Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Burning ghost
Posts: 2466
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Burning ghost » November 25th, 2017, 2:36 am

Sir, sir!!
Our definition of the term "Muslim" does NOT, therefore, include what some people refer to as nominal or "cultural" Muslims, nor to non-practicing Muslims, reformers or persons who who choose to identify as Muslims out of concern for their own safety, (of whom there are plenty), given Islam's highly controversial view on apostasy.
Does this mean we can only really consider a Muslim as a "true" Muslim if they think that apostasy should be met with death? This seems a little silly to me sir considering there are plenty of "Muslims" who disagree with how the Koran is interpreted in this case. I would gather their argumentation would general stem from a language being used in a bygone era and in the modern world being amply open to various hermeneutic machinations.

It seems to me, with all respect sir, that you're insinuating that we can only really label a "Muslim" as a "true" Muslim if they adhere to some kind of Old Testament mindset (or rather, as many scholars agree, ACTUAL Old Testament nonsense that even Christians have dropped as a literal interpretation - at least to an extent that we hardly fear such extreme and archaic rules.)

Can you clear this up for us please? Are you saying that belief in the death penalty for apostasy is what is required for a "true" Muslim? I could happily refer you to an educated "Muslim" who conversed with a certain Mr. Dawkins and openly stated he did not believe that apostasy should be met with death.

It seems, at least to me and a few others I've heard from sir, that Islam has simply been thrust into the modern world and that any if we were to compare the historical situation with other religious institutions then we may be able to see the whole pattern in a different, and more complete, light.

I have not even bothered to mention the whole geographic-sociopolitical situation. Religion, in its many forms, is but one part of a greater human picture. There are a number of bastions where religion influences global politics and their "crimes" may not be so in-your-face as a suicide bomber, but they are by no means less destructive or dangerous. State religion is a worry, but considering that the idea of "State" is pretty similar to the instigation of "religion" as institution, and that the idea of The State is a in fast decline, I think there are bigger things to worry about here if you can draw yourself away from the microscopic view of one nation compared to the whole of human society as a global entity with increasingly fractured State models that are looking seriously outdated and at best merely remain as a convenient framework for holding in place some modicum of society structure for newly formed/forming Corporate States to "manipulate"/"guide" - a tricky dance which the public, and the powers that be, are more and more caught up in. There seems to be a kind of global miasma of self-deception, a deception created upon an economic consumerist model of living that worked and progress us well enough to find ourselves at such a great height of knowledge and understanding ... the problem is that now we've hit the ceiling of the use of this model we seem wholly unable to sever ourselves from it and are likely to eat each other up unless we can redirect the cultural human momentum we created for a purpose and had mastery over, but which has turned on us and now we're merely in the seat of the master even though we appear to be slaves of our own creation and more and more unable to even see this let alone begin to apply any practical solutions.

To put it simply, "sir"; or rather, persona of pedagogy - I say knowing full well that "to teach" is merely a different way of saying "to learn". If you've been, or are a teacher, then I can assume you understand the position of "authority" and how easy it is to fall into the trap of pretending to know that which you don't by hiding behind convenient facts.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Steve3007 » November 25th, 2017, 9:29 pm

Dachshund:
I'm glad you've asked that question...
What question? The only question I asked was whether I get detention. That question?
...because it is very important for us to clearly specify whom we have decided to designate as "Muslims" given, as you suggest, the term "Muslim" has a considerable potential to be loosely applied , especially in the contemporary Western societies like Britain today.
Loosely appled by non-Muslims. Like yourself perhaps? Are you a Muslim?

As I've said, I think the sensible thing to do is let Muslims tell me whether they consider themselves Muslim and, if so, why, and in what sense. If a person tells me he/she is a Catholic but uses contraception, it's not my place to insist that they are not a Catholic. Likewise, if a person tells me he/she is a Muslim but does not believe in death to apostates then it's not my place to insist that they are not a Muslim. It would be interesting to see how this works for them. Based on past experience, I expect they'd say various things about the words of the Quran being seen in their historical context, much as the Catholic would about the commandment to breed like rabbits.

