers men as well as women, whites as well as blacks extra protection if they are seen to be victimised or otherwise discriminated against on grounds of sex or race etc. In practise this is not how the law works. Anything that could remotely be seen as possibly being discrimination or 'hate crime' against ethnic minorities etc is called a hate crime or discrimination and is prosecuted to the fullest extent possible (with the establishment press whipping up all the outrage they can muster). The other way around however is rarely if ever applied. Even explicit racial violence against white people is not recorded or reported as 'hate crime' is the authorities can possible avoid it whilst racial discrimination against white people on the grounds of race is either quietly tolerated (as in the UK) or made an official government policy, as in much of the US where it is called Affirmative action.

Which brings to the biggest form of state patronage for specific minority groups, affirmative action law. By the introduction and enforcement of this law government provides huge jobs patronage in the jobs sector, both government and private job sectors, in the form of discrimation against white people in the job market dsigned to provide extra positions and extra income for ethnic minority groups.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? would you say the same about anyone proud to be black or anyone proud to be Mexican, or would that be different?

[EnglishPete]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

Make no mistake, he's unashamedly racist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg

[Devout Centrist]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

Make no mistake, he's unashamedly racist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg

https://youtu.be/m8AttqxSEYY

[EnglishPete]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

Make no mistake, he's unashamedly racist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg

https://youtu.be/m8AttqxSEYY

Weirdo

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is true that what was not 'correct' politically was repressed in the Soviet Union, but to confuse this with the American language politics that became known as 'political correctness' in the early 90s is utterly absurd. For one thing what was 'correct' politically in the Soviet Union changed all the time; this is why it was such an insidious and socially corrosive tendency. If one wished for a career in certain fields (academia or the arts for instance) then one had to be prepared to change every view held and principle espoused in an instant, quite often to a view or a principle diametrically opposed to the one that had previously been ideologically acceptable. In the arts what was deemed as Progressive (and thus good) one day was often deemed as Formalist (and thus 'bourgeois' and thus bad) the next. Whereas whatever one thinks of the language politics of American liberals, it is nothing if not consistent in its general tone, emphasis and direction.

[Famous Mortimer]

It's kinda hard to believe you aren't racist when your graph says non-whites entering a white country equals that country becoming a third world hellhole

Third worlders in huge numbers entering a non-third world nation will bring that country down to third world levels. It unfortunately lines up with a race quite a bit but not 100%. Immigration from Japan probably wouldn't hurt (although since they aren't third worlders, Japanese don't feel the need to emigrate as much). Similarly, if the whole population of Bulgaria decided to move to America, that would probably have a negative effect even though they are White.

If you don't believe this, you have never been to New York City and seen the effects of mass third world immigration.

[Santander]

Immigration from Japan probably wouldn't hurt (although since they aren't third worlders, Japanese don't feel the need to emigrate as much).

This isn't the reason why the Japanese do not emigrate in large numbers.