Silentpony said:
Actually its the exact opposite. Being Politically correct makes you a bigot. A bigot defined as "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions". So I'd argue that political correctness, which tries to control the way you talk, is its intolerant of people who don't subscribe to political correctness. Which is a form of bigotry.
But pointing this out is being intolerant towards those who have "politically correct" opinions. Therefore, making this argument or being opposed to political correctness in any form also makes you a bigot.
The problem here is you have an inadequate definition..
Level 7 Dragon said:
Example: The philosopher and writer Slavoj Zizek, a hardcore communist and propoment of social justice who occasionally uses the term "my nigga" and mocks safe spaces.
1)
Zizek is a communist
If we define a communist as a person who claims to believe in communism as an ideal or who uses it as a critique of neoliberal capitalism, then yes. If we define a communist as a person who espouses a material vision for moving towards communism or who is politically engaged with that project, then no. The latter is more normal.
2)
Zizek espouses social justice
Anyone who has an idea of justice espouses social justice. When the right whinges about immigrants taking their jobs, they're espousing a form of social justice. They're expressing the desire for a world which works in accordance with a principle that they see as fair and just. Zizek, on the other hand, has never really articulated a coherent vision of what a just world would look like except that it would be outside of neoliberal capitalism.
3)
Zizek mocks safe spaces
That was Richard Dawkins.
What Zizek did was to point out that "political correctness" (whatever that actually means) is symptomatic of a broader transformation of public space which has its roots in, you've probably guessed it at this point, neoliberal capitalism. His argument is that instead of sharing public space as a common ground, people have accepted an ideology which applies the logic of personal ownership to public space, the idea that everyone has a right to the space around them for example.
He has mocked the academy in general, but that's par for the course. He hates the academy. He's been fairly open about the fact that he views his students as inconsequential annoyances and other academics as simultaneously both awful elitists and beneath him. This is, I suspect, part of why he's a "celebrity". When you keep telling people how shit they are relative to you, some will believe you.
All in all, he serves as both a proponent and example of a model of academia as an escape from having to participate in the corrupt, capitalist world, while remaining amazingly blind to the fact that it's only his enormous success within the awful, neoliberal academy and his consequent "celebrity" status which enables him to live like that on whatever his very comfortable salary is. His entire career has been the self-serving vindication of this utterly narcissistic pretence of being better than everyone else because he can live in the ivory tower and not have to sully his hands with any sort of political or economic engagement with reality. That's the only reason he or his work exists.
No wonder the alt-right suddenly loves him.