Political correctness dissected

I think I have managed to analyse what political correctness has done and how and why they must never be allowed to do what they are doing. Political correctness attempts to restrict the use of words, ideas and opinions, and what I have worked out is they have taken various different things and then treated them all as if they are the same. These are:

Facts
Opinions
Insults
Lies

Insults: Now we already have more than enough laws to stop either incitement to a crime, so any direct statements to cause any sort of harm were never under question as already known to be both wrong and illegal. Normal people in a free country would stop right there. Insults are offensive but do not actually directly cause or incite others to cause harm. Nonetheless if you or I called someone a bloody wog even outside their presence we'd be behind bars a lot faster than any burglar or mugger. There is a school of thought which would claim banning insults makes society a better place but does it stop people thinking such things or just saying them in public? In the Falkland Islands the soldiers called the natives 'Bennies' and when that was stopped called them 'Stills'. When asked why, it was because 'They were still Bennies'. So banning the use of the word doesn't change the attitude behind them, and if you ban one bad word people will either use another or just say it in private. The playground took a set of medical and technical words such as spastic, imbecile, mongol, backward, retarded, handicapped and cripple from hospital and social work unit to the black book of sacking offences, despite the words all having strict dictionary definitions and communicating often an exact meaning required by medical and associated professionals. Ban the words, defile the language and replace them with others firstly people don't understand 'educationally challenged?' 'differently abled', and within a decade have then replaced the last lot and need a new set ad infinitum.

Opinions: Beyond words we have facts and opinions. If you begin with opinions (as how, one would ask, can you ban mentioning any facts?), they are divided in two very clear parts. One is personal preference, not based on a single fact so impossible for any to be right or wrong. This spreads from taste, such as music, food and art, to political and social preferences, where some may be happy living in multicultural Brent where you struggle to hear a single English speaker in the street, while others would feel they had been suddenly swept to the departure lounge at Delhi or Lagos airport and thoroughly uncomfortable. As immigration is one favourite hot potato, this is as good an example as any to start with. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' about who we prefer to share our lives with, and if people could actually choose whether to live in a multicultural area or not then it would never become a problem, but as multicultural tends to follow people rather than lead, it is an issue. But to then claim one is actually the only correct way to be, as if it was a fact, you have become totalitarian. I agree banning foreigners from any areas like in apartheid is also totalitarian, but so is allowing uncontrolled immigration because the government have decided it is right. In reality neither is right and neither can be right as the cultural mix of a town is something people either prefer or not, and always will be, just as some people prefer their local food and others prefer something more exotic. Who is someone else in power to tell them only one is right for food or the people who created it?

So my point is, with political correctness, they have taken a growing set of left wing opinions, and said they are right, the only correct ones, and therefore there is no alternative opinion as they have elevated their chosen opinions to the status of facts, and then on top protected them with the status of insults or worse to ban the chance of a challenge. Now once you begin restricting people's personal preferences, and then banning or criminalising their expression, you have become fascists. Forget what people call themselves, if they (like the aptly named 'National Socialists' before them) act like fascists then they are simply parading as left wing freedom fighters and doing the exact opposite. The only freedoms they want are for themselves to rule with an iron hand and for their chosen allies, currently Muslims (anyone know why?), environmentalists and certain criminals such as foreign terrorists and families who mutilate or kill their children ('it's their culture' they say, to justify female genital mutilation, honour killing and aborting female fetuses). Now banning the word 'backward' or 'mongol' which were used by doctors, teachers and social workers right up to the 70s doesn't protect a single person. But justifying the worst known behaviours around the world, including covering the faces of women, or stopping them from driving or going to school as they do in Iran and Saudi Arabia is not only never shunned but rampantly protected from criticism as 'they are only doing what is right for them'.

So political correctness has now shifted from fascism to actually sidestepping the law against incitement to hurt others. After all, if you protect criminals you are promoting their actions by default. But back to my main point, which defuses PC entirely once you realise what it does, is cross the line into personal preference and tells people what they can and cannot think and say. Disagree with gay marriage and you're homophobic? (believe me, no one's scared of gay people, so that's another word they invented wrongly) Maybe you actually believe marriage means the union of a man and a woman, so anything else can't be? That's a technical point, even if you have no problem with men or women forming a lifetime legal bond, it just isn't marriage. But say that and they'll sack you (as it's not yet a crime to prosecute but anyone with the power to fire will do so if you do), meaning a totally innocent act has resulted in a direct hardship with little or no chance of compensation.

