Monday, January 18, 2016
Political Correctness in Language
People have written to ask me about the popularity of Donal Trump, with long term readers knowing I have written about his statements in the past.
What makes him so popular today may be answered by the topic of today's article: "Political Correctness in Language" as he is often heard saying the very things many have wished to have said, but have not.
This leads us to:
A common phenomena worth observing in language that surrounds the topic, and is heard through the lens of analysis.
Attend an official meeting and hear opinions and views all consistent with "political correctness" affirmations.
Attend the same official meeting and with statement analysis employed during the meeting and hear weak or sensitive affirmations of political correctness.
This is not the phenomena I write of, however.
Speak to the same 10 attendees of the meeting, privately, and learn that most feel "personally" against what they just affirmed in the meeting and had voted in favor of.
How can this be?
Recently, in a meeting of government employees, the topic of how to "further respond to the needs of multiculturalism" was discussed.
Not one person objected to the cultural influence that was against free speech, women's rights and democracy itself.
In private afterwards, most (if not all) expressed disgust, anger, rage, and bewilderment at the "stupidity of the group", though none expressed disagreement with the deployment of even more money for the ideology that opposed freedom. They just funded that which not only helps no one, but furthers the cause against women's basic rights. They spent money they did not have, increasing a local runaway debt for an ideology that seeks their own demise.
Of the 10 in attendance, 7 were women. Several had financial backgrounds, and likely all knew basic rules of mathematics. One admitted remaining silent for fear of losing her job.
Numerous attempts are made to grasp the European and American trend of "political correctness"; that is, to say things, no matter how illogical, that 'feel good', while condemning, rigorously, any dissenter.
Q. How far will political correctness go?
It is like a powerful religion in which its god is tyrannical and demands utter submission. For example, an internal memo from police in Stockholm showed a new mandate:
When a crime is committed, police are not permitted to use race as a description of the assailant.
"Criticism is sometimes made against police regarding information about people's skin colour. It is perceived as racist. As police are not racist, nor shall be construed as so, this directive now applies," the letter reads.
Then an instruction on how the police should communicate on offenses follows. In events of everyday crime such as burglary, information such as height, skin colour, ethnicity or nationality, will not be given, according to the directive.
We are now just learning that the rape epidemic in Sweden is not unique, but Germany, too, like the UK, has covered up its own rape statistics.
This has created a most powerful defensive weapon that emboldens criminal element that speaks to a 'religious' viewpoint that is non-negotiable:
Q. Why will a man not protect his own daughter from being raped?
A. Because he fears being called a name.
There is no logic left from which to work, therefore, we must view what it is beneath the language that causes such self destruction for society. The rapists screamed insults at police, taunting them only to have the police affirm the supremacy of the rapist by retreat and no arrest.
What powerful weapon is raised that causes armed police to fear doing their job? What is the tool of societal suicide?
What is this invisible line that millions of people will not cross for deeply embedded fear of consequences?
Here is how some explain it:
1. The Bystander Effect
Recall the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City where she was knifed to death without a single bystander intervening, or even yelling from a distance to alert the killer to the presence of a witness.
Numerous studies have been conducted in the half century since the murder and we have learned that a crowd often freezes first, and then looks towards one another, each waiting for someone else to make the 'first move.'
I recently listened to a broadcast in which a large convention was held and the speaker said,
"Okay, everyone, take out your cell phone. Good. Now, each of you is to hand your cell phone to the person to your right."
Whatever point the presenter wished to make, there is something far more important for us to see as most all did this very thing.
Would you take your cell phone, with all of your personal and financial information and hand it to a stranger?
Few did not, and there you find the leaders.
Recall the 'Penn and Teller' copycat experiment in which men were told that they were in a seminar to understand female executives and how difficult it is for them and men were instructed to put on women's high heel shoes, and some clothing. (This was before Bruce Jenner was 'woman of the year.').
Most men acquiesced while the leaders in the room refused.
Recall in the first election of Barak Obama, any disagreement with him was met with "racism" as the attempt to extinguish debate. No president, perhaps since Lincoln, has been more powerful than Obama, as resistance to his policies crumbled before this invisible line of defense.
I once attended a mandatory meeting of government workers where during various 'exercises', the attendees were instructed to throw soft dolls at their supervisors. (the government spent a small fortune for these psychological 'experts' "training exercises.")
Then, they were all instructed to sit upon grass, outdoors in a 'lotus position' where a high paid psychologist - yoga instructor led them in various stretches. She then told the audience that there were those present who had "cancer cells" silently destroying their bodies and led them in exercises to "breath out the cancer cells."
Those who did not participate were not only the recipients of unpleasant looks from supervisors, but reported later that in their annual performance review, they needed to work on (in various language) "team work" and "participation" for the following year. They were the "trouble makers"; a small group that stood out from the more than 100 participants. Their own promotions would be decided by the very leaders who tagged them for not participating in the illogical activities that the leaders used tax payer dollars to hold. How do you think this worked out over the course of the next few years?
If you wish to observe this pattern, life presents many opportunities to do so. The looking around to see what peers do is readily seen in teenagers who are dancing, as they look left and right for affirmation, is one such example. Athletes before the cameras, in group settings, will also supply examples. We are, however, focusing more upon language and it is in meetings where generally at least one person, desperate to be 'front and center' will throw out a 'politically correct' statement, feigning leadership skills, while actually revealing quite the opposite.
