PoliticalCorrectness   528

« earlier    

On Topshop by Brendan O'Neill
'...We live in strange times. It is considered perfectly reasonable, and in fact progressive, to create ‘Safe Spaces’ on campus for 20-year-old adults who want to hide away from mere speech. Yet anyone who suggests the Topshop changing rooms should be for girls alone – and many of them really are girls, aged 13, 14, 15 – will be shot down as a vile, trashy transphobe. Some adults demand, and are granted, protection from the ideas of Maryam Namazie or Julie Bindel or Linda Bellos, on the basis that these women’s speech is akin to violence and could literally, for real, damage these adults’ feeling of safety. And yet those same adults, most of whom are trans-sympathetic, will rail against you if you suggest that young girls, who might be shy and self-conscious, deserve a space in which they can try on clothes together. Grown-ups deserve a safe space from speech, but under-16s don’t deserve a safe space in which to undress: how extraordinary. -- Ideological ‘safe spaces’ for adults are ridiculous and patronising. But you know what? Teenage girls need safe spaces. Whether it’s the changing room or the bathroom, they need a space in which they can chat, feel comfortable, apply make-up, gawp at themselves, do and redo their hair, without having some bloke – and that includes a ‘they’ in a dress – wandering about. This is not to say trans people are predators. Trans-sceptical feminists have focused rather too much on the threat posted by trans-women to born women, as if everyone with a penis is given to violent or disruptive behaviour. They risk undermining the important questions they’re asking about gender-fluidity and its impact on women’s standing in society by crossing the line into moral panic. No, it is simply to say that girls need private spaces in which they can feel at ease, especially when it comes to trying on clothes, going to the loo, showering, etc. That one of the most popular campaigns of recent years has been the right of male people to use female changing spaces feels disturbing. -- In a sense, the Alabanza case is just another typical Twitter-fit that too many people have caved in to – par for the course in the 21st-century, right? But it also feels more important than that. It feels symbolic of the relativistic rot afflicting Western society. Because if we cannot even say ‘No’ to men who want to go into the Topshop changing rooms, then who can we say no to? If we will not even say the Topshop changing rooms are a specific place for a specific kind of person, then perhaps there are no public or moral lines we are willing to hold anymore? If a man is allowed to go into a space where girls under the age of 16 are taking off their clothes, then all bets are off. Society has officially lost the ability to say: ‘Back off. This space isn’t for you.’ -- ... The Topshop controversy sums up the problem with trans activism today. This presents itself as a liberatory campaign on a par with the women’s movement or the gay-rights movement, but in truth it looks increasingly like an intemperate demand for permanent identity-validation. And nothing – not even the right of young girls to hang out together – can be permitted to stand in the way of this crusade for self-validation. ‘I am a woman’, they say, ‘and any person or thing or changing room that says I am not a woman must be destroyed’. The world and everyone in it must mould themselves around an infinitesimally small identity, which strikes me as crazy.'
UK  rkselectiontheory  decadence  victimhood  transgenderism  relativism  politicalcorrectness 
3 days ago by adamcrowe
Breitbart -- Sweden: ‘It Doesn’t Matter if Rapists Are Migrants, Only that They’re Men’
'Sweden’s justice minister has rejected a proposal by the Moderate party to record the ethnic backgrounds of sex attackers saying the only thing that matters is that they are men. -- ... Johansson rejected the request saying: “Sweden’s earlier figures and numerous international studies all show much the same thing. Minority groups are often overrepresented in crime statistics, but when controlling for socioeconomic factors this [the overrepresentation of minority groups] disappears almost entirely.”' -- Because socioeconomic factors
europe  conquest  denial  threatnarrative  scapegoating  politicalcorrectness  stockholmsyndrome 
7 days ago by adamcrowe
Breitbart -- Muslim Rape Gang Survivors: ‘Groomers Are Still Abusing Girls in Rotherham’
'...Ms. Williams told Channel 4: “You know it’s still happening. When you’re driving down town centre roads you see men in their cars with their girls and stuff.” -- When asked why the police couldn’t see that if she could, she answered: “I don’t know.” -- In May, Maggie Oliver, a former police detective who helped prosecute another Muslim grooming gang in Rochdale in 2012, wrote that offenders identified during the original investigation are still at large. -- “There are still paedophiles who we identified… who are out there right now,” the whistleblower said. “I still support many of the girls and they tell me they’ve seen them.” -- A nationwide pattern emerged after the first prosecutions in Rotherham, and then Rochdale, where a “culture of silence” and political correctness led to inaction by authorities who feared being called “racist” as the groomers were predominantly Pakistani-origin Muslims who preyed on vulnerable, white girls. -- In some cases, authorities made the victims feel that they were racists for identifying the ethnicity of their abusers, and even suggested that the underaged girls’ victimisation was a “lifestyle choice” and that they were prostitutes.'
UK  conquest  politicalcorrectness 
11 days ago by adamcrowe
Judith Butler: «Ich war nie für politische Korrektheit»
Man wirft den Gender Studies, die Sie stark inspiriert haben, vor, einer politischen Korrektheit Vorschub zu leisten, die zu Verboten oder Intoleranz führten.
Ich war nie für politische Korrektheit. Political Correctness ist ja ein Begriff, den Konservative nutzen, um den Feminismus oder die Bürgerrechtsbewegungen zu karikieren. Diese bedienen sich der Vorstellung, wir seien eine Art Polizei, die vorschreibt, was die Menschen sagen dürfen und was nicht. Einmal abgesehen davon, dass nichts falsch daran ist, weder rassistische noch frauenfeind­liche Begriffe zu benutzen: Ich glaube auch, dass die erwähnten Bewegungen viel kreativer und experimenteller sind, dass sie Sprachen zu erfinden versuchen, die noch nicht existieren, damit die Anerkennung von Minderheiten wahrscheinlicher wird.