The second type of opinions are different, as not based on preference but lack of facts. If you don't know something instead of saying so, most people know a little and fill in the gaps, forming an opinion as a result. Therefore science has various studies on intelligence, genetics, racial characteristics to varying degrees, but besides the basics most people don't know these, and base their views on personal experience and anecdotes. This is not criminal behaviour but ignorance, and the treatment is discovery and education. Simply fighting, arguing and banning disagreement altogether doesn't teach anyone anything, it just stops them saying anything and ultimately stops them learning as if you don't ask you won't find out.

Facts: These can be partially or almost totally known. Global warming, for example, claims to be 'settled', but on further study discover a) the majority is set in predictions for the distant future and b) the present situation has as many studies showing one set of results as the other. Now they only accept one side and anyone disagreeing has been compared to paedophiles, nazis, baby killers and one Austrian professor recently called for the death sentence for anyone speaking out against it. In fact the only Nazism going on here is by the activists, as if you do as Mengele and Goebbels did and politicise science, saying only 'Aryan' science was correct, you are behaving exactly like a Nazi, that simple. Can you imagine a politician or pressure group like Greenpeace before saying 'If you believe there is life outside the solar system you should face the death sentence?'. What's the difference? Neither is known directly, both rely on shreds of evidence to be extrapolated and fill in huge gaps with lack of direct measurement or knowledge of the past and future, and then a general theory be made up until or unless there is enough to know beyond reasonable doubt. Whichever example you prefer, there is no previous scientific proposition where the proponents wanted to ban scientists (or anyone following them) from showing evidence to the contrary. Of course science can't do that as it can always learn more.

Intelligence is another much older bete noir of the left. Those far enough gone believe we don't have an IQ, everyone could be an Einstein given the correct conditions, which actually crosses the next line from opinions to lies, as of course there is well over a hundred years of randomised tests showing twins and close family members score the same when separated as identical twins, and different when together as fraternal twins. Identical twins are genetically the same person, and enough studies have proved their IQs and virtually every other personality trait (now being further affirmed in DNA analysis) are virtually the same, even when divided at birth and brought up in different countries and economies. If similar results could be shown for racial characteristics in even one area it would be scientific proof (repeatable and reliable) but they don't like 'the wrong facts', so even when they have been long backed up by science, they try and ban the mention of them. If a black person commits a crime, they don't want it being mentioned as such, even if on the run as a rapist. Concealing the race of a criminal or group of criminals does nothing except protect and encourage them, something the PC lot seem to love to see, as if allowing immigration already wasn't enough, they want to let them do whatever they did to flee their own countries if they were being chased by the authorities there already for doing the same things. But those are just the consequences, probably inevitable, of the practice itself of hiding and avoiding any facts which do not fit their ideology.

Examples:

Words: spastic backward retarded crippled handicapped
Opinions: Economic equality- gay marriage- immigration/multiracial/cultural society
Facts :(whether or not known for certain now they would be if we had enough knowledge to prove). IQ level, environmental influence on IQ, do races vary in IQ, are some races better at certain technical skills regardless of environment (eg orientals at maths), racial identity of criminals and racial profiling.

So in conclusion, we have:

Some opinions are wrong.
Some facts must be wrong as they are not nice.
Bad acts are good if 'cultural' but good words are bad if they say they are 'offensive'.
Debating a closed issue is not permitted on any single one of these.

Ideally breaching all such acts should be punished, some with greater penalties than those against the person and property.

I'm sure those running the show will be quite disappointed someone has spent the time to work out exactly what they are doing, offering others the opportunity to understand their actual methods as opposed to their stated aims of equality and freedom. As always, if someone calls themselves 'Freedom Fighters' and express their aims by killing innocent citizens, it is not up to them to name themselves anything but others to do so. So I am hoping anyone reading this will understand if they call themselves 'Bambi', 'Maurice', 'Politically Correct' or 'Correct' they can only ever be fascists, as restricting personal speech which is not promoting harm to others, and personal opinion, while also restricting the study and dissemination of scientific facts which do not agree with their ideology is only ever present in the worst possible examples of fascism (even if Mao chose to call his something else). Don't look at what these people call themselves, look at what they do and work it out yourselves.