Is Political Correctness Anti-Liberal

[BeastieRunner]

Hmm, I guess we'll never know why the no face guy got banned.

But, in going over the article I posted and several others, most of which were by liberals, the impression I get is that it's also the age old story of trivializing things. In other words, attaching things to PC that most would perceive as a trivial or even non-factual application of PC.

An example in the article was hundreds of college students protesting that a pro-choice group referred to "women" as the victims of so-called pro-life. People who can get pregnant and denied an abortion would be women. The PC argument was that there are women who self-identify as men even though they are capable of getting pregnant and that saying "women" excludes them because they self-identify as men although they are still biologically capable of getting pregnant.

Mixed feelings. On the one hand, I want to do everything I can to support trans people. On the other hand, another part of me is thinking, "Oh, Jiminy H. Christmas. Give me a fragging break. How far can you go in actively looking for something to be offended by in every little thing?"

Another example in the article was someone quoting a famous Feminist of the Suffrage era who said, "I'd rather be a rebel than a slave". Of course, someone managed to translate that as "It's better to be a white woman than a black man or woman". Next thing, there were hundreds of students protesting and people getting fired.

I do note that most of these examples are from college campuses and extreme examples. But I think that when the average liberal speaks of PC in a negative way, this is the sort of thing they are thinking of.

Fair points.

My main issue is that is it is often the American conservative spectrum that goes after actionable items while American liberalism is all about how things seem and make people feel.

Words are important, don't take that the wrong way. How and what you say matters but again ... I think the PC just exposes people for what they are as opposed to what they think they are.

The average American conservative just wants to be able to say what they think, consequences be damned, while the average American liberal just wants to include and respect people.

Both have merits at times but I have to say, the actionable obstruction of things a person does is the worst form of political correctness.

Thinking about ideology in terms of conservative (according to what?) and liberal (according to who?) ignores the content of what is being said and what is being done.

The context here is American idealogy, but I understand what you are saying.

[Powerboy]

Fair points.

My main issue is that is it is often the American conservative spectrum that goes after actionable items while American liberalism is all about how things seem and make people feel.

Words are important, don't take that the wrong way. How and what you say matters but again ... I think the PC just exposes people for what they are as opposed to what they think they are.

The average American conservative just wants to be able to say what they think, consequences be damned, while the average American liberal just wants to include and respect people.

Both have merits at times but I have to say, the actionable obstruction of things a person does is the worst form of political correctness.


The context here is American idealogy, but I understand what you are saying.

Absolutely. I think when some (not all) conservatives talk about PC culture in a negative way, they are talking about wanting to be allowed to say and possibly do things that should stay in the past. To be blunt, I often think, when I hear some Conservatives talk about PC negatively, they mean saying the N word or calling women various sick names or spouting ethnic or religious or sexual orientation bigotry. Just think "Archie Bunker" but not said to make a point.

With liberals talking about PC negatively, it's more when they suspect someone of sifting through everything someone says, trying to find something to be offended by.

Age is also a factor. My ancestry is Irish among others but very Irish culturally. I can remember, as a child, my grandfather and his brothers sitting around telling Irish jokes. Granted, telling such jokes about your own group is different than people outside the group doing it.

I can remember the days when television comedies were loaded with Mother-in-Law jokes. Nowadays, I suspect lots of people would email about how offensive that was. But then, most people understood it was a joke and not a reflection of reality.

Although I'm bi, I can remember, back in the 80s, Corbin Bernsen telling a joke in which he said, "I cannot understand a man looking at another man's hairy @$$ and thinking this is true love". I found the joke irritating. But then he said, "And, folks, please don't write me angry letters. I'm 100% for gay rights though I don't understand it personally. It- was- a- friggin- joke. Okay?" Because he said that, I was okay with it and even started laughing because I now found it funny.

I guess my point is that there is also an age gap where groups have been conditioned by their upbringing to find certain things more or less offensive.

