a political thought can be politically correct only if it is scientifically painstaking. – Foucault
Let’s talk about Political correctness for a moment.
Normally, when people hurl the concept at me I mock them In practice, political correct is a way of saying Polite. Political correctness is about the way that groups are discriminated against, and deriding something for being politically correct is a way of saying you prefer to be a rude asshole without saying you prefer to be a rude asshole.
That’s in practice.
So when I see things like this:
This is a fair principle for the most part but when the politically correct restrictions prevent someone from even taking note of their biology or speculating on the experiences they probably encountered as a result of this biology and it’s implications then we have a problem.
I shake my head at the ignorance and outright hsotility that is present in such a statement.
First off it argues that the principle in discussion is “fair”, with the implied understanding of using those words being that they agree with the principle.
So keep that in mind. They Agree.
Then they speak about policies, rules, and guidance that are involved in not being a rude asshole making it difficult to be a rude asshole, and that creates a problem.
That is literally what that phrase is saying.
That is important. THey are arguing that the ability to be a rude asshole is something that shouldn’t be stopped in the interest of not discriminating against other people.
Which proves that they want to be a rude asshole and that they want to be able to perpetuate the kinds of nasty crap that further the oppression of other people and interfere with their ability to live their lives with their rights.
That is the meaning here.
a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist, too. – Toni Bambara
Now some folks might take umbrage at the idea that being a rude asshole is a bad thing.
This is especially prevalent among people who use the phrase politically correct as an excuse not to do whatever it is. At the time that the two quotes used here by Liberal authors were written, those who used it held it as a warning against the internal tendency within the Left to do some ugly stuff.
The modern usage of the term, however, can be traced to a specific book. This book promoted the idea of Political correctness as a label for a range of policies in academia and the broader society (including law) around supporting multiculturalism though affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority “hate speech”, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as “canon busting”) to do things like add Black History Month or Women's history month and the like.
You know, the stuff that helps to protect minorities from discrimination, because discrimination is not in the public interest.
This happened because of the rise of things like Women’s Lib, Gay rights, and racial groups coalescing around common goals in a political manner.
The book was “Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus”. It built on the growing resentment among white, wealthy, straight men who resented the growing power of these groups and who resisted such.
So Political Correctness, in the US, as it is used today, is very much the purview and designated derision of those in power.
Using political correctness as a tool is an act of supporting the oppression of others.
Intentionally, wilfully, and with malice. Because the derision is based in malice.
a movement [that would] declare certain topics ‘off-limits’, certain expressions ‘off-limits’, even certain gestures ‘off-limits’ – George H. W. Bush
What topics is it referring to?
Gay rights. Apparently, the idea that human and civil rights should be granted to everyone is a topic that should be widely discussed, witht he notion of not doing so something that should freely and widely be understood as reasonable.
In a nation that claims to have respect and to offer its citizens those rights as a matter of course and part of its core mission.
How is it reasonable to deny someone their civil and human rights?
That is a rhetorical question. Because to reasonable people it is not reasonable to do so.
Yet people who use the colloquialism Political Correctness as a derisive tool, as is the case in the comment used as an example, are quite literally saying when they use the term that it should be done.
Now think on that for a bit.
It is rude to do things like use the word “nigger”. To slap women you hardly know on the behind and say “blow me later, baby”. To call a tans woman a man or male. To talk about Mexican Americans as wetbacks, or refer to a Persian man as a terrorist.
These things are also often acts of violence against those people.
And using the term politically correct is arguing that such things are reasonable, that they are not rude, that the discrimination they experience is justified and has real value.
that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrollering the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting… – Jan Narveson
GIve that some thought. SOmething that is real, that is genuine, that has a measurable and valid impact, is turned into an abstract concept,
It is a dehumanizing phrase, a way of dismissing the real harm done and making it seem innocent and unassuming.
WHich is what assholes do.
So, when you see the term Politically correct, you now know the people using it are, bluntly, admitting to being rude assholes who want to be rude assholes.
What is often pernicious about this is that they will use this as an excuse to argue that it interferes with their freedom of speech.
Yet it doesn’t. They are still free to be rude assholes. THey will just be noted and remarked on as rude assholes who care more about their particular pet theories – almost always uninformed and anti-intellectual in nature – than the proven facts of the issue.
It is always about preserving their power. They see it as a threat. SO they react.
And that tells you all you need to know about them.