ell, it is "reactionary", and a lot of it reads like far-right fringe groups... ... except this is the National Party. 39% of people voted for them. This is not a small group, this is not even ACT, this is National. It's freaking disgusting and Orewa all over again, featuring National using its mainstream kudos to condone bigotry, racism, and foul injustice in the name of "the mainstream." Simply by claiming that they speak for everyone, they succeed in convincing that their views are somehow not as radical as they truly are. It's the biggest sleight of hand around and it's sickening.
WRT: discussion and political correctness: one of the most interesting things about the term "politically correct" is that it was spawned by the right as a derogatory term, which we forget. It was designed to obscure argument: politicians label something "politically correct" (or, fair's far, "politically incorrect") and suddenly all debate on the topic in question is about whether or not it's "politically correct," and what's good and bad about PC- rather than about what's good and bad with the idea itself.
Someone on David P Farrar- the right wing blog, and the commenter too seems to be a Nationalist- wrote: "My point is the slogan 'political correctness' is intelectually bankrupt. Simply labelling as political correct Lesley Soper's suggestion that maiden speeches be renamed doesn't actually add anything to the debate about whether Lesley Soper is right or wrong. The follow up question to that labelling shoud surely be "So what?". Whether it is or isn't 'politically correct' really doesn't say much about whether we should take up her idea or not or why it would be bad idea. Simply saying because it is PC is not good enough.
And I for one am sick and tired of that intellectually lazy slogan. It's time for National to offer us a little more depth (if that's possible)."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-28 10:36 am (UTC)... except this is the National Party. 39% of people voted for them. This is not a small group, this is not even ACT, this is National. It's freaking disgusting and Orewa all over again, featuring National using its mainstream kudos to condone bigotry, racism, and foul injustice in the name of "the mainstream." Simply by claiming that they speak for everyone, they succeed in convincing that their views are somehow not as radical as they truly are. It's the biggest sleight of hand around and it's sickening.
WRT: discussion and political correctness: one of the most interesting things about the term "politically correct" is that it was spawned by the right as a derogatory term, which we forget. It was designed to obscure argument: politicians label something "politically correct" (or, fair's far, "politically incorrect") and suddenly all debate on the topic in question is about whether or not it's "politically correct," and what's good and bad about PC- rather than about what's good and bad with the idea itself.
Someone on David P Farrar- the right wing blog, and the commenter too seems to be a Nationalist- wrote:
"My point is the slogan 'political correctness' is intelectually bankrupt. Simply labelling as political correct Lesley Soper's suggestion that maiden speeches be renamed doesn't actually add anything to the debate about whether Lesley Soper is right or wrong. The follow up question to that labelling shoud surely be "So what?". Whether it is or isn't 'politically correct' really doesn't say much about whether we should take up her idea or not or why it would be bad idea. Simply saying because it is PC is not good enough.
And I for one am sick and tired of that intellectually lazy slogan. It's time for National to offer us a little more depth (if that's possible)."
right on.