Total posts: 8
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I did click more strongly agree/disagree on questions relating to security v. privacy. I don't even necessarily disagree with your abstract position, but I would describe my stance as much more skeptical of government surveillance/security measures. For instance, I do strongly agree with "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism" whereas you might only agree; I would maintain though that civil liberties being curtailed "excessively" is a correct assessment.
I don't know how lib-left folks feel with regards to, "Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory" which I would strongly disagree with.
In general, for most of these questions, I felt it could convey a decent amount of context to where I could say "strongly agree/disagree" with relative ease. I'd say the statement, "The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline" is a good example of this. I can see where someone would say only disagree as discipline isn't intrinsically bad, but the framing of the question makes it clear that it is a question of learning about discipline vs. other things, with which I'd argue a vast amount of other things (creativity, empathy, etc.) are more important for children to learn (not to mention the phrase is "accept discipline" which can be read two ways, both of which I would strongly disagree as important for a child). I'd say most questions function in the test in this manner.
The questions I'd answer "agree/disagree" on I felt were just largely too ambiguous to really say one way or another. "Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity" is one where I think this ambiguity can be seen. It's not detailing a specific instance/context for making peace; the statement is very, very general. I might argue that people have a right to not be at peace in a country such as Myanmar or even in the US; however, perpetual unrest against every establishment is untenable and nonsensical, and that it is sometimes a mark of maturity to accept the status quo and make peace with it (though not necessarily accept it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I'm still curious what exactly is your definition of "political correctness".
And I wasn't really asking the difference between being 'politically correct' and 'virtue signaling'. My question was working to imply and point out that any form of engaging in politics is a form of virtue signaling. You are virtue signaling against PC culture, are you not?
Believe it or not, I'd tend to agree with you. Political correctness isn't something I'd really defend. The perception is that its a form of Left-wing thought; however, for the Left who formed the term in the 70s, it was always an ironic term of self-critique. What I really take issue with is how the right primarily utilizes it as a dogwhistle (just like "Cultural Marxism").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you mean practice in the sense of real implementation of positions, I'd tend to agree. It's fair to look at the test from perspective of pragmatism – with which I'd agree radical positions have issues with being tenable (in places such as the US at least) – but I have always considered the test to be measuring a view of what the world ought to be/what I believe ideally. If you mean in debate/discussion, I'd disagree.
More than happy to debate question by question if you ever wanted or just PM as well.
More than happy to debate question by question if you ever wanted or just PM as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
How do you, specifically, define 'political correctness'?
Also, how do you differentiate 'virtue signaling' with someone engaging in politics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No? Why is your perception that centrism is some sort of default position? Or that I'm forcing stances that I wouldn't stand behind, like it's an aesthetic? I did answer just agree/disagree to some questions, and I would say I answered everything honestly according to what I do believe. Again, if you think there is something I couldn't reasonably say "Strongly Agree/Disagree" to, ask me.
Created:
Posted in:
New to the site, but will contribute nonetheless:
Economic: -8.88
Social: -8.31
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Exactly. The Right needs to dress up their position with the veneer of their position being one in a larger cultural discussion/debate. Taking your healthcare example: if they came outright and said, "I think people should die/go bankrupt if they can't afford healthcare," they would have no chance optically. If they come out and say though, "Cultural Marxists and politically correct communists want to demolish the private healthcare industry, just as they want to destroy free speech and individual rights," it becomes an entirely different discussion.
I really like Chomsky on this: "In fact, I think all of this screaming about 'Political Correctness' that we hear these days in the elite culture is basically just a tantrum over the fact that it has been impossible to crush all of the dissidence and the activism and the concern that's developed in the general population in the last thirty years. I mean, it's not that some of these 'P.C.' things they point out aren't true-yeah, sure, some of them are true. But the real problem is that the huge right-wing effort to retake control of the ideological system didn't work―and since their mentality is basically totalitarian, any break in their control is considered a huge tragedy."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
At this point, it's a catch-all pejorative. It's like people defending "Cultural Marxism" or arguing against something claiming it's like "1984". It's not even that the ideas being attacked when they are deemed "politically correct" aren't worth defending sometimes, but that the Right's usage of it is so all encompassing the meaning becomes utterly nebulous – and the conversation entirely pointless. I, too, think you'll find it's a term mostly staunchly defended by liberals. I notice significant thinkers on the Left either not caring much about it or speaking outright against the concept.
I think calling them "euphemism" is correct, but I'd consider it to be mostly a right-wing dogwhistle. Unless someone specifically defines what it means when discussing it, I don't see a productive conversation occuring.
Created: