Study: Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

[Islam Imamate]

I don't think nationalism as currently practiced in the US is anywhere near as controlling and intolerant of dissent as intersectional pc activism.

Maybe, maybe not. As I said a girl was suspended for not standing for the flag for instance so its still around.

 

[Captain Davis]

Hurt feelings shouldn’t hinder free speech.

If one is offended by someone else’s words, the offended is free to let them know it, but speech of any kind shouldn’t be oppressed by government or law.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Maybe, maybe not. As I said a girl was suspended for not standing for the flag for instance so its still around.

Sure, but it's easy to find dozens of examples of people fired from work or suspended from a university for not obeying PC dogma. Both are controlling, and any ideology will be if it wants to influence hundreds of millions of people, and that's seems to be your point if I am understanding correctly. I agree that far.

But currently no other ideology holds a torch to progressive PC in terms of policing speech and thought.

 

[franklinstower]

Sure, but it's easy to find dozens of examples of people fired from work or suspended from a university for not obeying PC dogma. Both are controlling, and any ideology will be if it wants to influence hundreds of millions of people, and that's seems to be your point if I am understanding correctly. I agree that far.

But currently no other ideology holds a torch to progressive PC in terms of policing speech and thought.

What is the argument against universities requiring certain conduct as far as kindness and speeck are involved?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Sure, but it's easy to find dozens of examples of people fired from work or suspended from a university for not obeying PC dogma. Both are controlling, and any ideology will be if it wants to influence hundreds of millions of people, and that's seems to be your point if I am understanding correctly. I agree that far.

But currently no other ideology holds a torch to progressive PC in terms of policing speech and thought.

Funny that @Captain Davis liked your post when he is one of the patriotic PC right. Anyway I think that on some level that's true, more often than not when someone gets fired its for being "racist/sexist/homophobic" but I think the latent potential of the nationalist impulse is always there and we see it crop up from time to time like in the case of the girl who got suspended or the reaction to Kaepernick.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

What is the argument against universities requiring certain conduct as far as kindness and speeck are involved?

I don't understand your question in this context. I'm not arguing about what forms of kindness universities may or may not require, only that progressive pc has an insatiable appetite for making such requirements.

 

[Ripskater]

What is the argument against universities requiring certain conduct as far as kindness and speeck are involved?

I think It would be more unkind to go along with the falsehoods of the transgender issue or the gay issue and never tell them the truth.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Funny that @Captain Davis liked your post when he is one of the patriotic PC right. Anyway I think that on some level that's true, more often than not when someone gets fired its for being "racist/sexist/homophobic" but I think the latent potential of the nationalist impulse is always there and we see it crop up from time to time like in the case of the girl who got suspended or the reaction to Kaepernick.

Yes, I believe the desire to control the behavior and even thoughts of others is latent in almost every ideology. I'm not sure nationalism is as negative a force as you are making it, though it obviously can be without the proper restraints. But the era of nation states also coincides with the blossoming of liberal culture in the history of many nations.

I honestly find it laughable that you find @Captain Davis anywhere near as controlling as the pc left. Also, without knowing the details of this girl's story, I disagree in terms of principle. But currently the incident is an outlier.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes, I believe the desire to control the behavior and even thoughts of others is latent in almost every ideology. I'm not sure nationalism is as negative a force as you are making it, though it obviously can be without the proper restraints.

I didn't say its all negative, there are of course good aspects to it but I also think there are good aspects to PC culture. Certain forms of casual bigotry that were once acceptable are just not anymore.

But the era of nation states also coincides with the blossoming of liberal culture in the history of many nations.

It also coincides with vicious genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I honestly find it laughable that you find @Captain Davis anywhere near as controlling as the pc left. Also, without knowing the details of this girl's story, I disagree in terms of principle. But currently the incident is an outlier.

Well, of course one person isn't as controlling as a collective of people but based on that thread on the anthem I think people like him have the potential to be.

 

[Captain Davis]

I didn't say its all negative, there are of course good aspects to it but I also think there are good aspects to PC culture. Certain forms of casual bigotry that were once acceptable are just not anymore.

It also coincides with vicious genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Well, of course one person isn't as controlling as a collective of people but based on that thread on the anthem I think people like him have the potential to be.

I think people should stand for the Anthem out of respect from within. I don’t believe the government should force them to. I also have no problem with people giving them shit for it.

Like I said, if someone doesn’t like what someone else is doing, I have no problem with them letting it be known. However, I’m not for government intervention.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

I'm not sure nationalism is as negative a force as you are making it

It doesn't always have to be. There are positive expressions of nationalism like rooting for your country in the Olympics, and being generally proud of your country and culture.

But there are specific problems with nationalism as it's often expressed in the USA (and in other countries, but I'll leave those for people who live in other countries). Take Kaepernick for example, he has stated numerous times that his protest has to do with police violence, yet the people who are opposed to his anthem protest say he has to be protesting the troops because he's protesting the anthem. I think people have the right to tell him why they're offended by his protest and they disagree with his logic if they so wish, but I don't think you can honestly tell him "No, you protest isn't about police violence, it's about not liking the troops."

Then we have political debates over the size and expenditure of the military. One side says "We're spending an awful lot on our military, maybe we can afford to make a few cuts here and there." or "I haven't seen any signs of WMDs in Iraq, maybe we shouldn't invade it" while the other side hugs the flag, plays the national anthem and declares the other politician as against the troops and un-American, and even though one side does it more than the other, politicians from both sides will adopt these very stereotypical patriotic optics (saluting the flag, photo with troops, hanging out with old vets, etc..) in their campaign, but fail to deliver when it comes to promises about the VA administration, veteran's mental health access, or the politicians won't hesitate to send them in harms way to score political points.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It doesn't always have to be. There are positive expressions of nationalism like rooting for your country in the Olympics, and being generally proud of your country and culture.

But there are specific problems with nationalism as it's often expressed in the USA (and in other countries, but I'll leave those for people who live in other countries). Take Kaepernick for example, he has stated numerous times that his protest has to do with police violence, yet the people who are opposed to his anthem protest say he has to be protesting the troops because he's protesting the anthem. I think people have the right to tell him why they're offended by his protest and they disagree with his logic if they so wish, but I don't think you can honestly tell him "No, you protest isn't about police violence, it's about not liking the troops."

Then we have political debates over the size and expenditure of the military. One side says "We're spending an awful lot on our military, maybe we can afford to make a few cuts here and there." or "I haven't seen any signs of WMDs in Iraq, maybe we shouldn't invade it" while the other side hugs the flag, plays the national anthem and declares the other politician as against the troops and un-American, and even though one side does it more than the other, politicians from both sides will adopt these very stereotypical patriotic optics (saluting the flag, photo with troops, hanging out with old vets, etc..) in their campaign, but fail to deliver when it comes to promises about the VA administration, veteran's mental health access, or the politicians won't hesitate to send them in harms way to score political points.

These are pretty thin denunciations of American nationalism. I think one problem with much criticism of nationalism is that it assumes the strengths of nationalism as givens. For example, one huge positive of nationalism is that we don't have interstate wars. People in a feudal society would never imagine an entire continent without any battles fought on it for more 150 years. Non nationalistic states are either too large and diverse, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire, or they are too small, like in a feudal system, or the city state system in ancient Greece.

What you seem to be complaining about is patriotism, which is not a phenomenon limited to nationalistic ideas of governance. People died and killed for their city or "to build socialism" or for the local baron every bit as much as they do for nation-states. In fact, I'd argue that there's been a too often unremarked drop in global violence due to the nation state system.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I was going to jokingly post the Tropic Thunder meme, then I realized you were non-jokingly using the phrase "you people" to stereotype the attitudes of tens of millions of people.

I grew up in a very moderate baptist church. I went to dozens of churches in multiple states for missions and youth events. I know how the game is played. My formative years were spent on a steady diet of a persecution complex and the seeming need to stand up for my beliefs in a nation bent on suppressing my beliefs.

No need to play coy.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Christians are not the majority in the USA. A majority of people do not believe that you need Jesus Christ in order to be saved from your sins. There are even many churches filled with non Christians who believe that other religions are another way to God.

There are many liberal PC/Social Justice churches where a false Gospel of works is preached. But there are politically conservative churches that preach a false gospel of works as well.

Oh, so you're capable of discerning who is, and who is not a christian, are you? Pray tell my humility, for I be on a mission for God.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

These are pretty thin denunciations of American nationalism. I think one problem with much criticism of nationalism is that it assumes the strengths of nationalism as givens. For example, one huge positive of nationalism is that we don't have interstate wars. People in a feudal society would never imagine an entire continent without any battles fought on it for more 150 years. Non nationalistic states are either too large and diverse, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire, or they are too small, like in a feudal system, or the city state system in ancient Greece.

What you seem to be complaining about is patriotism, which is not a phenomenon limited to nationalistic ideas of governance. People died and killed for their city or "to build socialism" or for the local baron every bit as much as they do for nation-states. In fact, I'd argue that there's been a too often unremarked drop in global violence due to the nation state system.

I was mainly talking about a nationalist sentiment's ability to stifle conversation and political debate in the same way that PC word policing can.

I wasn't really impugning the merits of having a nation state, or trying to paint a picture that only Americans die or kill for their country.

 

[helltoupee]

A repeated theme in this thread, which I paraphrase as "those most against PC culture can often be the most sensitive" is not correct in my experience. I am thinking now of a large sample of people my generation and older. In my experience, the most sensitive are definitely the PC activists. Throughout history there has always been a spectrum of perspectives, from the arrogance of youth, to the inflexibility of the aged. But in my observation, which spans a few decades now (I'm 52), youth have self-appointed themselves as moral police and have no difficulty disregarding the opinions of their elders and rejecting any sort of "nuance". The irony is that it's extremely disrespectful.

I would say the blame here would lie with the parents, and how they rear their children.

In the West, we have a tendency to treat kids as if they are all special little princes and princesses, whereas older generations generally had the attitude that "children should be seen and not heard".

It would seem that the difference in these two approaches most definitely plays a role in the development of young people's current tendency to appoint themselves as loud, opinionated, moral authorities on everything.

 

[Gunny]

I try not to assume who is phony and who is not. I think people have a tendency to accuse people of being phony when they do not agree with them instead of just accepting that some people have different views than them.

For example, the billboard above. Some people saw no reason to be outraged, and some people were very outraged by it. Is one of those groups phony?

I don't know, so I wouldn't assume. My guess is that some people are very sensitive to sexual innuendo and some are not. I don't think anybody is necessarily being phony.

But I do think it should be easy for both parties to understand the opposing view.

Oh I usually find it easy to discern when someone’s outrage is phony bullshit. I’ll give an example that you’ll like - when the people outraged by that billboard are also Trump voters. I’ll give another that you might not like so much. When strident #metoo, #believewomen progressives are Hillary voters. In both cases you have people whose behavior shows us the truth - that these declarations of outrage are little more than opportunistic instruments of social, linguistic and thought control. I’m sure they agree with the sentiments they express in a fairly lukewarm sense but the histrionics are nothing more than manufacturered drama employed as a means to an end.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think people should stand for the Anthem out of respect from within. I don’t believe the government should force them to. I also have no problem with people giving them shit for it.

Like I said, if someone doesn’t like what someone else is doing, I have no problem with them letting it be known. However, I’m not for government intervention.

That's what many of the PC left feel as well. You have the right to say racist/sexist/homophobic things but other people have the right to give you shit over it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Oh I usually find it easy to discern when someone’s outrage is phony bullshit. I’ll give an example that you’ll like - when the people outraged by that billboard are also Trump voters. I’ll give another that you might not like so much. When strident #metoo, #believewomen progressives are Hillary voters. In both cases you have people whose behavior shows us the truth - that these declarations of outrage are little more than opportunistic instruments of social, linguistic and thought control. I’m sure they agree with the sentiments they express in a fairly lukewarm sense but the histrionics are nothing more than manufacturered drama employed as a means to an end.

What makes you say that?

 

[esdoornblad]

I would say the blame here would lie with the parents, and how they rear their children.

In the West, we have a tendency to treat kids as if they are all special little prince and princesses, whereas older generations generally had the attitude that "children should be seen and not heard".

It would seem that the difference in these two approaches most definitely plays a role in the development of young people's current tendency to appoint themselves as loud, opinionated, moral authorities on everything.

I agree that the more draconian style of parenting produced kids with thicker skin, but in my daughter's case the wokedness is definitely coming from her interaction with peers and from social media -- not from any explicit guidance she is getting from my wife and me. Well, maybe that's not quite true. My wife doesn't really like ethnic jokes, but my daughter's total abhorrence of any ethnic humor is coming from outside. Other than that she is a perfect kid (a much better kid than I was).