Posted on 05/10/2008 10:49:52 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Relativists claim that what is truth for one person may not be truth for another person, or what may be true for one may not be true for another.
If truth is relative to one's point-of-view, who can say what is or isn't politically correct speech? Within American society who could say what is or isn't politically correct to say, if truth (and the truth of the matter even concerning political correctness) was relative to one's point-of-view?
A relativist could not say that what was true for them (in terms of what is or isn't politically correct to say) would necessarily be true for another (or anyone for that matter) if truth was relative to one's point-of view.
Within a relativistic context, what may be politically correct speech for one person, group, or segment of society, may not be politically correct speech for another person, group, segment of society, or even society at large.
In adherence to relativistic thought, relativists must not only examine others' beliefs or beliefs systems through the prism of relativism, but they are required to examine their own beliefs or belief systems through the prism of relativism. If the relativist relativizes others' beliefs or belief systems they then must also relativize their own beliefs and belief systems.
In summation, what would constitute politically correct speech for liberals may not be politically correct speech for conservatives. In the end, who can know what is or isn't politically correct speech?
Indeed, liberals cannot say what is or isn’t politically correct speech. Who can know what is or isn’t politically correct speech?
“We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas” - Stalin
It’s whatever liberal dogma the left is protecting on any given day.
Relativism means subjective judgment. True relativists would not acknowledge political correctness except in themselves.
Within a relativistic context though, how can liberals know (with any degree of certainty) that any political filter should be applied, or that they have applied the correct political filter?
Again, they would have to relativize even their own subjective political filter.
Unfortunately, the twisting of meanings of constitutional clauses is easier than you might think. This is because ignorance of the Constitution and its history is epidemic. Widespread constitutional ignorance is evidenced by the following links.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tOne consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the people are impotent to stop minority sympathizing, Constitution-ignoring justices from walking all over their freedoms.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
“This, thought Winston, was the most frightening aspect of the party regime-that it could obliterate memory, turn lies into Truth and alter the Past. The Party slogan was “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” This was where “doublethink” came into play, minds were trained to hold contradictory positions simultaneously and unquestioningly- for example you had to believe at one and the same time that Democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy. Winston could remember a time when the Party did not rule, when Big Brother had not become all-powerful; but according to the Party they had always existed and this lie was repeated ad infinitum until it “became” the truth. This, Winston thought was a far more terrible weapon in the hands of the Party than torture or execution.” 1984 P1 Ch3
“’Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” 1984 P1, Ch5
I vote for E=mc2.
Cheers!
I obviously meant "Specially or Generally".
Cheers!
Wrong relativism. We aren’t discussing that.
Cheers!
With all relativists/post modernists, YOUR viewpoint can be “relativised” out of meaning, but THEIR viewpoint is “CORRECT”.
The entire point of political correctness is to avoid actual debate on facts. It is a tactic, not a philosophy. Quick example: a liberal friend and I were discussing inner city problems. I stated that the breakup of the family and high number of illegitimate children were the primary problems, and that fleeing industry, crime, drugs, etc., all flowed from this point. He immediately began a diatribe about how the children weren't illegitimate, they had as much value as any other children, etc., etc. The point was to avoid the actual debate of issues. This is the primary point in the terms "undocumented worker" as opposed to "illegal alien," and on and on.
The purpose is to keep you on eggshells, fearing that one term might offend. The point of political correctness is to keep you on the defensive, avoiding factual debate, and getting submission prior to beginning discussions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.