But I don't want to turn into Clint Eastwood either. He once said he found it frustrating because there are so many things today that are considered evil and racist or just offensive that were none of the above when he was growing up. But he was born in 1930. When he was growing up, Whites only" signs were legal. He would have been 34 when the Civil Rights laws of 1964 became law. Besides, most people already considered it racist.

Anyway, I'm rambling.

[The no face guy]

Identity politics is almost entirely antithetical to Marxism. Post-modernism ushered in a cultural and academic break with longstanding Marxist traditions and replaced class politics with isolated cultural studies and representation/diversity discourse.

The idea that one's identity is more important than their class position would refute dialectical materialism and the entire conception of society that Marx lays out.

Identity politics is a tool weilded by neoliberals centrists and the Democratic Party establishment; it is in fact often used as a bludgeon against class-oriented progressives and socialists.

It's also seems to be your own conjecture, and not any tradition found within Marxism, to characterize private property as a "natural human impulse" akin to speaking one's mind. Captitalism as an intrinsic feature of humanity is ahistorical and not supported by Marxian thought.

Any link between the authoritarian nature of Marxist-Leninist states and neoliberal political correctness is fantasy.

Identity politics is completely rooted in Marxism, you are correct in stating it is not rooted in the traditional Marxist - Leninist theology of the Soviet Union, but it is clearly rooted in the Western Marxism of Frankfurt School, alongside early American Marxism and to some extent Italian communist Antonio Gramsci.

The bulk of the pioneers of left wing identity politics, whether they it be Theodore Allen, Bell Hooks, or if you want to go back further to someone like W.E.B. De Bois, you will find that they were all connected to the far left, some were even members of the American Communist Party itself.

French Post Modernism is also steeply entrenched in far left wing thought, even though many of them were critical of Marxism. Jacques Derrida in particular was an admirer of Maoist philosophy.

As for the identity politics of the right, it's not traditionally wielded by neo liberal Republicans, but rather it is rooted in the first wave of right wing populism that goes back to the late 19th century, (Ie to Kaiser Wilhelm in Germany to working class unions on America's west coast that embraced right wing nationalism and the white identity politics of its time)

[Lightning Rider]

Identity politics is completely rooted in Marxism, you are correct in stating it is not rooted in the traditional Marxist - Leninist theology of the Soviet Union, but it is clearly rooted in the Western Marxism of Frankfurt School, alongside early American Marxism and to some extent Italian communist Antonio Gramsci.

The bulk of the pioneers of left wing identity politics, whether they it be Theodore Allen, Bell Hooks, or if you want to go back further to someone like W.E.B. De Bois, you will find that they were all connected to the far left, some were even members of the American Communist Party itself.

French Post Modernism is also steeply entrenched in far left wing thought, even though many of them were critical of Marxism. Jacques Derrida in particular was an admirer of Maoist philosophy.

As for the identity politics of the right, it's not traditionally wielded by neo liberal Republicans, but rather it is rooted in the first wave of right wing populism that goes back to the late 19th century, (Ie to Kaiser Wilhelm in Germany to working class unions on America's west coast that embraced right wing nationalism and the white identity politics of its time)

We're going to have to describe what exactly you mean by identity politics, since you're going considerably far back and including figures who clearly viewed class and economics as central to the function of social relations.

In the modern context, identity politics refers to a discourse that emphasizes interpreting power structures through the lens of social identities; the subjectivity inherent in standpoint theory, intersectional theory, privilege theory; distinct identity groups advocating for their identity group in isolation; a focus on diversity in representation; and symbolic/performative gestures from those in power. The current struggle on the left between socialist positions and "identitarian" currents/narratives tells us all we need to know about their relationship.

Philosophers like Derrida and Foucault (and their successors) are the tenuous bridge between left movements and modern identity politics, but the decades in both academia and politics since have totally abandoned the class struggle meta-narrative central to anti-capitalist left politics. Academics with roots in Marxist discourse shifted gears quite purposefully when their opportunities to benefit from abandoning Marxist orthodoxy arose. It has been spread so widely, and adopted by the Democratic Party so thoroughly, precisely because it lacks the central critique of capitalism that would threaten political elites. It is thus largely a tool of centrist neoliberals.

