Category Archives: Political Correctness

Though there should always be legal and moral standards to how we go about exercising our freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition, political correctness does not actually infringe on anyones freedom of speech.

However, political correctness (PC) culture can contribute to social division or polarization. The contemporary philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, argues that political correctness doesnt really allow you to overcome racism. Its just oppressed controlled racism. As any culture that becomes dominant in a given area, a number of sub-cultures are bound to form in response and sometimes for the mere sake of opposition. When speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos openly state I just want to burn it down, theyre making intentional provocations that stem from the sheer desire to oppose majority thought.

On one hand, we have the ability to cultivate a space around ourselves where we dont have to hear or expose ourselves to different opinions. We can un-friend people on social media, walk away from a politically charged family dinner, and ignore reading or listening to particular media sources that do not share the same value system as ours. However, this mentality just further polarizes people, undermines inter-community relations and severely limits our own ability to grow as individuals.

To exercise our freedom, the kind that is not necessarily governed by any nation or piece of paper but that is governed by our own critical, reasoning, minds, we must question how genuine our thoughts truly are. Since context plays such a crucial role in the formation and expression of ones thoughts, whether it be in the context of PC or anti-PC culture, reasoning and introspection are necessary. As the 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said in Critique of Pure Reason, there is nothing higher than reason.

When individuals feel that their freedom of speech is being violated, they feel they cannot speak for fear of retaliation or some social form of excommunication. Jon Ronson explores the consequences and nature of our modern democratization of justice via online shaming in his novel, So Youve Been Publicly Shamed. He writes, we are defining the boundaries of normality by tearing apart the people outside it. In this vicious cycle, weve reached a level of polarization where the minds power to reason begins to stale. It becomes easier to stew in anger than to deconstruct and answer whats so righteous about that righteous indignation.

If an opinion is held solely because it dwells in an echo-chamber of whispers or because its written in stone, then the holder of such an opinion is not using their natural privilege as a human being to use critical thinking before expressing the truth, or their truth, as they believe and reason it to be. Freedom of speech is arduously protected in America and exercised in many ways, but its nothing without the freedom to reason.

Kant goes on to state, thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. Therefore, sincerity in words and reasoning behind those words helps illuminate the point of solidarity, that steady point on a precarious path. To teeter from thoughts and words that are subjective truths and that hold reason far beyond intuition is where one risks falling into the trap of a narrow-minded perspective. In addition, processing words solely by their context of communication can also lead someone to succumb to that frame of mind.

Freedom of speech, as its protected by our government, allows for us, our peers, colleagues, friends, neighbors, the disenfranchised, the silent, the underrepresented, the overlooked, to have a voice. No one should be pressured or forced into quietude, not when we have both the constitutional freedom of speech and the natural freedom to reason. Every time we pick up a microphone to speak, sit behind a computer to type, or march behind a picket sign, its not just what we say, but why we say it that matters.

More here:

Editorial: freedom of speech in an era of political-correctness, part two - Daily Sundial

ONCE upon a time, fairy tales were a staple of children's reading material, but the traditional tales have come under fire in Victoria for promoting traditional gender roles.

A teaching aid in the Respectful Relationship program wants state school students to examine the roles of characters in classic stories like Beauty and the Beast, Snow White and Cinderella and compare them to modern stories challenging gender norms.

Preschool books and toys could also be audited to determine whether they promote gender stereotypes, under the Victorian government plan to address family violence.

Member for Maranoa David Littleproud has weighed in on the debate and urged parents and teachers not to let political correctness get in the way of a good story. I

"Domestic violence is a scourge in our community but I don't think asking very young children to pick apart a fairy tale to find the sexist elements is the answer - it's simply political correctness gone too far and I don't want to see it in Queensland," Mr Littleproud said.

"Fable legends Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen's traditional fairy tales are about life lessons and convey morals but remember these were written more than 100 years ago and should be read as they are, not through an adult-enforced magnifying glass.

"Contemporary story-tellers - like Disney-Pixar's Inside Out and Disney's Frozen - are great as they explore views on mental health and shifting gender roles but they're movies and don't offer the same enrichment as reading a book.

"Reading, writing and arithmetic should be a school's foundation and domestic violence education and positive role models are key to breaking the cycle.