Also keine Sprachpolizei?
Nein, sondern der Versuch, gegen Diskriminierung zu arbeiten. Wie die Polizei verhalten sich hingegen all jene, die zu wissen glauben, was Frauen sind und zu tun haben, dass sie sich etwa nicht in der Politik engagieren sollen. Oder dass Homosexuelle krank sind, dass sich Schwarze nicht über Rassismus beschweren sollen und dass doch alles okay sei. Das ist die Polizei.

Universitäten geben Empfehlungen für eine Sprache, die möglichst keine Minderheit ausschliesst. Einige sehen darin ein Symptom, dass in unserer Gesellschaft alles auf Purifizierung hinarbeitet.
Ich glaube nicht, dass die Reinigung der Sprache der richtige Weg ist. Mich interessiert vielmehr, wie eine Gruppe, die abgewertet wird, die Sprache der Beleidigung nutzen kann, damit sie etwas anderes bedeutet, etwas Kreatives. Auf Englisch zum Beispiel bedeutete das Wort «queer» in den 1960ern etwas Beleidigendes. Wenn jemand sagte, «Du bist queer!», dann hasste er dich, dann dachte er, du seist abnorm, du seist ein Monster. Es gibt also eine Kreativität und auch einen Humor, wenn man ein Wort nimmt und es zu etwas Positivem umwendet, wenn man etwa sagt: «Ja, ich bin queer.»

Also keine Reinigung.
Nein, man benutzt vielmehr das ‹schmutzige› Wort und macht durch einen Twist etwas anderes daraus. Dieser Twist ist denn auch das, was man auf Englisch «queering» nennt. Und ich glaube nicht, dass das korrekt ist. Es scheint eher inkorrekt, wenn man Wörter nimmt, die eine festgelegte Bedeutung haben und etwas anderes mit ihnen macht. Einige in der Trans-Bewegung nennen sich zum Beispiel «nicht-binär», um sich der Kategorisierung in Mann und Frau zu widersetzen. Das ist eine Dynamik, die sich fortsetzt, die produktiv ist und nicht versucht, Sprache zu reglementieren. Vielmehr geht es darum, Bedeutungen freizusetzen. Das hat nichts mit Reinigung oder Zensur zu tun. Aber damit, Anerkennung einfacher und vielfältiger zu machen.

Viel ist auch von sogenannten Trigger-Warnungen die Rede. Wenn ein literarischer Text eine Beschreibung von Gewalt enthält, etwa Ovids «Metamorphosen», müsse davor gewarnt werden, damit keine Gefühle verletzt werden.
Ich bin gegen solche Trigger-Warnungen. Wir sollten alle getriggert werden – sind wir sowieso. Triggering ist unvermeidlich. Ich habe kürzlich ein Seminar über queere Verwandtschaft abgehalten, in dem wir griechische Tragödien lasen und was darin queer ist. Etwa in «König Ödipus» von Sophokles. Ich fragte meine Studierenden, soll ich euch sagen, dass es in diesem Stück Gewalt und Inzest gibt. Braucht jemand von euch eine Trigger-Warnung? Niemand wollte das, obwohl wir uns mit vielen Texten beschäftigten, in denen es explizite sexuelle Gewalt gibt.

Es gibt aber Leute, die solche Trigger-Warnungen verteidigen.
Ich glaube, dass die selbst in der Linken eine Minderheit sind. Und wenn man von Triggering spricht, dann denken viele, es gäbe eine Art Automatismus. De facto reagieren wir aber völlig verschieden auf Bilder, Erzählungen von Gewalt oder Sexualität. Zumindest in meinem Seminar gab es sehr viele unterschiedliche Interpretationen der Texte. Klar, einiges ist verstörend, womit wir uns beschäftigen. Aber Bildung ist verstörend. Man muss von etwas Neuem verstört werden, von etwas Seltsamem, Fremden.

