Political Correctness means many different things to different people. It's an almost meaningless term.
The first I heard of it was from Mao's little red book. Basically it meant to think twice before you speak so they don't shoot you.
Next, it's liberal politicians being very very careful to never ever say anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere. This got to a point where liberal politicians were saying exactly NOTHING! They talked and talked but were careful to say NOTHING. Why they're so afraid of offending Conservatives I don't know, Conservatives wouldn't vote for the anyway.
Next, there's corporate PC. Don't say or do anything to offend your fellow employees. Do not create a hostile environment, do not harass women. I agree with this type of PC. An employer hires you to work. It's not up to you to chose who you fellow employees are, it's not up to you to bully, harass or give them a hard time. It's up to you to work with the people that your employers has chosen to hire.
Next, there's right wing PC. This was evident during the Republican Presidential primary debates. So many of the moderate candidates were wiggly wiggly to not say ANYTHING to offend or disagree with the party's far right constituency. I was funny to watch them. You could tell that they didn't believe the things they were saying and not saying the things they believed. Trump monopolized on this! He said all the things the the far far right wanted to hear - despite the fact that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying - he isn't an idiot he just acts like one. A whole new type of PC.
There is no "far far right" in countries influenced by the Enlightenment, dumbass.
ISIS is the far far right and only the new left tolerates their shit.
This is exactly what I mean by Trump's new PC. You're saying absolutely idiotic things that have no basis in reality. Just being nasty and stupid.
No, moron, the left does not tolerate ISIS. No more than you do. The Obama administration has been using the best military strategy possible to eliminate them. Carpet bombing is idiotic unless you just want to commit mass murder. We have precision guided weapons nowadays. WWII was a long time ago technologically.
If there is anyone who is reversing the enlightenment is the far right. Logic, reason and truth are their enemy. They live in a world of believing whatever they want to believe in defiance of facts. They live in a world of paranoid delusions and fantasy.
Sorry, but the far left is just as guilty of reversing the enlightenment as the far right. The enlightenment saw the dissemination of the idea that governments should treat each individual equally and with basic human dignity. Social Justice, the new far leftism as it is manifest here in the US, is essentially built around an oppressor-oppressed narrative that's used to justify unequal treatment of different people based on the circumstances of their birth, and in some instances even used to push the idea that, again based on these birth circumstances, it's sometimes just to suspend the humanity of individuals just for belonging to certain demographics.
I'd say that the social justice left and the alt right were essentially mirrors of each other, but oddly I see proponents for both of these points on the political spectrum blasting hate at the Jews, so the image isn't -perfectly- inverse. That said, it's the same race/gender based animus, just aimed generally in opposite directions, and neither group is ever far from calling for genocide.
The biggest issue that separates the left from the right is that the left believes that government should evolve and right does not. The enlightenment and the creation of the U.S. Constitution happened at a time when the majority of the world's population lived off the land. America was a sea faring, agrarian and pioneering nation. People's lives were more affected by the weather than by the stock exchange.
The industrial revolution changed everything about existence for humanity. When the mortgage companies screw up, workers in the auto industry lose there jobs. Everyone is economically interdependent. It became clear early in the industrial revolution that pure capitalism was an absolute disaster for the vast majority of the people. Just after overthrowing rule by monarchies, industrialization condemned then to a whole new type of slavery. That's when solutions were invented to make industrialization survival for the majority of the people. Liberalism proposed modified capitalism...i.e. the government starting just enough regulation and programs to make industrialization survivable. Communism proposed absolute ownership and control by the government...in a way that was as bad or worse than pure capitalism.
So when you say that the enlightenment proposed that the government only go as far as treating individuals equally instead of favoring people of lesser circumstance you are correct. Liberalism is an evolution of the enlightenment. It takes the economics of industrialization into account and realizes that if people are not economically equal...or at least have a fair chance economically, they are not being treated equally by the government.
The government allowing a persons status to be determined by the circumstance of their birth is another way of reinstating monarchy. People's status should be based on their personal achievements and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve.
