Most un-PC Belief?

[CountDeMoney]

Meh.

[Jacob]

The jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.

I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.

AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.

[Jacob]

I doubt that's true.

There definitely is a common body of "politically correct" thoughts, the large majority of which are fairly uncontroversial to the vast majority - even Admiral Yis.  For example I'm pretty sure Yi believes in the equality of the races, in private enterprise, and private property.

Equality under the law hardly qualifies as PC.  If one were to say "I think a white man and a black man should get the same sentence for murder," the likelihood someone will say "oh, you're so PC" is very low.

PC is more inclined to be in favor of equality of outcome than equality of process.

That depends on what you mean by "politically correct". If you consider it to be a caricature of what silly progressive people believe or shibboleths of the left and right wings (in terms of being for/against) then you'll have very different things to agree/disagree with than if you consider it to mean the commonly accepted positions to hold on the prevailing discourse.

I think Grey Fox is right; few things are as politically correct in the West as free enterprise. Even the alleged Socialists have embraced except on the very fringes.

[Jacob]

That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.

The really funny part is neither of them ever do.

Never do what? Speak the truth, or prevent others from speaking it?

[Jacob]

I guess there are varying definitions here.  To me PC is avoiding saying something you believe to be true because it will cause a large number of people to be offended (or pretend to be offended).  I've always thought that political correctness in some form existed both on the right and left, though more often on the left.

I think that's a pretty good definition, though I'd say it's about "going beyond the pale" rather then simply being about being offended. I'd say that seriously de-emphasizing the military or paying tribute to the brave men and women in uniform would be un-PC across both right and left wings of the US political spectrum, and not just because of people being offended (though people tend to get offended nonetheless).

[Eddie Teach]

Yes, their economic systems aren't as robust as free-market capitalism, but they are completely subordinated to the state. The ability to maintain the economy on a war footing, to control the press, and to use whatever tactics they choose in regards to war and espionage are advantages of that type of government.

Of course, Westerners realize freedom has a cost and will curtail it when deemed necessary. See Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans, or the transformation of our press into a propaganda machine during any serious wars.

[Ideologue]

I think Jake's on the nose.  I remember once I referred to our volunteer military as essentially mercenary, and the offense taken was vivid and immediate.  It's not true in every individual case, but other than maybe Ank--I think he re-ups because he genuinely enjoys his work--and perhaps a few others, practically every one of the many servicepeople I've ever met has has done so, at least in part, for one of the reasons I went to law school: economic stability, and perceived or real lack of options to attain it otherwise.

Turns out the military actually provides that, but...

Anyway, I didn't even mean it as a value judgment.  It's far superior to a conscript military, in moral terms and in terms of effectiveness (theoretically, anyway, although obviously our military hasn't been "effective" in over 60 years).  But I suppose it generates vitriol because calls into question a central assumption of American life, which is the automatic heroism of everyone who just puts on a uniform.

[DGuller]

The jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.

I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.

AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.

Yes, no doubt that authoritarian war machines are less efficient economies in general, but if you can keep the populace needs to a minimum, then you can waste less resources on idle consumption, and more resources on the military.  After all, filet mignon turns to shit really quickly, whereas tanks will last for decades.

[Ideologue]

But one wouldn't be terribly surprised if a tank made in the PRC fell apart as soon as it tried to do anything more strenuous than run over a protestor, thanks to graft and corruption.

Besides, you know what else lasts decades?  Entire cities' worth of highrises with no occupants.

[Jacob]

The jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.

I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.

AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.

Yes, no doubt that authoritarian war machines are less efficient economies in general, but if you can keep the populace needs to a minimum, then you can waste less resources on idle consumption, and more resources on the military.  After all, filet mignon turns to shit really quickly, whereas tanks will last for decades.

But why are we limiting the comparisons to total war? Total war is just part of the equation. Still, in any case the free world has a winning record in both total and cold wars, and in coexistence. I see nothing about the PRC or Putin's fumbling at a new Imperial Russia to put any doubt to that.

[DGuller]

But why are we limiting the comparisons to total war? Total war is just part of the equation. Still, in any case the free world has a winning record in both total and cold wars, and in coexistence. I see nothing about the PRC or Putin's fumbling at a new Imperial Russia to put any doubt to that.

I guess the original point was that the free world benefited from the rapid pace of innovation being possible.  That may not persist at a pace fast enough to significantly stay ahead of non-innovative industrial-spying authoritarian military machines.

[Admiral Yi]

I think y'all are using a much too broad definition of PC.  There are a specific group of people who use the term non-ironically (or used to) and specific statements they use it for.

If you say God doesn't exist no one is going to say, gosh that's not very PC.

[Neil]

The free world doesn't do coexistance.

[Jacob]

I think y'all are using a much too broad definition of PC.  There are a specific group of people who use the term non-ironically (or used to) and specific statements they use it for.

If you say God doesn't exist no one is going to say, gosh that's not very PC.

The only people who used "politically incorrect" non-ironically were bona fide Maoists and their Soviet equivalents. There may have been a tiny segment of English speaking English hard leftists who used it seriously for a brief moment, but any currency it had in Western leftist circles was ironically and/or with self-deprecation; and that too, was only for a brief moment before it was seized with great relish as a term of dismissal by those who wish to register opposition to PC.

The number of people who ever used "politically correct" in earnest, approvingly, and in English is vanishingly small.

[Eddie Teach]

Perhaps it wasn't used non-ironically but pretty sure it's always been used to refer to progressive beliefs(or their caricatures).