Have you tried this yourself? Talking to actual real life Muslims? How many have you talked to in the process of your research on this religion? When you ask them why they're not all out there killing apostates, as good Muslims should, what do they say?

Greta:
It saddens me to see how the egalitarianism of the internet has allowed the noisy and uninformed to gain a level of influence that had always previously been suppressed when widely distributed media was subject to editorial control. It's saddening because I believe in freedom - but it doesn't work any more, not with such populations. The level of freedom on the internet is unsustainable, with post fact gaming eroding the west from the inside...
Yes, I think we have replaced one set of interesting problems with another set of interesting problems. Perhaps you're right about the inevitable controls over internet content, but I wonder if it's possible to at least imagine that happening in a non-tyrranical way, even if it can't actually be realized.

It seems to me that the ideal form of journalism is similar to the ideal form of government: benign dictatorship. Journalism which is funded in such a way that it doesn't have to be motivated by profit, and can still be a "profession", meaning that people who do it learn how to properly research stories and check sources, but which can somehow be guaranteed to be self-evidently not a propaganda tool for whoever is in power. (It would have to be self-evident to make it difficult to make false accusations of bias). But unfortunately, benign dictatorship appears to be an oxymoron.

Burning ghost to Dachshund:
Does this mean we can only really consider a Muslim as a "true" Muslim if they think that apostasy should be met with death? This seems a little silly to me sir considering there are plenty of "Muslims" who disagree with how the Koran is interpreted in this case. I would gather their argumentation would general stem from a language being used in a bygone era and in the modern world being amply open to various hermeneutic machinations.
It's a "No true Scotsman" type of argument, but with the Scotsman replaced with a Muslim. Dachshund's position is simply that you're not a true Muslim unless you want to murder all non-believers, therefore all Muslims want to murder non-believers.

Personally, I'm certainly not a fan of Islam, as I understand the religion. But, of course, the point I have to remember is that, not being a Muslim, I don't fully understand it, as it is actually practiced by people who are. And the best way I can understand what it means to individual people is to communicate with those individual people.

I think it's possible to have a reasonably sane discussion with Spectrum on this subject, who I think makes some interesting points. But Dachshund lost me at the point when he decided that people I know, who live in the country where I live, who happen to be Muslims, should be treated the same way that the Nazis treated the Jews. I know this is an example of the truth of Godwin's law, that all internet discussions sooner or later result in people comparing each other to Nazis, but in this case it actually appears to be a valid comparison.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7140
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Greta » November 26th, 2017, 5:47 am

Steve3007 wrote:It seems to me that the ideal form of journalism is similar to the ideal form of government: benign dictatorship. Journalism which is funded in such a way that it doesn't have to be motivated by profit, and can still be a "profession", meaning that people who do it learn how to properly research stories and check sources, but which can somehow be guaranteed to be self-evidently not a propaganda tool for whoever is in power. (It would have to be self-evident to make it difficult to make false accusations of bias). But unfortunately, benign dictatorship appears to be an oxymoron.
Yes, the last sentence rings true, at least at this stage in the evolution of public discourse. Trump has exploited the same loophole as Murdoch (and Abbott) - lying doesn't matter if you can discredit the honour systems that attempt to discourage it, and if everyone else was squeaky clean they wouldn't have gotten away with it.

It's all looking like game theory at this point. Tit-for-tat is being overrun by Always Defect. However, the latter can only sustain itself in a population of cooperative strategies. If enough former cooperators tire of having their good nature exploited and join the mass movement towards defection, then a society itself will weaken and become vulnerable to more internally cooperative societies.

