“Political Correctness” is Bullshit: A Guide

This post is a bit general, but I feel it’s really needed. Recently I got into it with an otherwise rational conservative on Twitter. This individual, who awed audiences with his rapid fire takedown of Trump supporters, was trying to distance the GOP and the conservative movement from Trump and his following, and I wasn’t going to let that slide.

The individual claimed that PC, better known as political correctness, is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump. No, not it’s not, actually. If anything, the media constantly blowing alleged incidents of PC way out of proportion has helped Trump’s campaign, but no, political correctness is nowhere near as responsible for the rise of Trump. Trump’s success is largely due to nearly three decades of conservatives spreading dog whistles, conspiracy theories, and moral panics. This Twitter personality was engaging in a typical right-wing tactic; claim you’re upset and indignant about the rise of the far-right, but blame the left for creating it. Essentially it’s a form of blackmail- either shut up and do what we say, otherwise we won’t be responsible for those of us that resort to extremes.

What I found funny about the experience is how quickly this otherwise very logical, educated person who displays sharp rhetorical skills was reduced to elementary logical fallacies when forced to actually explain political correctness. He could only offer one anecdote that supposedly proves his point, and it was a weak one at that. Once again I, a Marxist, had to explain capitalism to one of its die-hard advocates. For the benefit of other folks like him, I decided to write this comprehensive guide to political correctness and why it’s bullshit. You’re welcome.

Political Correctness is too vague

If you can’t even give a concrete definition for the thing you’re convinced is ruining your country, you might want to rethink the basis of your ideology. At first glance, the idea of political correctness seems simple enough- political correctness is a state of affairs where people are one way or another forced to censor themselves to avoid offending people.

If we look at how the term PC is applied in practice, however, and we look at who applies it most often, we see a little problem. To be sure, Bill Maher, typically identified as a leftist of sorts, hosted a TV talk show called Politically Incorrect. This would make you think that political correctness can apply to either side of the spectrum. That assumption, of course, is wrong.

Remember what happened when football player Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem in a silent protest against racism and police brutality? How many commentators did you see come on and say, “Come on, people! It’s just a song! Stop being so PC!” What actually happened was the people most likely to declare themselves politically incorrect went apeshit over a guy not standing for a song that became the official anthem of the United States in 1931, whose melody is based on a drinking song for a poetry society, and whose lyrics come from a war we basically lost.

I don’t have to stop with that example. Next time you see someone telling everyone how politically incorrect he is, mention that racism against minorities is still a serious problem in the US. Go online and say you are a feminist who has some concerns about the portrayal of females in video games. See what happens.

What we see here is that the term PC doesn’t really mean not offending anyone, what it really means is not offending minorities and other marginalized people. Or in other words, trying to avoid offending such people is PC and there bad, if not worse than Nazi Germany, whereas mocking those things that middle class white (often male) America loves and cherishes is somehow objectively offensive and wrong. And no, I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon and offer any theories about how “punching up” is better than “punching down.” But I think it’s fair to say that if you think punching down is hilarious and courageous while punching up is wrong or somehow more worthy of criticism, you are kind of an ass.

The Price of Political Incorrectness

To support their claims of a dystopian world suffering under the iron heel of political correctness, self-proclaimed warriors against PC often bring up the example of online “lynch mobs” attacking people over a joke or otherwise controversial statement. Granted, there are many problems with this kind of behavior.

As someone who is a part of the radical left and who does still interact with the Western left online, I’m more qualified to speak about the self-censorship and intimidation that goes on thanks to so-called “call-out culture.” That being said, those who have no desire to be associated with the radical left, or more importantly those who loudly proclaim their political incorrectness, really have no reason to whine about being called racist, sexist, or whatever. Nobody’s going to potentially destroy your activist reputation by claiming some innocuous remark was in fact highly offensive to non-hetero-normative people.  Essentially your whining is like me getting super upset about Catholics believing in the Transubstantiation even though I’m not religious at all. It’s not my problem.

Getting back to the topic of online mobs, also known as “brigading” in some circles, it’s first very important to remember that this kind of thing goes both ways. And if you’re keeping score, you’ll undoubtedly find that it’s the so-called “politically correct” side that tends to get the worst backlash. Again, go on Youtube or Twitter and proclaim yourself to be a feminist. Make a few humble suggestions about how video game companies could better appeal to female gamers. Then brace yourself for a withering barrage of abuse from morons and pseudo-intellectuals who will “rationally” prove how you’re part of a conspiracy to destroy video games and masculinity in between the constant rape and death threats you’ll be getting.

