Unpopular opinion: PC policing is going WAY TOO far.

[HereSince1628]

99. Groups actively police in-group language

Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

There are dynamics about social belonging that work against -everyone- being able to be in one all inclusive in-group. In the absence of a global threat, perhaps global atmospheric destruction, a death asteroid, perhaps alien domination, it runs against the interpersonal dynamics that sustain groups to have -everyone- identifying with a global group.

These things are quite apparent in christianity...the universal church breaks into subdivisions, the subdivisions break into orders, denominations etc, each with specific enforced rules that can be seen as the 'discipline' that identifies the group, and whose policed sharing holds the orders and denominations together as groups... until new subgroups emerge that refuse the discipline...

The same phenomenon happened on DU in GDP. As different emphases and different candidates emerged, and because there is an open competition involved, competing groups that view others as ruled by 'incorrect' emphasis, and proposing the 'wrong' leadership -must- find expressions of acceptable language that reinforces within-group goodness as something better than that of out-groups who are promoting the 'wrong options'. Acceptable words to suggest options are wrong range from erudite to down-right vulgar and insulting.

If a group forms that says it's tolerant, refuses to stereotype, or demean out-groups...those rules would be policed. The group would identify it's own existence with those things.

On edit I had to run to make dinner so I hit post, but I have edited this closing...


But, I think the dynamic is ultimately going to be the same, even if the words -seem- gentler. --There is going to be a -need- to say the in-group is better and more right than the out-group. Obviously the out-group is going to feel that being told they are wrong demeans them, insults them, and must be defended against...