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Steve3007 » November 26th, 2017, 6:32 pm

...and if everyone else was squeaky clean they wouldn't have gotten away with it.
Yes. In the kingdom of the one-eyed men the blind man is relatively unremarkable. (Does that work? Possibly a bit cumbersome compared to the original.)
It's all looking like game theory at this point. Tit-for-tat is being overrun by Always Defect. However, the latter can only sustain itself in a population of cooperative strategies. If enough former cooperators tire of having their good nature exploited and join the mass movement towards defection, then a society itself will weaken and become vulnerable to more internally cooperative societies.
"Always defect" as in the prisoner's dilemma. Similar to the tragedy of the commons. But you're being optimistic and saying that, ultimately, societies that favour cooperation over competition will out-compete societies that don't?

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Razblo » November 27th, 2017, 2:18 am

Rederic wrote:In America 85 people per day are killed with guns. Terrorists don't have to do anything, Americans are doing it for them.

16 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabians are not banned from travelling to the USA. I wonder why? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Trump has business interests there, would it?
America has to deal and make deals with Saudi Arabia. I think Trump had an influence on the regime shift there recently. I think that maybe the one's so far shifted out have some information regarding the Bush and Obama legacies. We shall see.

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Steve3007 » December 13th, 2017, 3:42 am

So, Trump's man has lost the race in Alabama, against the odds. Is this the beginning of the US electorate waking up on the sofa and deciding to turn off the Trump show and see what's on the other channel? Or have they just been duped by the lies and fake news of the anti-Trump mainstream media? I'd be willing to bet cash on which one Trump will be tweeting.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1919
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Hereandnow » January 17th, 2018, 5:32 pm

Dachshund:
I think Trump is one of the best Presidents the US has ever had
Your first paragraph from which this quote is lifted says you like Trump because he's "no obfuscation, no sophistry, no labyrinthine rhetoric; he is a straight-shooter." First, being a straight shooter begs the question: what is he straight shooting about? Who cares if he's stright shooting about being, say, a serial killer. Hardly a mitigating condition if the it is appalling behavior in question, is it. Ted Bundy was a straight shooter; he'd told others in the greatest frankness of the joy he received in strangling women. See the point? Second, you conflate being himself with straight shooting. Trump is NOT in fact a straight shooter at all. He is a dissembler beyond anything this world has sen since the propaganda machinery of the nazis. He is first and foremost, beyond any trait you might ascribe, a liar. If you think not, then, and I do not want unkind, you are either compromised in your thinking or lying yourself. Trump's lying is an objective fact. Even he knows this.

Your second paragraph is out of place and does not in any way encourage your argument.
In short,I think that Trump is genuinely alarmed by his observation that Western societies today are increasingly paralysed by a potentially self-destructive cancer of "political correctness",
This is from your third paragraph. Yes, I think you're right, Trump is genuinely alarmed that the the world has gone soft in its accommodating rhetoric regarding radical Islam. I am not sure why I should care about what is alarming to a person like this, though: he is not very smart, doesn't read, is vulgar beyond dignity, never has said an interesting think in his life. I mean, why is he right? That is the question. Not, he thinks this or that. There is a very convincing argument that says whatever he says should be prima facie dismissed, simply because he does not say intelligent things as a matter of course.
So far, nothing here to recommend Trump at all. (But you did push a lot of vacuous reading on me.)
1) To begin with we need to try and the define the meaning of the term "political correctness" as it is used in the West today. I think "political correctness" is currently a term of abuse in the West that connotes an overly tolerant, overly liberal attitude, a hypersensitivity to the prospect of saying, doing or even thinking anything that might be offensive to any of the minority groups that exist within advanced industrial democratic societies yet do not embrace/respect the core values that underpin the dominant, (nominally) Christian ,white/European, culture of Western Enlightenment rationality that defines these societies (for example, the United States, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada among others).
finally, a point. Political correctness, as I suspect you know, started as a pejorative coined by conservatives. It suggests saying anything to appease some complaining minority. Go back a bit further in time, and this includes issues like child labor laws and a national minimum wage. It is still in the minds of many conservatives that this latter is a bad idea.

