The tyranny of political correctness

[Nekodaiden]

The problem with talking about Nazis and AR, is that it gives people an opportunity to associate veganism with Nazis. ( Which is obviously BS, but you know how people are...) As a community, the general public views us negatively as it is. Adding Nazis to the mix, just adds to that negativity.

Oh, I agree about the association. It's negative, certainly. However, that information I posted does happen to be the truth, something that PC isn't really concerned with.

Besides, I hardly think most "neo-Nazis" are concerned with Veganism. I'm no expert, but it appears that many of them seem to take the whole race thing and fly with that as their primary focus, as if it was Nazi Germany's primary focus, which I don't believe any more than America putting the Japanese in concentration camps was about race. Wars are fought primarily for power and profit, not by the common people, who fight for their lives, but for the financeers who instigate them so they can enslave us all in debt. Germany stood up against this, which is in my opinion the primary reason for the war. So did the USA in the revolutionary war against Britain, despite what public schools tell us about tea and "representation with taxation".

 

[Mischief]

I notice that, as usual, some people are conflating "free speech" with the right to say whatever you want wherever you want without any pushback.

This is as concise an explanation of the difference as I've ever seen:

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

Everything else is just the people around you evaluating whether your hurt feelings at having limitations set on your right to be a glassbowl to/about others outweigh the feelings of those being subjected to your glassbowlery.

 

[beancounter]

It's more than pushback.

It's mob mentality tactics. These people have such issues, they can't even listen to a comedian without freaking out.

Then there are a number of videos of these people surrounding/ cornering people who they disagree with. Those aren't intimidation tactics?...

Calling such behavior "pushback" is sugar coating it just a bit...

 

[Hog]

Please keep in mind that the below information is second hand from my wife. There are certainly inaccuracies in the below story.

When my wife was a political prisoner in South Africa for a little over a month, standing up for persons who experienced extreme discrimination was not politically correct. She was an Afrikaans colored lady who stood up for tribal black people. She angered her family, the government, and the prison guards. Her stay in prison nearly caused her to flunk out of college. In retrospect, she wonders if she should have kept her mouth shut and remained politically correct.

Some people dismiss my wife's sacrifice as no big deal. I once had a therapist who expressed these same types of sentiments. I told the therapist that she should spend some time in a crowded filthy prison in South Africa.

I get the idea of standing up for what you believe in. I respect my wife. I also get tired of people playing the race card and accusing others of discrimination. (I need to be extra careful here.) My wife has extraordinary insight into the nature of discrimination. She also gave me some extremely difficult to follow advice. The advice feels like taking a very bitter pill. She said the following in not these exact words, "Everybody in the United States discriminates. It does not matter if you are black, white, male, or female. Jon, you need to stop being naive and do a better job of keeping your guard up around these people."

Is being vegan politically incorrect? Heck yes. Will being vegan reduce racism and discrimination? YES.

And one last thing. Some people unintentionally say things that could be construed as racist or sexist. Some of those people might have serious medical conditions that prevent them from using more tact. Other people, grew up in areas where people use language differently. Other people, such as my son are autistic. I say we give people the benefit of the doubt before calling them racist.

 

[Gaspard]

You might find this interesting, as it might help you reflect on the way political correctness is used in your countries.

“Political correctness”, in France used to be regarded as hypocritical. And so the term “politiquement correct” was generally very pejorative, and still is. We recently imported the American idea. But it meets a very strong resistance in the media. French people generally like to believe they speak their mind.

However there are concepts that are strongly rejected. For example in France, you cannot use the word “race”. It is considered racist because there is no biological basis to properly define it. So when I use it I always say to people “I’m not have a scientific discussion here, I’m talking about cultural prejudices”. And I often speak about the way "race" is discussed in the USA.

Also it’s important to realise that in France, freedom of speech is limited. It is strictly forbidden to express holocaust denial. Chomsky defended freedom of speech in relation to Robert Faurisson (who was persecuted for saying the Nazi concentration camps never existed). Many French people still think Chomsky is complacent.

Also we have Laïcité…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité

 

[Gaspard]

I notice that, as usual, some people are conflating "free speech" with the right to say whatever you want wherever you want without any pushback.

Well there are obviously some implicit limitations to free speech. But when we are discussing these limitations, I hope we know that it isn't a matter of rights. So we can discuss mob censorship without conflating "free speech" with the right to say whatever you want wherever you want without any pushback.
Mischief, you're strawmaning a bit here, I must say.

