Tuesday, September 19, 2017

It's so PC it's killing me

From Reuters-Ipsos, a poll on the following:


The subsequent graph shows, by selected demographics, the percentages who agree. "Neither agree nor disagree" responses, which 17.6% of those sampled answered with, are excluded (n = 4,670):


Notice the y-axis begins at 50%. That's because even among gays, the group expressing the least concern about political correctness, a slim majority view it as a threat to liberty. This is great news.

Tempering it a bit is the realization that the public is, in general, 'better' on the abstracts than on the specifics. We say we want fewer wars of choice and less policing of the world, but ask about whether or not bombing Syria is a good thing and everyone is on board. We want less political correctness, but discussions about group differences in behavioral traits? Man, the air sure got thick in here. At least the tops of my shoes are fascinating!

Clever sillies are at work here.

Trump voters are even more anti-PC than Republicans in general, while Clinton voters are less so than Democrats in general. Self-identified Democrats who voted for Trump come in at 79.8% while self-identified cucks Republicans who voted for Clinton do so at 71.4%.

Heartiste, the world's most astute observer of human nature, offered counsel the other day that is of particular relevance to the subject at hand:
Alt-Righters should be hitting this free speech angle HARD. Every rally should feature the defense of free speech and assembly as its unifying theme, because free speech permits the expression and exposure of every other theme that energizes the pro-White counterculture. Freedom to express ideas without getting fired or purged or blacklisted means that there’s a chance those ideas percolate into mass consciousness and the needle moves away from the Lies and Ugliness of Equalism and toward Truth and Beauty.

Free speech is the first right enunciated in the Bill of Rights for a reason. Without it, all other rights are effectively voided. Given its importance to a republic, the default defense of free speech should always err on the side of absolutism.

Codified free speech is uniquely American. It’s what sets us apart from the rest of the benighted world, and from our ancestral homelands in Europe. It’s why when we’re kids learning about the Bill of Rights, we feel pride in our 1A heritage. It’s as American as apple pie and imported chinese junk. The Wild-Right needs to own free speech and assembly, and hang the smelly albatross of speech criminalization on the Leftoid Fuggernaut. Champion 1A, and the rest of your revolutionary pro-White agenda starts to look more A-1 to normies.
Pair that salient support for free speech with opposition to political correctness. These terms, like "amnesty", are among the precious few we have at our disposal that send shitlibs scurrying away in fear. They're our "nazi" and our "white supremacist".

32 comments:

Stephen Vidas said...

The survey says nothing about whether the respondents support or oppose it. Many people WANT peoples' liberty to speak their minds to be suppressed, lest someone gets offended. Hopefully this is a relatively small portion, but I'm not so sure it's trivial..

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The issue with this is not that most people would be against free speech but that seemingly small but powerful groups of radical leftists are the ones setting the tone...with the rest of the public doing nothing about it. Everyone groans about watching the video about sexual harassment that the HR catlady plays at your corporate office but nobody in the audience is going to say that it's a bunch of crap lest they put their job on the line. Everyone rolls their eyes when Faceberg announces they're hiring 5000 people to track down "hate speech" which means anyone who doesn't agree with the left's outrage du jour.

That is the real issue: not that people don't support it but that it doesn't seem to matter if 70-90% of the country is against it, it continues to further restrict what people can say or think, even in their private time.

Feryl said...

People were much more hostile to fags prior to PC fully settling in around 1993 (maybe '92). Fags have indeed been the biggest winners over the last 25 years. Saying that AIDS was nature's (or God's) retribution against buggery was quite common in the 80's and the first couple of years in the 90's. That's why Obama was hesitant to support gay marriage into the mid 2000's; Boomers who came of age in the 60's-80's are late arrivals to the pro-fag party which predominately is thrown by people who were children in the 80's and beyond, who feel embarrassed by how anti-gay the culture used to be and usually consider it a cruel dinosaur Boomer mentality. It's not unlike how vociferously pro-black most Boomers are, since they were kids in the 50's and 60's when they saw fire hoses being used on black protestors. They think that a distaste for black people is an unwholesome and dated attitude that should die with the GIs.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of speech is not freedom from social consequences. It's freedom from legal consequences, but private individuals and corporations in society can do as they please.

You can say what you want. Your employer should be able to hire and fire anyone at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. If you say that you believe in freedom of speech but not freedom of association you don't believe in freedom at all.

Let's be honest: 99% of the alt-right/wn/white supremacist side only believes in free speech for their own ideas. Many of Heartiste's commentors would, if given the power, legally shut down leftist speech by capital punishment or by incarceration. In this way they might be even worse than the political left, most of whom only believe in social ostracization by private individuals/companies.

Philippe le Bel said...

At least, the right-wing way would be more frankly

dc.sunsets said...

@ Anonymous, has not something profound changed when you are likely to lose your job simply for (h/t to Sailer) noticing something? (Example: vastly disproportionate black violent crime rates.)

Isn't there something profound here when statistical facts (e.g., SAT scores disaggregated by race) are considered basically Malum Prohibidum? How are people to render intelligent thoughts about subjects when pertinent FACTS are censored mercilessly?

How many Jane Does would jump up and down on the Climate Change bandwagon if it were widely reported that the "climate record" has been systematically massaged by (far from disinterested) researchers, like pharma scientists massaging the raw data from clinical trials?

Progressivism explicitly sought to seize the levers of Political Power to stamp out sin and bring society closer to Heaven on Earth. This gave rise to the "All that's personal is political" narrative, the idea that there are NO SPACES AVAILABLE for people to harbor differences from the Officially Endorsed Opinion. What were once matters of conscience are now fodder for fiat legislation.

When our lives are controlled down to the level of how much water a flush toilet is legally allowed to use, you know that we exist in the Era of The Total State, where no aspect of life is too minute to escape the notice of the People Controllers.

Free speech, a direct outgrowth of freedom of OPINION, is thus the last bulwark before we get to the idea that All Men/Women/Children who harbor Unapproved Thoughts must be exterminated, and since no one can know for certain the mind of another, the end state of this is to leave but one human being, the most leftist zealot of all, alone...with her (it's likely to be a woman) having murdered every other living person.

Sticks and stones.

Issac said...

@Anon

You're half right, of course. The alt-right has no long-term interest in canonical free speech any more than the progressive left did. That said, your protection from the private consequences of your speech does exist and it comes from protected class status, a function of the hard-won political weapons you euphemistically call "civil rights." Right which were never extended to the white working classes and indeed, worked to suppress them. What do you think will come of this, I wonder?

Anonymous said...

Having the baseline of a histogram start at 50% misleads people. Just start it from zero.

Dan said...

I am reading about John Kelly and it is really pissing me off. What an arrogant turd. It seems like he works to 'control' Trump and limit his exposure to nationalist sources. Meanwhile, he doesn't seem like a Trump supporter. It seems to be working to some extent. Trump was snowed into that meeting with Schumer and Pelosi. Trump shouldn't be working to elect Strange in Al. It goes against his own goals.

Very frustrating to see neverTrumpers partially co-op Trump.

Audacious Epigone said...

Stephen Vidas,

It's a potential problem with all self-reported surveys, but it breaks the way we'd expect it to. If responses were primarily in positive affirmation, we'd expect to see the categories inverted, especially the political and racial ones.

Random Dude,

All true. But it's still a good point to push back from. Power disparities aren't going away, but they can be converted or captured. Trump's hostile takeover of the presidency is a salient example, but we can get glimpses of what it could be like when Bill Gates talks about overpopulation in sub-Saharan Africa.

For the rest of us who are of more modest means, we're cultural insurgents and we need to think of ourselves as such. One of my employees went to AmRen this year. I have two others who are regular Heartiste readers. It was a gradual process and I had to be careful about it, but there are things like this that we can do to 'win hearts and minds'.

