Ted Rall and Roosh V share the facts about political correctness

Ted Rall and Roosh V share the facts about political correctness (Part 1)
Part 2
Part 3
by Joseph Cotto
Communities Digital News
February 12, 2014

17 thoughts on “Ted Rall and Roosh V share the facts about political correctness

  1. My take away from this article:

    Ted Rall: Political Correctness is a form of self censorship that destroys free speech. It replaces constructive action with feel-good sloganeering.

    Roosh V: Political Correctness oppresses me personally every time I compare a feminist to an overweight bull dyke. It went over great when I was in fifth grade — why has our discourse fallen below that simple standard?

    I think you lost this one just by participating, Ted.

    I remember well the first time I heard the term “Politically Correct.” It was in the 1980s and some left-leaning folks were mocking the kind of orthodox liberal that appoints themselves as savior of minorities and cooked animals — the kind of liberal that wants to add 15 more consonants to the LGTB acronym. It was an apt term then, but it has been rendered meaningless by years of whiny right-wing “victims” of glacial cultural advances. And you already knew that.

    • I don’t think Ted lost just by participating.

      The article was basically, “We do a lot of Political correctness these days, but are there criticisms of this practice? Here to represent leftist Criticism on this topic is Ted Rall, and to represent rightest Criticism on this topic is Roosh V.” These two then go on to provide extremely different criticisms of our current state of political correctness. This in no way equates their two arguments or world views. If anything I would say Roosh lost just by participating, because without his reasoning being juxtaposed by Ted’s it wouldn’t be less blatantly obvious in being as simple sophomoric as it is.

      • We must not be reading the same article. At one time I was surprised at how judgmental you guys could be. I don’t think you understand let alone consider any viewpoint from ‘the right.’ I used to think that of all people, educated leftists should be above knee-jerk reactions and seeing what you want to see. You fall for the same left-right BS as the masses. Ted himself points out how many important ideas are shared by groups across the political spectrum.

        Ted and Roosh said the same damn thing. Political correctness is a way for liberals to self-congratulate and shut down debate with name-calling without doing anything useful. Some topics and viewpoints are simply off-limits. Since all you saw was Roosh leaning ‘right’ and disliking feminism, you must’ve missed it.

      • Your right Jack. In looking at the original piece that must have been a knee jerk response on my part. I am sorry.

      • I can’t tell if you are being straightforward or snarky, someone. But since I like ya, I’ll take you at face value. I just don’t expect anyone here to agree with a comment of mine that isn’t completely in line with the left. Tbh, my comment was meant much more for Spacious Specious and CrazyH who were abrasive while you only said that Ted and Roosh provided “extremely different criticisms.”

      • @Jack

        So, if I understand what you’re saying, then you see no difference between Ted’s standing up for women and minorities and Roosh degrading them?

        Funny, I see a huge difference.

        “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

      • No, I am actually being sincere. But yes in reading that post I can see how it could be interpreted as snark. Perhaps there is just too high a background level of sarcasm and too little sincerity these days so we are all expecting the former and not the later (myself no exception).

      • Someone,

        Right on; I thought so. Some commenters here think that corrosive sarcasm qualifies them as “witty.” Glad to know for sure you aren’t among them.

  2. Ted Rall and Roosh V? FUCK YEAH! Never thought I’d see them together anywhere.

    It amazes me how many guys are willing to hand their balls on a platter to any woman, but I suppose it shouldn’t amaze since these poor chumps are constantly bombarded with the idea that women love wusses. “I don’t get it: I agree with everything she says. Why doesn’t she have sex with me?” Downright pathetic and actually sleazier than Roosh types. Trying to weasel your way into a woman’s pants by befriending her? It’s no wonder frustrated male feminists hate guys like Roosh. Their tiny brains cannot compute that hot women fuck men who think like Roosh. Women don’t say they are attracted to puppy dogs; they always say they like a man who is a challenge. Male feminists are even worse than female ones…

    If the choice were between doing what a woman says and being celibate for life, I’d choose the latter without a thought because I have self-respect unlike male feminists. Fortunately, it is a choice that I’ll never have to make. Such is the reward for true knowledge.

    What Ted said was the highlight though:

    “There hasn’t been a unified left in the United States since the rise of identity politics, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence. There has been a resulting emptiness and shallowness in both the politics of the left and the right since the end of the culture wars of the 1960s, but political correctness has hastened this trend.

    “In a sense, I think it works for many liberals and progressives because it doesn’t take as much effort to convince someone not to use an ethnic slur than it does to take to the streets in order to force transnational corporations into paying their workers decently or the military-industrial complex to stop ginning up fraudulent wars. Making revolution is hard work. Nagging people into using politically correct vocabulary takes no risk at all.”

