![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Article
I read this http://www.kaichang.net/2006/11/the_slop
Comments
Then wrote my post in response to some comments to this article by: (links to people's blogs - don't go there - just so you can find the comment I'm referring to:
The Infidel Sage | Tuesday, March 06, 2007 at 01:49 AM
Both mention "campus speech codes" like WTF? I had to look up what they were but I don't see what the problem is with them since there are plenty of organizations including the "extremist left wing" ACLU are working hard to abolish them and point out that censorship will not stop discrimination, and apparently most of them have been overturned.
.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expre
My response
The problem is that what is these days seen as so called "PC" policy has nothing to do with Stalinism or Maoism therefore the point is that it shouldn't be referred to as PC. The right wing media is doing what it always does associating actions of those with egalitarian ideals to a left wing ideological viewpoint. It is logical that they do this since they are on the top of the political hierarchy and any egalitarianism is a threat to that elitism. It is also logical for those who find themselves disadvantaged to seek equality. The right needs to acknowledge that they are in a position of majority, yet they also need to acknowledge that everyone who is not a part of their majority has a right to speak their mind and seek equality without being labeled a terrorist or a Stalinist or a member of the "thought police".
Although I use the left/right distinction in this writing out of convenience I do so with the acknowledgment that in our developed society it is impossible to be purely left or right and that the Authoritarian extensions of these philosophies do not make themselves apparent. Left and right are only useful terms as "tendencies" and therefore it is pointless for the left to call the right "Nazis" as it is for the right to call the left "Stalinist"
The problem I have is that because the right wing influence we have a biased media that features more advertisements than news, and paints those with a left "tendency" as dangerous extremists. Right wing control of our political system prevents the development of new ideas because new ideas are a threat and this ideology extends globally to extinguish cultural diversity in the name of economic development. Anyone who questions this process of homogenization , regardless of their political affiliation is dismissed as either an advocate for political correctness or a follower of Stalinist ideology.
This cannot be the case because Stalin didn't support cultural diversity and was more interested in maintaining power than creating an egalitarian society, hence the current right wing supporters should use "Stalinist" to describe their own beliefs, not the beliefs of those who are critical of the present-day government. If the right wing is only going to use the concept of "free speech" to manipulate the media, paint those who question as extremists and protect their position of economic and political privilege then they need to lose their right to free speech until they can learn to evaluate issues in a rational manner without perceiving any opposition as a personal attack by an extremist force of mythological conception ie: "Thought Police"
Both comments make the point that PC is a tool used by the left to impose censorship, now if having to consider other people who live on the planet and acknowledge they exist before you speak = censorship, then I advocate censorship. And the point I'm making is that Right wing commentators need to start imposing some self-censorship so that they can develop a convincing argument rather than relying on scare tactics and slander. PC obviously evolved because these commentators have no self-control and no-empathy for other humans and hence conventions have been created to try and discourage the abuse of privilege.
Look at societies where there is no self-censorship regarding race, sex, religion etc. Before the genocide in Rwanda there were even racist pop songs being produced. According to right wing philosophy banning a racist song would be "political correctness gone mad"...but such prejudice is reinforced to the point where lives are lost. I would rather lose the right to hear a racist song, than lose my life. It's a simple choice. But judging from the anger the Right has towards PC initiatives I get the impression that they would rather lose their life than lose their right to have fun at the expense of other people.
PC policies could help in a situation like Iraq where religious factions are using the occupation as an excuse to wage war. Making religion a personal belief would benefit both sides. If certain topics are off-limits to the mass media then brainwashing cannot occur. It's not stopping people from making a choice, it's only preventing them from being manipulated. The problem is that the right sees this as a threat to it's control of the mass media because it will no longer be able to brainwash the audience with racist, sexist or any other ideological ideas. These mythical "thought police" are apparently trying to preserve diversity and force debate on real issues instead of forcing people to make informed choices based on vitriolic rhetoric.
"Thought police" is a hilarious term. Maybe right wing people should start to rely on their own conscience instead of letting the thought police do their thinking for them? Then perhaps, they wouldn't feel like an external force was trying to censor them. That feeling of censorship is just the distant cries of their own suppressed conscience screaming in vein "please listen to me". The cries are so suppressed and alien that they think it is coming from mythological thought police, when it's actually coming from inside their own head.
