General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Paul Krugman- The New Political Correctness (Newspeak) [View all]ballaratocker
(126 posts)Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)
Political correctness is a means of making language more inclusive i.e. instead of using chairman, we would use chairperson. When P.C. language was first promoted, many right wingers percieved this as an attack on their ability to denigrate segments of society they didn't like. People who were too stubborn and/or lazy to make an effort to use this way of speaking viewed it as an affront to their right of free speech (despite no law being made which forced them to use it). The former group saw an opportunity and therefore used the term 'political correctness' to vilify any line of progressive thought and dragged the latter group with them (who were too ignorant to realize that PC shouldn't be partisan or aligned with policy that aimed to change the structure of society). This has bought us to the current point where 'political correctness' is like a rabid totalitarian Soviet bear threatening the very fabric of Western civilization.
Putting ones hands over one's ears and saying it is offensive to label any thing or anyone in a certain manner is intellectually immature full stop, regardless of it coming from the left or the right. That is the crux of the matter. It has nothing to do with left wing/right wing political correctness. Let's scrap the nonsense P.C. label and call it for what it really is.
Freedom of speech is a two way road. Freedom of expression is also coupled with right of response. If your ideas are so weak that they crumble after the slightest questioning or labelling, they probably aren't worth a pinch of salt anyway. Screaming black and blue that the other party is being 'offensive' tells me that you aren't comfortable with your own ideas in the first place. And using the argument that you are being oppressed by 'political correctness' falls right into that category.