Some things in public discourse ought to be pretty simple and devoid of controversy. For instance, words have definitions that are verifiable and universally agreed upon. Without that it would be impossible to have a conversation. And yet, there are Republican candidates for president who appear to prefer to invent their own definitions in order to advance an otherwise absurd argument.
For example, the phrase “politically correct” has a specific meaning that everyone who speaks English understands. It isn’t some vague concept unto which you can project whatever meaning suits you at the time. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as…
“The avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”
See? That wasn’t hard. It would, therefore, be politically incorrect to refer to a woman as a “ho” or to an adult African-America man as “boy.” It would also be politically incorrect for a pizza joint to call their barbecued chicken special “The Sambo” or for a bar to make Tuesday’s Dwarf Tossing Night. It usually includes language that has been considered acceptable in some deviant circles. But if the language or activity is insulting or hurtful to people who are already struggling for respect in a social environment that rewards or at least tolerates prejudice, it is politically incorrect. And the part that refers to people who are victims of discrimination is absolutely essential to the definition. It’s the part that makes it political. Otherwise it would be merely incorrect.
However, conservatives are desperately trying to redefine the phrase so that they can use it to escape responsibility for outright repulsiveness. They want an all-purpose excuse for absolution, usually after they have already embarrassed themselves with some crass comments or behavior. Their definition of political correctness would be more like “Any comments or actions that people find offensive.” But that isn’t political correctness, it’s just being an asshole.
Ben Carson has made whining about political correctness a core feature of his campaign. He asserts that he is the victim of it when he takes criticism for saying that Muslims can’t be president, or that ObamaCare is the worst thing since slavery, or implying that the victims of the Oregon shooting cooperated with their killer. But those are not instances of political correctness. They are instances of boorishness and ignorance. And his inability to understand the Constitution or healthcare or crime does not grant him license to say stupid things without taking criticism for it.
Donald Trump is another candidate who needs to twist the meaning of political correctness. It is not politically incorrect to call Mexicans rapists, or to denigrate women as fat pigs, or refer to your rivals or the media as stupid losers. That would be better defined as rude, immature, and hostile. Which pretty well defines Trump.
How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.
The concept of political correctness has taken a beating in recent years as Republicans who want to retain it as a shield against criticism that they deserve try to distort it’s meaning. But it is a useful measure of progress in a society that has been far too tolerant of bigotry. There ought to be a price to pay for using language as a cudgel to continue suppressing people. So it is important that we do not allow the bigots and the bastards to redefine it as anything for which they take some heat.
FoxPod Principle of “Political Correctness”: It is only correct when you believe exactly what we tell you. Otherwise, whatever it is is liberal propaganda, and anyone who believes liberal propaganda should be beheaded, drawn and quartered, tortured, deported, or anything else we dream up depending on the circumstances.
Oh brother, more dishonesty and hypocrisy from Mark. Look, when Donald Trump screams about political correctness, you know he is full of it. His comments are unquestionably hate-filled and stupid. He reminds me of Bill Maher. But left-wing groupthink proclaims that if you’re a conservative and you use the dreaded word “Chicago” you are a racist. Political correctness is a device to shut down dissent. Thankfully, conservatives are pushing back.
He is just trying to sanitize the idiocy created by the left with respect to speech.
There is a direct line from conservatives’ hatred of political correctness to their increased tendency over the general population to negatively categorize and label others. I truly believe that the root of their offense is because to them it’s like saying that their method of reasoning is faulty. Conservatives have also been shown to be less introspective and more rigid in their thinking, so that doesn’t help much either.
Conservatives tend to resist control more than liberals. Do you think the attempt to control society with tools such as PC (as the left seems to like) is the reason for society being so screwed up now? Just curious given your moronic suggestion about conservatives.
Conservatives Resist control ?
I guess right-Tards only want to control women’s uterus. I would go on, but you would give a bunch of talking points with no facts. So don’t even try.
It is quite the conflict – Fox News and today’s GOP version of conservatism is about controlling others too as well as permanent war and empire building, I won’t deny it. So there is certainly an issue there. You’re applying that definition based on your TV fed brain – so it’s not a surprise. The Fox News and modern republican party are NOT conservative. True Conservatism is more aligned with Classical Liberalism – and those 2 examples are nothing like that. So in the end – you are not using the term as it is intended or properly defined.
I would have said that conservatives crave control and structure much more than liberals who tend to be a little willy-nilly and open to new ideas and approaches but maybe you are a different kind of conservative.
See above…
I don’t think that society is any more screwed up than it was when Ronnie Reagan was president. Things are screwed up in different ways. Thus is life. But calling my comment moronic and dismissing it out of hand probably doesn’t help anything, either. How about attending to yourself and your need to insult everyone here before you pontificate on the ills of society?
“right-tards”??? moronic is about right.
And as far as society goes – I won’t suggest it was perfect under Ronald Reagan, but your comparison is – I bet – about defending this president and the fact that mass shootings are happening all the time under him, people are more poor under him (more because of the banks and their money schemes), many other data points I’ve provided previously such as home ownership rates, labor participation rates (not all demographic) and actual inflation rate (base on older formula for inflation that is more realistic). Here is the date of for shooting frequency presented by Mother Jones:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research
So society does seem more messed up since Barack Obama became president – and I know it’s not all his fault but I like to apply the rules the way you guys do.
Actually I wasn’t defending Obama or referring to mass shootings. Can you see beyond the end of your nose? Maybe you could ask questions if you don’t understand something … rather than making assumptions. Because you make a lot of assumptions about people and you seem to dislike it when people make assumptions about you.
Ok – here is how I know you were defending BHO – your quote:
“I don’t think that society is any more screwed up than it was when Ronnie Reagan was president”
Referring to and comparing a period of time as you did (by president) is clearly defending today from a time “ruled” by someone” else. It may be subconscious, but it’s a reasonable extrapolation. Say what you want – it’s just normal for you and the ilk here to default to defense of government or it’s leader. Especially when it’s a liberal, first something or other president. Just accept it. I didn’t introduce the Ronald Reagan time period or any other time into the discussion – you did.
Well that was idiotic, but not entirely unexpected.
blah blah – the current condition of society in this country makes those of your political stripe more dangerous than ever. With the takeover of government by the banks and corporate america, the possibility people will gravitate toward more government control favored by leftists is real – even if it will mean less freedom and control over their own lives.
Poor poor Uncle Ben, powitical cowwectness is huwting is feewings. Boo hoo. By the way, this article perfectly personifies Uncle Ben.
http://www.gq.com/story/fuck-ben-carson