So despite the collective consciousness of the thought police trying to create a world in which we consider others, I don't see any substantial changes or outcomes because the net result of left wing "free speech" in a sea of right wing controlled media is having anything we say denounced by so called "journalists" as "Political correctness gone mad" or "Ideological Nonsense". If any opinion leaks out it's only via a small-run 'zine, a publicity stunt or lost on the internet amongst a few million other blog posts.
If you are a part of a majority, and you (directly or indirectly) support the majority's (direct or indirect) oppression of cultural diversity then you have nothing to complain about since "ideological nonsense" such as political correctness isn't going to undermine your position of privilege.
I think that is the point of my argument, despite the good intentions PC is basically a movement that doesn't create any substantial difference in our lives, however the Right appear to perceive "political correctness" as undermining their authority to make decisions for themselves and to continue to live a mentally idle existence in complete denial of the world they inhabit.
Hence all that we have is an idle-ology that has control over everything verses an ideology that only has limited influence.
Before today I'd never heard of "campus speech codes" since I don't live in the US, but they seem to be restrictive. Yet we must remember that that is only on a campus, probably the only place where the (extreme?) left hold any influence. It is obviously no threat to the right because our nations continue to elect right wing leaders. So you can't say that "campus speech codes" are in any way affecting how the majority thinks or votes. I think the attempted introduction of speech codes were probably an attempt by universities to prevent hostilities getting out of control from a legal viewpoint, ie not wanting to be sued by students who claim the university didn't protect them from abuse or hostility.
Whereas the "PC gone mad" argument is used within the context of the mass media and colloquial use to demonize the perceived threat that any non-status-quo viewpoint may pose.
This does not justify "campus speech codes", I'm just saying that they have no influence over how people align themselves politically, so they aren't as damaging to constructive debate as the slurs which some speech codes would be attempting to outlaw. If they are as restrictive as claimed they should be amended, but from what I have read in a brief search it seems that once again the right wing is becoming over-reacting and running scared over what seems to be a very small (ineffective and unpopular) change in school policies. Harassment is supposed to be discouraged in all workplaces and schools and so speech codes seem to be a redundant and unenforceable legislation.
A speech code can stop people saying something but it can't stop people thinking. However, the use of polarizing language in the media causes people to develop views that are polarized, reinforcing stereotypes etc. So what you have is a situation where the media portrays people as stereotypes and people develop prejudices. Institutions try to stop these prejudices from impacting upon learning / productivity so they introduce speech codes...suddenly its "Political correctness gone mad!" The real madness began with the portrayal of certain groups as inferior in the first place. People enter the institution carrying all these prejudices with them and something has to be done to enforce harmony. The right wing has no problem with sending 200,000 troops over to bomb Iraq back into a state of "harmony" so why do they have a problem with out-lawing offensive language and weapons in order to create harmony in schools? Maybe the right wing solution would be to enter the school campus with army tanks and shoot anyone who isn't white. Then there's no one left to offend.
Speech codes are a threat to free speech but if the left don't have the freedom to speak without being labeled "extremists" then why should the right have the freedom to abuse minorities and perpetuate misconceptions? It's hard to see how speech codes could pose a greater threat to democracy than the popular mis-use of PC as an insult, especially given the context that the mass media is more likely to elicit an emotional-over-reaction than critical thought in it's audience.
By using the term "political" makes it easy to de-humanize the opposition's argument, claiming that the left is not motivated to lobby for egalitarian policies by "empathy for other humans" but rather a "political ideology". How would the term work as a derogatory term if it was renamed HE for "Human Empathy".
It's Human Empathy gone mad!
I'd be quite happy if some right wing journalist aggressively accused me of having too much empathy for other humans. :)
Another point is that most of the affirmative action goes on behind the scenes. Brain Eno commented in a speech that governments don't publicize initiatives that could be seen as too progressive or too ideological. Neither, I have noticed, do they don't publicize anything that could create controversy weather it is for the benefit of a minority of wealthy corporations or the benefit of a minority of disadvantaged people.