    • Hello Jack Heart,

      I apologize if my earlier criticism of this article seemed abrasive. It’s my nature to get florid at the keyboard, so I appreciate your indulgence.

      I thought Ted did an excellent job of breaking down what a lot of leftists and progressives find odious about the concept of “political correctness.” You should also note that I spent my last paragraph describing the origins of the term: A means for leftists and progressives to mock vainglorious liberals. From the very start the term “politically correct” was intended as an informed insult from one leftist to another. It was a way for leftists to say, “lighten the hell up, ‘comrade’!” to a UC Berkeley-damaged vegan. Since I personally live in a liberal crazy town, the failures of liberal thinking are glaringly obvious to me and I’m always interested to hear an informed opinion from the right-wing.

      Roosh V may very well be an intelligent rightist, but I can’t find any evidence of that in this article. Roosh V wastes the precious space he has to make his case by advancing the argument that men who align themselves with feminists are simply trying to get laid (so what motivates a gay man who aligns with feminists?). He could have said something like “political correctness paints any reasonable criticism of liberal policy with swastikas and jackboots. It’s simply a means to shut down discourse and dooms us to apply civil rights era thinking to contemporary problems – even when those dated policies have repeatedly failed minorities.”

      Instead he informed us that women with tattoos and piercings are undesirable. That’s just plain old first-amendment-protected trolling. He’s looking for a good laugh at the expense of panty-twisted liberals. That’s amusing for him and uninformative for the reader. Mostly because folks like you and me have heard every racial epithet, every misogynistic diatribe and every queer-bashing rant conceivable. I enjoy all of those things when they’re combined with a dash of cleverness.

      But Roosh V simply yelled shit from a passing car and then drove away laughing. If I were a right-winger, I would be deeply insulted that he was “representing” my viewpoint with adolescent trolling for cheap outrage. But since I’m not a right-winger, it’s not really my place to say. Folks are welcome to embrace Roosh V as an icon of Conservative Intellectualism. And I’ll enjoy my own cheap laugh at their expense.

      • In that article, if Roosh were really trolling, he would have said far worse. I really don’t think he is simply for the right to troll, scream slurs, or spread vicious lies about women, racial minorities, or gays. He is pointing out that every time he says something that implies he doesn’t think that everything they do is sunshine and gumdrops, he gets attacked.

        Being younger, I know all too well how many pathetic guys encourage girls in their vulgarity, promiscuity, and drug abuse all so they can have easier lays or worse. Buy hey, if that’s what feminism and progressivism were about…the right of women to act like the basest and lowest men.

        For my part, I think it is disgusting. OK, so those things fly with guys with no standards, but those girls are in for rude awakenings when they find worthwhile guys they want but who won’t have them. And there Roosh is, pointing out that maybe those things aren’t the best life choices, ladies. Zomgbutit’swhattheywanttodoandit’stheirrightandyouhavenorighttocriticizethem!

        I cannot identify as left or right and certainly not ‘moderate.’ I appreciate both Ted’s and Roosh’s perspectives.

  3. there is a tremendous difference between someone calling “bullshit” and someone twisting your words and then, unilaterally, declaring you guilty of something and rallying others to hound you out of your job and make your life unlivable.

    Ask Ted for a clarification.

  4. ” Roosh claims “(p)olitical correctness is the inability to speak negative or even neutral truths about women, homosexuals, and minorities. If you disobey this rule, you will be labeled a sexist, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, or right-wing extremist.”

    It’s pretty simple, actually, if you don’t want to be *called* a homophobe, don’t *be* a homophobe. Nor is it about speaking negative truths – it’s about the negative cherry-picking, exaggeration and outright lies.

    “In America, we have been granted free speech through the Constitution, but there are now serious consequences for speech that goes against leftist thinking.”

    Yes, Roosh, you have the right to your wrong-wing blather, but there’s nothing in the Constitution to protect you from the consequences of your own actions. I’m just as free to call bullshit as you are to speak it.

    Whenever a righttard says, “political correctness” he’s really talking about being polite & considerate of others. It’s just hard to speak scornfully of politeness, so they need a code phrase.

    • Political Correctness is cheap martyrdom for right-wingers. Heck, most of what they decry are urban legends drawn from half-remembered 1980’s stand-up routines.

      There is a censorship aspect to it, but it involves more right-wingers using it as a argument-ender to avoid having to justify or take responsibility for their words. Criticize Roosh’s description of feminists? He’s heroically telling a daring truth (read: opinion) rather than having to justify the statement with any general proof.

Leave a Reply