https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
For my money, I've yet to get a coherent answer as to why a simple ask regarding common courtesy ("don't be a dick to people who aren't like you") is a bad thing. People immediately shoot off on tangents about freedom of speech, and "Cultural Marxism" (lol) and what-have-you.
I certainly swear alot and don't care that much.
Based on what? Most people aren't jerks on purpose, and if anything those on the left are shown by research to be more empathetic than others.
So, yeah, I “actually care” about treating others respectfully, and I don’t think it’s an uncommon trait among people accused of “pc” views as described by the parent commenter.
And that’s why, like that commenter, I’m often just mystified by the griping about what boils down to something simple as “respect people even if they’re different”. I think I learned that from Richard Scarry’s Busytown so I guess I was “pc” way before I knew what politics were.
I am definitely not conservative. I will text my friends and say “hey let’s go out and drink, cuss and tell lies”.
But that's not what the debate about inclusive language is about now, and it wasn't about that back in the day when the PC term was first applied. That's what they want everyone to believe it is about, hence the specific phrase they applied to it. They wanted to shift the perception of the issue, and it seems like it's worked on a lot of people, hence the downvotes on my post.
It's no different than branding the ACA "Obamacare" when it was extremely similar to proposals Republicans made in the past. This time around, it's a crazed socialist plan because a Democrat is proposing it.
It's generally where the friction is at. Some people call it Cultural Marxism because Marxism excuses violence when done by the proletariat against the bourgeois and some leftists excuse violence from "oppressed" identities towards "oppressor" identities.
There's rather more to that turn of phrase than you are aware of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...
They are terms used as an implication for right wing conspiracy theories but also do in part describe undeniable real behaviours and dogmas on the left.
Some leftists do think black people should be excused to violate whites, trans people should be excused to violate cis people, etc.
Nietzsche's view of Jewish morality as a vindictive passive aggressive reaction to impotence towards Roman oppression is accurate. It obviously does not describe all of the Jewish faith but it's very hard to hypothesize a different reason for "giving the other face" being their moral reaction towards violence. This critique is at the heart of the Black Panther movement (according to Huey P Newton's intentions). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026327641774134...
Yes, it was used by Nazis as one of the reasons for the Holocaust, doesn't mean the hypothesis is wrong.
Just like autogynephilia is used as a reason to deny trans people of transitioning treatment. Yes it is a true phenomenon, there are many self described autogynephiles claiming that is their sexual experience, doesn't mean trans people should be denied their autonomy for it.
If someone decides to kill everyone who can't run a given velocity the act of measuring running speed shouldn't implicate genocide forever.
