Political correctness is not designed to counter bigotry and prejudice. It is used by people who identify with the ‘progressive Left’ as cover to justify their bigotry and prejudice.
Scott Reid’s fantastically hypocritical essay in the Ottawa Citizen – ‘It’s time to defend political correctness‘ – is a great example of this.
The first half is all about his redemption from a sinful past: He confesses that along with his family and friends, he used to casually direct mean epithets and apply derogatory labels towards people who were not like him in some way – until some road to Damascus moment enabled him to recognize how profoundly wrong he was to engage in such contemptible behaviour.
The second half of the essay is comprised of Reid calling people names and labelling anyone who doesn’t share his political views as racist, bigoted, vulgar, stupid, inconsiderate, ignorant – and deliberately mischaracterizing Donald Trump’s statements in order to prop-up his thesis.
Why are these people always completely blind to their self-contradiction and hypocrisy?
Appalling stuff. But very useful for illustrating precisely why it is time to stop treating the perspective of the ‘progressive’ Left as if it is worthy of being taken seriously.
Even more enlightening are the responses that Reid’s column elicited from folks who share his ‘progressive’ philosophy….. which essentially amounts to giving yourself permission to indulge in nasty character traits you condemn in everyone else.
See for yourself and check out how they react to having their terrible reasoning pointed out to them. ‘Jo’ starts it off…. but it’s ‘G’ who get’s into it:
In other words, the “good old days” we’re only good if you were a white, Christian male. I’m glad we have moved past that and have no desire to go back, unlike many on the right who dream deluded dreams of those racist, sexist, homophobic times.
You perfectly illustrate the hypocrisy and total lack of self-awareness that defines the ‘progressive’ Left: The assumption that expressing unashamed bigotry magically turns into a virtue when YOU do it.
How is it bigoted to observe the privilege that’s associated with being a white Christian male?
How is it bigoted to single out a whole segment of society strictly by their race and their gender and label them as the problem?
The fact that you ask that question is proof that the conditioning that has been occurring has completely destroyed the capacity for reason, critical thinking and rationality in some people.
Because white supremacy and patriarchy are the architects of Western culture at the expense of non-white peoples and women for as long as we have written history? Wow that question was easy.
Guess what, white males aren’t the problem unless they refuse to see the problem. Your move.
Exactly my point. So for you, bigotry isn’t wrong in ‘principle’. In fact, you’re all in favour of singling out people for vilification by race and gender if the ideology you have adopted has marked that race and gender as an acceptable target. Any other fashionable trends from the 1930’s that you admire? Big Marlene Dietrich fan, are you?
The problem here is that too many people have been conditioned to believe that reflexively repeating slogans and memes verbatim that have been drilled into them by the ‘progressive’ establishment is the equivalent of insight and thinking. They assume that merely writing words they’ve been taught to parrot, like ‘patriarchy’, ‘white supremacy’ and ‘privilege’ amounts to having made an argument or having proven an opinion.
Are you not embarrassed to identify yourself as one of the people so susceptible to group-think by parroting these generic clichés and slogans?
And yes, white men are the architects of Western civilization. The first civilization to abolish slavery. To conceive and entrench the notion of representational democracy, universal human rights and freedom of speech. To embrace multiculturalism and pluralism. To recognize the equality of rights of women, homosexuals, religious affiliations, classes, races and ethnicity. To generate the scientific and technological revolutions that have extended the human lifespan, drastically lowered infant mortality, eliminated countless fatal and crippling diseases, connected the world through intercontinental travel and global telecommunications – and has generally provided the comfort, stability, freedom and means for a couple of generations of self-involved, spoiled posers who are the beneficiaries of all of this to bleat their vacuous and intellectually barren slogans about how white men and the civilization they have created are nothing but a curse on humanity.
Calling a demographic privileged is not being bigoted against that demographic. Having your feelings hurt by uncomfortable truths isn’t oppression. Stop playing ‘poor white man’ and grow up.
As for trends from the 1930s, I’m rather a fan of art deco!
This is another defining characteristic of the ‘progressive’ Left – when their perspective is shown to them to be flawed and hypocritical, they try to save credibility by redefining words, concepts and even the terms of the discussion.