But what about people who lose their jobs due to expressing their views in public? This is where I find conservative whining to be at peak irony. Ed from the blog Gin & Tacos pointed out how odd it was that Republicans, people who typically believe that employment should be “at-will” and frequently say nobody owes you a job, suddenly turn on the successful “job-creating” class when someone’s career is threatened over making “politically incorrect” comments. Again, they don’t raise the issue of free speech in all cases, such as that of Ward Churchill, the aforementioned Capernick, or Bill Maher, but they’re the first to cry persecution whenever someone is fired for making a comment that’s racist, sexist, or homophobic.

Here’s a little primer on how the 1st Amendment of the Constitution works, for all you confused conservatives out there. Put simply, it protects you from being punished by the government for expressing potentially unpopular ideas. It does not protect you from the consequences of that expression. While it does technically protect you from violence insofar as police are obligated to stop and arrest anyone who commits a crime against you in response to your expression, it does not guarantee you freedom from criticism, nor does it guarantee you’ll get to keep your job. I think even the densest Trump supporter can understand that a McDonald’s worker who openly uses profanity on the job will be fired, and plenty of liberals would agree as well.

On the topic of jobs, I am always dumbfounded when I have to explain the concept of private companies and their bottom lines to fervent advocates of unrestrained capitalism and the private sector. Apparently, if Wal-Mart fires a worker for talking about unionizing, that’s just fine, but if some high level employee gets fired for making racist statements in public, it’s a tragedy and their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. I guess this time it would be perfectly justified if the government intervened and forced the company to keep their employee even if people are threatening them with a boycott.

And no, boycotts are not a form of censorship either. Nobody is required to buy your product or service. If a group of people is offended by one of your employees and threatens a boycott, you have a simple business decision to make. You can decide you’re willing to take the hit, or you can apologize to the offended group and do something to make amends- like canning the employee who caused you those problems in the first place.

But if that’s something you conservatives just can’t swallow, I have a couple of other proposals that could potentially solve this problem of free speech in the work place. One is greater unionization. The other is a universal basic income, making jobs much less of a necessity. What say you, conservatives?

Relative Costs

Forgive me if it’s hard to take Americans seriously when they complain about the tyranny of political correctness. I happen to live in a country where people have been jailed for posting, retweeting, and even liking content on social media. Just today this poor young man was jailed. His crime? He made a blog post showing how he caught a Pokemon in a church; he didn’t even disturb the service in any way. But even if we look in Western and in particular, American society, we see there are definitely big differences in oppression.

Saying something homophobic can get your fired, you say? Please tell that to all those gays and lesbians who were booted out of the military for being outed. In fact, as of 2015 there were 28 states where it’s legal to fire someone for being gay.  At least you can control what you say in public or online.

Moreover, for decades LGBT have faced violence, sometimes death, just for being honest about themselves or failing to adequately hide it. When you hear about someone making homophobic statements and facing a backlash, take some time to think about how much society has progressed to the point where LGBT people feel safe enough to express their discomfort in public. And when you hear someone complaining about an online “lynch mob,” take a moment to think of what used to happen to black Americans when they asked for equal rights. Maybe you’ll realize the word “lynch” probably isn’t the best word choice.

More Free Speech, Not Less

The point I’m making here is that while yes, we do see more people getting into some kind of trouble for offending different groups, it doesn’t mean we have less free speech; society as a whole has more. When minorities such as Asian Americans (a group which still faces an appalling amount of racism and stereotyping) or transexual people feel confident enough to publicly express their opinions online, in means we have more people expressing opinions, not fewer.

And you know what? Some of those opinions are going to be downright stupid. Just because various minorities face oppression or marginalization doesn’t mean every single thing a specific member of that group says is automatically right or intelligent. They don’t have get a magical protection against criticism either. Just realize that if your arguments are rooted in racism or homophobia as opposed to sound logic, people are probably going to dismiss you offhand. And if you are using sound logic and they just dismiss you as a racist, sexist, or whatever- fine. Maybe that person is just a jackass. It doesn’t mean they wield some kind of power over you.

Why Are You Still Here?

The funniest thing about this mass hysteria over political correctness is that it’s been around for a long time. I remember hearing all about it in the early 90’s. I was routinely told that by the time I reached high school, we wouldn’t be allowed to say the word Christmas in school, and we’d be using terms like “vertically challenged” to describe people of short height. Well guess what- throughout high school I managed to be an insufferable little shit spouting off many racist, sexist, and homophobic opinions without ever really facing any serious consequences for doing so. I’m sure being a white, heterosexual male couldn’t have had anything to do with that!

