Political Correctness Is Eating its Young

No political correctness

No political correctness (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I imagine you’ve notices the attacks on free speech from the left in the last few years. I have actually had people tell me calmly (like they really thought so) that the reason for the amendment was to protect popular speech, to which my response was, “That makes no sense, popular speech needs no protection. It was written to protect unpopular SPEECH, BECAUSE IT NEEDS IT.

But that’ sort of a side issue, important as it is. The real problem is the attempt to suppress what we could call ‘non politically correct speech’

My point is that free speech is inherently offensive-to somebody. It incites disagreements, even arguments. I’d call it the forge that tempers freedom, because it makes us think about things. We may or may not change our minds but it does us no harm to know that others disagree. In addition, without free speech and all that it entails, innovation and society’s progress will simply stop.

And that is its pernicious side, one can’t stifle on part of a man–you stifle the whole man. All of this is worse in the UK, of course, because they have sold their rights, long ago, for a little temporary safety. And this article lays out well why PC is very dangerous, even now, maybe especially now, in its death throes.

For years a few of us have warned that modern “liberals” would live to regret abandoning the principle that you should only censor speech when it incited violence. We would enjoy our vindication if the unravelling of progressive assumptions was not so extraordinarily menacing.

Political correctness is eating itself. It is abandoning its children, and declaring them illegitimate. It is shouting down activists who once subscribed to its doctrines and turning its guns on its own. Women are suffering the most, as they always do. “Radical feminist” is now an insult on many campuses. Fall into that pariah category, and your opponents will ban you if they can and scream you down if they cannot.

It is tempting to say “serves you right” or “I told you so” to the feminists on the receiving end of the new intolerance. But you will not understand how Western societies have become so tongue-tied and hypocritical unless you understand the human desires behind the feminists’ original urge to suppress, which now lie behind their enemies’ desire to suppress them.

A generation ago, a faction within Western feminism campaigned to ban pornography. They believed it caused harm by inciting men to rape, but couldn’t prove it. Despite decades of research, no one has been able to show that pornography brutalises otherwise peaceful men. So they added the argument that sexual fantasy should be banned because it spread harmful stereotypes that polluted society. Unfortunately, for them, they could not substantiate that claim beyond reasonable doubt either.

“You have no identity, no personality, you are a collection of appealing body parts,” the American law professor Catharine MacKinnon told her followers in the 1980s. Pornography ensured women were assessed only by their looks. It “strips women of credibility, from our accounts of sexual assault to our everyday reality of sexual subordination. We are reduced and devalidated and silenced.”

For all its faults, America has the First Amendment, which protects free speech and freedom of the press. The US Supreme Court duly struck down an ordinance MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin drafted for Indianapolis City Council in 1984 which would have allowed women who could say they were harmed by pornography to sue. It might have killed the law but it did not kill the movement. The impulse behind the original demands drives campaigns against sexist advertising and naked women in tabloids to this day.–

Political Correctness Is Devouring Itself | Standpoint.

It’s an outstanding article (albeit a touch long), that we should all read and ponder.


About NEO
Lineman, Electrician, Industrial Control technician, Staking Engineer, Inspector, Quality Assurance Manager, Chief Operations Officer

12 Responses to Political Correctness Is Eating its Young

  1. Indeed the so-called press, i.e. pressure of Political Correctness today has led to the loss of being able to speak with Biblical Freedom in the UK! This is just the beginning I fear!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. the unit says:

    We have three cats. I read recently don’t let them outside as they are killers. Good admonition applied to liberals as well. ♪♪Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be liberals. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      Yepper. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  3. My parents don’t like it when I use the term “heresy” to describe non-orthodoxy because of their more left-minded themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      No, i imagine they don’t. many people my age have come to the conclusion that a quiet life is what is needed. I have days like that myself. Still, I do think in many cases ‘heresy’ is overstating it, miseducation might be more accurate in many cases, we’re all products of our yesterdays.


      • Looking at the etymology of the word heretic is helpful, I have noted that even on-line the definition is not as good as some of the older English Dictionaries! The word can or used to have reference to both any opinions in philosophy and politics, that were opposed to official or established views or doctrines. And the later so-called Church Fathers made the Jews especially heretics because of their established rejection of Jesus as the Christ! Surely the early roots of anti-Semitism, with great prejudice and hostility!

        It is interesting that the so-called “Left-mindedness”, appears to be the so-called liberal areas of the herd mentality now, again even the etymology is helpful here, as liberal (leudhero – belonging to the people, i.e. free people, to grow up, rise whence, leute people. Large or plentiful. But then of course I am a conservative, as I belief even St. Paul was, as a Roman citizen, and a Greek Jewish Greco-Roman thinker! Note Paul’s use of the Roman idea of “Politeuma” (Gk.) for “citizenship”, the spiritual condition, or life, of a citizen, i.e. commonwealth of the Christian, and his heavenly, or other-world status of believers, Phil. 3: 20! These are the true “conservatives”, metaphorically!


      • Most cases, heresy is detectable. For instance, baptismal heresies they can’t understand. Am I younger than you?


        • Indeed Christian or Covenantal Baptism must surely be seen and connected to John the Baptist, and the OT and Jewish sense, but this has been lost in the whole full blown idea of Baptism in the so-called High Church and overt “Sacramentalism” and “Sacerdotalism” of both Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox! Baptism, as the Reformers came to understand it, with some help from Augustine, and surely spiritually back to Paul, was both a true “Sign” and “Seal” of that reality, but it was NOT that reality itself! Or Paul could never say: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” (1 Cor. 1: 17) Surely, we would not want to diminish the practice and truth of Baptism, but we must as John the Baptist place it in the true doctrine of Repentance itself, “metanoia” (change of heart and mind), which always points to Christ / Messiah! And as John’s Gospel: “Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” (John 3: 3) Born anew by GOD!

          And as long as Acts 10: 44-48 is in the Bible, we can see the actual New Birth is again within God’s hand and power alone! And especially for us ole Gentiles (Nations). Note also, the original 12 apostles were never re-baptized after John’s Baptism! As the Gentiles and the Apostles, the true Baptism is of the Holy Spirit! (Acts 2: 1-4, etc. 1 Cor. 12: 12-13)

          Again, no “Baptismal Regeneration” strictly is seen in the Bible! This is the Reformed Faith and Divinity, indeed!


        • We’re getting off-topic…


        • And yes, your attacked me under the question of baptism, and I sought to set the baptismal biblical record straight, at least from the Reformed position! Btw, Calvin is just a bit older than both of us!


        • Okay, I am not Reformed and was not attacking you. If you want to debate the baptismal question come over to my blog but we are getting OFF TOPIC!


        • I’ll pass at coming over to your blog! 🙂


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s