 

[Hog]

“Political correctness”, in France used to be regarded as hypocritical. And so the term “politiquement correct” was generally very pejorative, and still is. We recently imported the American idea. But it meets a very strong resistance in the media. French people generally like to believe they speak their mind.

However there are concepts that are strongly rejected. For example in France, you cannot use the word “race”. It is considered racist because there is no biological basis to properly define it. So when I use it I always say to people “I’m not have a scientific discussion here, I’m talking about cultural prejudices”. And I often speak about the way "race" is discussed in the USA.

@ Gapard - GREAT POST
That is amazing how the meanings of words are different in different places. Correct, me if I am wrong. The "words politically correct" are generally an insult in the United States too. I also dislike the word "race" for the exact same reason that you mentioned.

The holocaust was a horrible moment in human history. I hope I would have enough guts to be politically incorrect in Nazi Germany. Denying the holocaust is similar to denying that the earth is round. If someone believes the earth is flat, I have nothing against that. If someone wants to risk public humiliation by denying the holocaust. I am okay with that too.

 

[Nekodaiden]

@wonderfularizona

Without consulting a textbook, encyclopedia or a search engine, can you tell me how many Soviet Union deaths there were during world war 2?

 

[Second Summer]

@wonderfularizona

Without consulting a textbook, encyclopedia or a search engine, can you tell me how many Soviet Union deaths there were during world war 2?

Afraid I don't quite see how that is relevant to the discussion - you may need to explain. I don't want this thread to turn into another off-topic train-wreck that has to be locked.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Afraid I don't quite see how that is relevant to the discussion - you may need to explain. I don't want this thread to turn into another off-topic train-wreck that has to be locked.

Sure, why not. I think I can safely assume his answer would be "I don't know", as would most other people's. The holocaust has been brought up several times, obviously a very touchy/political issue. It is not, by any means, a stranger to the theme of this thread - political correctness.

The point I was going to make is simply this:

If one grows up in America (this I know for sure), and probably in Europe, I assume that as a youth one received an education about 6 million Jews that died during the Holocaust. The horrors of this event are spread out over many documentaries and even a few popular tear jerking films that were excellently done (Sophie's Choice/Schindler's List come to mind). You cannot escape living in America without being reminded of the Holocaust, and Hitler is often painted in political rhetoric as the most evil man in recent history, specifically because of the Holocaust. Generally, it
is Politically Correct to take this very view.

And why?

Not because 120-127 million Soviet citizens died. Or scores of people from other countries. These may be mentioned, but if so, it is rarely the focus of Western attention or righteous indignation.

Our local Frenchman, Gaspard, has mentioned it is actually illegal to express "denial/doubt" with regard to the Holocaust in his country (and I understand this is true for a number of European countries) I doubt such laws exist (anyone can correct me if I am wrong here) with regards to the number of Soviets who died during WW2.

Perhaps, on good evidence, the number of Soviet deaths was considerably less (I offer as a hypothetical, I know of no such evidence).

If that were true, would anyone care? I think the general response would be "oh, so it wasn't over 120 million, just 80 million. I guess they made a mistake based on this most recent evidence..."

Not so the Holocaust. Even though the number of deaths is officially but a fraction of this, it is political suicide to question even that (in the West, at least), even if the questioning/doubt is on good evidence.

 

[Gaspard]

Our local Frenchman, Gaspard, has mentioned it is actually illegal to express "denial/doubt" with regard to the Holocaust in his country (and I understand this is true for a number of European countries) I doubt such laws exist (anyone can correct me if I am wrong here) with regards to the number of Soviets who died during WW2.

Well, in rural France collaboration with the Nazis is a strong taboo. When I was young, I heard that an entire family (uncles, children, grand-parents, parents, etc) were killed because they collaborated with the Nazis. I wanted to know more. But the conversation stopped just after I asked for names. In rural areas, rumours about collaboration would be very harmful to the community: some descendents of these families still live there.

We don’t have the same history with the Soviet Union. No one is denying that many Russians died during WW2 or in the gulags. So in simple terms: anti-Semitism is still a threat to Europe; anti-Sovietism isn’t.

Denying that there were concentration camps is extremely offensive. A friend of mine who is a judge, after a trial, asked an attorney: “you defended rapists, paedophiles, murderers… Is there anybody you would not speak in favour of?” And the lawyer said: “yes, a holocaust denier."
(Keep in mind that everybody has the right to have an attorney.)