"Science backs up the importance of reading so please don't stop reading to your kids."

The Respectful Relationships program, which claims children as young as four can exhibit sexist behaviour, was recommended by the family violence royal commission.

Critics of the the program however claim it exposes children to gender theory and notions of gender-based violence too early.

Read the original post:

Littleproud: program is 'political correctness gone too far' - Warwick Daily News

By Lauren A. Wright By Lauren A. Wright April 5

Lauren A. Wright is the author of "On Behalf of the President: Presidential Spouses and White House Communications Strategy Today" and a board member of the White House Transition Project. She begins a teaching appointment in the Department of Politics at Princeton University in the Fall 2017 semester.

Donald Trumps presidential campaign almost ended with his grab them by the p y riff. Last month, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stood by his statement that We cant restore our civilization with somebody elses babies. Last week, on air, Fox News host Bill OReilly watched a clip of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives and then mocked her by saying, I didnt hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig.

Enough Americans voted for Trump last year to prove that his unprecedented crassness wasnt fatal to his political aspirations. King has gotten away with a series of racially inflammatory remarks (Remember calves the size of cantaloupes?). OReilly offered an apology, but instead of taking him to task, the Daily Callers Jim Treacher argued that critics were playing a racial gotcha game. CNN commentator Ben Ferguson deflected blame from OReilly by wondering aloud, about Waters, isnt she a racist for saying that the white guy, who was elected president, who had done nothing wrong, but get elected, should be impeached? And former congressman Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) played down OReillys comments by saying, It always seems like its okay to make fun of a conservative, but liberals are off you cant touch em. Making fun of Maxine Waterss hair, making fun of Donald Trumps hair, I dont know what the difference is.

Two separate incidents involving a black congresswoman and a black White House reporter sparked outrage on social media, leading to the hashtag #BlackWomenAtWork. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Go far enough back and recall that after Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) suggested that women possess innate biological defenses against legitimate rape, former senators Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) still endorsed Akins 2012 Senate bid, calling him the candidate of freedom-loving Americans.

Im not naive enough to be stunned by Akin, King, OReilly or Trump, but as a Republican, I continue to be dismayed by the willingness of fellow Republicans and conservatives to overlook, rationalize and make excuses for this type of behavior. And each time I see conservatives defending, or looking away, in the face of other conservatives noxious behavior, I become less and less sure that liberals arent justified in taking the sometimes-condescending, always-disapproving politically correct approach that they do in these all-too-predictable episodes.

Maybe liberals are so P.C. because conservatives keep making excuses for bad behavior.

I didnt always think this way about liberal highhandednesstoward Republicans. I used to co-sign the typical conservative rejoinder to political correctness, which generally goes something like: Lifes not fair, so please get over yourself. My feelings on the topic were rooted in my experiences as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic graduate school environment, where my liberal colleagues routinely derided my political views.

That case against political correctness was used to great effect in the 2016 presidential election, starting at a GOP primary debate when then-candidate Donald Trump addressed the litany of derogatory statements hes made toward women by saying, The big problem this country has is being politically correct. Ive been challenged by so many people, and I dont, frankly, have time for total political correctness.

But even if theres a grain oftruth to Trumps logic, in general, its not a catchall that makes it okay when a politician or anyone takes a cheap shot thats uncivil and degrading at best, and sexist or racist (or both) at worst. Impatience with political correctness isnt a get-out-of-jail-free card for a future president to mock a disabled reporter. Ritual deployment of the supposedly un-P.C. phrase radical Islamic terrorism isnt a foreign policy.

And its not just being politically correct to publicly scrutinize the serial allegations of sexual harassment against OReilly. If even half of whats been alleged by women who say he harassed them is true, hes a disgrace, and so is any conservative or Republican who decides that what hes done doesnt merit consequences, just because OReillys shame might also be cheered by liberals. Already, 20 companies have announcedthat theyre pulling advertising from OReillys show, even though its the gold standard when it comes to cable news ratings. The question, now, is whether self-respecting conservatives and Republicans will stand on principle, or if, as former Republican Capitol Hill communications director Tara Setmayer wroterecently for Cosmopolitan, they continue to circle the wagons around him just because hes on their team.