Perhaps we don't disagree too much on the facts here, but rather the framing - I think it's inaccurate to describe a modern ideological current as having roots in a preceding ideology that it explicitly broke with and subsequently drifted farther away from, to the extent that the modern current rejects the core tenets of its precedent and is now used by its opponents.

[The no face guy]

We're going to have to describe what exactly you mean by identity politics, since you're going considerably far back and including figures who clearly viewed class and economics as central to the function of social relations.

In the modern context, identity politics refers to a discourse that emphasizes interpreting power structures through the lens of social identities; the subjectivity inherent in standpoint theory, intersectional theory, privilege theory; distinct identity groups advocating for their identity group in isolation; a focus on diversity in representation; and symbolic/performative gestures from those in power. The current struggle on the left between socialist positions and "identitarian" currents/narratives tells us all we need to know about their relationship.

Philosophers like Derrida and Foucault (and their successors) are the tenuous bridge between left movements and modern identity politics, but the decades in both academia and politics since have totally abandoned the class struggle meta-narrative central to anti-capitalist left politics. Academics with roots in Marxist discourse shifted gears quite purposefully when their opportunities to benefit from abandoning Marxist orthodoxy arose. It has been spread so widely, and adopted by the Democratic Party so thoroughly, precisely because it lacks the central critique of capitalism that would threaten political elites. It is thus largely a tool of centrist neoliberals.

Perhaps we don't disagree too much on the facts here, but rather the framing - I think it's inaccurate to describe a modern ideological current as having roots in a preceding ideology that it explicitly broke with and subsequently drifted farther away from, to the extent that the modern current rejects the core tenets of its precedent and is now used by its opponents.

I do believe you are correct in stating our disagreement has to with the framing, though I would cite the time period we are looking at as well.

When I say rooted in Marxism, I am specifically referring to the Western & American Marxism, which veered away from the economic reductionism of Soviet/Leninism, because they viewed it as inadequate for explaining why the workers revolution failed to materialize.

If you look at the major fields of academia linked to identity politics that emerged out of the new left of the 1960’s you will find that they are heavily indebted to some of the names I have previously cited in this thread.

I however agree with you that today’s identity politics of the left has been co-opted by the corporate mainstream. I imagine that Robin DiAngelo who has made a fortune off her best selling book and being hired by corporate boardrooms to offer seminars in diversity training has any interest in a class based Marxist struggle, but she is also probably oblivious to the fact that the pioneers of Critical Race Theory & Whiteness were primarily influenced by the ideas of Western Marxism & other far left credo's.

So while the identity politics on the left today has seen many in academia abandon the anti capitalist rhetoric, its ideological underpinnings are still fundamentally rooted in either Western Marxist or French post modernist theory. (I fundamentally disagree you that post modernism is a tenuous bridge, Derrida’s deconstruction, Foucault’s theory on power and Lyotard’s metanarrative have all become hallmark tools used by those who practice identity politics on the left)

Now here is where we fundamentally disagree. I am one of those centrist liberals, and I oppose identity politics because I believe that it’s ideological underpinnings are far left in nature, and as consequence, there are aspects to it that are totalitarian. (Hence the title of the person who started this thread)

It also should be noted that many of the leaders in today’s center left such as Tony Blair & Barak O Bama have specifically denounced identity politics, for at the end of the day all it really does is help motivate the right, as seen with the 2016 US election.

[PwrdOn]

What all of these anti-PC types don't really seem to get is that "political correctness," however it's defined these days, is actually a compromise and that people who are against it are probably throwing away the sweetest deal they're ever going to get. Rather demanding that white men address the centuries worth of suffering, exploitation, and indignities that they've inflicted on the rest of the planet, all that we are asking now is that you be nice to us and speak to us with some respect, and somehow this is simply beyond the pale and two steps short of tossing everyone in gulags for daring to be privilege. Well, given the way things are going now, PC culture is quickly on its way out, although sadly for conservatives I don't think you will much like the alternative.

