... For the anointed, it is desperately important to win, not simply because they believe that one policy or set of beliefs and values is better for society, but because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of the anointed on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with campus speech codes and "political correctness" being prime examples of a spreading pattern of taboos. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions—the national memory—as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies. ...
— Thomas Sowell, 'The Vision Of The Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy', 1995, p.252
'Politically correct' is generally defined as a kind of conformity regarding opinions on political or social issues.
Here is a definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ —
politically correctOr, consider this defintion from http://dictionary.reference.com/ —
adjective
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated
politically correctAnd here is an article at https://www.britannica.com/ that gives an overview of the term 'political correctness' --
adjective
1. marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-correctness
political correctness (PC), term used to refer to language that seems intended to give the least amount of offense, especially when describing groups identified by external markers such as race, gender, culture, or sexual orientation. The concept has been discussed, disputed, criticized, and satirized by commentators from across the political spectrum. The term has often been used derisively to ridicule the notion that altering language usage can change the public’s perceptions and beliefs as well as influence outcomes.
The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line). During the late 1970s and early 1980s the term began to be used wittily by liberal politicians to refer to the extremism of some left-wing issues, particularly regarding what was perceived as an emphasis on rhetoric over content. In the early 1990s the term was used by conservatives to question and oppose what they perceived as the rise of liberal left-wing curriculum and teaching methods on university and college campuses in the United States. By the late 1990s the usage of the term had again decreased, and it was most frequently employed by comedians and others to lampoon political language. At times it was also used by the left to scoff at conservative political themes.
...
The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line). During the late 1970s and early 1980s the term began to be used wittily by liberal politicians to refer to the extremism of some left-wing issues, particularly regarding what was perceived as an emphasis on rhetoric over content. In the early 1990s the term was used by conservatives to question and oppose what they perceived as the rise of liberal left-wing curriculum and teaching methods on university and college campuses in the United States. By the late 1990s the usage of the term had again decreased, and it was most frequently employed by comedians and others to lampoon political language. At times it was also used by the left to scoff at conservative political themes.
...
The Britannica article quoted above claims that the first use of the term came from Marxist-Leninist communists after the Russian Revolution in 1917, to describe adherence to the party line.
Now consider this article on vox.com, from January 2015, entitled 'The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist' —
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist
In this day and age, it is to be expected that when an article purports to demonstrate anything, it will likely demonstrate the opposite. And the article 'The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist' is a fantastic demonstration of that phenomena.
To any even barely insightful observer of modern life, the title of the article is obviously false. That is, how can any remotely reasonable person take stock of a world that is dominated by slavish conformity and moral cowardice, and not think the title 'The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist' is a ridiculous absurdity?
Political correctness does not exist? Really?
Well, we need not wonder about the validity of the author's premise for long, since she gives us a healthy dose of what she claims does not exist a few paragraphs in —
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist
The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist
Amanda Taub January 28, 2015, 4:00 p.m. ET
...
An example from outside of Chait's article makes it easy to see how that technique works in practice. I, personally, think that the name of the Washington Redskins is racist and hurtful to Native Americans, and should be changed. So if someone asks me what I think of the debate about the team, that's what I say. By contrast, Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller likes the name and wants the team to keep it. But rather than making an argument on the merits of the name, he referred to the entire debate as "political correctness on overdrive." In other words, he's saying, this is a false debate — just another example of "political correctness" — so I don't have to even acknowledge concerns about racism. (Miller, in fact, claimed that it was literally fake, an issue trumped up by a "rich member of the Oneida tribe.")
That's a failure of communication and, arguably, of basic respect. Miller isn't engaging with critics of the Redskins name by considering why they find it hurtful, and offering his basis for disagreement — he's dismissing the whole conversation as unworthy of discussion.
...
An example from outside of Chait's article makes it easy to see how that technique works in practice. I, personally, think that the name of the Washington Redskins is racist and hurtful to Native Americans, and should be changed. So if someone asks me what I think of the debate about the team, that's what I say. By contrast, Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller likes the name and wants the team to keep it. But rather than making an argument on the merits of the name, he referred to the entire debate as "political correctness on overdrive." In other words, he's saying, this is a false debate — just another example of "political correctness" — so I don't have to even acknowledge concerns about racism. (Miller, in fact, claimed that it was literally fake, an issue trumped up by a "rich member of the Oneida tribe.")
That's a failure of communication and, arguably, of basic respect. Miller isn't engaging with critics of the Redskins name by considering why they find it hurtful, and offering his basis for disagreement — he's dismissing the whole conversation as unworthy of discussion.
...
Notice the extreme asinine presumptuousness here — Amanda Taub, the author of the vox.com article quoted above, thinks that because she personally views a name as racist, or hurtful, or disrespectful (or whatever), that makes it the valid subject of a public debate. To accomplish what? Everyone has a right to denounce a sports team owner (or anyone else), for whatever reason they wish, but they do not have the right to initiate force against them because they find them offensive — in this case, to force them to change a team name.
Taub gives every indication that she believes she has made a convincing argument in the quote above, by stating her belief that a particular name is hurtful to a particular group of people, and so this somehow places a burden on those who are convinced that her belief is not worthy of consideration.
Reading the paragraphs quoted above should make one wonder how many people today are capable of pointing out the obvious fact that Amanda Taub made no argument. Taub expressed a trite, superficial opinion — that a name is racist because she does not like it — and she expects her statement to be treated as if it is especially convincing, when it has no substance.
Stating a belief is not a defense of that belief — to defend a belief you must explain why it is contradictory or irrational to disagree.
In the quote below, Taub states explicitly that 'there's no such thing as "political correctness"', while at the same time she provides (without a hint of sarcasm) the essential characteristic of what it means to be politically correct — the demand for conformity to a supposed norm based on a subjective preference, i.e. groupthink —
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist
...
First things first: there's no such thing as "political correctness." The term's in wide use, certainly, but has no actual fixed or specific meaning. What defines it is not what it describes but how it's used: as a way to dismiss a concern or demand as a frivolous grievance rather than a real issue.
Chait identifies a long list of disputes that he describes as examples of "p.c." demands that are hurting mainstream liberalism. But calling these concerns "political correctness" is another way of saying that they aren't important enough to be addressed on their merits. And all that really means is that they're not important to Jonathan Chait.
...
First things first: there's no such thing as "political correctness." The term's in wide use, certainly, but has no actual fixed or specific meaning. What defines it is not what it describes but how it's used: as a way to dismiss a concern or demand as a frivolous grievance rather than a real issue.
Chait identifies a long list of disputes that he describes as examples of "p.c." demands that are hurting mainstream liberalism. But calling these concerns "political correctness" is another way of saying that they aren't important enough to be addressed on their merits. And all that really means is that they're not important to Jonathan Chait.
...
This is beyond parody, in that Taub unwittingly states the reason that the issues she is raising should not be taken seriously — they are determined by subjective opinion, rather than objective fact. Taub's statement is beautifully contradictory and just another example of Orwellian double think — according to Taub, her opinion should trump all others, and require action from others, because she says so. In other words, as long as one person is upset about anything, it is important, even if no one was harmed, and regardless of how many others disagree.
Good for you Amanda, in stating that you think calling a team the 'Redskins' is racist and hurtful to Native Americans — but personal opinions alone, regardless of how many agree, present no valid justification for changing the name of a team (or anything else, for that matter). Even if the charge of "political correctness on overdrive" by the team's owner were false, this subject would still not be worthy of debate, because no one has the right to force others to conform to their views on what language can be used, even if it is insulting or can be perceived as racist. That is, the team owner has every right to 'dismiss the whole conversation as unworthy of discussion' — whether it is or not. Why? Because individual rights cannot be violated with language that conveys no intent to do harm — individual rights can only be violated with the initiation of force or fraud.
In short, this incredibly painfully obvious question is being begged here —
Why should one or more individuals be allowed to control the behavior of others, simply because of their claim to having been insulted?Does any rational person really want to live in a world where every claim of an insult can bring some kind of legal sanction or penalty? Those who answer yes to this question are simply not being creative enough in imagining how they might become a victim of their own desire.
If you think a particular business practice is offensive — like the marketing strategy of a professional football team — then do not patronize that business, and try to convince others not to as well (if you really think that is worth your time). But do not be a presumptuous nitwit, and pretend that you are fighting a moral crusade in attempting to force others to use only that language that you approve of.
And notice that the names of football teams are normally a kind of superlative. That is, the team names normally refer to an animal or group of people with unusual toughness or agility, which are the qualities needed to compete against an adversary in a hard physical competition (like a professional football game) — e.g. 'the Vikings', 'the Falcons', 'the Eagles', 'the Giants', 'the Rams', etc.
So, does anyone really think the name 'Redskins' was chosen to be derogatory — or are those raising this issue simply expressing their desire to control others?
To those Native Americans that Amanda Taub is pretending to speak for, one should only say: 'If you are upset about the name of a sports team, you have a much bigger problem than you know. Good Luck.'
And notice how Taub unwittingly trivializes the actual harassment of particular individuals by bringing such harassment into her discussion of political correctness. It seems that Taub's moral sensibility is so myopic and distorted, she cannot differentiate between legitimate harm — a violation of an individual's rights in an actual crime — and one or more individuals being upset because others refuse to view them in a particular way.
For example, consider these descriptions Taub provides in her criticism of the term 'politically correct' —
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist
...
Look at Chait's own examples. Trans women who protest definitions of "women" as "people with vaginas" aren't merely bellyaching about terminology — they're people on the margins of a group making legitimate demands for inclusion. Women of color who point out the many ways in which white feminists overlook issues that affect minority women aren't engaging in race-based arguments just for the fun of it, they're pointing out that the feminist movement had promised to protect their interests, but was in fact ignoring them.
...
Look at Chait's own examples. Trans women who protest definitions of "women" as "people with vaginas" aren't merely bellyaching about terminology — they're people on the margins of a group making legitimate demands for inclusion. Women of color who point out the many ways in which white feminists overlook issues that affect minority women aren't engaging in race-based arguments just for the fun of it, they're pointing out that the feminist movement had promised to protect their interests, but was in fact ignoring them.
...
The war with reality that is revealed by such statements is truly fascinating. Notice how Taub, in her denunciation of the term political correctness, combines in a single paragraph (again, without a hint of sarcasm), one group of people who are upset because others refuse to ascribe a gender characteristic to them which they do not have, and another group which has likely faced discrimination. Trans women 'making legitimate demands for inclusion'? Inclusion into what? Should actual women, with all the physical characteristics that a typical woman has, give inclusion to a male, simply because he wants to be treated like a woman? This is obviously completely absurd — Taub implies that a physical genetic characteristic, defined at birth, is an arbitrary social convention that can be simply defined out of existence.
And even more, notice that in Taub's reference to 'women of color', she makes no mention of any actual discrimination that the individuals from such a group may have suffered. Instead, Taub mentions an interest group that supposedly did not show enough concern for their plight — as if a particular interest group has no legitimate right to focus on whatever it wants, and, as if the first group is prevented from forming its own interest group because it is being ignored by another.
But even worse, as further demonstration of Taub's moral confusion, later in the same article she describes individuals who were singled out and targeted with death threats — as if somehow such examples are even remotely on a par with the name of a sports team, or a man who wishes to be viewed as a woman —
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist
...
Take, for instance, a phenomenon that actually and demonstrably restricts the free exchange of ideas: the harassment of women online. It is a depressing fact of life that women who discuss controversial subjects publicly are often targeted by harassers who want to silence them. (As are many other groups, of course.) And yet, bizarrely, women's requests for safety online are often dismissed as "politically correct" threats to free speech, rather than as a way to promote it.
Last January, Amanda Hess wrote about the "trolls" who pursued her in response to her writing, including one account that had been set up for the express purpose of tweeting death threats at her. Anita Sarkeesian posted a list of the harassing tweets she received during an ordinary week last December, a never-ending mishmash of the words "kill," "whore," "bitch," "fuck," and "slut." Megan McArdle has written about her experiences with this kind of vitriol. So has Lindy West. And Jill Filipovic. And me.
...
Take, for instance, a phenomenon that actually and demonstrably restricts the free exchange of ideas: the harassment of women online. It is a depressing fact of life that women who discuss controversial subjects publicly are often targeted by harassers who want to silence them. (As are many other groups, of course.) And yet, bizarrely, women's requests for safety online are often dismissed as "politically correct" threats to free speech, rather than as a way to promote it.
Last January, Amanda Hess wrote about the "trolls" who pursued her in response to her writing, including one account that had been set up for the express purpose of tweeting death threats at her. Anita Sarkeesian posted a list of the harassing tweets she received during an ordinary week last December, a never-ending mishmash of the words "kill," "whore," "bitch," "fuck," and "slut." Megan McArdle has written about her experiences with this kind of vitriol. So has Lindy West. And Jill Filipovic. And me.
...
If it is true that naming a professional sports team 'The Redskins' is as bad as singling out a particular individual and harassing them relentlessly with death threats, then such harassment cannot be any worse than giving a professional sports team a supposedly offensive name.
That is the inevitable consequence of the demand that a particular action be treated with the same importance as a more serious action with much graver consequences — grave consequences are trivialized by definition, when they are given no more consideration than trivial consequences. To any reasonable person, that should be offensive.
In short, no one can have it both ways — if you demand that a triviality becomes so important that it must be part of a public debate (as Taub has done), you, by definition, have made other issues that justify greater concern, trivial.
As a simple practical matter, why would any rational person wish to do this?
With all the death and destruction in the world, do people like Amanda Taub really want to waste everyone's limited time with discussions about the names of sports teams, or whether or not a group of men feel insulted, because others refuse to treat them like they are female?
In any case, it is no surprise that a person who wishes to make the name of a sports team the subject of public debate, would be offended by, and dismissive of, derogatory uses of the term 'politically correct' to refer to such a politically correct view.