My thought is this: The US is not a Christian White European culture. It was, but by 2060 or so these will not be the majority any more. You have to yield to this, or go apoplectic and start reading Breitbart News. Now, in this huge, complex, muticultural evolving society, as once voiceless minorities swell into political voting blocks (notwithstanding conservative efforts to gerrymander the vote), there arises issues never thought important before. Blacks under Jim Crow had to fight red in tooth and claw to enfranchisement as citizens, for example. We are still trying to make this work. Difficult when you have a conservative mentality that possesses such primitive manicheanism (it is all right or wrong, good of evil, good decisions, bad decisions) in their thinking on matters of crime, poverty and ignorance and refuses to invest in the measures required to liberate people from poverty. Blacks, Asians, Ashkenazi Jews: all will fail in abject poverty save when circumstances allow. (Trumps comment about Haiti: beneath contempt, truly. Those people are desperately poor, unlike Trump who received millions for nothing. Why you like a man pours out cruel, stupid remarks against the poor is unfathomable. Einstein would have, had been born on the near west side of Baltimore, become a terrific drug dealer, no doubt.)

But the point about political correctness being oversensitive is true. That is the way it goes with change. See how the right fights back so vigorously now against the Obama legacy. It is a painful political struggle to bring these people into the future. Like the sixties, conservatism will not go gently into that good night. But it is going. Trump is just an aberration rising out of the resentment against change.
f one broadly accepts this definition of "political correctness", is Trump correct in claiming that it has become a serious problem in the West in the context of the threat to Western culture/civilization that is posed by the Muslim/Islamic world? The answer, I would argue is a clear and unequivocal "Yes, it has". I say this because I believe that the West today is struggling in thrall of a "crisis of rationality" ( a crisis of Enlightenment reasoning) that has suffused its societies with a toxic cultural ( moral/ethical, epistemological and metaphysical) relativism. This predicament is, in my opinion, a consequence of the progressive cleavage in Western culture of the supernatural/Divine knowledge of (revealed) Christian faith from the knowledge that is afforded by human ("Enlightenment") reasoning alone, but this is a separate issue for debate and I will not belabour it here; suffice to say that I believe there is a general consensus of opinion among mainstream philosophers today that contemporary Western civilization is indeed beset with a widespread culture of moral/ethical/epistemological/metaphysical relativism and moribund skepticism about which there is the unmistakable stench of nihilism and self-destruction.This "doctrine" of cultural relativism and skepticism while it denies any values, is ironically, doctrinairre in its own enforcement. Faced with an onslaught from the Muslim/Islamic world that currently (and correctly) recognizes Western culture as decadent, we no longer know what it is we want to defend. We tell ourselves, that we in the West stand for human rights, freedom, democracy, tolerance, justice - and yet we also tell ourselves that we cannot uphold these rights because to prefer one culture over another is racist or xenophobic. So, a liberal society cannot by definition defend itself, but in the interest of equality must apparantly accept its own obliteration. This is Trump's point.
Now that has a lot of impressive words. Let's take a look.

A crisis in rationality? Reason, you will recall, has no political favorites. It is, as Hume put it, an empty vessel. It awaits the content to give it direction. Are you saying Descartes or Kant produced an body of thought that is offended by political inclusion? Have you ever read Kant on Morality? Do you know his deontological thesis which includes as its major premise a respect for persons as "ends in themselves" and that this is an inalienable right of all, ever Haitians and Africans s it is grounded in our essential being?
Moral relativism? Interesting complaint. What do you think should be the absolute criteria for making public policy? Is it Christianity? Are you a Christian that thinks the world should be Christian? Have you EVER read the Old Testament? When was the last time you made a burnt offering to Yahweh?

This is Trump's point? First, Trump does not have a point, okay? Look. you can have strong views. But you should not hitch your wagon to an idiot.

