What? it’s hard to tell what did you interpret this time …but I hope you are not implying that politically correct language like “military operation” shows the whole truth, that “pacification” is the whole truth, that “terrorism” is the whole truth, that “re-education camps” are the whole truth, that “voluntary relocation” is the whole truth, that “austerity measures” are the whole truth.
“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:
Political correctness (adjectivally “politically correct”; commonly abbreviated to P.C.) is a term used to describe language,[1][2][3] policies,[4] or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[5][6][7] Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoidance of language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting to groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, particularly groups defined by ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term’s use is generally pejorative, with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[10][11] It can also be humorous, or ironic in nature.
You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.
Since its inception the term has been about adherence to party lines and enforcing ideological purity. The right wants to pretend they don’t do it, so they want to attribute it to particular instances from the left, but they do the same thing all the time.
See the next paragraph on that same article you quote (Wikipedia, btw):
The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.[5] Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire;[8] usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement.[12][13][14] It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.[15] The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century, with many describing it as a form of censorship.[16]
Sure, but considering this entire speech you’ve been talking about how you want to protect the rights of fascists to spew fascist bullshit, talking negatively about political correctness is almost assuredly about the modern usage. You can’t fault me for reading this as you yet again arguing for fascist speech to be protected.
You can expose the problems of fascist speech without legally protecting the right of fascists to spread disinformation and misinformation, which you’ve been arguing for. I don’t want to “hide” it, I want to eliminate it from public discourse and study it academically so as to prevent it from rising.
What? it’s hard to tell what did you interpret this time …but I hope you are not implying that politically correct language like “military operation” shows the whole truth, that “pacification” is the whole truth, that “terrorism” is the whole truth, that “re-education camps” are the whole truth, that “voluntary relocation” is the whole truth, that “austerity measures” are the whole truth.
“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:
You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.
Since its inception the term has been about adherence to party lines and enforcing ideological purity. The right wants to pretend they don’t do it, so they want to attribute it to particular instances from the left, but they do the same thing all the time.
See the next paragraph on that same article you quote (Wikipedia, btw):
Sure, but considering this entire speech you’ve been talking about how you want to protect the rights of fascists to spew fascist bullshit, talking negatively about political correctness is almost assuredly about the modern usage. You can’t fault me for reading this as you yet again arguing for fascist speech to be protected.
I agree that your previous misunderstandings lead you to this one.
Fascist speech is to be exposed and criticised scientifically, not dogmatically. Your use of “protected” here implies something I do not defend.
I want to attack fascist speech, you want to hide it… from my point of view I could also say you are the one protecting it.
You can expose the problems of fascist speech without legally protecting the right of fascists to spread disinformation and misinformation, which you’ve been arguing for. I don’t want to “hide” it, I want to eliminate it from public discourse and study it academically so as to prevent it from rising.