Well, that would have preceded the years in which you pretend Marcuse would have had an effect on the U.S.: 1968 and after.
Besides, even if the 1965 law had anything to do with Marcuse, (it didn’t), your claim was that he changed the entire ideology of the U.S. The points I mentioned, (and there are far more), refute your claim regarding “Cultural Marxism” being “USA’s state ideology.”
Marcuse was the main figure but the ideas of the Frankfurt School had an impact many years before 1968.
There might be a trans-Atlantic misunderstanding about PC which I will now try to resolve: Political Correctness has a thin layer of altruism, e.g. “to be nice to non-Whites”. But the core of Political Correctness is all about immigration. You Americans have a problem to understand this. Think about why you can’t criticize immigration and what consequences this will have in the future when two ethnic groups start to argue about what language to use.
Ethnic groups have been arguing in the US for years about what language to use, and anyone who wants to is free to speak their own, since the US doesn’t have an official language.
…but enough about the Republicans.
No, it isn’t. Once again, you keep repeating that bullshit but you have no proof.
“Can’t criticize immigration”?! Do you know anything at all about American politics?! Your Swedish Islamophobia is nothing!
I have no idea whether there is a “trans-Atlantic misunderstanding,” but clearly, you have absolutely no idea what “Political correctness” means. And, since the phrase was coined in the U.S. and is most often used in the U.S., if you want to make odd claims about what it means on a U.S. based message board, you should learn and use the U.S. definition. Political correctness was a phrase of opprobrium in the U.S. for decades before it was seriously applied to immigration and even now immigration is only a small part of the topics on which it touches.
As for your utterly absurd claim that immigration cannot be criticized in the U.S., you should note that there are actual, well funded organizations in the U.S. that openly oppose immigration, there are politicians who make political hay and garner votes by criticizing immigration, and they have been successful in passing laws that restrict immigration or place special burdens on immigrants. Your comments are utterly separated from reality.
Wow, this is some of the most ridiculous stuff I’ve heard yet. It certainly isn’t the case in the US and never was. I can only imagine the same is true overseas.
The first politically correct talk I can recall hearing had NOTHING to do with immigrants. It had to do with the “mentally challenged” or “physically challenged”. In other words, polite ways to refer to people with mental or physical disabilities. From there, the next thing I can recall going PC was how to refer to homosexuals.
As kids, we would mock things by using faux-PC talk by simply adding “challenged” to things.
Political correctness, as applied to immigrants, wasn’t even done for at least a decade and possibly longer after even the term PC came into vogue.
I’d love to know where you get your “facts”, because they’re not supported by anything resembling reality.
And there was a brief time before that when the phrase “politically correct” was used in earnest. Mainly by feminists, IME.
Cultural Marxism (redneck jargon) = cultural relativism
I have been wondering the same thing for a long time now, and the answer is that i dunno, because “Cultural Marxism” according to the Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia cites Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Horkheimer, Gramsci, etc. However none of these authors ever postulated cultural relativism, which seems to be the underlying meaning. This is typical of right-wing political terminology, in that they simply don’t fit the facts. No prominent cultural Marxist ever stressed cultural relativism to my knowledge. So the right wingers have a point when they combat radical cultural relativism, but by giving it a name, i.e. “cultural Marxism”, that is a complete misnomer, the rightists deliberately confuse the issue.
I suppose when they say “Marxist” they mean it as an insult, like “bastard”, and it has little to do with Karl Marx’ ideas, even flatly contradicts them. After all Karl Marx had a soft spot for British imperialism. He had nothing but praise for the Raj.
“…people who feel that being expected to say “african-american” rather than “black” in polite company infringes on their most core liberties.”
Well, I’ve got news for you, buddy: I spent half my college years reading Marx and the Frankfurt School, and I insist on my right to use the n-word! I very seldom make good on my threat, but for me it is a matter of principle. As long as blacks call each other “niggers” and as long as homosexuals call each other “faggots” I shall do likewise whenever I please.
I do not allow the English language to be confiscated by a pressure grop! If they can say it, so can !!
There really are not enough :rolleyes: for this sort of nonsense, (particularly when reviving a thread that has been dormant for months.
Yes, you have the “right,” (whatever that means), to say whatever you’d like, using whatever words you wish. However, exercising a “right” in the wrong context or social setting would simply indicate that one was a rude and obnoxious person. Defending that “right” also tends to demonstrate a fair amount of ignorance regarding social conventions, language as an indicator of in- or out-group status, and the actual meaning of words along with a considerable tone-deafness in regards to society.
Feel free to use whatever words you wish in whatever context you wish. (Be aware, however, that employing hostile language on a message board is liable to garner sanctions for trolling or otherwise disrupting the board.)
At what point is it “unfair” for terms to evolve or gain alternate meanings?
“Santorum” used to mean one thing and now it can mean something else.
“Teabagger” used to mean one thing and now it can mean something else.
“Race card” used to mean one thing and now it can mean something else. In fact the current meaning is so much better than the original.
When the “alternate meaning” is a manufactured one that exists to deceive. This is as manipulative & silly as if a bunch of Democrats got together and defined “right winger” as “cannibal”, then claimed that meant the Republicans eat people.
That’s fair … if it applies. Does it apply to any of the four examples?
What was the other meaning of “race card”? I’ve always understood it to mean the (appropriate or inappropriate) claim that racism is involved in a controversy.
I got educated on this right here a year or so ago… maybe even by Dio.
Apparently in the 60’s ,in the UK, a right -wing candidate tried to scare his kind of voter by bringing up race as a strategy.
My favorite kind is when the left brings it up as a tactic in responding to an issue. They do it to intimidate, marginalize and recruit. It’s kind of like a trump-card which is why I like that definition the most.
I for one agree that Slumberjack should not allow black homosexuals to confiscate his English language by means of a pressure grope.
Still waiting…
Enoch Powell. That meaning is essentially limited to the UK, though.
How is the race card used to “intimidate”?
Whoooaaaaa… I better not say that no matter how correct it is. In fact I think I’ll avoid the subject all together. I remember the last time… boy honesty and accuracy doesn’t go very far these days.
(Agreed about the original UK meaning… but it didn’t stop Dio from trying to get me to stop using the term “race card” because I was using it wrong. Kind of like the efforts to stop the use of the term “Obamacare”…glad that is over.)