Jim,
Your paradigm is showing. I honestly don't think "political correctness" means what you think it does, but clearly in your book it's "bad." That's neither here nor there. The events you are attributing to "political correctness" are also viewed as "bad" in your book. Again, that's neither here nor there, but you can't equate the two capriciously.
For example: The idiots who tore up Seattle during the WTO meeting considered their protests to be "non-violent" because they "didn't injure people." It's another example of paradigm. "Non-violent protest" equals "good" in their eyes, so their protests had to be "good." Taking three steps back their "logic" is, of course, ridiculous, but when one is emotionally close to an issue, it's often hard to take those steps back.
Political correctness is an overused term which has become laced with misconception. Some of it honest, some of it as a result of radicals and reactionaries on both sides of the issue... much like the term Feminism...
Feminism was basically the radical idea that a woman should receive equal pay for equal work. Through time additional baggage was attached. Political correctness started out much the same way. It was the radical idea that people shouldn't have to put up with discrimination or abuse purely because of their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or what not. The radical notion that one's deeds, not one's creed determined how one should be treated by society.
The bottom line for me is this, in our anger over the terrorist attacks and desire for Justice, America needs to always be mindful of these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." |
