The Retreat of Reason - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

BENZ-LGB · #1 12-18-2007, 09:01 AM

WARNING: THIS THREAD CONTAINS NO AUTOMOTIVE CONTENT -- PLEASE STAY AWAY IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY VIGOROUS INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT

For centuries Britain has been a beacon of liberty of thought, belief and speech, but now the freedom of its intellectual and political life is being subjected to a subtle form of 'censorship', according to a new study of political correctness published by the independent think-tank Civitas.

Anthony Browne argues in The Retreat of Reason that political correctness, which classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism and allows no dissent to be expressed, is poisoning the wells of debate in modern Britain.

'Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts' (p.xii). Political correctness started in academia, but it now dominates schools, hospitals, local authorities, the civil service, the media, companies, the police and the army. Since 1997 Britain has been ruled by political correctness for the first time. 'The Labour government was the first UK government not to stand up to political correctness, but to try and enact its dictates when they are not too electorally unpopular or seriously mugged by reality, and even sometimes when they are' (p.34).

Anthony Browne describes political correctness as a 'heresy of liberalism' (p.2) under which 'a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument' (p.6). Adopting certain positions makes the politically correct feel virtuous, even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own: 'political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue'.

Whether an argument is true or not is a secondary consideration to whether it fits with the PC view of the world:

'In the topsy-turvy politically correct world, truth comes in two forms: the politically correct, and the factually correct. The politically correct truth is publicly proclaimed correct by politicians, celebrities and the BBC even if it is wrong, while the factually correct truth is publicly condemned as wrong even when it is right. Factually correct truths suffer the disadvantage that they don't have to be shown to be wrong, merely stated that they are politically incorrect. To the politically correct, truth is no defence; to the politically incorrect, truth is the ultimate defence. (p.7)'
Anthony Browne gives some examples (p.8) of factually incorrect arguments that trump factually correct ones, because they are PC:

Issue -- Politically Correct Truth -- Factually Correct Truth

Women's pay less than men's -- Sex discrimination -- Different work/life choices, childcare breaks
Explosion in HIV -- Teenagers having unsafe sex -- African immigration
Rise in anti-semitic attacks -- White skinheads -- Muslim youths
Africa getting poorer -- West not giving enough aid -- Bad governance

He argues that PC is much more than just a dispute about words, or the hope of avoiding hurtful expressions: it leads to an incorrect analysis of real problems, which means that the wrong solutions are attempted. People suffer as a result:

For the full book review, click here:

The Retreat of Reason

Dee8go · #2 12-18-2007, 09:04 AM

So, I guess it's not just Americans suffering from the silly and, ultimately dangerous, way of thinking. I don't know that that information is especially comforting, though.

jlomon · #3 12-18-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

So, I guess it's not just Americans suffering from the silly and, ultimately dangerous, way of thinking. I don't know that that information is especially comforting, though.

I think it is pretty much the whole western world. If I had to put my finger on one of the main causes, I would have to say it is "sound bite politics". I find it incredibly ironic that while we live in the "information age" we are satisfied with less and less substance/information from the people we elect to lead us. PC issues make for great sound bites and make for very emotional "calls to action" when it comes to election time. You can often cut through all the other noise in a campaign with a PC related issue and deliver a voting constituency based on a polarizing issue.

Carleton Hughes · #4 12-18-2007, 09:20 AM

Please...I know all about that burlesque farrago...Every time the Nogs riot in Brixton it's because they are "oppressed".

Just shows what happens when a very small percentage of the population {dare I say minority?} holds society in thrall thru feigned guilt.

Well,as Gramps said.."get a rope!"

BENZ-LGB · #5 12-18-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

Well,as Gramps said.."get a rope!"

You can't say that...that is not politically correct.

BENZ-LGB · #6 12-18-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

I think it is pretty much the whole western world. If I had to put my finger on one of the main causes, I would have to say it is "sound bite politics". I find it incredibly ironic that while we live in the "information age" we are satisfied with less and less substance/information from the people we elect to lead us. PC issues make for great sound bites and make for very emotional "calls to action" when it comes to election time. You can often cut through all the other noise in a campaign with a PC related issue and deliver a voting constituency based on a polarizing issue.

Yes. Both Australia and Canada now suffer from the same evil.

BTW, I just heard a comedian refer to Canadians as "better educated and more polite Americans."

Dee8go · #7 12-18-2007, 09:37 AM

I think it also has something to do with one's position in Maslow's Heirarchy of Need. The higher you go, the more esoteric your concerns become. When you're at the bottom, you just want something to eat and a roof over your head.

Carleton Hughes · #8 12-18-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

You can't say that...that is not politically correct.

I'se sorry,Massa 'nesto,I ain't gwine say dat agin!!!No suh...

