Sunday, August 15, 2004 at 9:39 AM There's a tiny grain of sense in MF's last post, surrounded by his usual semi-literate drivel. PC (as originally used) humorously referred to an exaggerated form of etiquette designed to placate hypersensitive groups supposedly representing oppressed minorities: activist groups that might cause trouble for nervous administrators. One of the underlying assumptions of PC was that the claims made by these hypersensitive groups could not be held to the same standards of scrutiny as ours, that these groups were too delicate for the ordinary give-and-take of legitimate debate. There's often an implied (probably unconscious) condescension involved, as if you were dealing with children or mental defectives who had to be coddled and excused. But, as always, context matters. If the grounds of the debate are not legitimate (as is the case with Holocaust deniers and advocates of race war), PC isn't a valid charge to use against those who take offense at such outrageous claims. Sadly, the term has been hijacked and perverted by groups with an utterly loathsome agenda, as part of an attempt to "normalize" and "mainstream" their disgusting ideology. I first became aware of this shift about four or five years ago. Once upon a time, I too blithely used PC as a term of contempt and ridicule against silly, hypersensitive people who liked to apply a double standard. But eventually I began to notice that when I used PC as way to dismiss absurd opinions, decent people would look askance at me and racist right-wing creeps would thank me for supporting their agenda. They thought I was speaking in code (nudge nudge, wink wink) and tacitly agreeing that Jews secretly controlled the world and that blacks were genetically inferior to whites. That's when I realized that the term has been hijacked and corrupted, probably forever, and should be permanently retired. I doubt it can be salvaged. —Coleman |