The far right wants to push the narrative that we care more about the Jews than other people who were killed by the Nazis: gypsies, homosexuals, anarchists, etc. Well I don’t buy that. I understand, Nekodaiden, that you feel some sort of universal revolt so you want to remind us that there are atrocities we don’t think much of. Sure… But be careful, people might think you want to minimize the gravity of the final solution. In relation to the subject of this thread, I understand that you’re not a “crypto-anti-Semite”: you want to express that censorship is arbitrarily distributed even in regard to the most horrible crimes. Well, it’s true, but as I said, there are good contemporary reasons for this.

I found this article about these laws against holocaust denial:

Legality of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, keep in mind, that we have laws against other genocide denials (Armenian genocide for example).

 

[Gaspard]

@ Gapard - GREAT POST

Thanks, mate.

 

[Bob Who]

Not because 120-127 million Soviet citizens died. Or scores of people from other countries. These may be mentioned, but if so, it is rarely the focus of Western attention or righteous indignation.

Where did you get that number? Does it include those injured, but survived? Relying on my memory (not the best of ideas these days) it exceeds the total estimate for world wide casualties(deaths) from WW2. I was thinking it was something like 30 million as a high guesstimate, close to 100 million for the entire planet.
I can't tell you my sources because it has been too many decades--too many bits and pieces taking up room in my memory.

Why didn't most of the people in the US care? I 'd guess, until the break up of the Soveit Union, they were considered the enemy, and looking at anything other than black & white terms, would mean one is disloyal?

I just did a quick google search, USSR: 27 million, world : 80 million deaths.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Where did you get that number? Does it include those injured, but survived? Relying on my memory (not the best of ideas these days) it exceeds the total estimate for world wide casualties(deaths) from WW2. I was thinking it was something like 30 million as a high guesstimate, close to 100 million for the entire planet.
I can't tell you my sources because it has been too many decades--too many bits and pieces taking up room in my memory.

Why didn't most of the people in the US care? I 'd guess, until the break up of the Soveit Union, they were considered the enemy, and looking at anything other than black & white terms, would mean one is disloyal?

I just did a quick google search, USSR: 27 million, world : 80 million deaths.

You are correct, the estimates (for the USSR are between 20-27 million), not 120-127mil as I stated. For some reason I misread the data and added a digit, consequence of late night posting, I suppose.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Denying that there were concentration camps is extremely offensive. A friend of mine who is a judge, after a trial, asked an attorney: “you defended rapists, paedophiles, murderers… Is there anybody you would not speak in favour of?” And the lawyer said: “yes, a holocaust denier."
(Keep in mind that everybody has the right to have an attorney.)

I am no expert either on the Holocaust or in so called "Holocaust Denial", however I have come to the conclusion that the latter term is a misnomer that is frequently used as a political slur. To be sure, there are persons who might deny the whole thing for reasons of blind hatred, however I am not referring to those people.

Most of the information I find more intriguing is from the Revisionists, who look at the evidence(s) as a whole, ask questions, and see where things stack - on the basis of intellectual honesty, not hatred. None of the respected ones I've come across deny the existence of concentration camps. This would be folly for a historian. We have public statements/threats by Nazis that people were sent there, and not just Jews. However, other parts of the official associated narrative are questioned especially where the evidence *doesn't* stack up, or in some particulars is even shown to be either faulty or outright fabricated.

 

[Hog]

@ Indian Summer

I fear that you are correct. This thread is drifting off-topic. I am probably the most at fault here.

Here is my original thought before I forget entirely what I meant. I would have become vegan much earlier if I only had the information that I do today. Veganism makes sense on every possible level. But, I did not know that. I wish an informed vegan had spoken to me about his or her lifestyle. I might have needed a few years to let the message sink in. I fear that I knew many closet vegans who were too afraid to speak out. Thus, we have the tyranny of political correctness. I can be a jerk. I get that. Still, I probably would have listened to a well-informed vegan.

Unfortunately, the only semi-vegan that I knew was ignorant. She had too many inconsistencies in her arguments.

We have numerous social norms throughout the world that are not polite to criticize. For example, if I was a North Korean, I would be afraid to criticize that little rocket man. Yet, an open honest discussion about the guy's competence as a national leader should be discussed.

Actually, my original thought was only half a thought. I did not quite get it until I received the responses on this forum to my original post.

=====

Where would I be today without PeTA and Vegan Forum?

 

[Gaspard]

This thread is drifting off-topic.

Perhaps.

