Send As SMS

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Politically correct insults

To say things like “racist” or “fascist” has become these days the equivalent of what in the past could have been, I suppose, “sinner” or “heretic”.

I mean that they are and are meant as just insults thrown at somebody, and they don’t have any of the original meaning any more.

Their over-use and use out of context or rather in the wrong context (in the case of the modern insults) guarantee that their sense has been lost.

They are simply insults representing the current ideology (political correctness), and orthodoxy, much as perhaps the older abuse did.

They have no specific meaning. All they mean is generic. They mean: I am in the majority and you are in the minority, therefore I am right and you are wrong (because for the kind of people who use them might is right).

1 Comments:

At 9:23 AM, Blogger Sage7 said...

A driving force behind Political Correctness

Asserted here is one simple principle, you can observe it for yourself.

Political Correctness (PC) has in effect become a new morality intended to displace Traditional Morality(TM) for the purpose of identifying who in society are the “good people”. TM focuses on matters of interpersonal moral accountability like “do not do things that hurt other people”, while all admonitions in PC are impersonal virtues like protecting the environment, animals, the under-privileged, and victims of social injustices, etc.. These are all good things, but they are all impersonal.

The common thread through PC is assertions or implications of moral superiority or acceptability apart from TM values. Note that this definition of PC includes not just language adjustments (as asserted in the Wikipedia), but any kind of impersonal morally good principle upon which a person can claim moral superiority without acknowledging TM. The objective is to allow a person to feel good about themself in spite of the fact that choices that person has made have had bad consequences for the people closest to them: family, friends, lovers, co-workers, and other associates. This is why advocates of PC are so often accused of acting out of guilt... it is because they are... guilty of something that drives them into needing to feel good about themselves without addressing the real issues regarding their behavior.

That displacement is intended is reinforced by the fact that people who are strident advocates of PC are also intent on diminishing TM in our society. That is because a PC society is less likely to hold people accountable for personal moral failures.

Evidence: PC’s many policies designed to avoid hurting people’s feelings, except for the feelings of people who advocate TM.

Evidence: PC advocate’s purging the words ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ from the PC vocabulary. Whose feelings are being protected by this? Just those who do not wish to examine the direct and indirect harmful consequences of their personal life.

Evidence: PC advocate’s efforts to distance society from TM institutions and language. (No other people group is so singled out by PC advocates.)

Note that this definition stands without the any force of religion. Religion only strengthens this definition. Unwise interpersonal deeds can and do bring sorrow to other people. Really "good people" appreciate constructive feedback and try to improve their behavior and to compensate those they harmed. In contrast, people who try to escape from interpersonal moral accountability pose a threat of harm to those around them. In effect they violate the fundamental contract of civilization... “that we can live in close proximity if we agree to not hurt each other”.

Sage7

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home