The flip side to this phenomena is that the changing of place names or people's titles or placing restrictions on advertising is a purely symbolic gesture designed to show that something has been done about addressing the problem of inequality. For all we know, nothing substantial could have been done whatsoever. It seems at this stage most of the "politically correct" legislation that has made the news features trivial and meaningless changes designed to give the impression of equality while allowing discrimination to occur behind the scenes. In fact making these symbolic changes now makes it harder to pursue the root causes of inequality because there is now a mistaken perception that inequality has been achieved. (or according to some - taken too far)
So anyone who complains about the change of language to accommodate egalitarian symbolisms should be bloody grateful that was the only thing that got changed, or the only thing way in which political correctness has affected their lives.
Complaining about a change in language is meaningless because
a: Only the language has changed, not the status quo or right wing culture.
(Consider the only place where the language changed was when one finds himself under the influence of the psychic mind control drug called a "campus speech code")
and in the event where substantial change has occurred:
b: Affirmative action is not designed to affect anyone's lives, except to improve opportunities for those who are disadvantaged. So it makes no sense to complain about a policy designed to raise the standards of living for someone else, considering that your own standards of living haven't dropped. In fact they will continue to rise until we are no longer able to pillage resources from third world nations.
This mentality indicates that right wing commentators
A: Perceive every change as a threat to their socio-political status.
B: Fear that political correctness will eventually manifest itself in the granting of human rights to people who are born into third world nations and hence ending white male Caucasian economic dominance over the planet.
If attitude B: is in fact the case, then I can no longer accuse right wing politicians of being "short sighted". It seems economically short sighted to give China such a large control over manufacturing our products and the economic benefits thereof, but the long term plan is to build the strength of the Communist regime so the population remains oppressed and unable to demand the rights and freedoms that we take for granted. The longer billions of people remain suppressed, the longer we remain top of the food chain.
Although I can see the right wing's logic in fearing billions of people demanding equality...I still think that their policies are futile despite apparent effectiveness because it is simply delaying the inevitable while prolonging the suffering of others. Eventually the lower classes will demand equality, that is never in question, history has proven it. Now it's just a question of when and which groups demand equality first.
Creating a more egalitarian world now might harm the economy, but I'd rather the economy harmed now than have lives harmed and the environment harmed later. Current generations need to take responsibility stop creating problems for future generations to deal with. So far we have terrorism, nuclear waste, greenhouse effect, over-medication, oil shortages ...what next?
Apparently none of these problems can be fixed because fixing them will harm the fucking economy. Who the fuck is the economy and since when did the economy have feelings? Oh Please, we can't stop greenhouse gas emissions because the economy will be hurt! If that is the case then the economy is a bloody chicken-shit wuss-bag with no balls. I personally would like to harm the fucking economy just because everyone is so precious about it. I want the economy's name and address so I can go around to it's house and brick it's fucking door in.
Actually that's why vandalism is a crime because it harms the economy. I don't support vandalism because usually it just inconveniences people and generates more hatred towards the vandals than it promotes the rejection of economic worship so it is pointless. Yet it was interesting to note Costello accusing Rudd's internet policy as "economic vandalism". I'm all for economic vandalism so I'll have to vote for Rudd!!! Right wing parents usually dismiss discrimination and bullying as "character building", so I think a bit of roughing up the economy with some expensive social projects could also "build the character" of our weak-as-piss economy.
Talking about parents, who the fuck is the economy and why do so many people care about and try to protect the economy more than they care about and try and protect their own children? "Oh we can't increase funding for schools because it will harm the economy!" Since when did something humans invented become more important than life itself? No wonder there is a depression epidemic...our precious, fragile deity economy has devalued human life to the point where humans are just drones to keep the economy safe against any malicious attacks from left-wing ideology.
They must mis-use and trivialize so called "politically correct" policies because too much human empathy might harm the economy. It's like the economy has applied for a restraining order or something. It strange that in our secular society people are quick to dismiss religion as a construct of the imagination but to me the notion that the economy has "feelings" is just as stupid, if not more stupid because religion promises heaven for those who believe, the economy promises that you will be stuck in your position of the economic hierarchy, like a rat on a treadmill until you die.
The truth is the economy will be different in a more egalitarian society, it won't be harmed, it will be different. People will trade different things for different values than we do presently because human life will be given more value. There will not be less gross value.
People who say egalitarian societies don't work are ignorant of the fact that world powers (with the interest of the economy in mind) don't allow them to work. A good example was in Haiti where slaves over-threw the French colonial rule and set up their own government. The country was sanctioned and brought to it's knees, resulting in poverty, political instability and re-occupation. This is the same pattern repeated in every country where alternative systems of government are experimented with,
10 sanctions and
20 occupations,
30 overthrow of occupation.
40 goto 10
Any scientist knows that you cannot conduct an experiment if you are interfering or influencing the results. Colonial powers insist on interfering to ensure the experiments never work. Something I agree with Noam Chomsky is that there is always the threat of a "good example" and this is what superpowers fear the most.
The other hypocritical right wing stance is that doing anything for the benefit of mankind will harm the economy. Yet, when it comes to wars and buying military equipment the economy is suddenly a robust unlimited resource...so is it robust or is it fragile? Or is the truth that the economy simply can't be a slave to two masters? ie. It can't fund domestic social projects while it's busy concentrating all it's efforts on destroying some ancient culture overseas? If it tried to do both it would become schizophrenic and would have to shut down completely because who knows what would happen if we had a schizophrenic economy! Actually that could be the next right wing allegation posed at people demanding funding for education or health..."You don't want the economy to become schizophrenic do you? You wouldn't want your new hospital to be responsible for the nervous breakdown of the economy?
And to that I'd say "Fuck it, treat the economy the same way we treat humans, prescribe it Prozac and tell it to get back to work as soon as practicable, and make sure the economy can't claim the Prozac cost on health-insurance since it had a pre-existing condition of depression"
I read this http://www.kaichang.net/2006/11/the_slop
Comments
Then wrote my post in response to some comments to this article by: (links to people's blogs - don't go there - just so you can find the comment I'm referring to:
"Really? So nobody on the political Left never uses State power or other forms of coercion to suppress speech they don't like?
Campus speech codes, anyone? I'm sorry, but there are just too many examples where Left/oppositional forces have made use of not just censure, but State power, direct violence, and other clearly coercive means to censor the speech of others.
The idea behind the term "political correctness" was that it was a term of censure itself, linking the most authoritarian instincts of the Left straight back to Stalinism. It was a term originally used among leftists and liberals to criticize ideological excess, something that leftists lose sight of.
The term has become increasingly diluted through overuse, and is used way too reflexively. I'll point out, however, that the terms "racist" and "sexist" is used by many on the Left at least as reflexively and probably with a much greater stigma than the use of "politically correct".
Iamcuriousblue | Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 11:37 AM
"Ah yes, the Left waxes indignant about being painted with the Politically Correct brush.
What they fail to admit is that the ideologies that pursue 'PC' policies are merely advocating the silencing and censoring of the thoughts and actions of others. The little totalitarian reservations we refer to as college campuses reek of speech codes and censorship as the fascists of the Left seek to mold us into their Orwellian servants in preparation for the coming utopia. They are all about free speech and tolerance and diversity and sensitivity and multiculturalism until one dares to openly admit to being pro-life, or a believer in traditional morality, or that a family should consist of a man and a woman and any offspring they may have, or a born again Christian, or that Israel has the right to exist, or that private gun ownership is commendable, or that maybe we should not allow in millions of illegal aliens every year..... Suddenly all that great liberal love and tenderness is thrown out the window and all that is left is the naked viciousness and intolerance of Political Correctness.
It deserves every mockery and word of derision it has ever received.
It is indeed true that the breeze of fascism is blowing across the land. It does not arise from the Right, but is the secret ideology of the Left."
The Infidel Sage | Tuesday, March 06, 2007 at 01:49 AM
Both mention "campus speech codes" like WTF? I had to look up what they were but I don't see what the problem is with them since there are plenty of organizations including the "extremist left wing" ACLU are working hard to abolish them and point out that censorship will not stop discrimination, and apparently most of them have been overturned.
.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expre
My response
The problem is that what is these days seen as so called "PC" policy has nothing to do with Stalinism or Maoism therefore the point is that it shouldn't be referred to as PC. The right wing media is doing what it always does associating actions of those with egalitarian ideals to a left wing ideological viewpoint. It is logical that they do this since they are on the top of the political hierarchy and any egalitarianism is a threat to that elitism. It is also logical for those who find themselves disadvantaged to seek equality. The right needs to acknowledge that they are in a position of majority, yet they also need to acknowledge that everyone who is not a part of their majority has a right to speak their mind and seek equality without being labeled a terrorist or a Stalinist or a member of the "thought police".
