In 1945 bums were there to be whacked.

Just my viewpoint, but I hope and informed one. My problem with the use of the fascism" (not withstanding that some of those using it are borrowing propaganda from actual fascists, unknowingly of course) is not one of it being "offensive"* but that not only is it an appeal to emotion (something anti-PC people should dislike I should imagine as that is the crux of PC dogma) as most of us know "fascism" is a bad thing and so calling something "fascist" gives something an emotional resonance. My main problem with such uses is that fascism is, like Marxism, Thatcherism et al a bona fide political ideology that stems from the political thought of the Italian Fascist Party under Mussolini and is far right-wing nationalist, militarist and totalitarian, capitalistic and corporatist and features a palingenesis or rebirth of the golden age from decadence.
I don't think "PC" for its faults fits this definition; it isn't necessarily "far right", it certainly isn't openly nationalistic or militarist, has nothing whatsoever to do with palingenesis so that leaves totalitarian (which some would argue it may be though if anything it would be closer, but not quite authoritarian) and capitalist/corporatist which though it is compatible with isn't really connected to.

*As I have lost various members of my family to real-life, card-carrying fascists (in France, Poland and Italy), who I think were more into extremely non-PC acts than PC ones but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and though I can understand why some may get offended.
Personally if you have met enough Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, Libertarians or Trotskyists you get used to the term being used for almost anything.


You can say what you like, but that doesn't mean others *can't* criticise you for it. And it isn't a "narrow definition academics have ascribed to the term" but the actual, correct, provable definition. It was only when some parts of the far left got hold of the term to use as an epithet for anyone and anything they disagreed with did it start being applied to things that aren't at all fascist. It was the Soviet Union specifically that started the "that is so fascist" shtick in their political discourse, so people here are ironically borrowing from the Nazis and Soviets; poor old PC must feel like Bulgaria for those few days in '44 when it was in war with both the Axis and Allies!


I am not merely being argumentative but I am generally curious. What reasons do you think the arbiters of PC are seeking to dictate what people can and cannot say? Do you think everyone should be able to say anything they want? If it is, as I suspect more nuanced, what should we be able to say and what should we not be able to say?


I used to use it occasionally but I found it irritating to be honest. But how is twitter PC? If I recall people of a certain political ideology that for PC reasons I shall not name were allowed to get away with saying a lot of offensive things about Palestinians constantly. Likewise Gypsies were often attacked by Sun writers on there (rather than criticised which is valid). Or is it PC to slander them? I legitimately don't know anymore!

But I was more implying no one here is pro-PC unless of course we mean that being anti-racist or generally tolerant are PC in which case I would gladly and proudly come under that banner.


You'll get no argument from me on this point.
I have liked many Christians that I have met over the years but I do agree that we should be a fully secular country rather than having the "one true faith" as an official one. We aren't in the medieval period (my main area) anymore or the far more religiously inclined early modern period. This is the 21st Century and we should really move on from such feudal vestiges.

In the U.S., in particular, this is trending more and more to be the case, especially within educational institutions, and perhaps other places as well. Although liberal-leaning myself on most political issue, I find it most troubling that both instructors and students alike are often rebuked or disciplined (officially, or by collective groups) for using any term or phrase that might be linked, however obscurely, to racism or sexism, or for espousing more conservative positions on issues contrary to liberal "politically correct" doctrine. I don't understand why there cannot be an open dialogue, based on the merits of respective positions, rather than denouncing and censure.

Criticise away.



Rightly or wrongly, my dictionary defines fascism as, inter alia:

(In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action.



I didn't say that it was nor was I advocating its use, I was merely countering your statement that surely no-one was pro-PC when that is clearly not the case as can readily be seen from some of the mass hysteria on twitter (and elsewhere) when someone has said something the PC-brigade have taken offence too. There seems to be a hoard of people who take delight in taking offence on behalf of others.