Diesen Sommer gab es eine heftige Debatte zwischen Ihnen, Alice Schwarzer und deren «Emma». Wie zerstritten ist der Feminismus?
Es gab immer starke Debatten in der feministischen Bewegung, und sie sind auch ein Teil von dem, was den Feminismus zu einer lebendigen Bewegung macht. Obwohl die Diskussionen sehr intensiv geführt werden, wird niemand dazu aufgefordert, sich auf die Zunge zu beissen. Frauen in unserer Welt sind eher arm, ungebildet und verletzbar durch Gewalt. Es gibt also bedeutende Aspekte der Ungleichheit und Ungerechtigkeit, die angegangen werden sollten. Feminismus ist aber auch eine Bewegung, welche die soziale und politische Macht von Frauen und Trans-Menschen unterstützt und mit Nachdruck geltend macht, dass dies transnational und vereinigend ist. Meiner Meinung nach vergrössert der Feminismus die Zahl seiner Verbündeten, indem auf historisch spezifische Formen von Entbehrung und Ungleichheit reagiert wird. Ich denke also, dass der Feminismus selbst ein mächtiger Alliierter ist, wenn es um soziale Veränderungen und emanzipatorische Ideale geht.

Der Feminismus ist ein mächtiger Alliierter, wenn es um soziale Veränderungen und emanzipatorische Ideale geht.
Was bringt die Debatte mit Alice Schwarzer?
Es gibt zwei Punkte, die mir in dieser «Debatte» wichtig scheinen: Der erste hat mit der Unterstellung zu tun, dass es eine Unterscheidung zwischen akade­mischer und aktivistischer Arbeit gibt. Queerer Aktivismus, der zunehmend mit der Bekämpfung von Rassismus beschäftigt ist, basiert auf Allianzen, die zurzeit transnational und sehr öffentlich sind. Angehörige von aktivistischen Bewegungen wie diesen verbringen einige Zeit mit Lesen und Studieren, dann wiederum Zeit mit der Organisation und dem Engagement in öffentlichen Aktionen. Das ist eine interessante Dynamik. Vielleicht will eine Zeitschrift wie die «Emma» mal über diese Dynamik berichten, die etwa in Deutschland, Spanien, Griechenland, Brasilien und Argentinien entstand?

Und der zweite Punkt?
Politischer Islamismus oder «islamistische» Politiken sind ganz klar gewalttätig und abscheulich. Sie sollten verdammt werden, da gibt es keine Uneinigkeit zwischen Alice Schwarzer und mir. Aber das heisst nicht, dass der Islam als Religion verdammt werden sollte. Das ist ein relativ einfacher, aber sehr wichtiger Punkt: Unsere Verdammung von Aktionen des politischen Islamismus soll nicht eine ganze Religionsgemeinschaft aufgrund ihres Glaubens verdammen. Die Bemühung, von einer anthropologischen Perspektive aus zu verstehen, was eine Burka bedeutet, sollte denn auch wichtig sein für jede feministische Position, die den Staat darum ersucht, die Burka zu verbieten oder zu erlauben. Wenn wir den Anspruch erheben, ihre Bedeutung zu kennen, ohne zu wissen, was sie für jene bedeutet, die sie tragen, agieren wir aus einer Position der kulturellen Arroganz. Wenn wir unkritisch den Glauben des Islams mit radikal islamistischen Politiken gleichsetzen, begehen wir nicht nur einen schwerwiegenden Fehler, dann schüren wir auch eine Art öffentliche Hysterie, die willens ist, die Religionsfreiheit eines bedeutenden Teils der Bevölkerung zu bestreiten – eine solche feministische Position verschwimmt mit derjenigen der Alt-Right-Bewegung.

Alice Schwarzer warf Ihnen vor, im Namen der «Andersheit der Anderen» die Burka zu rechtfertigen, was angesichts von Zwangsverschleierungen zynisch sei. «Die Akzeptanz des Anderen muss da ihre Grenzen haben, wo es um elementarste Menschenrechte geht», fordert Schwarzer.
Es war bekanntlich der französisch-litauische Philosoph Emmanuel Levinas, der von Andersheit als einer Bedingung für eine Ethik ausging. Vielleicht hat Alice Schwarzer Meinungsverschiedenheiten mit ihm? Denn weder die Berliner Gender-Studies-Professorin Sabine Hark, die mit mir zusammen eine Replik auf die Angriffe der «Emma» geschrieben hat, noch ich akzeptieren alle Aspekte von allen «Anderen». Ich akzeptiere zum Beispiel schwerlich Rassisten. Wenn Schwarzer glaubt, dass nur bestimmte Leute Schutz durch Menschenrechte verdient haben, dann müsste sie das erklären können.

«Unsere Verdammung von Aktionen des politischen Islamismus soll nicht eine ganze Religionsgemeinschaft aufgrund ihres Glaubens verdammen.» Foto: Samuel Schalch

Und was ist Ihre eigene Position?
Meine eigene Ansicht ist, dass niemandem die Menschenrechte wegen der Religion, der Rasse, des Geschlechts oder der Sexualität streitig gemacht werden dürfen. Das scheint fundamental. Tatsächlich glaube ich aber, dass es lohnenswert ist, die Frage zu stellen, unter welchen historischen Bedingungen Bekleidung wie etwa eine Burka politisiert werden kann. Wie Sie wissen, gibt es zahlreiche schwerwiegende Probleme in den USA, aber es wäre eine ebenso gravierende Abkehr von unserem akzeptierten Demokratieverständnis, Menschen aufgrund der Symbole oder der Kleidung zu diskriminieren, die sie aus religiösen Gründen tragen.

Es gibt Demokratien, die Verbote von religiösen Symbolen durchgesetzt haben oder dies erwägen. In der Schweiz kommt das Verbot der Burka zur Abstimmung.
Soviel ich weiss, wird in Europa die Debatte um die Verschleierung sehr stark von einem anderen Verständnis von Säkularismus geprägt. Ich bin mir aber ziemlich sicher, dass Menschen, die Symbole oder Kleidung tragen, die ihre religiöse Zugehörigkeit symbolisieren, nicht so «anders» sind: Sie haben Anspruch auf die gleichen demokratischen Rechte wie alle anderen auch. Unsere heutigen Demokratien werden davon bestimmt, dass in ihnen Menschen unterschiedlicher Ethnien und Religionen leben, und so müssen wir auf eine Gesellschaft hinarbeiten, die vor diesem Hintergrund Gleichheit und Freiheit für alle ermöglicht. Das ist die gegenwärtige Aufgabe des Zusammenlebens in unseren Gesellschaften.

Einige fordern, dass Universitäten Schutzräume sein sollen.
Ich interessiere mich nicht für Safe Spaces. Ich… [more]
JudithButler  Philosophy  db  Feminism  PoliticalCorrectness 
11 days ago by walt74
The Daily Caller -- UK Is Tougher On Facebook Posts Than ISIS
'...It seems government officials in the UK are far more troubled by losing a “generation” to ISIS than having that generation’s return to their nation’s shores. Those jihadis just need to be reintegrated and everything will be a-okay. -- The authorities’ ideas for reintegrating these foreign jihadis include giving them free housing and other taxpayer-funded support. What a way to punish terrorism. -- This proposal of letting in hundreds of hardened Islamic militants in the country without any consequences for the returnees has sparked vigorous debate in Britain. -- Unfortunately, plenty of British commentators think the proposal is a brilliant idea. -- Self-proclaimed feminist journalist Sirena Bergman recently argued on a television panel that most of these jihadis were simply too naive to understand ISIS barbarism. -- “We want those people [British ISIS fighters] to come back. We want to encourage them to reintegrate into society,” Bergman said, before ranting about “divisive rhetoric” that calls for killing the militants. -- The journalist also takes the peculiar stance that the only reason the UK wants to kill, or at least disenfranchise ISIS militants is because most Britons “don’t agree” with their ideology. -- Writing for The Guardian in September, United Nations consultant Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini argued the best weapon to de-radicalize returning jihadis was with “our humanity.” -- Naraghi-Anderlini asserts that many of these hardcore militants are victims as well, and urges a humane approach that seeks to rehabilitate them into their old communities. -- “As we face the prospect of Isis returnees to the UK, we must challenge our own perceptions. It would be easy if they were all one-dimensional, Bond-movie bad guys – but they are not. If we fall victim to this sort of thinking, we become that which we abhor and fear,” the UN consultant writes. “Instead our collective task as a nation is to find our own deep well of decency and humanity, to be fair and compassionate, just and kind, and perhaps above all to care.” -- The message here is that Britons can win over ISIS returnees with their superior values of tolerance and compassion, values that apparently didn’t win over these militants when they previously dwelled in the UK.'
UK  conquest  politicalcorrectness  pathologicalaltruism  cowardice  LYAHF  rkselectiontheory 
19 days ago by adamcrowe
Breitbart -- Very Jake News: Tapper Melts Down over Criticism of Inaccurate 'Allahu Akbar' Comments
'CNN’s Jake Tapper, who is already dealing with humiliating ratings and a reputation implosion, decided to put on a public spectacle Wednesday over the criticism of his blatantly inappropriate and misleading comments surrounding the Islamic cry of “Allahu Akbar.” -- In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday’s terror attack, the worst in New York City since September 11, 2001, for some bizarre reason, Tapper felt the self-righteous need to say this: “The Arabic chant, Allahu Akbar, God is great, sometimes said under the most beautiful of circumstances, and too often we hear it being said in moments like this.” -- Let us begin with the misleading part. -- “Allahu Akbar” does not mean “God is great.” It means, “Allah is greater.” -- The left-wing CNN also misinterpreted this in a chyron. -- And the difference is all the difference. -- As Breitbart News has reported, “Allahu Akbar” is the “aggressive declaration that Allah and Islam are dominant over every other form of government, religion, law or ethic, which is why Islamic jihadists in the midst of killing infidels so often shout it.” -- In other words, “Allahu Akbar” is not some benign chant declaring “God is great.” Rather, it is a belligerent cry of religious and cultural supremacism. -- But on top of misleading his viewers, there is the jaw-dropping inappropriateness of Tapper’s imperious reminder that “Allahu Akbar” is “sometimes said under the most beautiful of circumstances.” As Cheryl K. Chumley of the Washington Times accurately points out, “so was Heil Hitler” said at weddings, funerals, family reunions, and children’s birthday parties. But who thinks offering that kind of context is anything but unseemly? -- So not only were Tapper’s comments tasteless and inaccurate, to deflect from the deserved criticism, he decided to portray himself as the victim of the eeeeevil right-wing media.'
conquest  politicalcorrectness  usefulidiot 
20 days ago by adamcrowe
Breitbart -- Ann Coulter: Florida Man Has Fender Bender in Manhattan
'...The truth is, we are, as Phil Donahue used to say, a deeply racist society. If the perpetrator — again, Florida man Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov — was a person of color, this just proves it. Sayfullo was probably so ground down by Islamophobia that he felt the only option left to him was the event in lower Manhattan. This incident encapsulates the breadth of the battle against racism we have to fight every day in this country. -- Perhaps Sayfullo could be faulted for blocking the bikers’ lane, but the rest was the natural reaction to a society where, night after night, Fox News hosts indoctrinate viewers in irrational hatred toward “Islamic extremism.” -- Since announcing his candidacy, Donald Trump has done very little to make Muslims feel their space is safe. Immediately after the election, the Southern Poverty Law Center documented 140,849 reports of hijabs being ripped off marginalized Muslim women on college campuses across the nation. -- Ironically, Trump wants to end the very “diversity lottery” that allowed Sayfullo to come to this country in the first place! The LAST thing we want to do is alienate members of this community. We need more members of the community to come here, so they can warn us about other members of their community. -- New York’s bad-ass governor, Andrew Cuomo, said it best: NEW YORKERS WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED. Ordinary people who don’t have security guards will have to learn to live with the occasional “terrorist attack.” True patriotism is having faith in this country’s ability to respond creatively, with extra airport screening, bollards, closed circuit cameras, check points, heavy policing and fewer public events. -- If we truly, as a country, are committed to the American ideal of justice and equality for all, we can’t wait until a crisis happens to build bridges, educate, counteract false narratives and foster peace. -- I want to believe that a massive re-education program about white privilege would work. But at this point, we might have sunk too deep into our own Eurocentric entitlement for white people to begin to unpack their privilege.'