In case you’re not catching on. Look around you. How easy is it for you to find articles in the major media outlets decrying the spread of “political correctness” or “safe spaces” versus articles in the same outlets specifically advocating political correctness or something like it? How many bills have been introduced in Congress to ban some kind of expression lately?

What do you see on TV? One of America’s most popular shows was (and perhaps still is) South Park. Would you consider that a particularly politically correct show? Try exercising a little empathy, possibly for the first time in your life, and browse Youtube or watch TV with the intent to note anything that could potentially be offensive to various minority groups, women, LGBT people, etc. Use your imagination.

Take a look at Youtube and see how many comedians, talk show hosts, and Youtube personalities have successfully made their career off of proclaiming themselves to be “politically incorrect” or just constantly complaining about political correctness. Yes, some folks get banned from Youtube or Twitter for their opinions, but once again- these are private companies. They are allowed to make their own terms of service and you agree to them when you sign up.

Conclusion- Stop Whining!

Perhaps one of the biggest ironies of the PC backlash is that it alleges certain people are too sensitive when in reality, the most sensitive people tend to be those who claim to hate PC. In academia and on the internet, the most radical, often absurd incarnations of “intersectionality” any related theories may seem highly influential, but in the real world they’re not. Keep in mind that many of those people you see calling for censorship or generally being absurd are oftentimes early twenty-something college students who never had any political thoughts whatsoever before graduating high school. Don’t expect balance and moderation from them. If you can’t get along with them online- avoid them. It’s not difficult to do so, and isn’t that what you’re always telling the so-called PC crowd to do anyway?

Ultimately, as groups that were formerly marginalized find their voice in society, and assuming we take them seriously rather than going into a hysterical panic, we’ll eventually find some kind of balance as to what’s considered acceptable discourse. If that sounds oppressive to you, please consider how concretely oppressive it is today that people can no longer use racial slurs in everyday conversation without provoking outrage. Is that really so terrible? Nobody throws you in jail for saying it, but other people are free to express their disgust and anger. There will always be narcissistic individuals of all groups who will insist that the rest of society bend to their specific feelings and desires, in the same way that a minority of whites still demands that they be allowed to spout off racist and misogynistic opinions with no consequences whatsoever. We don’t have to cater to any of those people- just make a sincere effort to be more inclusive towards those who are currently, through no fault of their own, marginalized.

And whatever you do, please to not lay responsibility for Trump or the rise of the far right at those who just wanted to make the world less racist, sexist, and generally oppressive. These phenomena owe far more to the spread of conspiracy theories about an oppressive PC elite that are driving Western civilization toward an apocalypse, not to mention the general mainstreaming of ideas that are genuinely racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and so forth.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on ““Political Correctness” is Bullshit: A Guide

  1. zephyrean

    What never fails to annoy me is the idea that “politically correct” people are somehow “radical” at the same time. Political correctness as a derogatory term means insincerity that increases or maintains your popular support, radical as a derogatory term means extremist, and majority opinions are by definition not extreme.

    Like, you’re a feminist but need to pander to bible-thumpers, so you have to say, “Aww, needing abortion is such a tragedy for women, we shouldn’t be too hard on them” rather than “yay abortionplexes on every corner! free thin mints with every procedure! fetus burgers!”. But if saying “n****r” makes everyone hate you, then NOT saying “n****r” is not radical, it’s common fucking sense.

    Reply
  2. AndyT

    “[The 1st Amendment of the Constitution] does not guarantee you freedom from criticism”.

    Indeed.

    Too many people forget “fredoom of speech” is a two-way road: I can say whatever I want – and so can whoever happens to disagree with me.

    And what about super pro-business pundits complaining about people losing their jobs for their beliefs?

    Well, they must have missed an important transformation going on: while our role as citizens might have somewhat faded away, we are more and more influent as customers – therefore, companies are increasingly careful when it comes to avoid scandals and embarrassments.

    If they have to fire someone to appease us, they are likely to do it – period.