The big advantage we have is that, until they start putting us up against the wall and shooting us, there is no vomiting up the red pill once it's been taken. The worst that happens is they destroy your family and professional lives. Hell to go through, I'm sure, but it only makes the sufferers double down because they no longer have anything to lose.

Feryl,

Well put. Blacks are sacred objects for white boomers; gays are sacred objects for white millennials.

Anon,

Fortunately, humans are adaptable. If it turns out that the (at the moment entirely) hypothetical threat The Comments would pose to individual liberties, we can address that when it gets somewhere within a million miles of going through the formality of existing. In the meantime, the threat comes from what Heartiste calls the "globohomo elite" and their useful idiots like Antifa, BLM, or the shrike a couple posts back.

As for the distinction between public and private, it is increasingly blurred. Big Business and Big Government are on the same side when it comes to freedom of speech. The C'Ville rally is a perfect example--for no reason at all, UtR's permit was revoked less than an hour before their rally was scheduled to begin, and Antifa was allowed into a park they had no permit to gather in.

Issac,

Picking nits, the Alt Right is not uniformly fascist, not be a long shot. There are definitely elements of the Alt Right that would silence their opposition--if not throw them out of helicopters--but most would not.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Fair, though that's why I explicitly pointed out. Used the artistic license so that the distinctions are more visible.

Dan,

Yes it is. Saw a poll the other day showing that Moore's supporters were more pro-Trump than Strange's. The negotiator-in-chief needs to realize that his will be 4-8 years at war. Many of the senators have daggers in their cloaks, and most are sympathetic to those who do.

Umusus said...

@Anon:

Freedom of Association was destroyed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Outlawing "discrimination" is fundamentally at odds with the Freedom of Association, yet we have a vast legal infrastructure dedicated to destroying any male-only or white-only institutions. I fully agree, in principle, with the idea that businesses should be able to serve who they want, employ who they want, and no one can tell them otherwise.

In the real world, we've had the better part of a century of legalized discrimination against white males and dismantling of the society that our forefathers built. Discrimination and bias is so ingrained into the system that it's idiotic and self-destructive to push for Freedom of Association in this way. First we'd have to dismantle the entire parasitical industry of Human Resources departments.

In general the internet blurs the lines between public and private to an extent that any argument that "a company" should have the right to control the internet strikes me as disingenuous. Internet service and sites like Facebook, Google, YouTube, Reddit, are no longer private entities but public commons and utilities. While it's probable that the suppression of free speech will eventually be defeated through decentralization, we have to face reality once again that letting principles override the situation on the ground (all major media sources are controlled by leftist / deep-state propaganda) will be catastrophic.

Anonymous said...

@dc sunsets

Nobody is stopping you from starting your own company, where you can prefer to hire people who have the same political views as you. No one is preventing you from applying to companies owned by alt-right/wn types.

@umusus

1. Forcing private companies to get rid of their HR departments
2. Freedom of Association

Pick one.

Your very last paragraph is full-socialist. As much as I hate fascism, the alt-right, WNs, MRAs, etc, I also harbor a lot of hatred for extreme leftists, extreme feminists, extreme socialists, and reverse racists. Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Reddit are private corporations. You don't have a right to use them just as much as you shouldn't have the right to government handouts. If you're in my house and you say anything too far-right or far-left, I have the right to kick you out. No one is stopping you from starting your own social media company or joining an alt-right social site.

chris said...

Great article on why big tech corporations need to be regulated with respect to their SJWism.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/pc-corporate-culture-is-a-plague-that-government-helps-spread/article/2009393

"Google executives acted as they did, at least in part, because they feared legally imposed consequences. The government created conditions that encourage private companies to restrict speech among their employees and declare some ideas to not “even have basic legitimacy.” The government should fix the problem that it created. If it can implement protections based on race and gender and religion, it can institute protections for free expression."

dc.sunsets said...

Anonymous, you must not live in the USA.

Anyone who explicitly had a political test in hiring would be sued out of existence in a day. Anyone who acted on this quietly had best not attain any size, because the EEOC would notice quickly the lack of (ahem) non-Asian minorities hired and (see the first effect above.)

Very small firms can behave as mice in a room full of cats. But your suggestion is naive to the say the least. Not that it matters. I'm semi-retired and am unlikely to have to sit through any more Struggle Sessions (AKA "diversity training" at a major corporation.)

Anonymous said...

@dc sunsets

boo-hoo. You don't like diversity training at major corporations? Start your own company or work for a small company. Last time I checked, private companies with less than 10 employees don't have to live by the EEOC stuff. They can hire whatever race, gender, nationality, whatever. They don't have to do the diversity training.

The last two companies I worked at were both small companies. I don't see why other people can't go the small company route.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Yes, the EEOC is stopping dc.sunsets--or potentially doing so, hanging a sword of Damocles in the air--from doing that.

We have court rulings mandating private bakers make cakes for homosexuals.

The big lenders who played ball with the federal government on lending to high risk borrowers were bailed out.

Sarbanes-Oxley, the ACA, and all these other major pieces of legislation are drafted with enormous input from cooperative corporations who in the course of that crafting work to strangle any potential competition.

That said, alt-tech is a great cause. We have Brave as a browser option, Infogalactic as an encyclopedia option, Gab.ai as a social media option, Duck Duck Go as a search option, etc.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Redundancy on my part wrt to what sunsets said, just read through the rest of the thread.

No one is competing with Facebook or Twitter with a total staff in the single digits.

Feryl said...

"Yes it is. Saw a poll the other day showing that Moore's supporters were more pro-Trump than Strange's. The negotiator-in-chief needs to realize that his will be 4-8 years at war. Many of the senators have daggers in their cloaks, and most are sympathetic to those who do."

Strange hasn't been overtly and vehemently anti-Trump, nor does he have a hapless track record like Paul Ryan. Trump has mild permission to make fun of Jeb Bush, Jeff Flake, even Paul Ryan. Anyone who's frequently hated on and obstructed Trump. Trump's babysitters still have a tight enough leash that Trump just isn't allowed to openly support every single New Right friendly candidate. And if Trump's TV habits and phone calls are being monitored, it's safe to say that some of Trump's tweets are just not legit at this point (trust me, within the last 3-4 months he got The Talk about needing to be more "strategic" with his tweets). One of the obvious dangers about "corporate" tweets is that Trump then has to make his actual tweets consistent with what cuck inc. did on his account.

4D chess time: Trump is buying leniency and time by doing ostensibly mainstream (cuck-friendly) posturing, like meeting with Schumer or tweeting support to cucks. He may be deliberately provoking hostile reactions to his own behavior, which then "splash" onto cucks by actually provoking a greater backlash to said cucks. For example, Pelosi got bitched off the mic by mestizos angry that she met with Drumpf, while Trump's own base flooded the GOP infrastructure with indignant cries of betrayal.

Of course, there's always the possibility that Trump is just doing whatever he can to save his own neck, and anything good that results for us is a happy accident. I do know one thing: nobody's perfect, or omniscient, or entirely neutral. For a while I pegged Cernovich as my go-to source on all thing's Trump, but even he got carried away by bitterness regarding too many of his co-ideologues being evicted from the Trump White House. I still think that Cernovich's reporting is quite legit, it's just that his grasp of what the news may or may not mean might not be as firm as I once thought. I also can say that I'm drifting ever so slightly away from compusively reading the tweets of Trump/Cernovich/Coulter et al. The last several months of doom warnings are wearing me out, and right now, until Trump puts an approving pen to a bad DACA deal and/or sends lots of boots to yet another far away nation, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I've noticed that Sailer hasn't changed much, and I'd think it's because he has had a front row seat in a state that got fubard 30 years ago, which is an awful lot of time to go through the grieving process.

Feryl said...

We do have to understand that we can't understand everything, not immediately and maybe not forever. And what is politics if not posturing? At this point I'm sure that at least some things (like the DACA meeting) are designed to craft a particular set of events that will be at least somewhat beneficial to Trump. In fairness to Trump, he and his people wanted to just blow a lot up, but cucks wouldn't let it happen. They find judges who'll do anything to stop Trump, they'll dawdle on many of his nominations, particularly as they pertain to military/intelligence, and so on. We can never forget (as people like Coulter apparantly have) that should Trump begin to lay waste to the establishment, both sides can and will unite to impeach him. End of story. They tried to turn the public on Trump via Russia and muh David Duke, but neither narrative moved Trump's base. The only concievable impeachment scenario at this point would be the result of Trump becoming so aggressively defiant that both parties have no way to be saved other than impeaching him.

It's pretty stunning that even to this day, people like Coulter seem to think that political authority and power is derived from the people. No it ain't. It's derived from the Pentagon, major corporations, and the like. The only way to get a full change is to get better leaders in these power centers. No man can do it on his own; if Trump couldn't, then who could?

Feryl said...

Agnostic talks about leverage, how Trump marched in with nothing to hold over cucks and traitors. I'm not so sure about that; it seems to me that change is a team effort, and virtually all Western leaders at this point are totally on board with globalism and endless war. Consider that the leader of the free world, the dominant nation of the last 70 years, just can't snap his fingers and get these bozos to knock off the brain dead idealism which oh by the way coincides with elites making gobs of money and patting each other on the back, not for what they did for the masses but for what they did for themselves. Follow the money, as they started to say in the 70's, when people started to turn their backs on the commons.

It does look like The People are going to have to use the noose and the guillotine to send a message. Look at what happened to Pelosi; in a crowd of 30 something or older conservative whites, she'd do just fine. But even liberal Millennials are sick and god damned tired of the damnable fools who wax poetic about The Sixties, oblivious to the fact that they were beneficiaries of a unique time in which America was young, on the rise, and committed to selfless team-work. That all came crashing down in the 70's; they didn't all necessarily take us down but they sure as hell haven't brought us back up, either.

Umusus said...

@Anonymous (Leftist) :
"Your very last paragraph is full-socialist."

You aren't fooling anyone with the concern trolling over the poor benighted corporations not having the freedom of association to fire all the white, heterosexual males. We haven't had anything approaching Freedom of Association for a long time, and it's funny to see mega corporations like Facebook & Google chafing at having ANY non-SJW perspectives amongst their ranks.

Call it socialist, but the internet is the public commons of the 21st century. We will either safeguard its usage for American values, or surrender the future & become truly balkanized by the forces of leftist tyranny.

Feryl said...

Trump has been a stressor for around 30-40% of the population; one would expect perhaps a slight bump in mortality. When will some of these people just drop dead, perhaps from the toll exacted by desperately wanting, and expecting, that any day Trump will be brought down. Therapists in elite circles say that they're seeing more distress since Trump's election. Entitlement. They can't let anything go, they have to get their way. We're just less than one year into Trump's run; at what point do they concede? Quite a few liberals simply do not acknowledge some of the good things Reagan did, 30+years later. Will people start to play more fair, again, at some point down the road?

Virtue signalling-wise, it's clear that many liberals simply do not respect any sign of decreased mania in other liberals. They've got to be swarming, shouting, questioning, etc. at all times. Not just to Trumpites, but to disloyal liberals, too. Similar to how liberal mania burnt itself out by about 1974, it's possible that the hysteria that mounted in Obama's second term and continued thru the present will eventually be spent by, oh, 2020ish. Sixties hysteria lasted from about 1965 through 1974.

Audacious Epigone said...

I've noticed that Sailer hasn't changed much

With regards to DACAmnesty, it's probably because he's been here before. He was there in 2006, 2012, 2013. In all of these cases, congress and the white house were on the same page, eagerly supporting amnesty. The public response was so uniformly hostile, though, that they dropped it in all three instances.

You're right not to panic until pen is put to paper. I've thought from the beginning the odds are better than not that no DACAmnesty occurs.

That still means the slow demographic transition continues, but the floodgates won't be reopened, at least not this time around.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I remain confident DACA doesn't go anywhere because Eric Cantor's surprise defeat is still fresh in the minds of the thoroughly entrenched Republican Congresspeople and Senators. As much as they want to pass DACA or even just flat out open borders, they still have to face their electorate every 2-6 years. That's enough to scare enough of them away to prevent DACA from becoming law.

Feryl said...

Amnesty has taken on greater urgency to us, since Trump repudiated it so heavily for several years, and also because in Obama's second term and thereafter, the Left has begun to openly gloat about the imminent demise of trad. white America. The cultural Marxists inadvertently ignited a different kind of Right, while neglecting the economic goals of the trad. Left. which Millennials will eventually demand to an even greater degree, and the over 45 DLC crowd will wither away from attrition and from alienating younger people. 2015-2016 opened a class schism on the Right; the Left's schism was much more generational. Allegedly, Trumpian ideology will lose relevance due to aging whites, yet the same liberals who claim this usually fail to mention that the DLC Left school which produced Gore, Clinton, Obama, Cory Booker et al is a hopeless relic of the 80's and 90's that people born during the Ford-Carter era and thereafter have no interest in. Right now, Sanders and to some degree Warren are outliers to 80's-2000's Dem ideology, and that's exactly why they've never been celebrated by taste and king-makers. They'll be dust by the time their ideology is fully embraced by the Dems.

Trying to defuse us with the "racist" label doesn't work so well anymore, since the negative effects of diversity are now so apparent (terrorism, riots, never ending whining about oppression, etc.). Not to mention that the double standards of Leftist identity politics are now flagrantly obvious. POC are entitled to do and have whatever they want, while whites are supposed to idly stand by or even spiritually and demographically self-immolate.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

You and dc sound just like leftists when you whine about how the media is controlled by people you disagree with, and that your point of view "deserves" social media companies that are just as big as those on the other side. When I read alt-right/wn/stormfront comments, they increasingly echo feminists when they whine about white women not having "enough representation" in certain professions or video games. If Anita Sarkeesian wants more white female characters in video games she should create her own! No one is stopping her! <--- I have said this at least 100 times to the liberals and feminists and they don't listen to me. Now I have to say it to you. Or when black people whine about there not being "enough" black-owned businesses. Those blacks need to start their own business or shut the hell up.

Nobody "deserves" anything. Dc doesn't deserve to have millions or billions of customers if he decides to start a social media website.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The censoring is coming in part from governments, the EU in particular with regards to Twitter. There are no first amendment protections there, and US tech companies have been hit with multi-million dollar fines for not complying with EU regulations, regulations that are far stricter on speech than US regulations are. Unless these tech companies refuse to make content from the US viewable in Germany and vice versa, they are compelled to comply with the strictest government's regulations.

The alt right should ape the tactics of feminists and racial agitators. Almost nobody shares the positions of those two groups and yet they get a lot of what they want. It's about interests, not principles.

Anonymous said...

Suck it in suck it in suck it in if you're rin tin tin or anne boleyn

Anonymous said...

@audacious

It is not my or your right to tell other sovereign nations governments what to do. China censors stuff. Russia censors stuff. Cuba sensors stuff. It's no surprise that the EU also censors stuff. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of association IN THE UNITED STATES. What the EU or North Korea or Turkey is doing is none of my business (unless they are trying to bomb the US).

You wouldn't want foreigners telling Americans how to live and how to run our own country, so it's nonsensical of you to tell the EU how they can or cannot write their own laws.

If you ape the tactics of white feminists and black people then my opinion of you as the same as my opinion of white feminists and black people.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Run Around is another Popper top 40 song that sniffed out early what would grow into an ever greater problem in the future. A couple decades later and it's more relevant than ever.

Anon,

But you also argue that it's not our job to tell our own sovereign nation's government what to do. Tiresome.

Re: your opinion of me, see #12.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

If you don't care about the freedom of speech on the internet, then you don't care about freedom of speech whatsoever. Freedom of Speech isn't a natural law which somehow prevails in America (and nowhere else) without vigorous protection.