Category Archives: Political Correctness

Thursday February 23, 2017 Israel Hayom A new language was created not too long ago, in which what is good is actually bad, what is bad is not really that bad, and the basic values on which we were raised are blasted as outdated. That is the language of political correctness, by which ... and more »

See the original post here:

Thursday February 23, 2017 - Israel Hayom

One of the things I miss most about my youth and early years was our openness. Friends could and did frequently just sit and talk. We could and did make jokes about any and everything. We did not worry about offending anyone because they, as well as us, knew it was nothing more than a joke, a comment or observation and not meant to deride anyone. Today, one must be cautious beyond what I would feel would be a common occurrence. You cannot speak badly of anyone without worry about law suits, being called racist, one of the most misused nomenclatures of our day. If I mention I had a friend in college who was both colored and Indian, there are those today who say I was a racist. I was not nor am I now. I am an American who is fed up with Political Correctness.

In our society of today political correctness, the mention of anything the other person involved feels is out of line, you are in trouble. We have an elected President. One who seems to be the brunt of many political jokes and comments. Yet he and his administration have to put up with the Democrats dragging their feet on everything he wants to do. I thought the Republicans were a bunch of do nothings for the last 8 years, I was wrong. The Democrats seem to be even more so than any Republican recently. People protest (riot in most instances) because of generally little or nothing. I have heard of people who actually make a living by hiring out as protesters. I hope it is no more than a rumor or feeble attempt to gain some popularity.

Our society of today is showing signs of most Republics or history. They have allowed the population to have too much freedom. Those nuts on the fringe of society are finding that they can and will place their at times ridiculous ideas out there as main stream. Yet they are far from main stream they are just what they should be fringe ideas. Ideas who should have no hearing nor in depth look, which it could not survive. Those people have the right to protest. I spent 3 years of my life protecting their right to protest no matter how stupid it maybe. But I did not do it to allow them to push it way against the tide of public opinion.

The ability of everyone today to immediately have the opportunity of taking pictures, movies, of any happening and then again immediately send it out over the air with or without comments to millions of others who in turn have their own opinions as to what they saw or heard. The national media of today seems to be of the opinion that they know so much more than you or I do they should tell us the news as they want it not as it is. Some of the reporters can ask some of the most stupid and unrelated questions of a person that I have ever seen or heard. One cannot believe much of anything on television or radio or the Internet of today. Picture cropping and changing is prevalent. Reporters making up their stories have become common place today. I remember many times hearing of reporters, some of great repute, actually making up stories in such a way it made them look better than they were. And they had no compulsion about taking a story and bending it to their feelings not reality.

When I was young, you could make a joke about someones ethnicity and both would have a good laugh. Today, youre afraid to mention anything relating to ethnicity, religion, politics or much of anything else without fear of retribution. I remember some of the best ethnic jokes I heard were from those who were of than ethnic arena. I enjoy jokes, and related tales especially from those who were involved but not today do we feel we can do this. Our society seems to think that the elite of the country, the politicians, journalists, bureaucrats are so much smarter than we are they should lead and we follow. Not me daddyo, I prefer to make up my own mind about things, not be told what to think. I detest those who take things and make them fit the needs of the individual. And I detest being told after a political speech or comment what was meant by it. I have a mind and prefer to use it rather than allow someone else tell me what I heard and how to understand it.

I remember the 60s and the many riots, protests of the time. And feel that this was the start of the way things are today. Politics has gotten dirtier, nastier than I have ever seen it. Many people take the Internet as gospel, a huge mistake. People are afraid to do anything that may cause problems later on. Such as helping someone in danger or hurt. There may well be someone who will take a picture of it and spread it all over the world for everyone to see. You cant have an opinion that someone else does not adhere to any more. We are close to an Orwellian world and for one I abhor that idea.

We have and should have the right to protest and make our feelings known. But we also need to see just what that opinion may have or may not have that I like and agree with. I should and do check into things to be sure they are correct. That what I hear is not like the game we played when I was young where someone started a story and passed it around numerous people and the last one told us what he heard. And never was it at times even close to what was stated out originally. We need to think, be cautious of what we hear and what we believe. Make our opinions known and make them as true as possible. And most important make up your own mind. Look into things, digest them, check them then make them known. Be an American not a mouth piece for someone or something else.

Excerpt from:

Fed up with political correctness - The Rushville Republican

Strange, but in the final editing of my book, which is much concerned with the American conservative movement, I cannot find a single mention of the alt-right. I dont know what the alt-right is, or anyone in it. Perhaps it supplants the New Right which was more aggressive than the Old Right?

Ive never liked the term right; it reinforces the mythology that conservatism is even remotely aligned with fascism and Nazism. Such regimes, in their expansive power, have more in common with the Big Government of so-called progressives. And nationalism is inconclusive; FDR was no shrinking violet, and it was JFK who urged what you can do for your country.

Jake Turx is a correspondent for Brooklyn-based Ami Magazine. The orthodox Jewish reporter is one of many little-known journalists now permitted to participate in White House press briefings and news conferences. This is an affirmative action program hugely disfavored by the mainstream media. Thats because its real diversity.

Heres the background: Over last weekend vandals toppled headstones at the Chesed Shel Emeth Society cemetery in St. Louis. Recently there were reports of bomb threats to 48 Jewish centers. These reportsprompted Mr. Turx (pen name) to ask President Donald Trump what Turx thought was a friendly softball question about the president addressing anti-Semitism.

In response, it would have been both desirable and appropriate, and expedient, for President Trump to condemn anti-Semitism and racial and religious hatred. He should have done so, then. Instead President Trump called the question repulsive and insulting; but he might have added demeaning. (A) The presidents generic is not to reply to an attack, not yield even one inch to an unacceptable premise. (B) The presidents specific is that associating him in any way with anti-Semitism is outrageous. (C) The president saw the question premised on the political correctness of Jewish victimhood, and the thing Jews in the U.S. are victims of, is political correctness.

President Trump likely (and incorrectly) felt that responding properly would dignify the rap against him and his team and perhaps even be patronizing. He likely wanted to avoid a headline like Trump Denies Anti-Semitism or Trump Finally Condemns Hate. But his rhetorical diversion to the Electoral College convinced conspiracists the president had a sinister agenda. He supposedly did not want to disillusion his presumed anti-Semitic base.

I am the least anti-Semitic person that youve ever seen in your entire life, President Trump responded. His inelegant syntax, Bill Buckley would say, enabled CNN talking heads to conclude, as they did, that if President Trump is the least, then he is somewhat anti-Semitic. That may not qualify as Fake News; it is Fake Analysis.

The controversy has its roots in the relentless character assassination of candidate and now President Trump. First, there was the canard that he is an anti-Semite. That became implausible given, for example, his love for his daughter and his proximity to his son-in-law, both Orthodox Jews who raise Trumps grandchildren in that rigorous observance. In much greater detail I explained this and more to a vitriolic Trump hater who happens to be Jewish; he responded, But some Jews supported Hitler. There seems the inevitable comparison of Trump to Hitler, encouraged by CNN, which keeps replaying that neo-Nazi creep, who has almost no following, chanting Heil Trump.

Candidate Trump might not hate Jews, Trumps detractors said, but Trumps campaign is full of dog whistles because his campaign ads were coded to appeal to anti-Semites. That became implausible since only the liberal Jewish complainers deciphered the code. In reality, the only dog whistle to the anti-Semites is each time President Trump appoints to a major position someone who happens to be Jewish.

But if you accept the premise that Trump and his team are evil, the explanation is always ominous, and that helps explain the reaction on January 27, when the White House issued President Trumps statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The statement inexplicably and inexcusably failed to mention the Jewish victims; it was worse than insensitive. It sounded like Barack Obama; had President Obama issued the same statement, I would have criticized it.

Trumps adversaries had a theory: Presidential Senior Counselor Steve Bannon is a historical revisionist. Allegedly Bannon aligned with the alt-right and its anti-Semites who want to minimize the extermination of Jews.