conquest  politicalcorrectness  denial  cowardice  satire 
21 days ago by adamcrowe
Quillette -- Sarah Haider on Normalizing Dissent: A Conversation by Spencer Case
'After a couple of false starts, Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA) finally kicked off its Normalizing Dissent Tour at the University of Colorado Boulder. On the evening of Thursday, October 5, more than 90 people assembled to hear a panel of three Ex-Muslim women – EXMNA co-founder Sarah Haider, Saudi activist Ghada, and writer and editor Hiba Krisht – discuss “Islam, Modesty, and Feminism.” At the request of Secular Students and Skeptics Society (SSaSS), the student organization that invited EXMNA, campus security took the unusual precaution of searching all bags for weapons as the audience filed into the lecture hall where the event took place. -- ... #SC: Alright, I wanted to ask you about this. So EXMNA often uses this sort of “middle path” kind of rhetoric, like there’s anti-Muslim bigotry on the Right and cultural relativism on the Left. There’s something from one of your pamphlets that says something like that. I heard you say this. I think all of the panelists said something like this. And so I was curious because when you put it in a parity like that it suggests that these are equal problems, that demonization of Islam and glorification of Islam are equally problems. And I’m wondering whether that’s actually your view or whether you think one of these is more false or more harmful than the other. -- #SH: That’s an interesting question. I wouldn’t say that they are both harmful in the same ways. As far as judging on a broader level whether they are equal harms, that would be a difficult task. I can say that I think the Left’s position is more deeply troubling in the way they just seem to ignore the problems within Islam or glorify certain aspects of it like the hijab. The effects of that particular stance – it’s not so visible how harmful it can be. But you’re lying about the reality of hundreds of millions of people across the world. It’s so easy to just focus only on Muslims in the West and say “Oh, well they are facing bigotry here.” But this is just the West, this is a tiny minority. When we’re looking at Islam, it’s a global phenomenon. And when you say that the most pressing concern is the bigotry [against the] actually very privileged people who are already in the West, then you’re implying that the people who most need our help, who most need things to improve, should be discounted at the moment, that their problems are not the most pressing problems. -- #SC: I guess what I wanted to do then is ask you about what the Left and what the Right is doing wrong independently. So about the Left… I’m sort of amazed at the extent to which people on the Left want to project things onto Islam. They want to be open-minded and tolerant and yet they don’t really want to see that anything is actually different than what they believe and accept. I think nothing highlights this quite so much as the hijab and the pussy hat – like a traditional symbol of submission and modesty and this thing that was invented for the Women’s March, I guess – that’s symbolically putting your vagina on your head. It just seems like: how could anyone think these two things are compatible? This is like an achievement in cognitive dissonance. -- #SH: Well, it’s interesting to think about the way in which tolerance is justified. For I think too much of the Left, tolerance seems to be something that we give to people who already hold views we find acceptable, right? That’s why there’s this effort to sanitize Islamic traditions and to sanitize Islamic practices, because those are the grounds on which we can grant other people tolerance. But I think of tolerance as a civil liberties principle, particularly as it pertains to things like freedom of speech, it has to be granted to people we that disagree with as well, right? It has to be granted to people whose ideas we find repulsive. But broadly among the Left, I’ve noticed this trend of – and it’s all over the news, the punching Nazis thing – but broadly there’s this trend of not accepting civil liberties, and not accepting the idea that anyone can practice the way that they [want], or hold the ideologies that they feel most reflect reality, because they might be bigoted. Or they might be perceived as being harmful. -- So it’s interesting to see how civil liberties are being eroded, because it puts us in this position where tolerance is held hostage to our judgments of someone else. And so in order for me to be tolerant of your practice, I have to find it morally good as well. Which is just a nonsense way, I think, of approaching civil liberties…. I wonder if I’m phrasing this right, because what I mean to say is that tolerance from a civil liberties perspective is incredibly important and I think that aspect is just being washed away… -- #SC: So the thought would be, to sort of crystalize what you are saying: tolerance has been equated with endorsement and if it were to be the case that there are some things that Muslims believe that we don’t endorse, it would follow on that understanding of tolerance that we can’t tolerate them. And so the solution is just to say, “No, it can’t be the case that we disagree on these fundamental questions.” -- #SH: Right. The solution is to lie. If that understanding of tolerance is the one we’re going along with, then the solution is to pretend like minority communities, or any kind of communities that we want to protect, don’t have any problematic ideas. Thank you for crystalizing it in that way that was a really good way of putting it….'
discourse  conquest  illiberalism  denial  politicalcorrectness  blackwhite 
5 weeks ago by adamcrowe
Breitbart -- Independent: Teachings of Islam Could Prevent Hollywood Sex Scandals