What is this: "We tell ourselves, that we in the West stand for human rights, freedom, democracy, tolerance, justice - and yet we also tell ourselves that we cannot uphold these rights because to prefer one culture over another is racist or xenophobic. So, a liberal society cannot by definition defend itself, but in the interest of equality must apparantly accept its own obliteration. This is Trump's point."
You need to understand a muticultural society: there is nothing here that says you cannot prefer one culture over another. It is about tolerance and equal treatment in a world where there are people of difference. You're right, though, Trump thinks like this and doesn't understand; this is because, by his own confession, he does not read.
And then you say a liberal society cannot defend itself because of this inherent contradiction, so liberal say. But liberals don't say this.

I"m out of time. More to a proper critical analysis of your little sand hill of big words.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2466
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Burning ghost » January 18th, 2018, 1:36 am

Being partially correct about one thing is not going to counteract a multitude of other less rational positions based on heresay and opinionated rhetoric. Everyone says something useful at some point, be it accidently or accidently on purpose :P
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Ser10Rec1pr0
Posts: 89
Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 9:38 am
Favorite Philosopher: Harold Garfinkel

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Ser10Rec1pr0 » January 19th, 2018, 9:42 am

Greta wrote:
November 15th, 2017, 5:06 am
I continue to be surprised by support for Trump - proven pervert, chronic outrageous liar, cronyist and delusional narcissist, whose only vision for the future is making more money for him and his mates and being aggressive towards coloured people. ...
I have concluded that support for Trump is more disavowal of those that challenged him; mainly, one Hillary Clinton: "If I don't insist I support Trump, somebody might think I support the Hi-C."

There's an old anecdote about the movie director that makes one of those socially conscious flicks about struggles against oppression, & if someone tells him it was a bad movie, director replies, "Well, you're not pro-Nazi, are you?"

We claim to vehemently agree with one to avoid being confused with the other.
Greta wrote:
November 15th, 2017, 5:06 am
Surely we with an interest in the philosophical can move past the standards of the deeply unintelligent people who wouldn't know an examined life if it bit them on the bum? We are surely able to accept that humans are generally annoying, especially when they promote views we don't like. Funny about that. Let's not pretend that we are less annoying than "the other" because we are not.

Oneupmanship in the political domain that is based on real abilities and qualities is one thing. Playing oneupmanship based on hypocritical poppycock (such as being more or less PC than the other mob) ruins the public conversation, and then important topics are lost in the noise.
I have never believed there was PC; that's a media term to allow them to conveniently categorize, which makes life & reporting much easier. Here stateside, every 24 to 36 h, there's another knucklehead, including the Pres., saying something idiotic & untoward about someone or something, getting criticized for it, then claiming it was taken "out of context" or that they just plain didn't say it. Just because someone's deeply offended by what another says doesn't mean they're PC; maybe they're plain offended by public idiocy.

As for Trump being "right," he's never been right. Nor has he ever been a businessman: just his selling his Trump Shuttle for $100mil less than he paid for the old Eastern Shuttle 3 yr before & calling it a success is resounding proof of that. Our Pres. lives in the closed world of 40 yr ago, when he was a TrumpOrg. novice & the nation was in the shadows of 'Nam, Watergate, inflation; the election of a nobody (Carter, 1976), the NYC blackout (1977), the Iran hostage crisis (1979).

Our Pres. views the world inside & outside Trump Tower thru stereotypes & believes that shafting people is good business. Later, even by 1988, genuine business people thought Trump some kind of clown prince of corporate raiders (his "history of greenmail"; look it up!), but that didn't stop our primarily right-wing press from idolizing Trump's questionable NYC celebrity; in 2016, the two political parties joined in & nominated what amounted to two celebrities (in the press, respectively called businessman & politician) for their candidates.

We shall be reaping the effects of that lil' act of sedition for decades to come; PC or no PC.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7140
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Greta » January 19th, 2018, 7:30 pm

I like your analysis, Ser10. Yes, "Trumpism" is a reactionary conservative movement, reacting against what are perceived to be the agents of change that spoiled their perfect party. Problematic climate change being one of the things blamed for disruption, and is thus denied.