So because you have found yourself in the awkward position of endorsing singling out people by race and gender for social vilification – the very definition of bigotry… you’ve decided to insert the term “demographic” in the hope that this will distract somewhat from the unflattering implications of your position. The only reason you would try this tactic , is because you recognize that by uncritically adopting these fashionable opinions, you have unwittingly endorsed an ideology that promotes bigotry. But because the ‘progressive’ establishment has cultivated the perception that this particular ‘demographic’ is deserving of collective social vilification, people have bought into the idea as a means to identify themselves as belonging to the morally righteous, ‘right-thinking’ group.
In the context of nostalgia for 1930’s Germany…. do you think the Jewish business class could have been labelled a ‘privileged demographic’?
>white supremacist attempts to link criticism of white supremacy with Nazism
Ooooookay, we’re WAY down the rabbit hole here.
Today you have provided a master-class in the predictable, robotic thinking-patterns and default responses that are definitive of the ‘progressive’ Left. Here you’ve demonstrated the classic ‘progressive’ response to having your argument defeated by reason – call the other person a racist! Once again, more proof that there is absolutely no need for thinking people to treat the ‘progressive’Left as if their perspective was worthy of being taken seriously.
Okay try this one; I will replace two phrases in my first post, and retain your response. The structure of my argument is unchanged, and your response makes as much sense now as it did then:
Me: “How is it bigoted to observe the POVERTY that’s associated with being a BLACK WOMAN?”
You: “How is it bigoted to single out a whole segment of society strictly by their race and their gender and label them as the problem?
“The fact that you ask that question is proof that the conditioning that has been occurring has completely destroyed the capacity for reason, critical thinking and rationality in some people.”
Looks pretty ridiculous like that, doesn’t it! Obviously the black woman isn’t the problem, but her poverty is. Likewise in my original reply, the white male isn’t problem, but his privilege is. The only difference is that the black woman doesn’t benefit from her poverty, whereas the white man does benefit from his privilege.
Okay. Let me get this straight… so for the last couple of hours you’ve been trying to defend the statement that you made at the beginning of this. You’ve failed at that… so now you want to change that point into a completely new context…. while insisting against all logic the “structure of my argument is unchanged”.
Do you think wanting to reword your statement at this point in the conversation strengthens the credibility of your position or weakens it?
Your rewording is this: “How is it bigoted to observe the POVERTY that’s associated with being a BLACK WOMAN?”
Let me take a moment to savour the delicious irony of presenting this reworking of your initial point. Because I think it’s safe to say that a lot of black people would consider that to be quite an offensive and yes….bigoted, statement. The explicit link you have drawn here is that if you are a black woman… you are poor. Some might call that a racial stereotype. AND a sexist stereotype.I think I sense another rewording in the making.
But this alternative version to your original statement is actually extremely helpful. It provides the perfect contrast for revealing the pernicious intent and effect of the social acceptance of the ‘white male privilege’ concept. Because to the ‘progressive’/Left mindset, the ‘black woman’ in poverty is a victim. But to that same mindset, the ‘privileged’ white man – is the culprit.
As you acknowledged – THAT’S the difference.
And as I say, the intent and the ultimate effect of dispersing this concept in society is to socialize people into identifying white men and white ‘maleness’ as the enemy. An enemy so intrinsically loathsome that social vilification and collective bigotry directed towards them is not just condoned and encouraged – but is a signal that you qualify for inclusion among the morally superior class because you conform to what they have deemed to be the ‘right’ way to think.
Once more for the cheap seats:It’s not a slur to say someone has privilege. Your entire tirade is predicated on nothing. I don’t know if you actually don’t understand, or if you’re just trolling.
I never said it was slur to say someone has privilege. I said it is bigotry to single out a particular segment of the population for social vilification based on their race and gender.
It IS a slur however to call someone a “white supremacist” simply because he doesn’t share your poorly thought out, self-contradictory, un-ethical and badly argued opinion. Which is what you did.
Michael, you can’t get as big a chub as you did from the White Man’s Burden without being a white supremacist. Sorry dude.Ah look, a standard debating tactic of ‘conservatives’: not knowing what you’re talking about!
Yes, well… I think it’s pretty clear you have exhausted the little capacity you had for defending your ideas like a thinking adult.