Although I use the left/right distinction in this writing out of convenience I do so with the acknowledgment that in our developed society it is impossible to be purely left or right and that the Authoritarian extensions of these philosophies do not make themselves apparent. Left and right are only useful terms as "tendencies" and therefore it is pointless for the left to call the right "Nazis" as it is for the right to call the left "Stalinist"
The problem I have is that because the right wing influence we have a biased media that features more advertisements than news, and paints those with a left "tendency" as dangerous extremists. Right wing control of our political system prevents the development of new ideas because new ideas are a threat and this ideology extends globally to extinguish cultural diversity in the name of economic development. Anyone who questions this process of homogenization , regardless of their political affiliation is dismissed as either an advocate for political correctness or a follower of Stalinist ideology.
This cannot be the case because Stalin didn't support cultural diversity and was more interested in maintaining power than creating an egalitarian society, hence the current right wing supporters should use "Stalinist" to describe their own beliefs, not the beliefs of those who are critical of the present-day government. If the right wing is only going to use the concept of "free speech" to manipulate the media, paint those who question as extremists and protect their position of economic and political privilege then they need to lose their right to free speech until they can learn to evaluate issues in a rational manner without perceiving any opposition as a personal attack by an extremist force of mythological conception ie: "Thought Police"
Both comments make the point that PC is a tool used by the left to impose censorship, now if having to consider other people who live on the planet and acknowledge they exist before you speak = censorship, then I advocate censorship. And the point I'm making is that Right wing commentators need to start imposing some self-censorship so that they can develop a convincing argument rather than relying on scare tactics and slander. PC obviously evolved because these commentators have no self-control and no-empathy for other humans and hence conventions have been created to try and discourage the abuse of privilege.
Look at societies where there is no self-censorship regarding race, sex, religion etc. Before the genocide in Rwanda there were even racist pop songs being produced. According to right wing philosophy banning a racist song would be "political correctness gone mad"...but such prejudice is reinforced to the point where lives are lost. I would rather lose the right to hear a racist song, than lose my life. It's a simple choice. But judging from the anger the Right has towards PC initiatives I get the impression that they would rather lose their life than lose their right to have fun at the expense of other people.
PC policies could help in a situation like Iraq where religious factions are using the occupation as an excuse to wage war. Making religion a personal belief would benefit both sides. If certain topics are off-limits to the mass media then brainwashing cannot occur. It's not stopping people from making a choice, it's only preventing them from being manipulated. The problem is that the right sees this as a threat to it's control of the mass media because it will no longer be able to brainwash the audience with racist, sexist or any other ideological ideas. These mythical "thought police" are apparently trying to preserve diversity and force debate on real issues instead of forcing people to make informed choices based on vitriolic rhetoric.
"Thought police" is a hilarious term. Maybe right wing people should start to rely on their own conscience instead of letting the thought police do their thinking for them? Then perhaps, they wouldn't feel like an external force was trying to censor them. That feeling of censorship is just the distant cries of their own suppressed conscience screaming in vein "please listen to me". The cries are so suppressed and alien that they think it is coming from mythological thought police, when it's actually coming from inside their own head.
So despite the collective consciousness of the thought police trying to create a world in which we consider others, I don't see any substantial changes or outcomes because the net result of left wing "free speech" in a sea of right wing controlled media is having anything we say denounced by so called "journalists" as "Political correctness gone mad" or "Ideological Nonsense". If any opinion leaks out it's only via a small-run 'zine, a publicity stunt or lost on the internet amongst a few million other blog posts.
If you are a part of a majority, and you (directly or indirectly) support the majority's (direct or indirect) oppression of cultural diversity then you have nothing to complain about since "ideological nonsense" such as political correctness isn't going to undermine your position of privilege.
I think that is the point of my argument, despite the good intentions PC is basically a movement that doesn't create any substantial difference in our lives, however the Right appear to perceive "political correctness" as undermining their authority to make decisions for themselves and to continue to live a mentally idle existence in complete denial of the world they inhabit.
Hence all that we have is an idle-ology that has control over everything verses an ideology that only has limited influence.
Before today I'd never heard of "campus speech codes" since I don't live in the US, but they seem to be restrictive. Yet we must remember that that is only on a campus, probably the only place where the (extreme?) left hold any influence. It is obviously no threat to the right because our nations continue to elect right wing leaders. So you can't say that "campus speech codes" are in any way affecting how the majority thinks or votes. I think the attempted introduction of speech codes were probably an attempt by universities to prevent hostilities getting out of control from a legal viewpoint, ie not wanting to be sued by students who claim the university didn't protect them from abuse or hostility.
Whereas the "PC gone mad" argument is used within the context of the mass media and colloquial use to demonize the perceived threat that any non-status-quo viewpoint may pose.
This does not justify "campus speech codes", I'm just saying that they have no influence over how people align themselves politically, so they aren't as damaging to constructive debate as the slurs which some speech codes would be attempting to outlaw. If they are as restrictive as claimed they should be amended, but from what I have read in a brief search it seems that once again the right wing is becoming over-reacting and running scared over what seems to be a very small (ineffective and unpopular) change in school policies. Harassment is supposed to be discouraged in all workplaces and schools and so speech codes seem to be a redundant and unenforceable legislation.
A speech code can stop people saying something but it can't stop people thinking. However, the use of polarizing language in the media causes people to develop views that are polarized, reinforcing stereotypes etc. So what you have is a situation where the media portrays people as stereotypes and people develop prejudices. Institutions try to stop these prejudices from impacting upon learning / productivity so they introduce speech codes...suddenly its "Political correctness gone mad!" The real madness began with the portrayal of certain groups as inferior in the first place. People enter the institution carrying all these prejudices with them and something has to be done to enforce harmony. The right wing has no problem with sending 200,000 troops over to bomb Iraq back into a state of "harmony" so why do they have a problem with out-lawing offensive language and weapons in order to create harmony in schools? Maybe the right wing solution would be to enter the school campus with army tanks and shoot anyone who isn't white. Then there's no one left to offend.
Speech codes are a threat to free speech but if the left don't have the freedom to speak without being labeled "extremists" then why should the right have the freedom to abuse minorities and perpetuate misconceptions? It's hard to see how speech codes could pose a greater threat to democracy than the popular mis-use of PC as an insult, especially given the context that the mass media is more likely to elicit an emotional-over-reaction than critical thought in it's audience.
By using the term "political" makes it easy to de-humanize the opposition's argument, claiming that the left is not motivated to lobby for egalitarian policies by "empathy for other humans" but rather a "political ideology". How would the term work as a derogatory term if it was renamed HE for "Human Empathy".
It's Human Empathy gone mad!
I'd be quite happy if some right wing journalist aggressively accused me of having too much empathy for other humans. :)
Another point is that most of the affirmative action goes on behind the scenes. Brain Eno commented in a speech that governments don't publicize initiatives that could be seen as too progressive or too ideological. Neither, I have noticed, do they don't publicize anything that could create controversy weather it is for the benefit of a minority of wealthy corporations or the benefit of a minority of disadvantaged people.
The flip side to this phenomena is that the changing of place names or people's titles or placing restrictions on advertising is a purely symbolic gesture designed to show that something has been done about addressing the problem of inequality. For all we know, nothing substantial could have been done whatsoever. It seems at this stage most of the "politically correct" legislation that has made the news features trivial and meaningless changes designed to give the impression of equality while allowing discrimination to occur behind the scenes. In fact making these symbolic changes now makes it harder to pursue the root causes of inequality because there is now a mistaken perception that inequality has been achieved. (or according to some - taken too far)
So anyone who complains about the change of language to accommodate egalitarian symbolisms should be bloody grateful that was the only thing that got changed, or the only thing way in which political correctness has affected their lives.
Complaining about a change in language is meaningless because
a: Only the language has changed, not the status quo or right wing culture.
(Consider the only place where the language changed was when one finds himself under the influence of the psychic mind control drug called a "campus speech code")
and in the event where substantial change has occurred:
b: Affirmative action is not designed to affect anyone's lives, except to improve opportunities for those who are disadvantaged. So it makes no sense to complain about a policy designed to raise the standards of living for someone else, considering that your own standards of living haven't dropped. In fact they will continue to rise until we are no longer able to pillage resources from third world nations.
This mentality indicates that right wing commentators
A: Perceive every change as a threat to their socio-political status.
B: Fear that political correctness will eventually manifest itself in the granting of human rights to people who are born into third world nations and hence ending white male Caucasian economic dominance over the planet.
If attitude B: is in fact the case, then I can no longer accuse right wing politicians of being "short sighted". It seems economically short sighted to give China such a large control over manufacturing our products and the economic benefits thereof, but the long term plan is to build the strength of the Communist regime so the population remains oppressed and unable to demand the rights and freedoms that we take for granted. The longer billions of people remain suppressed, the longer we remain top of the food chain.
Although I can see the right wing's logic in fearing billions of people demanding equality...I still think that their policies are futile despite apparent effectiveness because it is simply delaying the inevitable while prolonging the suffering of others. Eventually the lower classes will demand equality, that is never in question, history has proven it. Now it's just a question of when and which groups demand equality first.
Creating a more egalitarian world now might harm the economy, but I'd rather the economy harmed now than have lives harmed and the environment harmed later. Current generations need to take responsibility stop creating problems for future generations to deal with. So far we have terrorism, nuclear waste, greenhouse effect, over-medication, oil shortages ...what next?
Apparently none of these problems can be fixed because fixing them will harm the fucking economy. Who the fuck is the economy and since when did the economy have feelings? Oh Please, we can't stop greenhouse gas emissions because the economy will be hurt! If that is the case then the economy is a bloody chicken-shit wuss-bag with no balls. I personally would like to harm the fucking economy just because everyone is so precious about it. I want the economy's name and address so I can go around to it's house and brick it's fucking door in.
Actually that's why vandalism is a crime because it harms the economy. I don't support vandalism because usually it just inconveniences people and generates more hatred towards the vandals than it promotes the rejection of economic worship so it is pointless. Yet it was interesting to note Costello accusing Rudd's internet policy as "economic vandalism". I'm all for economic vandalism so I'll have to vote for Rudd!!! Right wing parents usually dismiss discrimination and bullying as "character building", so I think a bit of roughing up the economy with some expensive social projects could also "build the character" of our weak-as-piss economy.
Talking about parents, who the fuck is the economy and why do so many people care about and try to protect the economy more than they care about and try and protect their own children? "Oh we can't increase funding for schools because it will harm the economy!" Since when did something humans invented become more important than life itself? No wonder there is a depression epidemic...our precious, fragile deity economy has devalued human life to the point where humans are just drones to keep the economy safe against any malicious attacks from left-wing ideology.
They must mis-use and trivialize so called "politically correct" policies because too much human empathy might harm the economy. It's like the economy has applied for a restraining order or something. It strange that in our secular society people are quick to dismiss religion as a construct of the imagination but to me the notion that the economy has "feelings" is just as stupid, if not more stupid because religion promises heaven for those who believe, the economy promises that you will be stuck in your position of the economic hierarchy, like a rat on a treadmill until you die.
The truth is the economy will be different in a more egalitarian society, it won't be harmed, it will be different. People will trade different things for different values than we do presently because human life will be given more value. There will not be less gross value.
People who say egalitarian societies don't work are ignorant of the fact that world powers (with the interest of the economy in mind) don't allow them to work. A good example was in Haiti where slaves over-threw the French colonial rule and set up their own government. The country was sanctioned and brought to it's knees, resulting in poverty, political instability and re-occupation. This is the same pattern repeated in every country where alternative systems of government are experimented with,
10 sanctions and
20 occupations,
30 overthrow of occupation.
40 goto 10
Any scientist knows that you cannot conduct an experiment if you are interfering or influencing the results. Colonial powers insist on interfering to ensure the experiments never work. Something I agree with Noam Chomsky is that there is always the threat of a "good example" and this is what superpowers fear the most.
The other hypocritical right wing stance is that doing anything for the benefit of mankind will harm the economy. Yet, when it comes to wars and buying military equipment the economy is suddenly a robust unlimited resource...so is it robust or is it fragile? Or is the truth that the economy simply can't be a slave to two masters? ie. It can't fund domestic social projects while it's busy concentrating all it's efforts on destroying some ancient culture overseas? If it tried to do both it would become schizophrenic and would have to shut down completely because who knows what would happen if we had a schizophrenic economy! Actually that could be the next right wing allegation posed at people demanding funding for education or health..."You don't want the economy to become schizophrenic do you? You wouldn't want your new hospital to be responsible for the nervous breakdown of the economy?
And to that I'd say "Fuck it, treat the economy the same way we treat humans, prescribe it Prozac and tell it to get back to work as soon as practicable, and make sure the economy can't claim the Prozac cost on health-insurance since it had a pre-existing condition of depression"
