Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Political correctness is all about intolerance

I came across this wonderful comment by a Guardian reader which deserves to be read.  The points it makes should be obvious to everybody and go without saying but they seem to need saying:

But political correctness is all about intolerance. A person who is completely tolerant must be non politically correct. Political correctness is all about certain things being intolerable to be said, and then becoming intolerable to be thought (thought crimes). In many ways it's a direct competitor in the marketplace with more traditional forms of puritan prudery (which it labels as "intolerance" in an Orwellian manner). The psychology is very similar. It will appeal to a similar personality.

A completely tolerant person on hearing a Christian say homosexual sex is wrong will just say well that's your opinion, I do or don't share it, then go about their business, or at most perhaps have a polite debate. It should be the same reaction as to a vegetarian telling you that eating meat is wrong. A tolerant society would treat homophobes no differently than vegetarians.

The "brainwashing" makes the PC treat Christian condemnation of same sex activity in a different manner to their condemnation of the extramarital sex of the average young package holiday maker. They don't go around calling such people "extramaritalophobes", though the right and freedom for heterosexuals to have extramarital sex is hardly any less important than the right of gays to have homosexual sex. We have no laws against discrimination in providing goods and services to those who have extramarital sex, while I see no evidence that such discrimination in goods and services is less prevalent than that against gays. This is nothing more than the product of the "new left" agenda which is a co-option of Marxist philosophy with it's victim / oppressor dichotomy, originally based on class, transferred to newly defined "victim / oppressor" groups.

1 comment:

  1. You really got to the point. Censorship has existed during many centuries, but never has it been omnipresent and totalitarian. This is because in old times, censorship was in agreement with the culture of the country - now it is as universalistic as the claims of "human rights". It used to be in agreement with the collective beliefs. Now it is trying to shape them.
    Government used to represent the country's culture, mentality, laws, patrimony and interests; now it is trying to reshape them. In old times, if the people had prejudice, the good formula was that the government represent their prejudice; now, it is the job of the government to cure us from culture, mentality, patrimony, etc.

    Also, it is because, unlike conservatives, Marxists don't care about the Good Life passed down to us by our ancestors - for them, their no.1 priority is the victory of the oppressed over the oppressor.
    Hence their definition of justice being simply this: when the oppressed gets the upper hand over the oppressor, or even destroys him. Lies, slander, compromise of traditional and constitutional principles - all these are good and fine if for the right cause. On the other hand, traditional justice, truth and hierarchy are evil if they support the oppressor.