China clearly has a better nose for a bargain than the hubris-riddled US, and thus are embracing solar energy because they see the benefit of generating their energy almost for free, a deal that the US are slow to appreciate.

User avatar
Ser10Rec1pr0
Posts: 89
Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 9:38 am
Favorite Philosopher: Harold Garfinkel

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Ser10Rec1pr0 » February 20th, 2018, 2:50 pm

Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2018, 7:30 pm
... China clearly has a better nose for a bargain than the hubris-riddled US, and thus are embracing solar energy because they see the benefit of generating their energy almost for free, a deal that the US are slow to appreciate.
Our dad insisted he was 100% conservative & voted for Nixon & Lodge in 1960 & for Goldwater & Miller in 1964. I'm not so sure he ever thought any candidate--including Nixon Redux--was a quantifiable conservative after 1964.

Yet, he sounded positively progressive (& maybe even a bit dreamscape-y) on the topic of solar energy--back in the early 1970s--&--I'd left the nest years before--apparently spent much time in his garage (which he built) workshop, drawing up diagrams & prototypes for solar panels; much to mom's consternation.

My folks "recycled" long before it fell under corporate banners & dug compost holes around their--granted, 14 acres--each year.

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Steve3007 » February 20th, 2018, 5:25 pm

It may seem easy to despair when we pinch ourselves and remember that this guy really is president of the USA. But it's good to see some people apparently turning this disaster into something positive:

https://trumpforest.com/

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7140
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Greta » February 21st, 2018, 3:15 am

Ser10Rec1pr0 wrote:
February 20th, 2018, 2:50 pm
Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2018, 7:30 pm
... China clearly has a better nose for a bargain than the hubris-riddled US, and thus are embracing solar energy because they see the benefit of generating their energy almost for free, a deal that the US are slow to appreciate.
Our dad insisted he was 100% conservative & voted for Nixon & Lodge in 1960 & for Goldwater & Miller in 1964. I'm not so sure he ever thought any candidate--including Nixon Redux--was a quantifiable conservative after 1964.

Yet, he sounded positively progressive (& maybe even a bit dreamscape-y) on the topic of solar energy--back in the early 1970s--&--I'd left the nest years before--apparently spent much time in his garage (which he built) workshop, drawing up diagrams & prototypes for solar panels; much to mom's consternation.

My folks "recycled" long before it fell under corporate banners & dug compost holes around their--granted, 14 acres--each year.
Yes, conservatives of that generation were different. My father was a member of the Liberal Party (Australia's major conservative party, as you probably already know) but, having been a come through the Depression, been a refugee and working on a family farm he was most keen on environmental preservation, recycling, avoiding waste, avoiding animal cruelty and helping small business compete with corporations.

That's not far from Green policy today.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1919
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by Hereandnow » February 21st, 2018, 11:07 am

Leave he who shall not be named out of it. Political correctness has a good side: we have to be kind to people, not cruel, when we speak. Bad side: language management like this can take the fun out of public speech. We want to be playful, ironic, metaphorical; that is what we expect of our professional intellectuals. Being "always already" kind can be a verbal neutralizer for these people, can make public discourse into something too careful and afraid. Bill Maher has a point.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2979
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Trump right about "political correctness" ?

Post by LuckyR » February 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
February 21st, 2018, 11:07 am
Leave he who shall not be named out of it. Political correctness has a good side: we have to be kind to people, not cruel, when we speak. Bad side: language management like this can take the fun out of public speech. We want to be playful, ironic, metaphorical; that is what we expect of our professional intellectuals. Being "always already" kind can be a verbal neutralizer for these people, can make public discourse into something too careful and afraid. Bill Maher has a point.
Good points. Arguing about PC is like discussing the merits of hand washing with an OCD person who washes their hands 100 times a day. Hand washing a very valuable public health and personal hygiene technique. True, there are those who do it to excess, but that is an unusual, though newsworthy exaggeration of the issue.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply