Fanatics cannot accept coexistence of ideas. Regardless of the subject mattter, social science, hard science, public policy making, political correctness intimidation has changed the language, even censored those who would disagree with the state or elite promoted canon.
Andrew McCarthy writes of political censorship.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367132/coercing-conformity-andrew-c-mccarthy
Mr. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor says:
“Free speech cannot work if the government it is designed to restrain does not respect it. A lawful American government — one that takes seriously its sworn obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution — would not only enforce the First Amendment; it would refrain from engaging in unconstitutional schemes in the first place.”
Roger Kimball, noted writer and cultural observer, essayist and editor of The New Criterion, speaks to the problem we have at JunkScienc.com with the new intolerance of dissent, that is displayed on any number of fronts–political, cultural, social and scientific. Most frustrating is that the intolerance and acrimony is energized and promoted by those who claim to be tolerant. They are so tolerant that they are intolerant of what they judge to be intolerance, which translates into they will not tolerate dissent or disagreement because they know, THEY ARE RIGHT. The others are wrong, not only wrong, but intolerant and evil, deserving of action to silence them and coerce them into renouncing their intolerance, their political incorrectness.
So there you have it, tolerance and arrogance spawns intolerance and narrow mindedness of members of a mass movement who ignore or disregard evidence or facts that are not consistent with their canon of beliefs. If you think they don’t agree on their beliefs, understand they don’t have to caucus to know what to say or how to think. They are in touch with their priest class and know even the latest version of the canon if they are serious members.
Kimball says:
“One of the most under reported domestic stories of 2013 was the eclipse of tolerance as a prime liberal virtue and its enrollment in the index of unpermissible (sic) reactionary vices.”
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2013/12/30/the-eclipse-of-tolerance/
Dunn says–Eric Hoffer explains it best. Ideologues are attracted to mass movement ideology because of their insecurities and the need to be part of something big and good, and social. The result of that attraction to an ideology is loss of independence, and rationality, that results in tunnel vision, hatred of the other or any opposition or dissent, and the willful suppression of any other point of view, other than the adopted one.
Liberalism is tolerance, but “tolerance” as practiced by modern day leftists, is statist and totalitarian, not tolerant at all.
Which leaves us in a bind accept the way words and concept are defined by the ideologues and suffer the consequences.
Alinsky and the left have the methods and strategies down–how to isolate and neutralize any opposition. Of course it always for our good and the goal of utopian projects that promote “social justice.”
Essential to the new politically correct environment is a commitment from the press to a political position and to promoting a point of view.
The new book by Jim Kuypers Partisan Journalism certainly gave me a cold shower on how our society could become so intolerant of dissent and difference of opinion in the last 50 years. James Pierson, author of Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism offers another compelling narrative that focuses on how the Liberal/left movement became anti American and turned from optimist to pessimist in the 60s.
I do believe the growth in influence of the post modernist Frankfurt view of politics coincidentally came with the 60s and the boomers. And the antagonism and pessimism was triggered by the growth of a kind of political adolescent rebellion along with the promotion of a false narrative about conservative Dallas killed Kennedy–not a fanatic commie.
In any event, much of this political correctness/intolerance is found in scientific inquiry that touches on public policy making.
As Joseph Schumpeter said, and he wasn’t the only one who had the same sentiments–the first casualty of ideology is the truth.
We at JunkScience would agree that politically motivated scientific inquiry goes off the rails in search of the outcome best suited to a political agenda and objective inquiry get’s trashed.
James
“The left implements speech and mind control because they know they cannot persuade on the issues;, silencing the opposition becomes their only recourse.” Tammy Bruce
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns; why should we let them have ideas?” Joseph Stalin
Good point, he who controls the language and the political correctness canon controls the debate and the outcomes.
Very on the money–social sciences are so contaminated by outcome and tunnel vision bias, and the epidemiologists are frequently involved in social sciences studies where politically correct outcomes are the goal of the data dredging.
“Social Sciences” is an Oxymoron.
It attempts to validate itself as science by clasifying agregated anecdote as ~fact~ by applying pseudoscientific mathematical mumbo jumbo and giving the public the perception that the rule of thumb actions, based on intuition and experience – not quantifiable and repeatable measurement, that it applies in order to deal with the various social and mental infirmities of the human race may be applied with the same assurance of success as a chemical formula and specific laboratory proceedure.
The “Liberal/left” is neither “Liberal” nor “Left.”
Using their terminology just sucks you into their game.
More precisely, our opponents are Politically Correct Progressives.
The terminology is precise. “Political Correctness” is a belief system based on the fundamental tenet: “America is a racist, sexist, foreigner-hating, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole. And it must be changed.”
That is what our opponents believe. In short, PC-Progs are “anti-Traditional-America.”
They are only “for” something if it is against traditional American values, beliefs, or laws.
For clarification, and references to research and analysis, here’s a short video:
http://my.brainshark.com/Willing-Accomplices-Why-do-Progressives-Hate-America-121281394