Political correctness.
I was scrolling through old email tonight and came across something I'd written to my friend Fred who used to own a newspaper here in town, and is the conservative voice on a morning talk radio program pitted against a liberal contrapuntist. I email him on occasion when something I heard on the show--usually spoken by the liberal, who by the way is also a friend of mine, he's just liberal--ignites in me the need to whip out a response. Anyway Fred often reads my emails on the air when he has time.
A few years ago, I told Fred to offer this definition of political correctness to his on-air colleague for consideration. I still think it is accurate:
[Political correctness] is a mindset whereby behaviors of the majority considered offensive to a minority are wrong.
So if you're in the majority, and you think gays should not be able to marry, and a minority of people (any minority, no matter how small) is offended by this viewpoint, then political correctness says the majority is wrong and must be "sensitive" about expressing the offensive opinion publicly and/or in mixed company. That's generally how it works. Any liberals want to take issue with that, bring it on.
A few years ago, I told Fred to offer this definition of political correctness to his on-air colleague for consideration. I still think it is accurate:
[Political correctness] is a mindset whereby behaviors of the majority considered offensive to a minority are wrong.
So if you're in the majority, and you think gays should not be able to marry, and a minority of people (any minority, no matter how small) is offended by this viewpoint, then political correctness says the majority is wrong and must be "sensitive" about expressing the offensive opinion publicly and/or in mixed company. That's generally how it works. Any liberals want to take issue with that, bring it on.
posted by Craig J. at
11:29 PM
7 Comments:
I don't think I've ever heard a better definition. I'd really like to see someone to argue that one. :)
Their argument will consist of why minority opinion is more important than that of the majority. They'll also try to blow sunshine about how we need to embrace different cultures and lifestyles and so on, be tolerant of different viewpoints, blah blah blah throwup.
Shouldn't the minority opinion-holders be more tolerant of the majority opinion, rather than the other way around? I mean, I know most liberals are lacking in common sense, but .. well, maybe that's the problem right there.
The majority of Americans were of the opinion that Terri Schiavo had a right to die and that Administration and Congress both overstepped their bounds in trying to prevent her feeding tube from being removed. To that I would say, thank god we live in a country where a man has a right to pull the plug on a vegetable!
Now by your standards, that was not a politically incorrect thing to say...since the majority of Americans agree that Terri Schiavo should've had the plug pulled. Thus, being intolerant of minority opinions (in this particular case, YOUR opinion) doesn't make you politically incorrect. It just makes you a F*!@ing @sshole.
-Kristi's liberal friend, Ryan
P.S. I happen to be a liberal who thought it was a tragedy that Terri Schiavo was allowed to die...the above statement was for illustrative purposes only. I just wonder what it would be like for both you and your hardcore right-wing Nazi sister to be minorities. Life ain't that rough for white-bread, middle-class Midwestern Anglo-Saxon folk like you.
First of all, you forgot to refute my statement.
Secondly, by your own logic, you are a fucking asshole, unless you equate calling my sister and your *ahem* friend a hardcore right-wing Nazi with being "tolerant".
I can't say we disagree on that last part.
The point wasn't to refute your statement really. Maybe your definition of being politically incorrect is right on. But it doesn't mean being intolerant of minorities is a 'good thing' just because one is in the majority and they are minorities. And again, I wasn't calling you an asshole by any means...I should've changed the 'you' in that statement to 'one' (but that sounds too British and proper). Perhaps you are right that by calling my friend Kristi a hardcore right-wing Nazi was being a little bit intolerant. But again, that is perfectly politically correct because Nazi's are a minority and I am not a Nazi. Don't pretend that you don't know that Vandover is actually part of the Gestapo.
-Ryan
Also, please see my comment regarding your November 10th post "Liberals Aren't Snobs?" Maps are fun.
-Ryan
Who said anything about being intolerant?
Nobody is preaching the merits of intolerance. However, a minority demanding that the majority change to fit their needs--the minority's needs--is not "tolerance". That's just silly. Tolerance is the majority saying, "yes, you can continue to do things your way, we'll let you be." Political correctness, by my defintion, is the minority saying, "you cannot continue to do things your way, you must do things our way, in order for us to decide you are being 'tolerant'." Then they set about writing new laws, redefining words, condeming other words altogether and basically applying their standards to the whole of the culture. The culture in which they are a minority.
Who's being intolerant of whom? For example. In our (predominantly Christian) culture, marriage consists of exactly two people: a man and a woman. No more, no less. You may not marry a family member, animal, child, inanimate object or member of the same gender. That's what marriage means, to the vast majority of Americans.
Political correctness dictates that we--we the majority--must change the definition of marriage so that a minority can be included. Uh, we the majority are quite happy with the definition of marriage as it is. There is no reason to change it, especially when doing so would dilute the very meaning of the institution. So, no, we don't want to change this very fundamental definition. Deal with it.
Now, "tolerance" would dictate that homosexuals would say, "okay, that's the way they do things here, we can accept that." But most of these activist Democrat shills would rather scream "discrimination" (as if!!) and throw labels around like "homophobe", as though diagnosing us with some kind of illness. No, we're not sick, we're not phobic, we just think marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. That's actually pretty normal, at least in this culture. Crying about it doesn't change that.
Now, you claim that most of America wanted Terri to die. I don't agree, and I sure as hell don't trust the pollmeisters, whether their polls say what I want them to say or not. What I do know is that your example has nothing to do with political correctness. There was no "politically correct" position in the Shiavo case to me knowledge. The Democrat/liberal position was that her adulterous husband should be able to kill her as it suits him. The Republican/conservative position was that he gave up his claim to authority over her when he started shagging that other chick, and that her parents were the only ones who truly had her well-being in mind.
If her PARENTS had decided to remove her feeding tube, after a full and proper medical examination and review, I think you would have heard a lot less carping from the right. Not that we wanted her to die, but we trust that Terri's parents would have had poor Terri's best interests at heart. Not that cheating bastard who refused to divorce her when she became too inconvenient for him to deal with.
Regardless, it's academic, and I fail to see how political correctness enters into it, because I won't give credence to some biased poll that couches the poll questions in specious context (e.g. Terri Shiavo is brain dead).
Post a Comment
<< Home