Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
What is this?
Less
More
256 contributions to Liberty Politics Discussion
Pyongyang tries to intimidate South Korea and the US
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/north-korea-says-south-korea-target-if-it-becomes-us-collective-defence-hub-2026-09-24/
0
0
1 like • 39m
treat the Russian state as a terrorist organization and treat everyone who trades with it like the criminals they are
why a new Tigray war would be so explosive
The first Ethiopia-Tigray war killed around 500000 humans
0 likes • 22h
0 likes • 2h
Before It Was a Culture War, It Was a Party Line: Why Political Correctness Makes De-Escalation Harder
One of the most important findings of my report is that we cannot understand contemporary political correctness if we begin with social media, cancel culture, or university speech disputes. The phrase itself predates Communism, but its twentieth-century ideological use is documented inside Communist political culture. In a 1930 Communist Party publication, students at Moscow’s Lenin School praised a position for providing a “politically correct perspective”—meaning conformity with the authorized Party position. Stalin-era Communist organization likewise revolved around the “correct political line,” deviation from that line, and the organizational machinery required to enforce it. The report traces that history directly. That matters today because de-escalation requires exactly what political-line thinking makes difficult: the ability to admit that your opponent can be wrong without being morally illegitimate, that a grievance can be real without belonging to one ideology, and that disagreement does not automatically identify an enemy. When political correctness functions as ideological enforcement rather than simple courtesy, the sequence becomes dangerous: define the approved language → attach moral legitimacy to it → classify deviation as moral failure → punish the transgressor → treat the punishment as justice. At that point, persuasion begins disappearing. If disagreement itself proves that someone is racist, fascist, communist, bigoted, reactionary, or otherwise beyond legitimate political participation, what incentive remains to listen, negotiate, correct an error, or de-escalate? The result is a feedback loop. One side's coercion produces legitimate reaction. Extremists attempt to capture that reaction. The opposing side then points to those extremists as proof that its original collective accusation was correct. Each extreme becomes recruiting material for the other. And that is precisely the kind of fracture hostile political-warfare systems historically sought to exploit. Soviet active measures used disinformation, fronts, agents of influence, covert political operations, and the exploitation of existing vulnerabilities rather than relying exclusively on grievances invented from nothing.
1 like • 11h
Are there correct political positions?
0 likes • 2h
@Jeffrey Cappella my point is that you can be politically correct based on principles. you can hold positions that are in line with the principles you think are important. The term has been abused to cement the status quo and narrow the overton windowd and force political compliance. Both things can be true. From a German perspective the term is mostly relevant in state controlled media where certain opinions are suppressed and shamed. Its kind of an elite/establishment cartel trying to criminalize speech and ostracize alternative positions.
1-10 of 256
Roman Viking
5
36 points to level up
@marius-andresen-9544
member of the global tyranny extinction campaign, markets outperform central planning, profit is just, individuals value and act, Воля Україні!

Online now
Joined Mar 31, 2026
Powered by