It turns out the author of the statement was Boris Epshteyn, an assistant to President Trump. Epshteyn was born in in 1982 in Moscow, then in the Soviet Union; in 1993 he emigrated to the U.S. In 1979, when I visited communist-ruled Leningrad (St. Petersburg), the Red hosts insisted on a cemetery commemoration for the quarter of the citys population killed by the Nazis. The communists played down the genocide of Jews. If you visited Auschwitz when the communists controlled Poland, the exhibit and tour guide alluded to the victims Polish opponents of the Nazis, communists, gypsies, and, almost parenthetically, Jews; in fact, Jews were overwhelmingly the carnage at what evolved from a concentration camp into a death camp. After Poland became free of communism, the Auschwitz exhibit and guides properly emphasized that Auschwitz was dedicated overwhelmingly to the annihilation of Jews. In other words, it was the communists the Left that minimized the Holocaust.

Perhaps before 11-year-old Epshteyn emigrated to the U.S., the Soviet education system had inculcated the party line World War II, not the Holocaust. In any case, Boris Epshteyn is no anti-Semitic lackey. Like many Jews from the former Soviet Union, Epshteyn is proud of his Judaism and his political conservatism.

For leftists born into a Jewish family, anti-Semitism is not about people who hate Jews. Its about people that the Jewish leftists hate, notably President Trump and, guilt by association, his advisers.

Rabbi Marvin Heir of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles prayed at the Trump swearing-in. A few days ago a reporter asked Heir about President Trumps failure to condemn anti-Semitism. Rabbi Heir replied that the president would pick the time and place. And so it was yesterday, at the end of a tour of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, that President Trump said the venue showed why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance and hatred in all of its very ugly forms.

About reports of increased anti-Semitism, he said, The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil.

After reporting this, CNN interviewed one Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect. My question to him: Do you think Anne Frank was murdered because of a lack of mutual respect?

Asked on CNN if he was satisfied with Trumps condemnation of anti-Semitism, Goldstein said absolutely not. To prove his good faith, Goldstein emphasized, Trump must fire Steve Bannon, supposedly (and with no evidence) an anti-Semite. Trump used to complain that in repudiating hatred and prejudice, he could never satisfy his critics. And Goldstein proved Trump correct.

So who is Steven Goldstein? Like Boris Epshteyn, Goldstein lived in New Jersey; both started in politics with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg. Thats where the resemblance ends. Goldstein epitomizes the Dark State of philanthropy, using tax-free dollars for political polemics. Goldsteins Anne Frank Center is a progressive voice for social justice, fighting hatred of refugees and immigrants, anti-Semitism, sexism, racism, Islam phobia, homophobia, transphobia Did Goldstein leave anything out? Is the legacy of Anne Frank now reduced to this potpourri of political correctness?

Steven Goldstein reminds me of a variation of a current cartoon. A man says, Women and gays should have no rights. Jews are pigs. Goldstein, gay and Jewish, would likely reply, You must be one of those alt-right creeps behind Donald Trump! The man might respond, No, actually these are my religious beliefs. Im a devout Muslim. And Goldstein, who presumes to judge Trump and demands that Bannon be fired, would likely respond, I apologize. I hope you dont think Im Islamophobic!

Read the original:

The Dark State of Political Correctness - American Spectator

Andrew Heying, Deputy Opinion Editor February 21, 2017

In a polarizing time in American history, there has been immense focus on political correctness. Many political pundits have argued that the frustration created by the lefts hyper-focus on the importance of words when discussing race and gender led to the anger that elected Trump. While this may be true, it does not mean political correctness is any less important.

When children are little, they often make up names for everything. However, as they age, they are taught what things are truly called, and they start using correct names. For example, if a small boycalled all dogs Sammy because his own dog was named Sammy, he would be corrected. No one would think this was an attempt to brainwash anyone with fancy new words or liberal propaganda. Political correctness is no different. Transgender women are not trannies or shemales these terms are literally incorrect and also offensive. Correcting people who use terms such as these is simply reflective of the fact that humanity is more educated now than ever before. In a society where children are taught to aspire to knowledge and higher education, this correction should be looked upon positively, not with disgust.

