[Maru]

Youtube video

No idea when this was recorded, but it's claims sound like current events, especially the way all propaganda is now spread... which is quite concerning.



Also, that dramatic "Everything is about to get *****d" piano BG seems to be a necessity in just about every educational film....

[Kizzy]

It sounds like propaganda alright ... against the left and progressives, the rise of fascism had to be countered by something didn't it?

I'm very wary of motives in posting something this ambiguous Maru, personally I don't see the issue in not wanting to platform fascists then and now... that's not political correctness or suppression of freedom of speech at all, it's having a choice.

I'm very suspicious that there is a drive to get right wing voices into university campuses, nobody is denting anyone a voice.. they are denying them an ear, how are they going to be indoctrinated with right wing propaganda if they won't listen to it?...

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza

It sounds like propaganda alright ... against the left and progressives, the rise of fascism had to be countered by something didn't it?

I'm very wary of motives in posting something this ambiguous Maru, personally I don't see the issue in not wanting to platform fascists then and now... that's not political correctness or suppression of freedom of speech at all, it's having a choice.

I'm very suspicious that there is a drive to get right wing voices into university campuses, nobody is denting anyone a voice.. they are denying them an ear, how are they going to be indoctrinated with right wing propaganda if they won't listen to it?...

Mussolini started fascism, he was a Marxist. Hitler was a socialist. Fascism is of the left.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Sir Alfred

Mussolini started fascism, he was a Marxist. Hitler was a socialist. Fascism is of the left.

Mussolini started fascism??... In the early 20th century?? one of the more bizarre claims I've heard on here, and that's saying something. It's the first time it was defined in a modern context but there are plenty of historical examples of totalitarianism.

Other than that I get where your confusion is coming from because fascism is heavily linked to nationalism... However, nationalism and socialism are not the same thing, and it is perfectly possible to be a right wing nationalist, just as it is possible to be a left wing libertarian. They're not the same scale.

[Northern Monkey]

That was very interesting.
So basically what we’re seeing today on these US and Canadian campuses is not new at all.
It’s just a revival of Cultural Marxism,Critical Theory and Liberal Tolerance which was the new form of revolution after Marxism never took off in western society.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Mussolini started fascism??... In the early 20th century?? one of the more bizarre claims I've heard on here, and that's saying something. It's the first time it was defined in a modern context but there are plenty of historical examples of totalitarianism.

Other than that I get where your confusion is coming from because fascism is heavily linked to nationalism... However, nationalism and socialism are not the same thing, and it is perfectly possible to be a right wing nationalist, just as it is possible to be a left wing libertarian. They're not the same scale.

So you're claiming the first fascist movements wasn't in early 20th century Italy with Mussolini? So why don't you explain to the forum exactly when and where was the first fascist movement? You best get the right answer, or you're gonna look a right pillock, aren't you?

Something tells me that when you said "that's one of the most bizarre things you've heard on here" that you were talking the usual bollox.

[Tom4784]

The obsession with 'PC gone mad' is just sad at this point and it can all be summed up in four words, bigots with victim complexes.

[Alf]

Yes Maru, don't obsess and make threads about political correctness, because Dezzy will label you a bigot.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Sir Alfred

Yes Maru, don't obsess and make threads about political correctness, because Dezzy will label you a bigot.

Thank you for providing a good example of a victim complex.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Thank you for providing a good example of a victim complex.

Remember when you banned me for a post which said "Did somebody just fart" after a post of yours? Ahhh you poor thing needed a safe space from me. You were the victim that day.

[Alf]

Me and Dezzy are baiting each other here, so why doesn't a mod ban us both? You usually ban me for baiting, or is it because you'll never ban another mod because you're hypocrites?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Sir Alfred

Remember when you banned me for a post which said "Did somebody just fart" after a post of yours? Ahhh you poor thing needed a safe space from me. You were the victim that day.

So you alone know exactly who has infracted you and for what despite the fact that the system is anonymous to prevent people like you from absolving yourself of blame for your own actions by making up some pretend bias by the mods.

Nobody on the mod team has the time or energy to engage in such pettiness and if they did they would be called out by the other mods. Instead of blaming other people for your own choices, you should act your age and accept responsibility for your own actions. You agreed to follow the rules when you signed up, if that's a problem for you then no one's stopping you from trying other forums with rule sets more to your liking.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Sir Alfred

Mussolini started fascism, he was a Marxist. Hitler was a socialist. Fascism is of the left.

Your right, Mussolini was a Marxist in his early years. Long before Mussolini became PM in Italy, he was a socialist agitator influenced by Marxist theory. He was editor of a magazine that promoted a peasants revolt but with the outbreak of WW1 Mussolini turned against Communism and formed a party which he named Facisiti (a socialist party that promoted empire building through war, slaughter and pillage). That resulted in him being kicked out of both Avanti magazine and the far left Socialist Party.

Mussolini became so against Marxism, he founded the group, ‘Fasci di Combattimento’, who’s movement reigned terror on pro-communist followers. The word 'facist' means 'anti-Marxist' and so his early adult years as a Marxist follower bare no relation with what Mussolini went on to promote as the leader of Italy.

'Social/ism/ist' is probably one of the most commonly misunderstood words around. Its a very broad term that normally gets used to just represent the Left. You can be far Right and be a socialist thinker. You can be anti-democratic Right and be a socialist. Different styles of socialism have apposing ideologies.

Mussolini started as a far left agitator and became a far right ruler. Far left socialism and far right socialism are so close, they could touch hands.

[Maru]

Left and right is kinda flawed I think when having this discussion, especially when we're discussing these things on the more extreme ends.

It doesn't matter which side it is anyway. Fascism is Fascism.

PC I actually think is evident on both sides, at least now, because it's been around long enough you now have people who don't really understand the politics of it (like I'm apparently too young to know some of this history). I think most people on both sides genuinely want to reform the West for the better, and that is the issue, because I think when it comes to pushing an idea we view PC as a sort of cultural tool--we equate it's use with "decency"... when really, you don't need to manipulate your words beyond meaning. You just may have to consider consequences of the things you say and do. That's why I feel self-censorship is one of the bigger obstacle(s), as it has allowed more extreme ideologies to dominate the communication about issues. And self-censorship is being conflated with decency and I think that's an issue across the board, not just in education.

[bots]

I think the term political correctness is abused.

There is nothing wrong with trying to curb hate speech and discriminatory talk, but that's no really political correctness, it's just treating everyone around us with respect.

The term political correctness could be more correctly labeled indoctrination and that's where it has common roots in history. It is used as a method for groups to push their own agenda's, but safe guarding them from criticism by sheltering under a banner of "its for the common good".

Countries have laws to enforce the common good, political correctness is not the correct vehicle and it should be outlawed across the world.

[DemolitionRed]

I agree with you bitontheslide. I think its a shame that decent manners and respect for one another comes under the same umbrella as women who insist we should take 'men' out of the word 'womyn' and university students needing 'safe spaces' for political discussion.

I'm sure when the phrase was first coined it was meant to represent civility and moral values but its become a phantom enemy that's so often used against common decency.

We have always had hotbeds of intolerance. Charles Dickens was hugely condemned for being anti-Semitic when he wrote Oliver Twist.
The Victorians changed the leg of a triangle to the arm of a triangle because they considered using the word leg was vulgar towards women. In the Victorian times anything sexual had to be talked about in flowers and when women were offended they’d claim they had the vapors and feigned a faint. (which meant they were emotionally overcome).

What's the difference between then and now... quite a lot... we moved forward and stopped being so daft. We still though, have some very intolerant people amongst us and I guess we always will.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I think the term political correctness is abused.

There is nothing wrong with trying to curb hate speech and discriminatory talk, but that's no really political correctness, it's just treating everyone around us with respect.

The term political correctness could be more correctly labeled indoctrination and that's where it has common roots in history. It is used as a method for groups to push their own agenda's, but safe guarding them from criticism by sheltering under a banner of "its for the common good".

Countries have laws to enforce the common good, political correctness is not the correct vehicle and it should be outlawed across the world.

Yes actually, when I think most people are discussing PC matters (from a negative standpoint), they are referring to the indoctrination aspect of it. Though I think that goes along with what I said about PC being conflated with decency. Which is actually PC?

Because we're using the word "political" here, it lends itself to the indoctrination-aspect more I would argue than just referring to simple decency since it refers to the group's sensitivity to the issues. I do believe though that most people conflate it with decency (PC is simply being polite, etc) hence the term now becoming confused.

If we were simply talking about decency itself, you think there would be a simpler expression for it? The conservative argument is sometimes they would rather choose "decency" over being PC. But then, decency means different things to different people, so there's a new problem with that definition. Adding politics into the equation would seem to complicate things further.

I do believe there is an element of PC culture that encourages "inbreeding" of thought. That is, to keep everything a level playing field for certain parties or against certain movements we must all agree to similar sentiments and so we inject some filler into our language usage so as to preface everything we say (similar to "virtue signaling"). I don't know that this portion is as much indoctrination as much as it's laziness and playing follow the leader.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I agree with you bitontheslide. I think its a shame that decent manners and respect for one another comes under the same umbrella as women who insist we should take 'men' out of the word 'womyn' and university students needing 'safe spaces' for political discussion.

I'm sure when the phrase was first coined it was meant to represent civility and moral values but its become a phantom enemy that's so often used against common decency.

We have always had hotbeds of intolerance. Charles Dickens was hugely condemned for being anti-Semitic when he wrote Oliver Twist.
The Victorians changed the leg of a triangle to the arm of a triangle because they considered using the word leg was vulgar towards women. In the Victorian times anything sexual had to be talked about in flowers and when women were offended they’d claim they had the vapors and feigned a faint. (which meant they were emotionally overcome).

What's the difference between then and now... quite a lot... we moved forward and stopped being so daft. We still though, have some very intolerant people amongst us and I guess we always will.

Can you correlate that with actual sources? That would be helpful.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Most of the time in corporate and media culture and indeed in education its about blame and the avoidance of litigation so often the lead is taken by the legal profession

[DemolitionRed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism...harles_Dickens

As for the triangle, I remember learning about this in school.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nual-revisited

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/774/1/2009catsikisphd.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapours_(disease)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womyn

Edited to say: I presume you don't want a source for my opinion? "I'm sure when the phrase was first coined it was meant to represent civility and moral values"

[Maru]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Edited to say: I presume you don't want a source for my opinion? "I'm sure when the phrase was first coined it was meant to represent civility and moral values"

Sorry, not trying to be rude or pull a gotcha. I thought you maybe had citations. Thanks for clarifying.

Did a little bit of my own checking with the keyword "coined". WaPo has it coined by the Soviets.

EDITORIAL: A little history of ‘politically correct’
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...cally-correct/

The term “politically correct” was coined in the late 1920s by the Soviets and their ideological allies around the world to describe why the views of certain of the party faithful needed correction to the party line.

Wikipedia also has it's first use relating to this quote (1934), but it's context is hidden behind a paywall :/

The term "politically correct" was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term "politically correct" appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[29] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[30] William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[31][clarification needed] The term probably entered use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[11][clarification needed]

Early-to-mid 20th century

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies. In 1934, the New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits "only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct."[2]

As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine, in debates between American Communists and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line which, in the eyes of the Socialists, provided "correct" positions on all political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.
— "Uncommon Differences", The Lion and the Unicorn Journal[3]

It does seem that PC is pretty strongly rooted (historically anyway) with ideology.

Edit: Had the year down wrong, is 1934, not 84'

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Maru

Left and right is kinda flawed I think when having this discussion, especially when we're discussing these things on the more extreme ends.

It doesn't matter which side it is anyway. Fascism is Fascism.

PC I actually think is evident on both sides, at least now, because it's been around long enough you now have people who don't really understand the politics of it (like I'm apparently too young to know some of this history). I think most people on both sides genuinely want to reform the West for the better, and that is the issue, because I think when it comes to pushing an idea we view PC as a sort of cultural tool--we equate it's use with "decency"... when really, you don't need to manipulate your words beyond meaning. You just may have to consider consequences of the things you say and do. That's why I feel self-censorship is one of the bigger obstacle(s), as it has allowed more extreme ideologies to dominate the communication about issues. And self-censorship is being conflated with decency and I think that's an issue across the board, not just in education.

I disagree, extreme ideologies are becoming more mainstream and 'PC' is the equal and opposite reaction to that.
Are we meant to believe that if there were less PC reactions to extreme right wing propaganda it would just stop?.... that's a absolute joke, if it wasn't for the voices screaming that the fascists are emboldened due to their power and influence in modern western democracies in recent times their reach would be entrenched even deeper that they are.

I'm stunned at the suggestion young minds are being demanded from the right, they feel they are being denied a rite that has been a privilege for generations to brainwash the next generation and the theory that they be allowed to choose who they listen to is unthinkable!

Nobody has been 'allowed' to dominate, they just do and any view to the contrary is met with accusations of self censorship? :/

[DemolitionRed]

@you don't need to manipulate your words beyond meaning. You just may have to consider consequences of the things you say and do. That's why I feel self-censorship is one of the bigger obstacle(s)

I went away and thought about this.

I regularly use another forum channel where people can basically say what they want. I’ve been called the 'C' word on many occasions for expressing myself politically right but emotionally wrong. The onslaught of hurtful words are there to injure and shut down any further discussion, but then perhaps its not what I said but the way that I said it. We need to take the word ‘political’ out of PC and call it for what it is, ‘respectful language’. We need to try and understand (and this goes to both the left and the right) why for example, a person believes all immigrants should be deported or why a person thinks immigration isn’t a problem, because only then can we discuss and understand why some people think so differently to ourselves.

We don’t have to be a fan of someone’s political leanings but if we can’t find common ground in a discussion, then we become enemies and when we try to discuss with enemies, nothing gets accomplished. We spend too much time speaking past one another and not enough time discussing our disagreements in more depth and when we do that, nothing gets achieved.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Your right, Mussolini was a Marxist in his early years. Long before Mussolini became PM in Italy, he was a socialist agitator influenced by Marxist theory. He was editor of a magazine that promoted a peasants revolt but with the outbreak of WW1 Mussolini turned against Communism and formed a party which he named Facisiti (a socialist party that promoted empire building through war, slaughter and pillage). That resulted in him being kicked out of both Avanti magazine and the far left Socialist Party.

Mussolini became so against Marxism, he founded the group, ‘Fasci di Combattimento’, who’s movement reigned terror on pro-communist followers. The word 'facist' means 'anti-Marxist' and so his early adult years as a Marxist follower bare no relation with what Mussolini went on to promote as the leader of Italy.

'Social/ism/ist' is probably one of the most commonly misunderstood words around. Its a very broad term that normally gets used to just represent the Left. You can be far Right and be a socialist thinker. You can be anti-democratic Right and be a socialist. Different styles of socialism have apposing ideologies.

Mussolini started as a far left agitator and became a far right ruler. Far left socialism and far right socialism are so close, they could touch hands.

In this video Dinesh D'Souza claims and explains why fascism was and still is today of the left, and how the left pinned it on the right. He challenges you to prove his thesis wrong with facts.

It's a very interesting thesis, and even if you don't accept it, it's still well worth a listen. If you do watch the video, make sure you have half an hour free because you need to listen to it all.

Youtube video

[Tom4784]

It always makes me laugh how the right try to rewrite history to make out that fascism is a left concept when it goes against everything the left is.

I do agree that the extremes of any group is basically the same but when it comes to Mussolini I think it's just very revisionist to pretend that his reign was at all inspired by left philosphy or ideas. The idea of dictatorships is pretty much the complete opposite of the vast majority of left philosophies. He may or may not have been as left as they came in his youth but he certainly wasn't when he came to power.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

@you don't need to manipulate your words beyond meaning. You just may have to consider consequences of the things you say and do. That's why I feel self-censorship is one of the bigger obstacle(s)

I went away and thought about this.

I regularly use another forum channel where people can basically say what they want. I’ve been called the 'C' word on many occasions for expressing myself politically right but emotionally wrong. The onslaught of hurtful words are there to injure and shut down any further discussion, but then perhaps its not what I said but the way that I said it. We need to take the word ‘political’ out of PC and call it for what it is, ‘respectful language’. We need to try and understand (and this goes to both the left and the right) why for example, a person believes all immigrants should be deported or why a person thinks immigration isn’t a problem, because only then can we discuss and understand why some people think so differently to ourselves.

We don’t have to be a fan of someone’s political leanings but if we can’t find common ground in a discussion, then we become enemies and when we try to discuss with enemies, nothing gets accomplished. We spend too much time speaking past one another and not enough time discussing our disagreements in more depth and when we do that, nothing gets achieved.

You're assuming that nobody reads your ideas what you write and gains value from it who doesn't participate. Those people just may never post (I lurk a lot myself), but your ability to remain reasonable/respectful may have made some impact further than you think. I don't think this simpyl because we can't really "measure" the result there of online communication. And I don't think that you can usually persuade people entirely in one argument. Usually you have to chip away a little bit at an issue before some other aspects become clear. Change very often happens in baby steps, not big ways like "OMG, you have shown me the way!". We expect way too much of others (I think) and of internet discussion. It's not often going to be this big epiphany for people like we hope it may be.

To clarify, I think of self-censorship is a category of several behaviors... 1) It can be the manipulating of words to the point of stripping out the actual meat (i.e. might as well be nothing) 2) It can be when you shut yourself down once the argument goes certain directions. Like you know you're certain things are about to occur that are meant to bully, so you clamp down... or 3), which I wonder if this is actually the most common, when you choose to say nothing at all because you feel that the forces against you to are too frustrating or insurmountable. Edit: To add to this, I think self-censorship is cowardice... but we've conflated this with being "decent", when that has different interpretations for different people. When individuals don't feel they fit into this box, that's where they begin to say PC is "oppressive". I actually think this is silly, just stop trying to fit into the box that isn't even made to fit them.

The one you're describing I think is mostly #1, and I'm not at all suggesting that "it's how you say it" is an effective force against extreme ideology. What I am saying is that PC culture has had such a huge impact on how we not only communicate but think. This affects everything from voting numbers (the 2018 US election was a pretty abysmal), to how often we leave our comfort zones (why expand your inputs when 99% of popular culture (which some treat as "society") agrees with one method), to self-censorship. It's made it very easy for more greedier forces to come in and make a space.

But it has taken many years for it to manifest to this level, so most younger people wouldn't have noticed there was a change... many just have now assume they were just born into this oppressive system and that there are all these checks and balances necessary to keep it at least functional (much less civil). Self-censorship compounds all that because obviously, cowardice, no other way to put it, and it gives false weight to moral judgements that may not always accurately pick up on the status quo.

My argument is basically we should just skip this BS. We don't need an overarching moral philosophy (which is what PC ultimately is) to guide our speech. It is more harm than it does good to the development/resilience of our culture as it breeds cowardice, not courage. And I think to some degree, this counter-culture has/is already emerging.

In some ways, you can say one of those modern inventions to counter this culture is the "Likes" system