    That’s the market, sweeties 😉

    Reply
  3. Asehpe

    “And you know what? Some of those opinions are going to be downright stupid. Just because various minorities face oppression or marginalization doesn’t mean every single thing a specific member of that group says is automatically right or intelligent. They don’t have get a magical protection against criticism either. Just realize that if your arguments are rooted in racism or homophobia as opposed to sound logic, people are probably going to dismiss you offhand. And if you are using sound logic and they just dismiss you as a racist, sexist, or whatever- fine. Maybe that person is just a jackass. It doesn’t mean they wield some kind of power over you.”

    Yes!

    You see, I do think PC is a problem — but not for the reasons most people think it is. It’s not because “you’re being forced to speak in this or that way” so as not to “hurt the feelings” of this or that group — it’s because your speech patterns, whatever they are, are immediately thrown back at you as ‘evidence’ that you are this or that kind of asshole, and your actual claims and arguments go unheeded.

    I think it is perfectly possible to frame arguments of all kinds and about all topics in ways that are not offensive to groups. But because there are stupid, closed-minded people everywhere, including among minorities, will look at how you say things as a way of deviating from what you are saying and thus concluding that you are “one of them” and thus unworthy of consideration.

    I, for instance, think that Anita Sarkeesian is wrong on several counts in her “tropes vs. women” series, and some of her claims seem to me so naive that they have to be called out. But the moment that specific ‘pattern’ is shown — then the ‘PC police’ will ignore and disdain your arguments because you’re obviously “one of them”. And yes, I know the opposite also happens — I have also tried to talk to MRA’s about feminism and women’s problems in the world, with similar results in terms of having my arguments ignored because of being “one of them”.

    The way in which I think this is related to PC thinking is simplification: if I can identify what you say (from your ‘opinions’ or from a few ‘keywords’) as belonging to group X, which is ‘wrong’, then I can assign to you all kinds of opinions regardless of whether or not you actually hold them, and proceed to criticize you accordingly.

    This is not the IDEAL of PC (which is basically trying not to offend people unnecessarily), but it is the PRACTICE of it in many cases, in my personal experience. It implies the loss of nuance, and the lack of patience to actually engage with people and their arguments — because they’re “one of them” and thus “wrong”.

    Reply
  4. Some One

    I came upon this blogpost through Twitter – just a few thoughts. I’m honestly not trying to be mean or ruin your day or anything, and you can listen or dismiss me as you please.

    A lot of your argument seems to boil down to vague dislike of conservatives. i.e. I think the “Colin Kaepernick should just stand up” thing is a knock against the broader societal concept of free speech in the same way most PC arguments are. In the same sense, “whereas mocking those things that middle class white (often male) America loves and cherishes is somehow objectively offensive and wrong” is indeed also really stupid. I agree with you on both of these. Heck, I also agree there’s nothing really wrong with the use of the n-word being barred from polite society.

    I think you can approach PC from a conservative perspective or a (for lack of a better term) classically liberal one. A group like FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), who have highly criticized ‘safe space’ culture while also defending Ward Churchill, or individuals like Conor Fridersdorf, a great anti-Trump writer who has also discussed campus controversies, fit in well into this framing. I think you’re not really giving this more consistent viewpoint any credit in favor of just saying a lot of conservatives who whine about this are hypocrites. Fair enough – but I don’t think that hits the PC argument on the substance. If you’re interested in THAT side, I suggest looking up people like Jon Haidt – i.e. the problem with “safe space” isn’t when the like-minded meet together, it’s when important and controversial ideas which need to be explored with a steady mind (think, say, biological differences in gender, transgender issues, the validity of questions like IQ/gender differences in IQ, etc.) are met with the politicized argument that these ideas are ‘unsafe’, done in the precise environment where ideas are supposed to be explored at their maximum level of freedom and in an environment of open inquiry (the university).

    “How easy is it for you to find articles in the major media outlets decrying the spread of “political correctness” or “safe spaces” versus articles in the same outlets specifically advocating political correctness or something like it? ”

    Uh, in the world of Buzzfeed/Huffington Post/Vox/progressive outlets, it’s immensely easy to find the latter and difficult to find the former (with some exceptions). In centrist outlets like, say, The Atlantic, it’s…still pretty leaning in the latter direction. On the right wing media, yes, you don’t get any of the latter. This seems like a quantitative question though I don’t have any numbers.

