It certainly was a very important factor.
It’s not just dishonest; it’s childish.
Senator Joe McCarthy perfected the technique in the United States: whenever you disagree with anybody, don’t debate ideas, go right into name calling. In McCarthy’s day, the epithet of choice was “Communist.” In recent years, it has morphed into some variant on bigot: “racist, sexist, homophobe, latinophobe, Islamophobe,
Noam, Noam, Noam, I can understand why you are upset. But “the most dangerous organization in world history”? C’mon that’s hysterical – in both senses of the word.
Trump in many (many) ways is the anti-Chomsky, blowing holes right through the political correctness linguistic critique which was to a large degree pioneered by Noam Chomsky. Now the critique (or is it a facade) is falling apart right before the world’s eyes. It’s got to be difficult for the professor.*
We’ve argued in these virtual pages that political correctness is anti-intellectual, anti-Enlightenment, and a tool deployed by bullies all too often. For many Trump was a stand against progressive newspeak.
Mao’s Red Guard was made up of “social justice warriors” too.
The “PC gestapo” is in full effect on college campuses today.
Political correctness is not about civility. It is not about being polite. (People who don’t know better will argue that PC is about being polite, and so will people who absolutely do know better. The former are just ignorant. The latter devious.) It is about control. It is about speech control and thought control.
This is where political correctness (a term coined by Marx) which is a type of religion, has taken us.
Science is racist. Just what South Africa needs, people who think witchcraft (which is indigenous) is equivalent (superior?) to the scientific method. Why? Because science is “Eurocentric.”
This kind of thinking ought to work out great for the country.
But the smug ignorance displayed by the woman in the attached video is the same I see displayed by some Americans on the “Left”
Consider how privileged we have to be as a society to worry about some of the things that take up some people’s time, particularly on some of America’s “finest” universities.
This is a very reasonable statement from former White House denizen and Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano. When I saw the headline I initially thought the op-ed was from Judge Napolitano. But no, it was Janet defending free speech. OK.
So I figured that Ms. Napolitano would probably hedge the headline the whole way throuigh the piece. But she didn’t. She basically made the case of the “liberals” of my youth. Free speech is free speech. Even very unpopular,
There was a time in this country when liberals were the ones who called for free speech. They marched for it. They fought for it. Berkeley Free Speech – Berkeley – was a real thing. Now however the sons and daughters of this crowd have embraced the totalitarianism their parents and grandparents fought against. It’s not supposed to be totalitarianism. It’s supposed to be “inclusive.” But we stare now at a mini-dark age in academia and in the media.
I live in a college town built around one of the greatest universities in the world, and I have heard about this growing phenomena from multiple sources recently. Alumni are fed up with “safe spaces” and the anti-intellectual political correctness guards objecting to every “microagression” they can conjure in their heads.
These alumni have stopped writing checks. Why should they fund scholarships and pay for facilities for people who are clearly disconnected from reality? Why should alumni support people who must be coddled and whose egos must be massaged?
There, there, my sensitive little college orchid. We know the harsh winds brought by those nasty Republicans down the street may curl your sensitive leaves. But we at Case Western Reserve are here for you. We will protect you. We will make sure that you are OK. Some things are just too beautiful for Republicans.
(From The Daily Caller)
A July 11 statement in The Daily, Case Western’s internal e-newsletter,
In many respects political correctness, and there are different forms employed by different groups interested in dominating the political narrative, is a way of lying. It is a way of being dishonest. It’s not about feelings (not that this is an excuse anyway) often, it is about obscuring reality. It is about muddying the waters. It is about countering intuition (which when done via reason can be a good thing on occasion) and creating alternate realities to reality.
Independent thinkers are a liability. Compliant cogs keep the machine going.
FREE SPEECH. FREE SPEECH. A MILLION TIMES FREE SPEECH.
Perhaps we need to revert back to the tactics of the free speech advocates of the 1960s. Let us be clear.
FREE SPEECH. FREE SPEECH. FREE SPEECH. A MILLION TIMES. FREE SPEECH.