If thats what they do, it would be pretty indecent, but it would also turn out to be bad politics.

Yes, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was rewarded for choosing expediency over morality by endorsing Trumps candidacy, even as he condemned Trumps attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiels Mexican heritage as the textbook definition of a racist comment. In doing so, Ryan confirmed an unsettling truth: When some in the Party of Lincoln witness racism, its not necessarily a dealbreaker. Indeed, the GOP won big in 2016 embracing the same rhetoric Im calling out now rhetoric we said we were leaving behind in the 2013 autopsyreportcommissioned after Mitt Romneys 2012 defeat.But antagonism is only a short-term strategy. Trump lost the popular vote with our current demographic landscape by a margin of almost 3million, and demographics are rapidly changing, not in his favor. Republicans who treat 2016 as the rule rather than the exception will come to regret it.

More important is acknowledging, before we try to beat political correctness into extinction, is that its not political correctness to expectcommon courtesy and respect. And its not a burden on a politician or anyone else to refrain from making sexist and racist remarks. Its both the right thing to do, and an approach in keeping with the values that the Republican Party issupposed to stand for, including judging all people as individuals, not caricaturing them because of their race or gender.

Its hard to deny that weve become a society where people are put out by the smallest slights, real or perceived. Conservatives are right to bristle at left-wing condescension, and liberals would be foolish to ignore that their elitism helped fuel Trumps rise. But thiscuts both ways, and every time conservatives and Republicans let an OReilly slide rather than take a stand in favor of common decency the politically correct scorn of liberals becomes just a bit more justified. Hoping that the GOP becomes the Party of Lincoln again may be wishful thinking. But if thats what we aspire to, no longer defending the indefensible would be a start.

Read the original post:

Maybe liberals are so 'PC' because conservatives keep excusing bad behavior - Washington Post

FrontPage Magazine

Marvel V.P. Admits Political Correctness Killed Comic Sales ... FrontPage Magazine While the Marvel-Disney monster has been ruling the box office, Marvel Comics sales have been having serious issues. One obvious factor was trying to force ... G. Willow Wilson / So About That Whole ThingG. Willow Wilson ICv2: Marvel Retailer Summit -- Day 1ICv2 Marvel VP of Sales Blames Women and Diversity for Sales SlumpGizmodo Fortune all 122 news articles »

Read more:

Marvel V.P. Admits Political Correctness Killed Comic Sales ... - FrontPage Magazine

It was the invitation that wasnt. Princeton Theological Seminary offered Timothy Keller its Abraham Kuyper Prize for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness. Hundreds of seminary students, alumniand faculty signed a petition protesting the award, after whichthe seminary abruptly rescinded the offer.

The seminarys invitation to lecture on campus still stands. Keller hasin the words of seminary President Craig Barnesgraciously agreed to keep the commitment to deliver the Kuyper Conferences keynote address, sans the $10,000 prize.

The sticking point, in Barnes words, is Kellers belief that women and LGBTQ+ persons should not be ordained, [which] conflicts with the stance of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

But that black-and-white assessment washes over the particularities of PCUSAs actual requirements for its ordaining bodies.It alsofuelsa misunderstanding of theologicalnuance that is being replicatedin media commentators reactions to the seminarys decision.

Media pundits have focused primarily on the headline-grabbing issue of LGBTQ ordination, rather than Kellers rejection of female clergythough that categorical dismissal is what actually stands in greatercontrast with PCUSAs presiding doctrine.Unlike LGBTQ ordination, about which some controversy remains, the ordination of women has the enthusiastic support of nearly every member of the PCUSA. Ordaining bodies within PCUSA may not categorically bar women from ordained service. In fact,The churchs 1990 Brief Statement of Faith declares that the Spirit calls women and men to all ministries of the Church, elevating the ordination of women to confessional status.

By contrast, whenPCUSAs General Assembly voted to begin ordaining LGBTQ people several years ago, it spoke of the need to maintain safe spaces for conservative dissenters who believe scripture prevents their presbyteries and sessions from ordaining those in same-sex relationships. As such, it draftedconstitutional language on this issue that is permissive rather than mandatoryindividual churches or leaders are not required to ordain LGBTQ people.

Keller, for his part, belongs to the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which bars women from ordination to any ministry. He has been outspoken in support of his denominations views. Keller is also a noted proponent of complementarian theology, a conservative interpretation of the New Testament that requires husbands to assume the role of head of the household. He encourages married women to complement their men by submitting to their divinely-sanctioned rule.

But these crucial distinctions are all-but-erasedby the broad brush used to paint the terms of the controversy in mainstream media. In an op-ed forThe Wall Street Journal,Case Thorpcastigates the seminary administration for buckling underwhat Thorp calls identity theology, a term heappears to have invented, adapting identity politics to the theological realm.

Building on the conservative framing of identity politics as the resultof small, identity-based groups clinging to and trumpeting their collective uniqueness, Thorp fumes that identity theology perpetuates the Enlightenments failed promise in which true meaning rests within someones understanding of himself.

Those who cling to this mode of thinking leave behind a God-centered study for a radical focus on humanity, Thorp laments.

The concept of identity theology sounds suspiciously like that all-purpose complaint beloved of the right wing, political correctness. Charges of political correctness function as a useful tool for those who are weary of repeated invitations to rethink old prejudices. Identity theology is simply political correctness with a halo.

The seminarys misstep on the Kuyper Award is unfortunate, but its inaccurate to portray President Barnes decision to withdraw it as a snub of Keller, or of those who hold similar conservative views on the ordination of women or the role of women in the Christian household. Thorp made such a claim in his op-ed, as did Jonathan Merritt in a recent Religion News Service opinion piece.There is a difference between respectful ecumenical dialogue and endorsing opposing views, which is how many would understand the awarding of a theology prize.

In an article in Christianity Today, Fuller Theological Seminary President Emeritus Richard Mouwa previous Kuyper Award recipientreports hearing expressions of consternation and feelings of betrayal among his fellow evangelicals, now that PTShas withdrawn the award. Mouw differs from Keller on the ordination of women, but stands with him on the question of same-sex marriage. Is there a new litmus test? he wonders.

Mouws concern seems overblownsince the concern about womens ordination is by itself sufficient justification for the seminarys re-thinking of its decision.

The heart of ecumenical discussion is listening to one another, a dialogue the seminary will still foster as Keller visits the campus. Perhaps minds will be changed. Or perhaps not. But the conversation will likely proceed without any mention of identity theology, which is a good thing.

Visit link:

Identity Theology: Political Correctness with a Halo - Religion Dispatches

I found myself mindlessly channel surfing the other night.

What else was there to do? The Phillies season hadnt started. Villanova made an early exit from the NCAA Tournament, decreasing my usually all-consuming interest in March Madness. And Ive seen every rerun of Everybody Loves Raymond at least a dozen times.

Suddenly I was stopped by a conversation about political correctness.

I have heard similar conversations before. Dennis Prager, the nationally syndicated deep-thinker of the radio waves, calls the hysteria generated by political correctness one of the most dangerous and destructive attitudes in America.

Advertisement

Part of the discussion came from Nick Adams, the best-selling author who was born in Australia but was made an honorary Texan in 2013 by then-Governor Rick Perry. He is known as a champion of American exceptionalism.

His book Retaking America Crushing Political Correctness also identifies the PC movement as one of the most destructive forces in the country. In it he claims, Political correctness has ripped through America, turning life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness into lifelessness, suppression and the pursuit of mediocrity.

He was joined in the discussion by NYU professor Michael Rectenwald, who ventured deep into enemy territory when he launched an attack against political correctness at the radically liberal university. As a result, he faced a wave of discontent from other staff members for his incivility and claimed, They are literally pushing me out the door for having a different perspective.

In a major upset, after asserting his First Amendment rights, Rectenwald was reinstated and actually promoted from assistant professor status to full professor. Score a (very rare) victory for the politically incorrect. Despite a warning to faculty from Dean Fred Schwarzbach, reminding them to be respectful of opposing views, Rectenwald continues to be shunned, marginalized and even threatened.

This is the world in which we now live. The disciples of leftism, who spout a constant mantra of tolerance, are the least tolerant of all.

All of this gave rise to a lot of thought about the evolution of the political correctness movement which, according to Rectenwald, goes back to Maoism in Communist China. Here are some of the examples of changes in America, over time.

In 1981 Stanford University abandoned its long-standing nickname and mascot. The Stanford Indians were no more replaced by the Stanford Cardinal.

In other cases, it was just a matter of terminology.

The airline industry replaced stewardesses with flight attendants.

Midgets are now called little people.

Otherwise generally short people are said to be vertically challenged.

Janitors became custodians.

Orientals became Asians. By the way, is it still insensitive to refer to an oriental rug?

And what about the movement to remove keeping score from child sports? The goal is to keep the little snowflakes from being branded winners or losers.

Americas university campuses the national capital of leftism and radical thinking have taken the idea of political correctness to hysterical levels.

At many colleges it is now improper to refer to freshman. They are first-year students.

St. Louis University, a Jesuit college, was forced to remove a statue of a Catholic priest that had stood for more than 60 years on the campus. Jesuit priest Pierre-Jean De Smet was depicted praying over two Native Americans. Faculty and staff complained it represented white supremacy and demanded the racist statue be removed. The university caved.

After athletic teams at Susquehanna University were referred to as the Crusaders for more than 100 years, that nickname and mascot were dropped in 2015. The term was, supposedly, offensive to Muslims and Jews. The name is now the Susquehanna River Hawks. How long will it be before somebody worries about offending the birds?

And, each October, another storm builds on the college campuses over Halloween costumes. Yale University was at the center of the controversy. But the PC police also were surveilling other campuses. Dressing up as someone from another race was deemed particularly offensive.

Under those guidelines, say goodbye to all Trick or Treaters dressed as Zorro, geishas, belly dancers, samurais, Vikings, French maids, Pocohontas, Aladdin or even Spock (even if Vulcans do not have feelings). Throw out the grass skirt, the sombrero, the face veil and the Cossack hat.

In the world of politics, the war of words gets absolutely vicious.

Those who have not abandoned the terms global warming for climate change, illegal aliens for undocumented workers, and Islamic terrorists for radical extremists are in danger of a lifelong ban from any Kumbaya parties.

The important question that must be asked after these decades of intimidation by the political correctness movement: Are we better off?

Is America a better place to live now that we have changed all of these words, removed all of these offensive symbols? Or are we more divided?

We have created an army on the Left of perpetual victims. They stand ready to whine at the drop of a hat or a sombrero.

And the rest of America walks on eggshells.

The political correctness movement forces Americans to expend an inordinate amount of time, energy and money in order to do their bidding. And their bidding is the equivalent of picking fly poop out of pepper.

Tony Leodora is president of TL Golf Services, host of the weekly GolfTalk Live radio show on WNTP 990-AM and host of the Traveling Golfer television show as well as editor of GolfStyles magazine. He is former sports editor of The Times Herald. Send comments to tlgolfservices@aol.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Leodora: The world of political correctness isn't perfect - The Times Herald

There is a widespread belief in todays world that you are simply not up-to-speed unless you are politically correct in everything you say and do. The self-appointed culture authoritarians who determine what is currently fashionable have even decided that the Bible, Gods Word, is not politically correct.

In Berlin, Germany on November 9, 2006, a group of so-called biblical specialists released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and political correctness replaces what they considered some divisive teachings of Christianity. They said the Bible needed a more just language for certain groups.

According to the AFP News Agency the PCV (Politically Correct Version) of the Bible was presented at a book fair in the city of Frankfort. It is published by the Oxford University Press. It no longer refers to God as Father, but as our Mother and Father. Likewise, Jesus is not referred to as Gods Son, but rather as the child of God. The title Lord is replaced with God or the Eternal One. Satan, strangely, is still referred to with masculine pronouns. In other words, God is required to be politically correct, but Satan isnt.

The injustices of all previous Bible translations, it claims, are numerous. It states that the begats in the King James Translation favors fathers over mothers. Out the window they go. And whenever the wife of a Biblical husband is known, the editors inserted her name into the text. The metaphors of evil as darkness and light as good were considered offensive to people of color. Similarly, references to the blind, the deaf and the lame are insensitive to people with disabilities so they were changed.

References to the right hand of God was said to be offensive to left-handed people. My wife, who went home to be with the Lord on April 5, 2016, was left-handed. It never bothered her in the least. Parents guide their children because discipline was considered offensive. References to circumcision posed a problem to the translators because they could think of no way to translate it so it would apply to the female gender. The big challenge came in how to deal with God. Personal pronouns were outlawed. Our Father became Our Father-Mother. To mention one gender, not both, might offend someone.

In addition to the PCV translation, Martin Dreyer, pastor and founder of the sect called Jesus Freaks, published what he called The Peoples Bible in an attempt to make the message of Christianity more relevant and inclusive. Jesus returned rather than was resurrected. He multiplied hamburgers instead of the fish and loaves to feed the hungry multitude. In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger brother squandered his inheritance at dance clubs and ended up cleaning bathrooms at McDonalds.

What needless and misdirected inanity! It is a shame that some people, even when highly educated, can get bent out of shape by the fact that the Bible contains language used by the culture at the time it was written. How else could God have inspired His Word? It seems to me that getting bogged down over whether God is right-handed or left-handed is absurd. I am reminded of another time when those who thought of themselves as scholars argued over how many angels could fit on the head of a straight pin.

I believe it is Gods will for our lives to be changed by the truth found in the Bible, not that Bible truth be changed to fit todays arbitrary politically correct standards. The same Holy Spirit who originally inspired the writers of Scripture is able to guide us to interpret and apply it to our lives and to the culture in which we live.

Please be careful how you live. You may be the only Bible translation some people will ever read.

Original post:

The Paper Pulpit: God's Word and political correctness | Features ... - Sanford Herald (registration)

Having spend 40 years as a high school administrator, athletic director, coach and teacher, Im completely baffled and embarrassed by the hockey principals committee and executive director of the Rhode Island Interscholastic League (RIIL).

The Crusaders of Prout defeated the Broncos of Burrillville on Saturday night, March 11, for the Division I championship hockey title.

The Division I tournament involves the Division I teams that did not qualify for the state tournament. Burrillville finished fifth with a 6-10 record Prout finished sixth out of an eight-team league with a 5-11 record.

My question is, as a former hockey coach, whos idea was it to have a state championship tournament for two teams who didnt qualify for the state tournament in the first place?

Has political correctness crept into the RIIL? If you dont finish in the top four of your league, you dont qualify for the play-off-period! No, now we need to start a new division for the fifth and sixth place teams to vie for a title for non-qualifiers to be polite. Oh, I get it, we need teams with losing records to have a change for a trophy and medals that mean absolutely nothing.

Back in the day when I played, then coached, if you didnt finish in the top four, you didnt qualify for the state title. Your season was over and you went and watched the top teams compete.

Im not saying that the fifth and sixth teams didnt play hard, but they didnt play hard enough to earn a spot in the real state tourney.

In my experience with hockey, over 40 years, youre doing a disservice to your school, coaches and players by allowing them to play for a bogus-concocted tourney that is meaningless and serves no purpose to anyone.

The RIIL should know better than to allow two teams to compete for a state championship, when they have no business competing at all. However, I do praise the effort of Prout and Burrillville, as they were put in a no win situation by the RIIL.

Richard Walsh is a retired athletics director at the former Warwick Veterans Memorial High School.

More:

Political correctness has crept into high school hockey - Ricentral.com

The fight for feminism must continue: Sadiq Khan in a Walk in Her Shoes march last year. Photograph: Danny Martindale/WireImage

If youve got it, flaunt it! Hey, guys? I dont mean your pins, I mean your lean social conservatism, your light-hearted anti-feminism! Get a life where you return toatime before political correctness, when you could reduce the most powerful women in the land to body parts. And when everyone laughed!

The reaction to the Daily Mails Legs-it covermay be over-egged but that is because it is indicative of something that we can feel in our waters, the ascendancy of a mood that counters attitudes many liberal types have taken for granted. The social conservatism now on publicdisplay marks the real end of David Camerons government and the pinning down of what May-ism will mean.

The counterblast from the Daily Mail was telling: a headline that says censored by the left. Nothing was censored by the left. This isalie. A joke. Fake news. Not approving of something is not censorship. Yet the populist right absolutely depends on the discourse of censorship. There is a powerful idea that ordinary people are silenced by others, noteven present, the metropolitan elite of quinoa-chewers.

The natural state of people, then, is to be sexist, racist and desirous of extremely bent bananas. Brexit, in this scenario, comes to represent not only saying the unsayable, but voting for it. Hello, death penalty! Hello, pounds, shillings and pence! Goodbye to Camerons wishy-washy liberalism.

Camerons loucheness and social liberalism were never trusted by parts of his own party. His reckless calling of a referendum that he lost has empowered the current, deeply conservative climate. Some of this is related to Brexit, but not all of it. It is certainly to do with Theresa Mays ungiving interpretation of it.

Whatever people were expressing by voting leave and are still expressing by wanting this to happen certainly undid any idea that identity is an irrelevance and that economics is everything. Right now, this identity is in flux and so all sorts of demons will rise. We do not know if the centre can hold. The UK may break up. We do not know where we will be in two years time. We dont know what this new freedom will feel like.

What we do know is that there is indeed anewfound freedom to be sexist, racist or homophobic. It is now fine to collude with those who are openly so Donald Trump. And it is fine to allow overt sexism to go unchallenged the Daily Mail. May has done both these things. It isfine for the media and thegoverning class to operate as one. George Osborne at the London Evening Standard, Michael Gove at the Times, Andy Coulson at theTelegraph. All these things can happen in plain sight with total confidence as there is no viable opposition.

Still, it remains absolutely vital for them that parts of the right continue to feel they are embattled. To assert their supremacy is not always tenable because their support depends hugely on this sense of embattlement.

This feeling of loss is crucial to understanding Brexit. Yet the reaction of those who are dismayed about leaving the EU continues to be tolecture those who arent on abstracts such asausterity and globalisation. Tosee the intertwining of the cultural and the economic means understanding the desire for this kind of cultural protectionism even if you dont like it.

Screaming at half the country that they are clueless idiots who have been duped does not seem a sensible strategy. We need to understand what has happened, and was happening long before Brexit: a retrenchment of rightwing values, a concerted backlash against feminism and escalating anti-immigrant feeling. The complacency of the liberal establishment was revealed precisely in its shock. Did we not know that each battle has to be fought again and constantly? Post-feminism did not happen because feminism did not happen. Gay rights have not been won. Structural racism is everywhere. The language of diversity and equality may well be annoying to white men but, without it, we go backwards. The white self-interest that David Goodhart writes about in his new book, The Road to Somewhere, presumes somehow that white self-interest does not already rule when it does.

Social conservatism depends on this denial alongside alongside accusing the left of silencing the masses through political correctness (or good manners, as I prefer to call it).

We find ourselves now in new times. If the lefthas no real economic argument that can breakthrough, apart from being anti-cuts, then culturally it now has to fight for the things itisdeemed to have already won. Too much of the culture is ring-fenced and removed. Otherwise, how else could themiddle-class white man present himself as some kind ofendangered species while kowtowing to his brother, the whiteworking-class left-behind man? Social conservatism seeks to shore up these identities bydenying the rights of others: women, black people, gays. There is no getting away from this.May cannot talk of protecting liberalvalues while she colludes in thembeing torn apart limb by limb.

Link:

If we don't fight it, social conservatism will defeat political correctness - The Guardian

During an appearance onFox & Friends on Tuesday morning, Fox News host Bill OReilly made both a racist and sexistremark aboutRep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), referring to what he called her James Brown wig.

He added, If we have a picture of James, its the same wig, according to Media Matters.

After receiving backlash on social media over his comment, OReilly issued a statement apologizing for his words: As I have said many times, I respect Congresswoman Maxine Waters for being sincere in her beliefs. I said that again today on Fox & Friends calling her old school. Unfortunately, I also made a jest about her hair which was dumb. I apologize.

However, that didnt stop him from simultaneously announcing on Twitter that his Tuesday night segment of the OReilly Factorwould also focus on political correctness.

He wrote, Big political correctness segment on The Factor tonight. Have you had enough? Check us out, you wont be disappointed. BOR.

Big political correctness segment on The Factor tonight. Have you had enough? Check us out, you wont be disappointed. BOR

Bill OReilly (@oreillyfactor) March 28, 2017

Read more:

Bill O'Reilly wants to talk about 'political correctness' after his racist and sexist comments - Raw Story