One of the main targets of the anti-PC argument is college campuses. While many on the right see colleges focus on political correctness as liberal propaganda, for the most part this trend is just a result of learning more. Just as a doctor learns to call what is often labeled the funny bone the ulnar nerve, people learn that the veil often worn by Muslim women is a hijab, not a funny scarf. As a nation that prides itself on its world-renowned colleges, this transition should be a sign of success, not a threat to anyone. After all, no one would get mad at an economics student for using terms that the average person may not be aware of. Adults on both ends of the political spectrum love seeing young people go to college, so looking down upon people for using what they learn must stop if higher education is going to maintain its value.

In President Donald Trumps America, conversations about specific terminology are more important than ever. At the same time, it is worth noting that demonizing people who use outdated and offensive terms is unhelpful. These conversations must be respectful, otherwise people who may be more educated are simply being arrogant. Nevertheless, young people must continue the commitment to political correctness going forward. If not, then there is no point in aspiring for a higher education and intellectual advancement in general.

Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.

A version of this article appeared in the Monday, Feb. 13 print edition. Email Andrew Heying at [emailprotected]

Read more:

Better Education Responsible for Political Correctness - NYU Washington Square News

Theres a TV show called Law and Order, and like most TV shows and movies, it depicts situations and circumstances as they should be, not necessarily as they are. On this show, criminals break the law, law enforcement hunts them down and arrests them. They go to court, get convicted and go to jail to serve their sentence. Really? Well, all that may eventually happen, but in the real world, chances are it would take years. Many think, as I do, that political correctness has gotten so out of control it has our nation paralyzed with intimidation and fear. As a result, enforcing the rule of law has taken a back seat to political correctness. Really.

When, and at what point, was it decide that Americans had the right to choose what laws they would or would not obey? This obsession with political correctness has transformed our republic into a revolutionary free-for-all when it comes to obeying and enforcing laws and the doctrines outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Have we allowed slick lawyers and glib politicians to dilute and distort the U.S. Constitution by allowing them to use it for their personal political gain?

These questions need to be asked and answered before our American way of life melts down into anarchy. Cases in point: illegal immigration and sanctuary cities. When was the word illegal redefined in America to mean no harm, no foul? It used to be if something was illegal then it is unlawful. Unlawful meaning against the law. So, if an act is against the law, then it should be stopped and punished and certainly not rewarded. We encourage lawlessness by rewarding such bad behavior and illegal activities. For illegals we issue drivers licenses, knowingly hire and shelter them and spend billions of taxpayers dollars on medical treatment, welfare and social programs, protecting and sheltering those documented criminals whose own countries have rejected them. Why? Because they have political value. To make matters worse, over the last decade, our inept federal government (Congress) has been transformed into the vehicle of choice for diluting the U.S. Constitution and making the rule of law arbitrary. The two most egregious examples of this are federal funding for sanctuary cities and the proliferation of rights, benefits and legal services extended to illegals while millions of our own natural-born Americans live in poverty, receive inadequate health care and attend schools with few resources and subpar academic records.

Please dont get the wrong idea. Im not down on America nor am I being negative. These are all obvious observations. Our country and our American way of life have become much too politically charged and motivated. Why? Mostly out of the pursuit of greed, money and power. So much so that the checks and balances built into our Constitution by our forefathers (the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government) have been politically homogenized. Homogenized? Maybe a better word for this is contaminated? Either way, it is not a healthy situation and the task of righting America should be both a Democratic or Republican objective. Its the American thing to do. Im extremely confident that as Americans it is in our DNA to figure out the best way to preserve our country, our traditions and our American way of life. Lets get to it!

Thanks for reading Up & Coming Weekly.

Read the original post:

Publishers Pen - Political Correctness and Lawlessness: A Rant - Up & Coming Weekly

Political correctness some call for it to be laid to rest. However, political correctness is not down, its stock value is.

Political correctness is definitely experiencing a decline. Looking at Donald Trumps Cabinet alone would make me sell my futures in political correctness. Trump fought political correctness throughout his campaign and cites saving time as a reason for not being politically correct. Recently on Face the Nation, Trump said that he thought America was being too politically correct on Muslims.

Political correctness in the chivalrous sense is dead, the attack on the politically correct has gone on even after the election. The alt-right are an easy target for examples of the death of political correctness.

After the Ghost Ship fire, there was an alt-right-linked call to hunt DIY spaces. Such spaces are known for being all-inclusive, but were labeled as liberal hideouts. Twelve spaces in total were shut down, Nashville being hard hit as well as California.

Chicagos scene had its casualties over the course of 2016 for unrelated reasons, but it remains a stronghold for the creative and the inclusive. The Oakland fire shined a light on an art scene in the midst of a housing crisis. The alt-right saw it as an opportunity to report all artspaces and illegal venues to crush the radical left.

Gabe Meline writes in an article for KQED Arts about the Oakland space: They dont understand why the floor is so rickety, the lamps dont have shades, the wall is painted three different colors and the table is made of scrap wood.

Meline says that those who criminalized the attendees of the Ghost Ship space asattendees of an illegal event dont understand why those spaces exist.

Often, spaces dont last. I remember seeing pictures of former Chicago venue The Keep being disassembled soon after attending one of its last shows. These venues are not often permanent fixtures. In recent years, the community has organized an annual poster listing the DIY venues and the deceased venues. The dead venue count and the currently active count are often close.

The Chicago DIY community reacted to the Oakland fire by calling for town halls to resume and for venues to have clearly labeled exits and fire extinguishers. While initially people tossed around ideas such as holding a benefit show to raise money for fire extinguishers for every DIY venue in the city, venues have already begun purchasing them on their own, if they did not already have them.

The reactionary witchhunting of safe spaces for dialogue and art is a sign of the downturn of political correctness. Ten days after the election, 867 hate crimes occurred, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 23 of which were anti-Trump.

In the defense of political correctness, the ACLU received record amounts of donations after the election, although Time magazine says this is because organizations like ACLU and Planned Parenthood may feel under threat from the Trump administration. Fear of retribution for not being politically correct may have driven some people in the past, however, fear of being politically obsolete may drive some people now.

Donald Trump tookoffice on Jan. 20, 2017. Whether or not this will result in even more hate crimes or donations to special interest organizations remains to be seen.

Read more from the original source:

Political correctness on a downward spiral - NCC Linked

February 20 2017, 5:00pm,The Times

Melanie Phillips

For decades, left-wing ideologies silence dissenters - but now there is a welcome backlash

For several years now, Trevor Phillips has been on a political journey. Originally a fully paid-up member of the metropolitan liberal set, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been regularly denouncing some of the shibboleths to which he previously subscribed.

On Thursday he will take this further. In a documentary on Channel 4, he will blame political correctness for the rise of populism throughout the West.

The reason nobody saw the peoples revolt coming is that political correctness is too easily dismissed. At best it is viewed as a kind of idiocy that takes the avoidance of giving offence to absurd lengths; at worst, as the unpleasantly assertive politics of identity and group rights.

Phillips appears to understand that, far

See the rest here:

The folly of political correctness is exposed by one of its high priests ... - The Times (subscription)

Its not easy being green a petition complained about Kermits interspecies romance with Miss Piggy. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

An Englishman, a Frenchman and an American man walk into a bar and make whatever jokes they want because have you heard? political correctness is dead. Donald Trump and Brexit have sent it to its grave. You can say whatever you like now, offend whoever you like!

Well, not quite.

From the gender-neutral ashes of political correctness a new sort of PC culture has risen. You could call it populist correctness: a virulent policing of language and stifling of debate that is rapidly and perniciously insinuating itself into daily life in Trumps America and Brexit Britain.

Populist correctness is the smearing and silencing of points of view by labelling them elitist and therefore at odds with the will of the people and the good of the country. Take, for example, the rhetoric around remoaners, which can be summed up as the people have spoken, so the rest of you should shut up. Opposing Brexit, Britains tabloids tell us almost daily, is unpatriotic and undemocratic. See, for example, front-page headlines such as: Damn the unpatriotic Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people and Time to silence Brexit whingers. Silencing opposing views would normally be seen as incompatible with the freedom of speech conservatives are supposed to hold so dear.