'Alleging U.S. “rape culture” caused the Hollywood sex abuse scandal, UK news site the Independent has claimed that only Islam can provide the answer to preventing violence against women. -- “Harvey Weinstein is just another case of a powerful man abusing women because we live in a society that lets him get away with it, but we can change that,” writes U.S-based civil rights lawyer Qasim Rashid in a piece for the former newspaper, now a website, the independence of which has been called into question after a key stake was bought by Saudi investor Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel. -- Describing anyone who is shocked by allegations against the liberal Hollywood executive as “dangerously ignorant to reality”, the Muslim activist declares that “the cancer of sexual abuse against women that we see in Christian majority America is just as prevalent in Muslim majority Pakistan.” -- “Every level of society – social norms, media, and Government – is complicit in promoting the rape culture that perpetuates sexual abuse,” Rashid writes, going on to slam America’s criminal justice system as ineffective in countering sexual violence. -- In order to prevent gender-based violence against women, according to Rashid, countries must adopt a “proven Islamic model that will stop this madness, and re-invoke gender equity today in America, and the world”.' -- http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/media-islamic-faith-prevents-sexual-assault/
UK  conquest  stockholmsyndrome  politicalcorrectness  threatnarrative 
5 weeks ago by adamcrowe
YouTube -- Paul Joseph Watson: The Truth About Hollywood
'More and more people are beginning to feel jaded by popular culture.' -- "Make no mistake about it, this is a backlash against the social engineering that is now prevalent in modern movies."
america  popculture  hollywood  backlash  politicalcorrectness 
5 weeks ago by adamcrowe
Quillette -- Jung and the Trumpian Shadow by Alexander Blum
'...Jung would suggest that the politically correct are ignoring the very real severity in their own nature: “Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is…if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.” ... -- Conservatives, particularly in the intellectual tradition of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and other anti-Communists, believe that the angelic heights of humankind are forever tied to their immutable and hellish depths. Every inch striving toward a perfect world is met with an inch striving toward absolute hell. This is an idea proposed by Jung, who said: “The fact is that if one tries beyond one’s capacity to be perfect, the shadow descends into hell and becomes the devil.” -- This has consequential implications for the political world. If we strive to be utopians, and erase all forms of inequality, sweep away all profanity, heal the wounds of racism and take ourselves off the cross of sin, our own lesser nature will double-back against us, and refuse our motions every step of the way. In this way, the utopian unknowingly digs his own grave. This was certainly the case with Communism throughout the 20th century. But this fallibility of human perfection continues, seemingly forever. -- In an essay titled “Feminism and the problem of supertoxic masculinity,” political scientist Justin Murphy makes an unconventional argument. In encouraging men to be passive, polite, and non-offensive through social pressure, most men will conform to that feminist standard out of a genuine unwillingness to be abrasive or do harm. But a small number of men who cannot be shamed, in a world filled with men who refuse to check them, will begin to dominate and rise through social hierarchies due to the simple fact that nobody knows how to stop those few men who embody the intolerable shadow the masses have repressed away. Murphy writes: "The problem is that when the baseline of masculine dominance expression is held below its organic tendency, defined simply as what men would do in the absence of cultural campaigns to defang it, this increases the potential payoff to those who dare exercise it, as there are more resources to dominate precisely to the degree that other men are not contesting them." -- ... In pretending that Donald Trump has nothing to do with us, that he is an aberration, a break from the ‘norms’ of polite politics, the Democrats distanced themselves from reality. In fact, hyper-masculine and hyper-aggressive attitudes have a great deal to do with the gene pool. The Left may cringe at the notion, but many leftists would do well to acknowledge their own shadow. Where does the recent explosion of commentary in favor of ‘punching Nazis’ and forcibly censoring speech come from? The thrill and the rush of violence, aggression and anger is simply more relatable than the sanitized gloss of politically correct culture. That is why antifa is so popular on the left. That is why Donald Trump is so beloved on the right. -- In seeking a society of pure mercy, without trolling, without insults, without any inequality, violence, or biased behavior of any kind, progressives inadvertently created their worst nightmare. They tried to suppress the collective shadow of humankind through moral policing and public shaming, and instead only begat a growing animosity directed at the cathedral of their false dogmas.'
ideology  politics  illiberalism  politicalcorrectness  psychology  shadow  denial  projection  poisoncontainer  scapegoating  shamingtactics  backlash  * 
5 weeks ago by adamcrowe
The Spectator -- The 5 per cent of people who decide everything (and how to be one of them) by Rory Sutherland
'...As Nassim Taleb pointed out when he spotted this phenomenon, minority rule can prevail in many areas. Schools where only 5 per cent of the pupils are Muslim will keep halal kitchens, because it is assumed non-Muslims can be served halal food whereas Muslims will eat nothing but. All New Zealand lamb imported into Britain is halal, as is the chicken at Pizza Express. Almost all biscuits in Britain are now vegetarian (even Fox’s Party Rings recently capitulated). This process happens for the same reason most hospitals request Type O blood. It is far easier to stock and distribute something that can be given to everyone than to maintain separate supply chains. -- This seems to be a universal mechanism whereby a small stubborn group can beat large acquiescent ones. At times, it is a good thing: consumer boycotts can work even if only 10 per cent of people participate. This vulnerability helps keep companies honest. -- But the same thing can be dangerous. The reason the principle of free speech has to be so staunchly defended is that it is vulnerable to abuse by minority rule. Once you let the idea take hold that something cannot be said because it might offend some imagined third party, you fast enter a death spiral of intolerance: demands for safe spaces, no-platforming, trigger warnings; a bizarre world where Peter Tatchell is deemed too ‘racist and transphobic’ to share your stage, say, or where comedians cannot perform on the university circuit because it is impossible to say anything funny without arousing censure from a tiny group of obsessives with invented grievances. -- It is worth being alert to minority rule: it teaches that even when most people are reasonable, this does not mean that reasonableness will prevail. There are some principles which tolerant people have to be intolerant about.'
politicalcorrectness  illiberalism  crimestop  RorySutherland 
5 weeks ago by adamcrowe
Trump’s Racism and the Myth of “Cultural Marxism” | New Republic
The fact that Trump reportedly loved this memo is deeply disturbing. It’s one thing to say that the extent of racism, sexism, and homophobia can be debated. It’s much more extreme to argue that racism, sexism, and homophobia don’t exist at all, but are illusions created by crafty thinkers to fool the masses.

The memo offers a clue to the extent of Trump’s bigotry. It’s not just that he’s a visceral bigot, but also, on some level, intellectually committed to bigotry. With the encouragement of white nationalist advisers like Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka, Trump is attracted to ideas that absolve society of the need to deal with racism, sexism, and homophobia. There’s no surprise that a president who “gushed” over the cultural Marxism memo had to be dragged kicking and screaming into saying “racism is evil,” since on some level he probably doesn’t think racism even exists.
USA  politics  TrumpDonald  Charlottesville  whiteSupremacism  racism  culturalMarxism  FrankfurtSchool  MarcuseHerbert  politicalCorrectness  AdornoTheodor 
6 weeks ago by petej
Wir sollten über "Political Correctness" diskutieren, aber bitte nicht so
"Political Correctness", kurz auch PC, spätestens seit den Neunzigern ein politischer Kampfbegriff der Rechten. Er bezeichnet die Gegenbewegung zu anti-diskriminatorischer Sprache und setzt sich häufig für eine absolute Meinungsfreiheit ein, in der alles gesagt werden darf, auch rassistische, sexistische und homophobe Wörter. In Deutschland hat sich das Wort im letzten Jahrzehnt aus der rechten Szene solide im Vokabular all jener etabliert, denen Deutschland ganz generell zu links ist.

Selten wurde die Frage gestellt, wer ein Interesse daran hat, Schwarze mit dem N-Wort zu beschimpfen, ohne Konsequenzen befürchten zu müssen.

Dazu beigetragen haben natürlich auch die meisten deutschen Medien, die eben jenen Kampfbegriff der Rechten häufig ohne Kontext oder Einordnung reproduzierten. Die politische Agenda der Rechten ist, eine Angst zu schüren, nichts mehr sagen zu dürfen. Nur ist die selten als Agenda erkennbar. Stattdessen wird aus dieser irrationalen Angst ein objektiver Fakt gemacht. Selten wurde die Frage gestellt, wer ein Interesse daran hat, Schwarze mit dem N-Wort zu beschimpfen, ohne Konsequenzen befürchten zu müssen, oder Menschen jüdischen Glaubens eine weltumspannende Verschwörung unterstellen zu dürfen.

"Sprache [kann] also Einfluss auf Einstellungen, Meinungen, Vorstellungen und letztlich auch Verhalten haben – aber eben nicht direkt auf Realität", so schreiben es Ullrich und Diefenbach in ihrem Buch. Durch die Konzentration auf Begrifflichkeiten rücke die Beschäftigung mit den eigentlichen Geschehnissen ins Abseits. Dies steht im Gegensatz zur "Political Correctness" in linken Kreisen, in der die Auffassung existiert, dass beispielsweise rassistische Sprache auch Rassismus ist, schafft und reproduziert. Diskriminierende Sprache wird in linken Kreisen folglich als Teil des Problems gesehen, und Wörter nicht als in einem Vakuum existierende Begriffe, die keinen Effekt haben. Diese Auffassung teilen die Autoren nicht. Konsequenterweise benutzen sie in ihrem Buch auch diskriminierende Sprache wie das N-Wort.

Doch wenn diskriminierende Sprache Einstellungen, Meinungen, Vorstellungen und Verhalten verändern kann, was genau ist dann damit gemeint, dass sie die Realität eben nicht präge?

Eigentlich würde an dieser Stelle nun das Interview mit den Autoren stehen. Ich habe nämlich fast zwei Stunden mit Ullrich und Diefenbach in Berlin gesprochen. Die Zitate aus dem Gespräch wollen sie später allerdings nicht freigeben. Das Gesagte soll durch schönere, relativierende Dinge ersetzt werden. Doch das ist weder journalistische Praxis noch eine Haltung, die in diesem Kontext vertretbar wäre. Warum, wird auch ohne Interview recht schnell deutlich – das Buch reicht dafür vollkommen aus.
Books  PoliticalCorrectness  db 
6 weeks ago by walt74
The right has its own version of political correctness. It’s just as stifling. - The Washington Post
But conservatives have their own, nationalist version of PC, their own set of rules regulating speech, behavior and acceptable opinions. I call it “patriotic correctness.” It’s a full-throated, un-nuanced, uncompromising defense of American nationalism, history and cherry-picked ideals. Central to its thesis is the belief that nothing in America can’t be fixed by more patriotism enforced by public shaming, boycotts and policies to cut out foreign and non-American influences.
politicalcorrectness  patrioticcorrectness  language  politics  review  critique  USA  WashingtonPost  2017 
8 weeks ago by inspiral

« earlier    

related tags

*  1984  2016  2017  4chan  abuse  adamsscott  adornotheodor  advertising  agencyvspatiency  alienation  alt-right  america  anonymous  anti-feminism  arminnassehi  auernheimerandrew  authoritarianism  backlash  bannonstephen  bbc  blackwhite  bokhariallum  books  breitbart  buchananpat  by:aidamanduley  campus  categorization  censorship  centralbanking  charlottesville  chokepoints  civility  civilization  class  clintonhillary  collapse  complianceprofessionals  conquest  cowardice  crimestop  criticalwhiteness  critique  culturalappropriation  culturalmarxism  culture  dasgeileneueinternet  daverubin  db  decadence  denial  discourse  displacement  diversity  donaldtrump  dv  echochamber  economics  education  egalitarianism  elitism  emotionalism  europe  fabianism  facebook  facecrime  faggotry  fascism  feminism  fishermark  frankfurtschool  gamergate  germany  goodthink  google  gramsci  guardian  gynocentrism  hegemony  hollywood  humor  identity  identitypolitics  ideology  idiocracy  illberalism  illiberalism  illiberalleft  intelligence  internet  intolerance  islam  johncleese  jonathanhaidt  jordanpeterson  journalism  joycamp  judithbutler  language  languages  law  left  lgbtq  liberalism  lyahf  managerialism  marcuseherbert  marxism  masculinity  mcinnesgavin  media  memoryhole  mercerrobert  migration  miniluv  minitrue  misogyny  modernity  multiculturalism  multiculturism  nagleangela  nazism  neo-nazism  nrx  nytimes  nytimesmag  paternalism  pathologicalaltruism  patrioticcorrectness  pc  philosophy  poetry  poisoncontainer  politicalcorrectness  politics  polyamory  popculture  predation  projection  propaganda  psychology  punk  race  racegender  racism  rebelmedia  recdep  relativism  religion  review  right  rkselectiontheory  rorysutherland  satire  saucierdevin  scapegoating  science  shadow  shaming  shamingtactics  slavespeak  slavojzizek  society  spec  spencerrichard  stasi  statism  stefanmolyneux  stockholmsyndrome  subculture  subversion  technocracy  theleft  thielpeter  thorntonsarah  thoughtcrime  thoughtpolice  threatnarrative  totalitarianism  transgender  transgenderism  transgression  treachery  trolling  truebelieversyndrome  trump  trumpdonald  uk  usa  usefulidiot  vice  victimculture  victimhood  video  videos  voluntaryism  war  warbrides  washingtonpost  wesleymorris  whitepeople  whitesupremacism  yiannopoulosmilo 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: