According to a neo-Marxist worldview, society is stratified into subgroups with varying degrees of social and political power, and the relationships among these groups can be broadly characterized as a dynamic of "oppressors" and "oppressed". Thus, to participate in social structures associated with this stratification, in the progressive gloss, is to perpetuate power imbalances, and thus - to varying degrees - to engage in a form of oppression. This is the basis for the leftist rejection of vocabulary deemed "politically incorrect": using language that actively or passively perpetuates these social structures constitutes a microcosmic instantiation of oppression.
Of course, those who reject the neo-Marxist framework have good reason to reject the notion that "politically incorrect" language is inherently oppressive. Many, reacting to the perceived overreach of leftists, scale up the use of such language in order to make ideological statements. However, in the process the boundary between what is merely "incorrect" and what is crude has been all but erased. While conservatives are justified in denying that "politically incorrect" language is oppressive, the reactionary amplification of the crude can be criticized on several levels.
1) Crude language is not conducive to the pursuit of beauty. In fact, it is inherently contrary to the traditional esteem for "the good, the true, and the beautiful". Speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos argue under the pretense of cherishing virtue, while simultaneously glorifying ugliness in their rhetoric. Pop "anti-SJW" polemics, which rely heavily on slurs, curses, and sexualized language, are a far cry from the eloquence and restraint of past generations of Western thinkers.
2) Crude language is not conducive to sound logic. Instead, it functions as a crutch by those who are either unable or unwilling to take the time to formulate their opinions in a coherent, rational presentation. Sometimes, this unwillingness comes from the perception that the other side is equally unwilling to engage in a rational discussion. However, logic is important not only for discussions with other parties but for the formulation of ideas within a community as well. When an entire community prefers to settle for crude epithets rather than reasonable discourse, this is inherently harmful to the group's intellectual stability.
3) Crude language is not conducive to effective rhetoric. In deliberation - whether it is a formal setting involving two opponents, or just an individual evaluating multiple perspectives - the ability to approach the arguments of the other side fairly and earnestly is absolutely essential. However, the use of crude language creates emotional distance between the speaker and his opponent, making it much more difficult to engage with opposing worldviews without bias.
4) Crude language contributes to the degrading of societal values and standards. Daily, our culture becomes more vulgar, more divided, more sexualized, and less focused on the pursuit of virtue. For one who values virtue to engage in unfiltered crude language is either a paradox, or a sign that the speaker does not truly value virtue.
Of course, there is a place for vulgarity. Yet as the vulgar becomes increasingly intertwined with our politics, our rhetoric, and our lifestyles, it is important to step back and evaluate how the language we use is shaping our humanity.
OP - https://8ch.net/pol/res/13242731.html
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 18473227? ago
This is a good comparison for imageboards vs real life. Here is politically incorrect, but run around on the streets screaming "ITS THE FUCKING JEWS YOU FAGS" and see who is open to your ideas. Compare that to well placed comments on the double standards of jewish supremacists. Real life is different. But yeah, keep /pol/ incorrect.
[–] 18473229? ago
>>13242796
It's funny because the left spent years screeching in the streets and, over time, used this brute force method so consistently for so long that eventually normal people adopted their worldview into their own implicit biases due to the sheer repetition of it (i.e. diversity is our strength, there is nothing wrong with two people being in love, etc.) Being crude and politically incorrect out in public works, even if you are seen as a sperg, once people have heard it from you it desensitizes them to the next time they hear it and so on, until it becomes very normal. This is how the overton window shifts.
The whole reason cuckservatives exist is to allow the left to walk all over them in the public sphere, by saying the most outrageous things on TV and in newspapers, practically gushing over white genocide and child mutilation, all while cuckservatives calm their supporters down behind the scenes, quietly assuring them that they are fighting against this oppression while letting the left wing narrative dominate the airwaves publicly.
Brute force works. Bullying works. Being crude in public works. Also subtle behind the scenes activities work. We should be using all the tools we have to our advantage, both public and private infiltration, agitation, etc. A combination of both tactics work.
[–] 18473252? ago
This does make me think and change my mind. >>13242920 is conflicting as well. Maybe we need a Mr. Roger that calmly and politely talks about jewish disgust of nonjews and how they use media in an effort to destroy western civilization. I don't know how you combine real life politically correct with beauty, respect, and virtue.
[–] 18473230? ago
But utilitarian pragmatism does not reconcile well with traditional conservatism. It doesn't matter that these tactics "work": they are inherently contradictory to beauty, logic, and virtue. What is being conveyed is not a proper, respectable worldview, but a banal corruption. The ends do not justify the means, in other words.