But the cunning thing about populist correctness is the way it dresses dogma up as democracy, invoking a majority consensus of opinion it doesnt actually command. Theresa May, for example, recently warned MPs not to stand in the way of Brexit, stating: Now is not the time to obstruct the democratically expressed wishes of the British people. Strictly speaking, of course, Brexit wasnt the will of the people. About 17.4 million people voted leave; 16.1 million voted remain; 12.9 million didnt vote. The wishes of the British people are complicated. The same goes for the US, where almost 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump. But populist correctness doesnt bother itself with inconvenient details. Rather it carves the country up into a neat dichotomy of ordinary people versus the elite.

As well as silencing opposing opinions by branding them elitist, populist correctness works to rebrand ideas, creating a new vocabulary for a new world order. The right prides itself on being straight-talking, on calling a spade a spade, but when it comes to calling a Nazi a Nazi or a racist a racist well then, things are more vague. They are the alt-right, please. Use unacceptable terminology and they will get very angry indeed.

But whats this? I thought an easily triggered outrage button was the preserve of politically correct liberals? From the vitriol the right heaps on sensitive snowflakes, youd think they have skins as thick as elephants. Far from it: nobody is offended by quite such a wide range of banal things as conservatives. Everything from insufficiently Christmassy Starbucks coffee cups to Budweiser ads to Kermit the Frogs lack of trousers seems to cause an outpouring of outrage. And, while jokes about minorities or women may be considered just banter, dont even try joking about white people thats reverse-racism! Indeed, many triggered rightwingers recently deleted their Netflix accounts in protest against a new comedy show called Dear White People.

Holiday greetings are another hot-button issue. A survey by Public Policy Polling found very conservative Americans were more than twice as likely to be personally offended by someone saying Happy holidays to them (21%) as very liberal respondents to be offended by someone saying Merry Christmas (10%) to them.

Kneeling down can also trigger conservatives. Last year, the American football player Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem to protest against racism. This caused distress to many patriots. A conservative post that went viral said: My heart is exploding, my lungs are without air my body is shaking, and tears are running down my face. Kaepernick is refusing to stand for the national anthem. But liberals are the sensitive snowflakes eh?

Trump is, of course, king of the snowflakes, flying into a rage at any hint of criticism. He has even, seemingly unironically, called for safe spaces. Last year, after cast members of Hamilton politely criticised Mike Pence, he tweeted: The theater must always be a safe and special place. The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

Conservatives are impressively adept at belittling politically correct snowflakes one minute and flying into fits of ideological outrage the next. Snowflakes are to be mocked because they take things personally; their feelings are hurt. The outrage of populist correctness, however, is framed more as righteous indignation. It is not you who is offended. You are offended on behalf of the people. On behalf of your country. Your outrage is morally superior.

The most dangerous thing about populist correctness is the way liberals have been swept into it. Always keen for a little self-flagellation, the triumph of Trump and Brexit triggered a crisis of liberal confidence. Perhaps we have been out-of-touch and elitist, wrote columnist after columnist. Perhaps political correctness did go too far. Perhaps we shouldnt say racist, perhaps we should say alt-right. Populist correctness isnt just making us question our right to dissent, its quite literally putting words in our mouths.

More:

Populist correctness: the new PC culture of Trump's America and Brexit Britain - The Guardian

Photo via Huffington Post

One of the big buzzwords this past year has been political correctness.

This is the obsessive fear that all our language and actions are going to be policed so no ones precious feelings are ever hurt. Accusations of political correctness are automatic conversation-killers because no one wants to be accused of it. Its synonymous with the thought police. But theres a dirty secret to being politically correct: everyone is guilty of it in some way.

Most often, the charge of political correctness is leveled against leftists and liberals, who can be quick to accuse others of sexism or racism. Theyve been nicknamed snowflakes because theyre supposedly unique and fragile.

And sure, not every accusation is accurate. Ive even seen far too extreme cases of university students demanding college curricula be altered to avoid anything potentially offensive, which isnt fair. College is supposed to challenge you and present uncomfortable ideas, but is there anything wrong with telling students the controversial material to let the student drop the class if they dont want to hear it? Challenging, even offensivematerial should be presented, but students should be able to make an informed decision about it.

Much of this political correctness has had positive effects. By encouraging more diversity and greater awareness, it has allowed for better representation of women and minorities and opened larger debates about race, gender and other societal divisions.

But people on the right can be politically correct, too. Its just that they have different values, so they are protective of a different set of beliefs. For example, I have seen people complain about my column and say some of what I write is offensive. Well, isnt atheism politically incorrect? Arent I expressing an unpopular idea?

Or consider Colin Kaepernicks protest by kneeling during the anthem instead of standing. For many people on the right, this was hugely offensive. Kaepernick was doing something immensely politically incorrect. Or how so many people on the right complained when people wanted to remove the Confederate flag, despite its origins in the slaveholding South. Should their feelings be considered when they claim others feelings should be dismissed?

There is a double standard here. The people who most often denounce political correctness often seem to be unable to handle it when that incorrectness is aimed against their values. So it isnt a concern about correctness as much as silencing the opposition.

Now, you can say that the left is trying the same thing, but I think theres a crucial distinction in play. History is often the struggle between dominant and minority groups, with the dominant group being the one that determines what is socially acceptable. However, a free society requires the ability for all voices to have a chance to be heard. If cries of political correctness are used to continue to silence people who historically have been silenced, then we should be skeptical.

We also have a First Amendment, which says we have the freedom to say what we want without penalty. Only under very extreme circumstances is speech prohibited, but this says nothing about other peoples reactions. They have the right to complain, protest and condemn. We have to balance having freedom of speech both ways, while at the same time being vigilant in watching which groups that speech is being used to oppress.

challenge first amendment material political correctness Politically correct

Go here to read the rest:

Political correctness weaponized in face of unpopular opinion - The Vermilion

A former president of the National Union of Students and chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips was once a leading member of what might be called the metropolitan liberal elite. He had the ear of everyone who mattered in the Labour party, and on matters of race and equality he was the go-to guy.

But then he began to have doubts about many of the political positions he held and started confronting what he saw as right-on shibboleths. Pretty soon he was being denounced as a turncoat in the same terms that he had once denounced others. In recent years, he has made several documentaries, with attention-grabbing titles such as Things We Wont Say About Race That Are True, that have aimed to challenge received wisdoms. The latest, which sounds like a homage to a Daily Telegraph letters page correspondent, is entitled Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?

I meet Phillips at his production office in Kentish Town, north London. Now 63, with greying hair and a slight stoop, hes no longer the youthfully strutting figure who seemed to be everywhere in the 1990s. But as soon as he gets talking, the eyes light up and the old passion comes pouring out.

Political correctness is one of those terms that mean different things to different people. What does it mean to him? The title is not mine, he says, a little defensively. Its a Channel 4 title. I do not normally ever use the term political correctness, except with a heavy dose of doubt about its usefulness, because basically it has become a stick with which the right beats everyone else.

In fact Phillips has used the term before. Two years ago he wrote in the Daily Mail and Sunday Times of po-faced political correctness that cramps all conventional parties. Still, his thesis in the film is that by trying to corral political debate into a tightly policed acceptability, the political establishment has created the conditions for insurgent figures such as Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump.

Its a perfectly reasonable argument but the programme is a little too wide-ranging in its targets to make its case. It jumps from the anti-Islamic group Pegida to censorious transgender activists to social media trolls to students banning sombreros. Although worthy subjects for investigation, they dont quite gel as an explanation for the rise of Corbyn, let alone Trump.

But what they do point to is Phillipss increasing frustration with the conviction that if we can only control the expression of ideas, we will all be able to live together in peace and harmony. October 2000 saw the publication of a report commissioned by Phillips, then chair of the Runnymede Trust, called The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. It marked perhaps the high-water mark of multicultural thinking, and suggested that Britain should become a community of communities in which each community would respect the other by avoiding causing offence.

Well I think it would be fair to say that I made a big mistake, he says now. It was a clear statement that some groups can play by their own rules. That to me runs counter to my own political beliefs. Why I am still a supporter of the Labour party is because I believe fundamentally in solidarity and reciprocity, and I think most on the left have forgotten both of those things.