Douge · #9 12-18-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

He argues that PC is much more than just a dispute about words, or the hope of avoiding hurtful expressions: it leads to an incorrect analysis of real problems, which means that the wrong solutions are attempted. People suffer as a result:

For the full book review, click here:

The Retreat of Reason

I agree with this statement. No one takes accountability for their actions and PC does a wonderful job of shielding people from the reality of their circumstances. It effectively allows them to act as victims seeking restitution rather than active participants in an imperfect world.

Lots of people rise above circumstances but in truth, you only need one to prove that it is possible.

BENZ-LGB · #10 12-18-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

I'se sorry,Massa 'nesto,I ain't gwine say dat agin!!!No suh...

Coño chico... that's funny stuff!

BENZ-LGB · #11 12-18-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

I think it also has something to do with one's position in Maslow's Heirarchy of Need. The higher you go, the more esoteric your concerns become. When you're at the bottom, you just want something to eat and a roof over your head.

For me, when I was at the bottom, all I kept doing was looking up and figuring out ways to crawl my way to the top!

It used to be, that being at the bottom made you hungry for the top.

Now it just makes you a victim.

The one single, most attractive feature about life in the U.S. is that this was (and still is) the land of opportunity. Unrestricted by strict class structure that defines your place from birth, America is a place where a person can rise as far and as high as he wants -- just as long as he is willing to work at it.

jlomon · #12 12-18-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Yes. Both Australia and Canada now suffer from the same evil.

I'll give you an example from our last Federal election. But it requires a bit of a history lesson. Canada openly encouraged Chinese immigration in the middle and late 1800s for labour on our coast-to-coast railway. When the railway was done, Canada didn't want any more Chinese immigrants so we instituted a head tax to limit the number of Chinese people who could afford to come here. It was raised and raised in effort to reduce the flow, until in 1923 our government actually passed a law excluding Chinese immigration. This was not repealed until 1947.

Fast forward to 2006. The Chinese community, predominantly centred in large urban areas of Canada, launches a movement during our last Federal election to force the government to apologize for how Chinese immigrants were treated, and to pay compensation to survivors/immediate descendants of immigrants who paid the head tax.

I think the way Canada treated Chinese immigrants was wrong. But I also think it is equally wrong to make this an election issue today because the political parties (and Federal government) running today bear no resemblance to the parties/government responsible for implementing these wrong measures. But various Chinese-Canadian groups threated to shift support to parties who were willing to redress this historical wrong, and were willing to make promises to that extent. Our PC sensibilities were offended by something that happened long ago, and it becomes a determining factor in the government of today. A small group of organized, vocal voters is able to punch above its weight because of it, and potentially affect the outcome of an election, or at the very least influence the political platform of the people running.

It worked, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

BTW, I just heard a comedian refer to Canadians as "better educated and more polite Americans."

I'd make some sort of a trite comment in response, but I'm far too polite/educated to make that mistake.

Dee8go · #13 12-18-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

For me, when I was at the bottom, all I kept doing was looking up and figuring out ways to crawl my way to the top!

It used to be, that being at the bottom made you hungry for the top.

Now it just makes you a victim.

The one single, most attractive feature about life in the U.S. is that this was (and still is) the land of opportunity. Unrestricted by strict class structure that defines your place from birth, America is a place where a person can rise as far and as high as he wants -- just as long as he is willing to work at it.

I hope this never changes. We have a lot of land, smart people, natural resources, etc. Hopefully, we won't lose this intangible quality of which you speak.

Zeus · #14 12-18-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

I'll give you an example from our last Federal election. But it requires a bit of a history lesson. Canada openly encouraged Chinese immigration in the middle and late 1800s for labour on our coast-to-coast railway. When the railway was done, Canada didn't want any more Chinese immigrants so we instituted a head tax to limit the number of Chinese people who could afford to come here. It was raised and raised in effort to reduce the flow, until in 1923 our government actually passed a law excluding Chinese immigration. This was not repealed until 1947.

Fast forward to 2006. The Chinese community, predominantly centred in large urban areas of Canada, launches a movement during our last Federal election to force the government to apologize for how Chinese immigrants were treated, and to pay compensation to survivors/immediate descendants of immigrants who paid the head tax.

I think the way Canada treated Chinese immigrants was wrong. But I also think it is equally wrong to make this an election issue today because the political parties (and Federal government) running today bear no resemblance to the parties/government responsible for implementing these wrong measures. But various Chinese-Canadian groups threated to shift support to parties who were willing to redress this historical wrong, and were willing to make promises to that extent. Our PC sensibilities were offended by something that happened long ago, and it becomes a determining factor in the government of today. A small group of organized, vocal voters is able to punch above its weight because of it, and potentially affect the outcome of an election, or at the very least influence the political platform of the people running.

It worked, too.

I'd make some sort of a trite comment in response, but I'm far too polite/educated to make that mistake.

Good post J.

John Doe · #15 12-18-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

Good post J.

Ditto