How the "can't" is effectively enforced — Terrapin Station

How is it enforced? A few frowns, scowls, even a finger now an again, a cop you pissed off using it as an excuse to arrest you on a bogus charge?

good luck and good bye — I like sushi

Cheers.

Jobs/careers lost, ostracization, black listing, etc.

Jobs/careers lost, ostracization, black listing, etc. — Terrapin Station

Extreme PC is relatively rare, in my experience, and I can't understand why anyone would be offended with social justice, unless they are in some sense feeling threatened by the rising fortunes of women and minorities. I have no problem with a charter of rights. I don't think people should be fired from their jobs because they lapse into assholeness from time to time however. And the evidence shows the right is more dangerous than the extreme PC front. Has Antifa shot anyone yet? — Izat So

Extreme PC is relatively rare, in my experience, and I can't understand why anyone would be offended with social justice, unless they are in some sense feeling threatened by the rising fortunes of women and minorities. — Izat So

Again these odd deductions: that if people think PC culture has gone too far / might go too far, they obviously (your words), obviously are feeling threatened by the rising fortunes of women and minorities.

Well, of course this is not actually odd, because what you said is totally in line with the leftist PC dogma how these issues are talked about. Nearly everything if not everything is because of the patriarchy and the whites in America losing their majority status. No other reason can be, not even for people outside the US, it seems.

Yet why is it so difficult to understand that 2/3 of even the American people don't belong either to right-wing Trump worshipping MAGA-hatters fearing socialism OR the woke progressive left seeing nazis everywhere? And that these people are basically fed up with the vitriolic debate the both extremes carry on in order to dominate the public discourse. Yes, the excesses of PC are just simply silly or just slightly annoying, not anything posing any kind of true existential threat to freedom of speach. It's not that free speech will erode away, it's that the Overton window of what is OK to be said publicly is made smaller by a small group of enthusiasts. It's basically just stupid. Yes, there's tons of far more important things to discuss, but this topic seems to be popping up again and again.

And if you haven't anytime seen what this PC culture is like, I've seen it even here in my country. It just sucks as it's so annoyingly hypocrite and simply makes things worse.

And when you ask in the OP if your conclusions are reasonable and if someone doesn't totally agree, like I don't totally agree with your long sentence filled up with a hodgepodge of leftist tropes all put together: "The patriarchal backlash and the rise of the xenophobic right all over the world have been fomented by pundits (social media bots, call them - don't mean JP) sponsored by the parasitic rentier class (huge finance and real estate) to rouse the same people whose lives they’ve ruined to scapegoat those a rung below them by lobbying for government policies that continue to support "trickle down" (i.e., siphon up) economics." then you refer to terrorism, notably right-wing terrorism, to be the actual issue here. And then you make this comparison: why is someone complaining about PC, about black listing or ostracism when there is terrorism.

Well, the thread was called: "The "thing" about Political Correctness", not "Reason why right-wing terrorism is rising".

Probably important to link to the full article within which that chart can be found? Additional graphs and commentary point out that left-wing terrorist attacks and deaths via left-wing terrorism decreased by 70% and 65% respectively from the 70s to the 80s, so that's outside the collective political consciousness of about two, now nearly three, generations. I think it's also vital to note, per the article, that while there were about 7x more terrorist attacks in the 70s vs. the 2010s (regardless of ideological motivation), there were only 32 more deaths in the 70s than in the 2010s (which doesn't include 2017-2019), so the vast majority of left-wing terrorist attacks (+70%) were non-lethal, while a higher proportion of right-wing attacks are lethal.

And perhaps more to the point, again, per the article, the proportion of attacks committed by right-wing terrorists jumped from 6% to 35% from 2000s to 2010s, and this jump doesn't even include 2017-2019, but it ultimately bespeaks to the fact that right-wing terrorism is a rising threat within the USA, which despite your protestation otherwise, has not been well-monitored by US law enforcement.

It's false that ostracization, blacklisting, jobs/careers lost, etc. are rare.

Jobs/careers lost, ostracization, black listing, etc. — Terrapin Station

While I dislike this kind of reaction to statements that are merely controversial, I don't think it's accurate to call this "enforcement". Mostly, it's just other people using their free speech in opposition, which in turn prompts a reaction.

If it were just speech I'd be fine with it. But it's not just speech. It's other sorts of actions.

People want free speech without concequences, apparently.

The consequences should be speech.

Like "you're fired". Speech.

If it were just speech I'd be fine with it. But it's not just speech. It's other sorts of actions. — Terrapin Station

But these actions are just decisions these people make as part of their freedom of action. It's not as if they follow a government mandate. It's not "enforcement" so much as avoidance of controversy.

Thus it's not about leftists imposing PC culture and more about culture, in general, not dealing well with controversy. A problem that's fairly evident on many levels and not limited to PC

Sure, as long as it's only someone saying that, yet they remain employed.

lmao.

But these actions are just decisions these people make as part of their freedom of action. It's not as if they follow a government mandate. — Echarmion

The issue is controlling other people. That can easily happen outside of a governmental context. It's not as if it's okay to control people as long as it's not the government doing it officially.

Well, that's what "only speech" refers to, no?

These people. They claim to value speech. So long as it remains toothless. They don't care one jot for speech. They want to suck it dry.

It's "sucking dry" things like racist speech, too. It's just words. Non-speech actions would be another issue.

'Just words'. Oh dear.

"Oh dear" oh dear.

*shrug*. I like ostracizing racists. I enjoy supporters of paedophilia being denied their jobs. I like bigots being shamed into depression and the occasional suicide. These are social Goods.

The issue is controlling other people. That can easily happen outside of a governmental context. It's not as if it's okay to control people as long as it's not the government doing it officially. — Terrapin Station

But in order for it to be "enforcement" the people doing it must be doing it to actually "enforce" something. But I contend that, usually, the negative consequences are merely a reaction to the speech of other people, not an enforcement of their personal ideology.

An alternate view is that those are social evils.

But in order for it to be "enforcement" the people doing it must be doing it to actually "enforce" something. — Echarmion

Which doesn't have to be governmental. It can just refer to control.

It's definitely a reaction to speech. That doesn't make it not control.

Yes but that would be silly.

Better to be silly than evil I'd say.

Which doesn't have to be governmental. It can just refer to control.

It's definitely a reaction to speech. That doesn't make it not control. — Terrapin Station

So we should overthrow the capitalist system in favor of anarchy (in the sense of "no gods, no masters, no employers”)?

Because if you have the problem with control as such, the above seems like the only logical conclusion. I think you're more concerned with the way the control is used though.

So we should overthrow the capitalist system in favor of anarchy (in the sense of "no gods, no masters, no employers”)? — Echarmion

I'd overthrow the capitalist system for my own system, which isn't anarchist, but it certainly isn't capitalist, either.

I don't have a problem with all control, period. At the moment we're simply talking about certain kinds of actions in response to speech. I have a problem with that control.

I'm more or less a minarchist libertarian in many ways, but I also endorse some socialist ideas. I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist.

the thread was called: "The "thing" about Political Correctness", not "Reason why right-wing terrorism is rising". — ssu

From the OP

It seems to me that those concerned with the potential negative effects of Political Correctness to the extreme, such as Jordan Peterson and various pundits, ought to be far, far more concerned with a rise in rightwing extremism, and their unwitting contributions toward it in the broader public. — Izat So

it's not about leftists imposing PC culture and more about culture, in general, not dealing well with controversy. A problem that's fairly evident on many levels and not limited to PC — Echarmion

You've got plenty of pundits out there shouting down political correctness. Social Justice has become a pejorative, thanks to their efforts. Their voices seem to be much louder in the culture at large than the voices of so-called SJWs. "Dark web" be blowed.

People want free speech without concequences, apparently. — StreetlightX

Yes, they don't want to start having to take people into consideration when they open their mouths that they formerly did not.