Four years after that report, Phillips wrote an article in which he compared a critique by David Goodhart of multiculturalism to the jottings from the BNP leaders weblog. Two months later, he suddenly announced the end of multiculturalism and called for a core of Britishness to be asserted. Not long afterwards, Ken Livingstone suggested that Phillips had swung so far to the right that he would soon be joining the BNP.

Goodhart and Phillips are now good friends. I think Trevor has been intellectually and morally brave, says Goodhart. He took a lot of flak for looking past the cliches of the anti-racist left. He is regarded as a curious Uncle Tom figure by a lot of the black and ethnic minority establishment. Trevor still thinks of himself as a somewhat sceptical member of the left family and at times has, I think, felt quite wounded by the attacks.

I ask Phillips if the threat of expulsion from his political tribe does act as a disincentive to speak out about what he really thinks.

Depends how much of your life you want to spend lying to yourself, he says. I think its pretty wearying to get up each day and tell yourself to go advocate for something that you know not to be true. And what is even worse is if youre in public office or politics and everyone youre telling this to also knows it isnt true. Not only are you a liar, youre also an idiot.

If, as Goodhart says, he has been wounded by his ostracising, he doesnt appear to nurture any regrets. I have lost lots and lots of friends. My view is if you cant tolerate that I want to have this discussion, then we cant really be friends. What youre asking me to do is collude in a lie with you rather than argue it out. A big part of it is that on the left, if you look like me, youre supposed to think in a particular way. And they just hate it if a black person isnt the person they want him to be.

He believes that we all have to get used to and get over being offended. I dont care about offending people, he says. And I dont really care about being offended. There are quite a lot of people I actually want to offend. And I want to offend them all the time. But if somebody stands on the other side of the street and shouts nigger at me Im not going to be thrilled, but Im not going to argue for him to get locked up.

Then why was he appalled at what he saw as antisemitic bigotry in the Labour party? Surely by his own reckoning, he shouldnt much care. Oh the problem with that, he says, is not that people were using the word Zion, but that people were making it impossible for Jewish students to have meetings. There is an important distinction between words and actions.

But his complaints were not just about actions, I suggest. Was he not also concerned that the Labour party had played down antisemitic attitudes by some of its members? Yes, he agrees. There are people who believe there is no real distinction between Jews, Zionists and Israelis. And the party doesnt want to get into that at all because, lets be frank, its increasingly dependent on a demographic group Muslims within which a sizable minority subscribes to that view.

Phillips studied chemistry at Imperial College, London, and, he says, its his science training that made him change his mind about how race was discussed in this country. By the turn of the millennium, he says, it was obvious that it made little sense to classify people as black, brown and white. He has little time for designations such as BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic).

If you look at Indians and Pakistanis, they have completely different life chances. Its the same with Afro-Caribbeans and West Africans. Im not clever enough to have a Damascene conversion. I just look at the numbers and if they clash with how I think the world should be working, Ive got to change the picture.

Fair enough, but his critics will say that Phillips is making straw man arguments. After all, who is stopping him from saying what he wants? Hes got a TV documentary and coverage in national newspapers. Where is this politically correct establishment thats trying to stifle him?

A ruling elite maintains an idea of whats good and reasonable by a whole series of methods, he counters. Who gets advancement, rewards and status? If you dont hold to the orthodoxy, you stop being invited to meetings. Theres a phrase that people in centre-left politics use: oh hes very good. What they actually mean is: I agree with him.

Phillips has grown used to people not agreeing with him. Perhaps a little too used to it. As one old comrade says: He cant resist tweaking the nose of the bien pensant.

But in these disagreeable times, dissenting voices will make themselves heard. The liberal consensus has broken down, and rehashing the old pieties wont put it back together again. Whether or not he receives an invitation, Phillips is determined to have his say.

Has Political Correctness Gone Mad? Channel 4, 9pm, Thursday 23 February

Here is the original post:

Trevor Phillips: 'Political correctness ushered in the populist wave' - The Guardian