    In the media environment of 2013-2015, which has cooled down, basically everything was controversy over a bad tweet or badthink from a major figure. “#HasJustineLandedYet” is a good example of social-justice oriented harassment under the guise of thinking “we’re the good guys”. Jon Ronson did a great book on this. Slate once did an article chronicling 2014’s 365 days of outrage. I think this media environment was seized upon by elements of the far right, and Trump’s anti-PC bluster was a great vehicle for this expression, which picked up with a lot of rank-and-file Republicans. This was a childish, irresponsible, unforgiveable reaction towards actual bigotry which has likely doomed the Republican Party, justly – it has also made attacking PC from the libertarian-left far more difficult. But to that limited extent, I can see the point about PC helping Trump, tbh.

    “Ed from the blog Gin & Tacos pointed out how odd it was that Republicans, people who typically believe that employment should be “at-will” and frequently say nobody owes you a job, suddenly turn on the successful “job-creating” class when someone’s career is threatened over making “politically incorrect” comments”

    So wait a minute, what’s your actual thought here? You’re pointing out the hypocrisy but take the (very libertarian!) position that people getting fired for, say, politically incorrect comments on social media is no big deal. Are you just cool with a libertarian outlook on employment, then? Seems odd for a radical leftist.

    Here’s a smarter (leftist) writer than me on this issue: http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/04/18/free-speech-rights-and-ability/

    “Yes, some folks get banned from Youtube or Twitter for their opinions, but once again- these are private companies”

    Is there any reason to be concerned about the content of these devices coming down to the taste whims of Silicon Valley? Is there any possible way this could become a problem if we toss away societal conceptions of free speech? There’s a scenario where the people at the other end of the stick aren’t your enemies.

    “Put simply, it protects you from being punished by the government for expressing potentially unpopular ideas. It does not protect you from the consequences of that expression”

    Indeed, this is not a violation of THE FIRST AMENDMENT. But it is very worrisome to THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH. These are not the same things: free speech has a much broader and longer philosophical history. JS Mill was MORE worried about societal constraints on speech than the government.

    If you think that’s dumb, fair enough. But going after ‘free speech’ concerns by citing the legalism of the First Amendment always struck me as a shortcut.

    “Next time you see someone telling everyone how politically incorrect he is, mention that racism against minorities is still a serious problem in the US. Go online and say you are a feminist who has some concerns about the portrayal of females in video games. See what happens.”

    It seems to get you a job at Vice. You present the concept that the other side is worse on this front as a given at several points in this article, which meshes up with the current cultural stereotypes on this issue. Certainly, there’s a contingent, but I’m not so sure this actually holds up. It’s not too hard to find examples of the other side, i.e. http://heatst.com/entertainment/social-justice-warriors-push-teen-to-suicide/ (this is ignoring the aforementioned question of getting people fired)

    This also tends to fall back on the concept that women in the aggregate get the brunt of online abuse, mainly from (‘fedora’ stereotype style) men. Every single study I’ve seen of this issue doesn’t back up this conclusion:

    Most online misogynistic abuse come from women: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/26/women-are-responsible-for-half-of-online-abuse-study-finds/
    Also backed up by a study done for the Labour Party #ReclaimTheInternet campaign – a study that seems to have selectively released its results, as though it didn’t back up their political agenda as much as they hoped: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36380247
    Demos found men get more harassment than women online: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html
    And so did Pew Research: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

    I don’t really consider myself an MRA and tend to find that whole subculture a bit icky on the whole, but I’ve been following this issue for awhile and think they have a point on this specific front. This seems to have become a cultural trope – backed up by the very same institutions you seem to think never report on the ‘other side’ of the PC divide – based on largely anecdotal evidence.

    Again, not trying to ruin your day or get into a fight, but there’s some food for thought. Hopefully something in there will have been worth reading.

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      First of all to tackle the first section of your post, I’m very happy that there are those who support all kinds of unpopular speech such as Capernick. Unfortunately this tends not to be a mainstream opinion. What we constantly see is an endless parade of sensationalism about PC “gone mad,” safe spaces, soft youth, etc.

      I agree that there are a lot of idiotic things going on in academia now, but there are intelligent ways to address it and bad ways.

      Now on to my supposedly libertarian argument- it’s not. My point is that many of the people decrying people losing their jobs basically are libertarians or conservatives who believe that employment should be at-will and the boss has the right to be totalitarian dictator in the workplace…except when an employee says something that offends some marginalized group and they threaten a boycott. Now the employer is apparently supposed to ignore profit motive and take the hit.

      I think both you and I agree that the fact that there are no guarantees about free speech in the workplace is just an example of how you can’t have true freedom in a system that requires you to spend the better part of your day in what is essentially a totalitarian dictatorship (seeing that your bosses have the right to dictate virtually everything you do in that time).

