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 line 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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
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 line 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.