Here is my original thought before I forget entirely what I meant. I would have become vegan much earlier if I only had the information that I do today. Veganism makes sense on every possible level. But, I did not know that. I wish an informed vegan had spoken to me about his or her lifestyle. I might have needed a few years to let the message sink in. I fear that I knew many closet vegans who were too afraid to speak out. Thus, we have the tyranny of political correctness. I can be a jerk. I get that. Still, I probably would have listened to a well-informed vegan.

I must say, I don't speak much about veganism with my friends and relatives. It is far easier to educate people in the streets than to express a vegan opinion in our everyday life. No one is a prophet in one's own country. So I prefer not to speak too much about veganism around me. I don’t want to upset people. But I was more vocal when I advocated for veganism with Anonymous For The Voiceless.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

That is actually one of my favourite examples.

Regardless of how often some (I assume well-meaning) white activists get told that they should probably refrain from using the holocaust as comparison to animal agriculture, because

a) it is factually incorrect (farmers do not want to eradicate animals from the face of the earth, they "just" want to earn money),
b) most "normal" people would consider it quite offensive, and especially people who have lost family to the Nazi terror will likely consider it especially offensive,
c) there is quite a difference if a holocaust survivor himself uses this comparison than to average Joe using it (just compare that to an African American using the n-word as opposed to a white person using it),
and d) there are so many other good comparisons out there that are not offensive that could be used instead,
they will insist they have the right to use it and everybody who is offended is just an evil speciesist. Sigh.

No vegan in Germany would nowadays use that comparison, unless they are bona-fide racists (yes, we do have those).

But try to explain that to some white American vegans....

i do not agree only racist germans would describe animals slaughtered in their trillions as a holocaust.

the meaning of the word HOLOCAUST means mass murder.

to associate it only with extermination of jews as you did is therefore incorrect. it could be any killing in mass numbers as a sacrifice to god is what the term origins are from. animals are sacrifices...but clearly the sacrifice element is also no longer very valid as the humans sacrified in the attempted genocide of jews were not really except in the mind of hitler maybe an act of sacrifice to a god.

Many in Israel are vegan and use the term holocaust for non human animals...due to them seeing the similarity in the issue.using humans as slave labour or for experiments...killing masses of them....the species is irrelevant it is abuse.

UN definition. The term was coined in 1943 by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who combined the Greek word "genos" (race or tribe) GENOCIDE is the word for extermination of a human tribe or race not holocaust. the end goal of a holocaust does not necessarily entail the destruction of the entire race or species only some of them.

 

[Gaspard]

i do not agree only racist germans would describe animals slaughtered in their trillions as a holocaust.

the meaning of the word HOLOCAUST means mass murder.

to associate it only with extermination of jews as you did is therefore incorrect. it could be any killing in mass numbers as a sacrifice to god is what the term origins are from. animals are sacrifices...but clearly the sacrifice element is also no longer very valid as the humans sacrified in the attempted genocide of jews were not really except in the mind of hitler maybe an act of sacrifice to a god.

Many in Israel are vegan and use the term holocaust for non human animals...due to them seeing the similarity in the issue.using humans as slave labour or for experiments...killing masses of them....the species is irrelevant it is abuse.

UN definition. The term was coined in 1943 by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who combined the Greek word "genos" (race or tribe) GENOCIDE is the word for extermination of a human tribe or race not holocaust. the end goal of a holocaust does not necessarily entail the destruction of the entire race or species only some of them.

The Shoa is compared to the Animal Holocaust by a Death Camp survivor Alex Hershaft:

What you said about the term "Holocaust" is right. However in English you can refer to the Shoah as "The Holocaust" not "A Holocaust".
The Holocaust - Wikipedia
And there are good reasons why vegans say the Shoah is comparable to animal exploitation.

 

[Andy_T]

The Shoa is compared to the Animal Holocaust by a Death Camp survivor Alex Hershaft:

Indeed, and he is one of the few (Isaac Bashevis Singer and Primo Levi also come to my mind) who can legitimately make that comparison.

Which was the point I made earlier.

c) there is quite a difference if a holocaust survivor himself uses this comparison than to average Joe using it (just compare that to an African American using the n-word as opposed to a white person using it),

But, I guess, this is, in priciple, the explanation of the "THIS IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" concept in a nutshell.

Person A (from minority background): "Please stop using that word / making that comparison. It is disrespectful for me"
Person B (helpful person): "Oh, I did not know that. OK, I will try not to use that again."
Person C (mainstream person): "No way! I don't feel that this is disrespectful at all! Suck it up, *** (enter preferred pejorative term) !"