      And on that note, if we’re going to talk about the concept of free speech, I’m sorry but nobody has ever advocated absolute free speech. This would make society impossible. What is law is concrete, and sometimes imperfect, but it’s the best we can manage.

      Now as for brigading and harassment- I’m not entirely surprised that males might be targeted more often. Hell, I was targeted by a cyber stalker who was, incidentally, a woman. In fact I became the target of this person because I expressed a very, very acceptable opinion rather than something controversial.

      That being said, and without having read the studies in detail yet, I’m wondering as to the intensity of the harassment. Males will get called faggots online all the time, but what about death threats, rape threats, and massive movements like Gamergate?

      No matter what it’s for, there’s no doubt that this sort of behavior, whatever side if comes from, is at best not helpful in the least. This is something Cracked.com has pointed out in numerous podcasts- the fact that even when people join the hate campaigns against people who literally did say something bad, they aren’t really addressing any real problems. It’s easy to “call someone out” online, but actually addressing concrete examples of racism, misogyny, etc. takes work and time, and most people are content to just send a nasty Tweet and move on when the topic stops trending.

      I wish I had more time to discuss it further, but anyway thanks for showing what intelligent discussion of the PC issue should look like.

      Reply
      1. Asehpe

        “No matter what it’s for, there’s no doubt that this sort of behavior, whatever side if comes from, is at best not helpful in the least. This is something Cracked.com has pointed out in numerous podcasts- the fact that even when people join the hate campaigns against people who literally did say something bad, they aren’t really addressing any real problems.”

        That is a good way to put it. Basically, whenever such campaigns start, they demonize the person they’re against, robbing him/her of any human characterstic other than having done/said whatever they accuse him/her of having done/said. This kills discussions, nuance, shades of gray, and actual desire to advance in the analysis of the problem in question, replacing everything with simplistic solutions from both sides that only work in some fantasy la-la-land world far removed from reality.

        It’s not simply the fact that you get “branded” as “the enemy”: it is also the fact that the people doing that think they’re doing something useful and actually helping society evolve and improve.

        They aren’t. After all this time, after all philosophy and liberal politics… we’re still tribes fighting against each other for a place under the sun. And we fight nasty.

      2. Jim Kovpak Post author

        I’d add to that the fact that such campaigns totally miss the opportunity to make the person aware of what they actually did wrong and help them come over to the other side. Of course fans of the “call-out” culture will scream “IT’S NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU!” and “DON’T TONE POLICE ME!” But I’m sorry, you kind of have to do that if you want to get people to listen to you and take your side. It may not be fair, but that’s just a feature of human society. And if you expect everyone to talk a certain way so as not to offend you, you’d better be ready to explain why, i.e. educate others.

      3. Asehpe

        Indeed. Which is why what worries me in today’s discourse is not so much the PC (to me, PC in principle is just another word for ‘respect’), but the vehemence — pro-PC (and now also anti-PC) people are so vehement, so full of SCREEMING CAPITALS about all kinds of things, so ready to shame others rather than engage in dialogue… that I fear we’ve reached some point at which progress becomes literally impossible.

        If the other side already despises you so much that there is no chance any of your arguments will be heard… what can we do? Lenin would probably say that it’s time to seize power and ‘re-educate the masses’. Sometimes I almost feel like agreeing. Brr… But when I look at the discourse in the American election and how each side claims the other is the Antichrist… How is there ever going to be any meaningful dialogue in this climate?

  5. gunlord500

    Great post, though in reference to this:

    What do you see on TV? One of America’s most popular shows was (and perhaps still is) South Park. Would you consider that a particularly politically correct show?

    It wouldn’t surprise me to hear more than a few conservatives claim South Park is “politically correct.” One of its creators is a Jew and the reliably racist, anti-Semitic Cartman is usually the butt of most jokes, so they’d probably claim the show as evidence of some Jewish (and/or Bolshevik) conspiracy against Traditional White Heterosexual Male Family Values.

    Reply
  6. Iced Teague

    Saw this interaction you had with Dr. Nichols a little while back. Really smart guy, and I’m a fairly conservative person as well as a fan of his, but I thought his answer was bull****. The right foisted Trump on themselves, it wasn’t some jerkoff college students talking about safe spaces that incited hatred in people’s hearts. There needs to be accountability here.

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      Yeah I find it hard to believe that whiny college students had such an impact on people who on average make $72,000 a year (average Trump supporter).

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s