Anyway, on that note I've said all I intend to on the matter.

Promise?

It comes down to the concept of "safe space" - space where students can feel safe from criticism, rejection, etc and be that beautiful little snowflake that mommy and daddy always said they were. A free flow of ideas might prove someone wrong - which would be an aggressive act that doesn't belong in a safe space. Worse, something unpleasant might be said without being prefaced with "trigger warning", which would compromise the safe space with its naked aggression and verbal abuse.

Sometimes I think certain sheltered students should expand their worldviews. To see the cruelties that exist in various nations so they can appreciate the safety they have as opposed to insisting on being safe from aggressive words and concepts. To stop crusading against the use of certain words and start to address the real problems of the world.

You put it nicely!

In a word, yes! Everyone should be able to say anything they want! Period! If one doesn't like what another says, he should feel free to argue the point or ignore it. Then he should feel free to say anything he wishes as well. And anyone else should feel free to criticize, agree with, or ignore him. Most importantly, the law shouldn't become involved in what people say, write, publish or broadcast unless it is libelous or slanderous (both actionable in civil courts) or some form of criminal speech (incitement to riot, assault, etc.). No legal prohibition against any point of view, no matter how odious, hateful, ignorant or insulting to any particular group or society in general. If the law doesn't protect the worst kind of speech, than ultimately, it doesn't protect any speech. Once the government establishes that some speech (or expression) can be banned, it will always want to expand that power, not rescind it, since it's the very nature of the state to expand, rather than decrease its power and influence.

Bogiephil1
"Everyone should be able to say anything they want! Period! ... No legal prohibition against any point of view, no matter how odious, hateful, ignorant or insulting to any particular group or society in general."

Well, these are two separate things. I agree that legal restraints on speech, barring the narrow cases you identify, are disastrous. But that doesn't mean everyone should be able to say anything; it means the state should not stop them from saying anything.

Etiquette, taboo, stigma, norms, and culture are all essentially ways of constraining harmful behaviour without needing to use the power of the state to punish or prevent it. We live in a society that has lost the ability to distinguish between "this is wrong and civilized people should not do it" and "this is (or should be) criminal." Much of cultural Marxism reduces to people trying to codify their preferences, values and choices into law and impose them on others, with the policeman's truncheon as the implicit threat backing it up.

It kind of does. Everyone should be able to say anything. Period. Social and cultural opprobrium is another matter, and in fact, "peer pressure" does inhibit or prevent us from "saying anything", but only to the extent we are driven by what others think of us. Anyone can disapprove of what you say, but how you respond (or not) is up to you and how much respect, or lack of it, you have for them. I was responding to Caesar's remark that seemed to imply that there should be some restrictions on what people are allowed to say, which in turn implies involvement of the "authorities". In a way, your comment "But that doesn't mean everyone should be able to say anything" implies that they shouldn't either. And how are they to be prevented from doing so?

.
Exactly. And "cultural Marxism", I assume, is your description of what others call "political correctness" carried to an even further extreme. And now social media makes it so much worse. It's not the policeman's truncheon they seek to use to intimidate or silence those that they disagree with, it's the monopolization of the truncheon of PC opprobrium ("How dare you! Racist, bigot, homophobe, insert your favorite 'ism' or 'phobe' here. Begone! STFU! You're unworthy of having an opinion, because you're WRONG!)
Fuck that...

BTW, doesn't Canada have "hate speech" laws that forbid saying anything "derogatory" about certain protected groups? I understand it's against the law to assert that the Holocaust never happened and is punishable by law. Any thoughts on that?

From reading the above I believe we can boil most of the discussion down to one small point (feel free to disagree with me!):

People CAN say what they want but mores and social constraints suggest what people SHOULD (not) say.

Anyone CAN say the word 'nigger' but morals and ethics strongly suggest you SHOULDN'T! (in this case I strongly agree with NOT saying it because, for me, it feels wrong and disrespectful)