The Bystander Effect, in life, is also in language, as language is the means to view the subject's perception of reality; not reality, itself.
2. "Pluralistic Ignorance"
This is where one feels 'alone' in his or her viewpoint; with emotional isolation, whereas the reality is quite different. The sense of being 'alone' has a depressing impact furthering the silent acquiescence.
From Denmark, psychologist Nicolai Sennels on how incessant complaints from supremacist ideology of Islam has shown an ever increasing encroachment of sharia against freedom of speech:
"The bystander effect is often connected with pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance is a social psychological phenomenon in which the majority of a group individually reject a norm, but at the same time suppose that the majority accepts the norm. As a result of the desire to be well-regarded by the majority, people accept the norm, even though they secretly oppose it. In this way a democratic process can lead to the acceptance of norms which the majority actually oppose.
Applying the theory of pluralistic ignorance to the phenomenon of political correctness would mean that the majority actually want less Islam, Sharia and Muslim immigration, but every individual believes that the majority is not against these things. Because people do not dare to stand up against the “illusory majority”, they refuse to openly criticize these things.
Fear of criticism can therefore pressure the majority not to speak their minds — even though they would actually able to get what they want, if only all dared to raise their hands say what they think.
Pluralistic ignorance is thus made possible partly by the lack of self confidence to stand by one’s position, and partly by a miscalculation of what the majority thinks."
The rare dissenter risks isolation in his or her leadership skills, which led Sennels to a third point of which I paraphrase with some change of language:
3. "Pseudo Moral Highground"
In the West, we have been either raised, or have been the recipient of historical Christian thought, specifically the teaching from "The Sermon on the Mount" as a society, with the basic "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "the Good Samaritan" story where the strong sacrifice for the weak. This ideology is not shared in all parts of the world, and the West often projects its belief upon those who have been raised to condemn, for example, the "Good Samaritan" as a "fool" who "put his own family at risk" for helping another. It is "weakness" and not strength.
For those who think such things are inherently understood in human nature, please note that Germany (and others) are teaching "Do Not Rape" classes to Islamic migrants. Consider the presuppositions of it by necessity, alone.
In all societies, people wish to be considered the "good" person and not the "bad" person. What one culture considers "good" another society considers the opposite. Thus "multi cultural" is no different than a chef throwing a multitude of ingredients into a pot claiming it to be superior to anything else. To be the "good" guy, you must agree, even if the stew is poisonous. Only the "bad" guy will disagree and risk being labeled the "bad" person.
"Phobia" and "Immoral"
Rather than stand upon an ideal, political correctness recognizes its own war against logic, and does not defend itself, instead, it attacks.
If you disagree, rather than engage in debate, you are condemned to two specific characterizations:
1. You have irrational fear (phobia) of the idea in context making you mentally incapable of reason, giving us no purpose in hearing you out;
2. You are of such a base moral character that you have murderous intention towards those who hold to the idea (hateful), thus, you give the group no purpose in hearing your position.
The position of moral high ground is not moral, but "pseudo" moral and is logically indefensible. How might you discern if a position is logically indefensible?
You may discern that a position is logically indefensible that the lack of defense and the presence of offense, instead. Self destruction, societal suicide, fiscal irresponsibility and so forth, are all logically indefensible; even when they appeal to the emotion, and instead of defense, you hear "phobia" and "hateful" as objections.
In Cologne, politicians, police officials (not rank and file) and media conspired to conceal Islamic "Taharrush" for years. There are now, in this city alone, more than 700 police reports filed by women who are victims of sexual assault or rape. The "Taharrush" is a natural outworking of the teaching of the koran and the life of pedophiliac Mohammad and was predictable: Islamic male supremacy coupled with koranic misogyny and German dhimmitude.
This leads to the question:
"How many lives would not have been ruined on December 31, 2015, had deception not been employed?"
Now, think of how deeply embedded this has become in American language and go back to the meeting of which the 10 people voted to spend money they did not have, to promote an ideology that if instituted, would dissemble the group itself, and take away their jobs and freedom.
Would anyone dare stand up and compare the Nazi harvesting of body parts of Jews with the butchers of Planned Parenthood selling of baby parts? Yet, even those who wish abortion to stay legal, or have it remain private between doctor and patient, have their stomachs turn, literally, at the inhumanity of Planned Parenthood, yet fear speaking out. There is no logical argument against PP, therefore, the opposers must "hate women" in general.
I find that in those who study analysis, as time passes, their understanding of human nature deepens. It is difficult to remain illogical while analyzing "the expected" in language. It is not a science for the illogical ideologues.
Now return to the meeting and see what the one leader in the group (assuming that in 10 people, one has leadership qualities) must overcome to speak out:
I. He must overcome The Bystander Effect, psychologically, and stand out from the group.
II. He must overcome his own belief that he is alone in his thinking, which further weighs upon him to remain silent.
III. He must be willing to accept that he is "the bad guy" in society, that others will say he is irrational and immoral.
Depending upon his position, his job will be under threat, including formal complaints against his professional license, standing and reputation.
It is thus the language of the leader we see that is willing to overcome what some call 'group think' or the peer pressure of those around them. This, by itself, is good for parents of young children to consider in seeking to raise leaders of tomorrow, and makes for fascinating analysis of language.