Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I thought that having read about political correctness from one viewpoint, I should do so from another and so read the piece in the link you posted.
I read the first third or so of it and thought it was just the sort on agenda driven rant I expected it to be, but then the writer started to make arguments that was backed up by research and I began to find myself agreeing with some of what was being said.
I cannot believe anyone would have too many arguments with the writer when they say "If you are concerned about hurting people’s feelings unnecessarily, you can always find ways to express something in the right way. In those kind of situations, what really matters is the way you say words, not what you say." - that's what I have always tried to do.
However, I've done that not because I was afraid of upsetting these bastions of political correctness that the writer would have us believe are looking over our shoulders at everything we say, type or write, but because it's the right and proper thing to do.
Gluey has it that this liberal elite is some left of centre mafia (to use his word) ranging from Obama and the Clintons through to those who we were supposed to have fought the cold war against. I just don't see that I'm afraid and find it amusing that it is this coalition of what seems to be anyone he doesn't like who is responsible for "political correctness" - presumably those in the Tory party who campaigned on the remain side were in with these communists as well?
Yes, I accept that there are examples around (some of which appear in the article) where the term "political correctness gone mad" can be applied and, yes, I mentioned before on here that the labeling of people who voted to leave the EU as racist was something that was applied far too freely (occasionally by myself), but, sorry, I just don't see political correctness as being the sort of threat it's made out to be in that article.
No, it seems to me that it's just as likely to be a shield used by the likes of Donald Trump to hide behind as he puts any challenging of untruths he has told (e.g. remarks about the character of Mexicans and his claim about millions of illegal votes) down to "political correctness", so we see the term being used by those who say that they are fighting against it as a way in which they try to stifle debate and dissent - whose trying to "reduce the scope of free thought" there?
Reply With Quote