[Powerboy]

https://percolately.com/disabled-man...w-NWwOy_CdI9-U

Good example here of what most people think of as cultural appropriation. You literally cannot use a language you don't need to use because I and I alone am offended by it.

I believe this and things even more trivial are what most people think of as PC. Keeping in mind I'm not addressing what staunch conservatives define as PC but liberals and everyday people who are not extreme in either direction.

[Powerboy]

I do believe you are correct in stating our disagreement has to with the framing, though I would cite the time period we are looking at as well.

When I say rooted in Marxism, I am specifically referring to the Western & American Marxism, which veered away from the economic reductionism of Soviet/Leninism, because they viewed it as inadequate for explaining why the workers revolution failed to materialize.

If you look at the major fields of academia linked to identity politics that emerged out of the new left of the 1960Â’s you will find that they are heavily indebted to some of the names I have previously cited in this thread.

I however agree with you that todayÂ’s identity politics of the left has been co-opted by the corporate mainstream. I imagine that Robin DiAngelo who has made a fortune off her best selling book and being hired by corporate boardrooms to offer seminars in diversity training has any interest in a class based Marxist struggle, but she is also probably oblivious to the fact that the pioneers of Critical Race Theory & Whiteness were primarily influenced by the ideas of Western Marxism & other far left credo's.

So while the identity politics on the left today has seen many in academia abandon the anti capitalist rhetoric, its ideological underpinnings are still fundamentally rooted in either Western Marxist or French post modernist theory. (I fundamentally disagree you that post modernism is a tenuous bridge, DerridaÂ’s deconstruction, FoucaultÂ’s theory on power and LyotardÂ’s metanarrative have all become hallmark tools used by those who practice identity politics on the left)

Now here is where we fundamentally disagree. I am one of those centrist liberals, and I oppose identity politics because I believe that itÂ’s ideological underpinnings are far left in nature, and as consequence, there are aspects to it that are totalitarian. (Hence the title of the person who started this thread)

It also should be noted that many of the leaders in todayÂ’s center left such as Tony Blair & Barak O Bama have specifically denounced identity politics, for at the end of the day all it really does is help motivate the right, as seen with the 2016 US election.

I tried to specifically frame it from a Liberal point of view. I'm not addressing an "Archie Bunker" definition of PC, which is a racist/ bigot railing against being able to use any filthy, derogatory word or term he pleases without repercussions. I'm addressing when PC gets so trivial that even most liberals would start rolling their eyes. I will grant that, just as the most extreme conservative would not draw the line at anything he might say, the most extreme liberal would define almost anything as offensive and invoke PC. At a deeper level though, I envision liberalism as being about freedom among other things. Freedom of expression, freedom regarding race, gender, religion or lack of religion, and so on. But not imposing things like religious beliefs or laws based clearly on things like religious beliefs. But, regarding expression, that creates a Catch-22, the right to say things others find offensive.

First off, railing against PC is a relatively trivial thing in itself most of the time. Yes, some overly sensitive college students who have apparently lived a very sheltered life may get upset because someone said something they managed to find offensive in their desperate search to be offended. But that sort of insulated situation does not reflect everyday life for most people.

Regarding your last point and addressing conservatives, I do think Trump's election was about many things but identity politics was certainly a great part of his appeal to conservatives. He has no filter. Oh, he's a consummate liar but he also says what he really thinks on a lot of things and the problem is that the stuff he says are things a huge number of people think but don't dare say. But he said them. He's a billionaire. He's not going to lose his job because he's the boss. He's a conman and no outsider as he's been involved in politics behind the scenes his whole life. It helped.

Obama spoke out against things like students protesting when someone whose views they disagreed with was going to speak on-campus to the point that the invitation was withdrawn.

Or students possibly needing therapy because they went to an optional lecture and heard views they disagreed with.

It is understandable that conservatives and even liberals would get sick and tired of it. Not so much that such extremists exist but that institutions and people feel they have to actually give in to them.

[Mister Mets]

I think the discussion is usually more complicated than people give credit for. Political correctness exists on a spectrum, with plenty of disagreement about what's out of bounds, and general agreement that certain behavior is unacceptable. A board of education member who says he's not going to educate women because their only role is to make babies is going to be out of a job, but this would technically fall under the umbrella of political correctness. That suggests that there's a level of political correctness that we can accept as a society.

It goes too far when it's hard to have honest discussions about things that may be true. It's catastrophic when we can't have honest discussions about things that are true.

Jonathan Chait wrote about this in 2015, but the problem's gotten worse, partly with Trump representing the alternative to political correctness.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015...ng-to-say.html

It's more of a problem in academia and certain social media circles, where liberals don't have to worry about arguing with moderates or conservatives. But it has started spreading elsewhere, especially left-wing cultural institutions.

One worry for the left should be that political correctness is a system with significant support that makes it too difficult to talk about certain topics for fear of backlash from your side. That means that the conversation could be limited to the most radical members of the left, and the people who aren't as worried about being labeled by them (ie- conservatives who get to limit the fight to the most extreme members of the opposition.)

The Medium article is about three years out of date, although the controversies are rather ridiculous. It is also accurate in pointing out that PC policing is pretty much incompatible with classical liberalism.

[Mister Mets]

Hmm, I guess we'll never know why the no face guy got banned.

But, in going over the article I posted and several others, most of which were by liberals, the impression I get is that it's also the age old story of trivializing things. In other words, attaching things to PC that most would perceive as a trivial or even non-factual application of PC.

An example in the article was hundreds of college students protesting that a pro-choice group referred to "women" as the victims of so-called pro-life. People who can get pregnant and denied an abortion would be women. The PC argument was that there are women who self-identify as men even though they are capable of getting pregnant and that saying "women" excludes them because they self-identify as men although they are still biologically capable of getting pregnant.

Mixed feelings. On the one hand, I want to do everything I can to support trans people. On the other hand, another part of me is thinking, "Oh, Jiminy H. Christmas. Give me a fragging break. How far can you go in actively looking for something to be offended by in every little thing?"

Another example in the article was someone quoting a famous Feminist of the Suffrage era who said, "I'd rather be a rebel than a slave". Of course, someone managed to translate that as "It's better to be a white woman than a black man or woman". Next thing, there were hundreds of students protesting and people getting fired.

I do note that most of these examples are from college campuses and extreme examples. But I think that when the average liberal speaks of PC in a negative way, this is the sort of thing they are thinking of.

One concern about behavior on college campuses is that those people are entering the workforce, and could make similar demands.

Who tries to ban people from speaking more than right-wingers? Look at what happens if you burn a flag, come out against the military, or say **** the Police.

As far as utopian visions and Marx goes, this quote says it all:

Pointing out that many on the right try to ban people from speaking doesn't necessarily demonstrate that the left should do the same.

Personally, I think "political correctness" and "identity politics" are both just ways to use coded language to minimize the political concerns of anyone not in the majority.

If it's something of concern primarily to just men, to just white people, to just straight people, for that matter just Christian people -- we don't call those concerns "identity politics". For that matter, even Nationalism -- when politicians talk about "protecting American jobs" or bringing jobs back to America or whatever -- we don't consider that identity politics or political correctness, but if we're talking about immigration or even international concerns or foreign diplomacy, then yeah, concern for those things might be reduced to "political correctness".

A guy got fired from a polling outfir for retweeting an African-American political scientist's comments about the effects of violent protest on Richard Nixon's 1968 election.,

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/29/213403...r-wasow-speech

It's not just coded language. There are ridiculous situations.

https://percolately.com/disabled-man...w-NWwOy_CdI9-U

Good example here of what most people think of as cultural appropriation. You literally cannot use a language you don't need to use because I and I alone am offended by it.

I believe this and things even more trivial are what most people think of as PC. Keeping in mind I'm not addressing what staunch conservatives define as PC but liberals and everyday people who are not extreme in either direction.

Wow, that's ridiculous.

Yah I'm not sure that the root of political correctness can be found in the Marxist experimentation of the radical left in the 1960s. I feel like a combination of the "come to Jesus" everyone seemed to have about John Lennon's "Marxism" which wasn't, combined with all the hippies growing up and embracing Capitalism pretty much killed that relationship.

To me the PC stuff is a progressive-leaning way to prevent word abuse. Words matter, no matter how you slice it. And they hurt. The old adage "sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is dead wrong. Words are used for control, used for brow-beating people, used for intimidation and almost always they cut deep.

That said, control of people's words through PC is still BS. We have hate speech laws specifically so that we can legally root out which words cause more harm than others and a legal framework for determining that. A bunch of Karens running around getting mad is a poor substitute for the peer review process inherent in democracy.

The Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is legally protected under the first amendment.

There's some pushback against this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...te-speech-law/

[Powerboy]

I think the discussion is usually more complicated than people give credit for. Political correctness exists on a spectrum, with plenty of disagreement about what's out of bounds, and general agreement that certain behavior is unacceptable. A board of education member who says he's not going to educate women because their only role is to make babies is going to be out of a job, but this would technically fall under the umbrella of political correctness. That suggests that there's a level of political correctness that we can accept as a society.

It goes too far when it's hard to have honest discussions about things that may be true. It's catastrophic when we can't have honest discussions about things that are true.

Jonathan Chait wrote about this in 2015, but the problem's gotten worse, partly with Trump representing the alternative to political correctness.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015...ng-to-say.html

It's more of a problem in academia and certain social media circles, where liberals don't have to worry about arguing with moderates or conservatives. But it has started spreading elsewhere, especially left-wing cultural institutions.

One worry for the left should be that political correctness is a system with significant support that makes it too difficult to talk about certain topics for fear of backlash from your side. That means that the conversation could be limited to the most radical members of the left, and the people who aren't as worried about being labeled by them (ie- conservatives who get to limit the fight to the most extreme members of the opposition.)

The Medium article is about three years out of date, although the controversies are rather ridiculous. It is also accurate in pointing out that PC policing is pretty much incompatible with classical liberalism.

The article raises very good points.

Trigger warnings arenÂ’t much help in actually overcoming trauma — an analysis by the Institute of Medicine has found that the best approach is controlled exposure to it, and experts say avoidance can reinforce suffering. Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her studentsÂ’ sensitivity toward even the mildest social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma — or, more consequentially, violating her schoolÂ’s new sexual-harassment policy — merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration. “This is an environment of fear, believe it or not,” she told me by way of explaining her request for anonymity. It reminds her of the previous outbreak of political correctness — “Every other day I say to my friends, ‘How did we get back to 1991?Â’ ”

But it would be a mistake to categorize todayÂ’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. TodayÂ’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

And especially this.

Political correctness is a term whose meaning has been gradually diluted since it became a flashpoint 25 years ago. People use the phrase to describe politeness (perhaps to excess), or evasion of hard truths, or (as a term of abuse by conservatives) liberalism in general. The confusion has made it more attractive to liberals, who share the goal of combating race and gender bias.

But political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves.

And this even more.

I am white and male, a fact that is certainly worth bearing in mind. I was also a student at the University of Michigan during the Jacobsen incident, and was attacked for writing an article for the campus paper defending the exhibit. If you consider this background and demographic information the very essence of my point of view, then thereÂ’s not much point in reading any further. But this pointlessness is exactly the point: Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.

Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing. This has led to elaborate norms and terminology within certain communities on the left. For instance, “mansplaining,” a concept popularized in 2008 by Rebecca Solnit, who described the tendency of men to patronizingly hold forth to women on subjects the woman knows better — in SolnitÂ’s case, the man in question mansplained her own book to her. The fast popularization of the term speaks to how exasperating the phenomenon can be, and mansplaining has, at times, proved useful in identifying discrimination embedded in everyday rudeness. But it has now grown into an all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man. (MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry once disdainfully called White House press secretary Jay CarneyÂ’s defense of the relative pay of men and women in the administration “manÂ*splaining,” even though the question he responded to was posed by a male.) Mansplaining has since given rise to “whitesplaining” and “straightsplaining.” The phrase “solidarity is for white women,” used in a popular hashtag, broadly signifies any criticism of white feminists by nonwhite ones.

If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous. A white person or a man can achieve the status of “ally,” however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue. A community, virtual or real, that adheres to the rules is deemed “safe.” The extensive terminology plays a crucial role, locking in shared ideological assumptions that make meaningful disagreement impossible.

Or, in other words, since you're guilty no matter what, why bother to worry about what you say. There are even situations where scientists are afraid to state scientific facts for fear of accusations of anti-PC.

[The no face guy]

I tried to specifically frame it from a Liberal point of view. I'm not addressing an "Archie Bunker" definition of PC, which is a racist/ bigot railing against being able to use any filthy, derogatory word or term he pleases without repercussions. I'm addressing when PC gets so trivial that even most liberals would start rolling their eyes. I will grant that, just as the most extreme conservative would not draw the line at anything he might say, the most extreme liberal would define almost anything as offensive and invoke PC. At a deeper level though, I envision liberalism as being about freedom among other things. Freedom of expression, freedom regarding race, gender, religion or lack of religion, and so on. But not imposing things like religious beliefs or laws based clearly on things like religious beliefs. But, regarding expression, that creates a Catch-22, the right to say things others find offensive.

First off, railing against PC is a relatively trivial thing in itself most of the time. Yes, some overly sensitive college students who have apparently lived a very sheltered life may get upset because someone said something they managed to find offensive in their desperate search to be offended. But that sort of insulated situation does not reflect everyday life for most people.

Regarding your last point and addressing conservatives, I do think Trump's election was about many things but identity politics was certainly a great part of his appeal to conservatives. He has no filter. Oh, he's a consummate liar but he also says what he really thinks on a lot of things and the problem is that the stuff he says are things a huge number of people think but don't dare say. But he said them. He's a billionaire. He's not going to lose his job because he's the boss. He's a conman and no outsider as he's been involved in politics behind the scenes his whole life. It helped.

Obama spoke out against things like students protesting when someone whose views they disagreed with was going to speak on-campus to the point that the invitation was withdrawn.

Or students possibly needing therapy because they went to an optional lecture and heard views they disagreed with.

It is understandable that conservatives and even liberals would get sick and tired of it. Not so much that such extremists exist but that institutions and people feel they have to actually give in to them.

I take your points, I was analyzing this from a philosophical perspective, as I do not think the tribal politics of I'm a liberal and your a conservative lets get into a boxing match is particularly helpful, what one should be doing is analyzing the roots of the philosophy and finding out why it has an authoritarian bend to it.

I'm on the center left, and I am weary of identity politics, because in academia I have studied it's historic roots, and it is a philosophy that comes from both the far left and the far right of the political spectrum. It's no coincidence that the zany social justice warriors you often see posted on you tube are engaged in irrational behavior, and are trying to censor people from speaking on University campuses, there is a whole ideological indoctrination process behind it.

Identity politics on the left is particularly hard to dislodge because it hitched its ride on the back of the more radical aspects of the civil rights & feminist movement of the 1960's, and therefore its particularly easy for one to look virtuous by championing racism or sexism, but their viewpoints are often extreme, and are usually counterproductive to the goals they are trying to receive.

I prefer to fight racism or homophobia, on the motto of Martin Luther King, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God, Creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This is a dream. It’s a great dream.

You have to remember that there is an identity politics on the right as well, that historically doesn't believe in the above quote, and as we are currently seeing in the United States, the UK, Europe, South America and around the world, that when the left and right engage in identity politics, tribalism on the right usually prevails.

[Crazy Diamond]

One concern about behavior on college campuses is that those people are entering the workforce, and could make similar demands.

Good thing a lot of those demands are made by the owners of these businesses. Like when Amazon fired workers who spoke out against the working conditions at their warehouses and offices. Or when Google fired workers who criticized the discrimination at the company.

Pointing out that many on the right try to ban people from speaking doesn't necessarily demonstrate that the left should do the same.

Except that the right (which is a nebulous description on its own without any context) routinely does this but it never gets called out. The ideologues who complain about the LEFT censoring them then go into their forums and campus groups and squeal about what they could do if they got control of the universities and schools. Already you have attempts to censor teaching the real history of this country (ex. mentioning the role of slavery in this country's development) but somehow the free speech lovers and the liberals who put on their cape for them (while crying about the dreaded left) never mention this at all.

A guy got fired from a polling outfir for retweeting an African-American political scientist's comments about the effects of violent protest on Richard Nixon's 1968 election.,

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/29/213403...r-wasow-speech

How convenient that not long after the death of George Floyd and at a time where Black people are once rising up to protest and fight back against police violence that Daniel Shor decided to virtue signal his support for the status quo by doing the old liberal canard (and veiled threat) of "If you guys are too radical with your protest you're going to scare away white moderates like me!". I read the article and despite every thing he still got another job.

Now on the other hand you have situations like these:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/techie-...mens-comments/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/tech/...ces/index.html
https://jezebel.com/ex-googler-on-di...a-d-1720180417
https://newsone.com/3923006/christia...s-protections/

[Crazy Diamond]

I take your points, I was analyzing this from a philosophical perspective, as I do not think the tribal politics of I'm a liberal and your a conservative lets get into a boxing match is particularly helpful, what one should be doing is analyzing the roots of the philosophy and finding out why it has an authoritarian bend to it.

Or you could look at the material conditions that led to identity politics.

I'm on the center left, and I am weary of identity politics, because in academia I have studied it's historic roots, and it is a philosophy that comes from both the far left and the far right of the political spectrum. It's no coincidence that the zany social justice warriors you often see posted on you tube are engaged in irrational behavior, and are trying to censor people from speaking on University campuses, there is a whole ideological indoctrination process behind it.

Who have these SJWs successfully censored on these campuses? Even Richard Spencer was allowed to go and talk at one of these universities.

Identity politics on the left is particularly hard to dislodge because it hitched its ride on the back of the more radical aspects of the civil rights & feminist movement of the 1960's, and therefore its particularly easy for one to look virtuous by championing racism or sexism, but their viewpoints are often extreme, and are usually counterproductive to the goals they are trying to receive.

So you talk about these radical aspects and yet at the same time complain about extremism. Why is that?
The Civil Rights movement was about securing the rights denied to Black people in the United States. The main focus of that movement was on identity.

I prefer to fight racism or homophobia, on the motto of Martin Luther King, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God, Creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This is a dream. It’s a great dream.

Here's some of what Martin Luther King Jr. also said:
https://letterfromjail.com

And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.

https://gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspee...-gp-speech.pdf

[The no face guy]

Who have these SJWs successfully censored on these campuses? Even Richard Spencer was allowed to go and talk at one of these universities.

Various liberal and conservative speakers have been continually disrupted on University campuses because they held views contrary to what SJW's believe.

Let's take the most extreme examples in conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Milo Yiannopoulos, I am vehemently opposed to their political philosophies, but I believe they have a right to express their opinions un-harassed on University campuses. If you don't like what they have to say, than don't attend their function.

As for Richard Spencer, that raises an interesting question, should a professed white nationalist be able to speak on a University campus, I personally say no, so that is an error on the University administration's in my opinion.

So you talk about these radical aspects and yet at the same time complain about extremism. Why is that?
The Civil Rights movement was about securing the rights denied to Black people in the United States. The main focus of that movement was on identity.

The vast majority of the civil rights & feminist movement was led by center left moderates like Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, but there were radical elements that were aligned with Marxist theology. These were usually the groups listed by the FBI as terrorist organizations.

When it comes to politics there is one sure thing, if the left wins it's because there is a strong center left coalition, when they lose, it's because the far left creates the atmosphere for a right wing backlash that helps them win, good day.