[ElProximo]

Originally posted by calyman
Bigotry, prejudice, ignorance etc, should always be challenged. The intolerant should always be forced to justify their intolerance. That is how 30 years down the line, people today still know why any form of hatred and ignorance must be challenged. Most people have taken "political correctness" at it's core value, which is to increase the level of tolerance and understanding of those who are perceived as "different" from the norm

Sure but you cannot challenge these ideas and attitudes if they are effectively banned from the social arena.

I do not care for 'political correctness' when applied to language word-think rules and laws. This is actually what 'freezes' the negative connotations and even gives them more power than ever.
As an example of this see the Clint Eastwood film 'Gran Torino'. In particular Eastwood who (somewhat stuck in the 50s) is all too happy to banter with his old mates "Haven't seen you for ages you big dumb Polak" who replies with endearing teases "You old Dago Wop!"
[wildly paraphrasing from a year ago memory but you get the idea here]
Now. this might seem like a bizarre human social peculiarity but what has happened is that what were once serious 'racism' issues have been allowed to freely express themselves and be worked out between people ultimately evolving to a point where their ethnic identifications became endearing and even the racist name-calling has turned to endearment.
Indeed the 'men from the 50s' have progressed far more than those bridled with PC rulings.
'Chink' is not only still highly offensive but its, if anything, become more dangerous, more volatile and certainly has not progressed at all since 1970s when the first 'PC Wordspeak' rules started being introduced.
Now you can be charged with writing 'chink' in a newspaper.
Yes, it absolutely was PC people in government thinkspeak ministries who renamed a mountain from 'Chinaman Mountain' to (probably 'Climatechange Mountain'),
but,
No, that is NOT a rumour started by anti-PC people. In fact the actual BS rumour is PC People speading a story that they actually found out it was from Anti-PC people.
Anyways,
'Chinaman' was not even regarded as offensive by Chinese people UNTIL it was weirdly designated as such and empowered as such by PC people.

Marcus is a fuktard but his rant was correct this far (and as seen in my example) that much of the racism and racial offense in our society IS INSTIGATED AND EVEN CREATED by the same self-righteous allegedly progressive 'tolerant' types who are actually MAKING racism and giving power to it.

btw.. its not working.
Obvious example:
60 years ago it would have been absolutely unheard of to see some of the Richard Dawkins books absolutely spewing hate at a minority group and their religion. 'spewing hate' doesn't even describe it.
Just blatantly accusing them of being wrong, destructive and evil and then viciously hacking and all but urinating on their thoughts, ideas and custom.
Even worse is Christopher Hitchens and 60 years ago that would be almost beyond 'hate speech' and into sheer demonic pornographic gore and savagery.
yet,
It is NOTHING to see either of them showing up on tax-payer funded television with nothing stopping them from promoting and speaking as much venomous hate and vilification of those 'sick and evil baby rapers' and no penalty or censorship but not even a raised eyebrow.
Not even a question of taste is brought up.

So PC Correctness sure as hell didn't work there.
But,
Then again, maybe it did. See it depends. If you mean PC correctness for the ideas, opponents, world views and thoughts and words for which YOU conform with then great,
but,
If you are happy to see it not apply to thoughts and ideas you disagree with with or want to oppose well then that is good too.
Of course that is bald-faced intellectual hypocrisy, selective intolerance and inequality but maybe that is alright with you as long as it gets you where you want to go?