political-correctness

Has society really become quite thin-skinned, or is acting __ffended_ a new tactic that is being used to shut down legitimate political debate? Progressives are increasingly claiming to be offended whenever those on the right disagree with their left-wing positions. It doesn't matter what the issue is; the left will divert a legitimate political debate into an accusation that the right disagrees with them because they are full of hate towards them.

The legend of our times, it has been suggested, might be "The Revenge of Failure". This is what Envy has done for us. If we cannot paint well, we will destroy the canons of painting and pass ourselves off as painters. If we will not take the trouble to write poetry, we will destroy the rules of prosody and pass ourselves off as poets. If we are not inclined to the rigors of an academic discipline, we will destroy the standards of that discipline and pass ourselves off as graduates. If we cannot or will not read, we will say that "linear thought" is now irrelevant and so dispense with reading. If we cannot make music, we will simply make a noise and persuade others that it is music. If we can do nothing at all, why! we will strum a guitar all day, and call it self-expression. As long as no talent is required, no apprenticeship to a skill, everyone can do it, and we are all magically made equal. Envy has at least momentarily been appeased,and failure has had its revenge.

The dream of true economic, gender and racial equality in a free society, which was cherished (if not achieved) by Leftists of the post-war generation, died under New Labour; but the egalitarianism at its heart was resurrected by a merciless minority as the brain-sucking zombie of Political Correctness.

Politicians are not afraid of their mistakes, they are afraid their mistakes will not succeed

A 'black' man who draws a 'black' person with big lips is called observant. A 'white' man who does the same is called a racist.

If the first words out of your mouth are to cry __olitical correctness!_, _ chances are very, very high that you are in fact part of the problem.

People often call fighting racism being 'PC' when they don't want to confront their own prejudice

Saying something is 'politically correct' is often a way of dismissing the voices of the oppressed.

It is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the Moon as to put a bone in your nose.

Political correctness' as 'over-sensitivity' is code for saying the privileged shouldn't have their unearned privileges questioned.

What made such a plan seem workable was that for the early pluralists and their multicultural descendants society would have fewer and fewer traditional groups. The kind of pluralist society that Dewey and Kallen envisaged would go beyond rooted ethnic communities. It would become the evolving creation of __ree_ individual participants, setting goals under scienti_ direction and having their material interests monitored by a __onductor state._ The world as conceived by pluralists was there to be managed and to be made culturally safe for its framers: Eastern and Central European Jews fearful of traditional Gentile mores and the uprooted descendants of New England Calvinists looking for the New Jerusalem under scienti_ management.

Today pluralism operates as a court religion, while having less and less intellectual credibility. Betraying the plastic terminology in which its directives are framed are the additions to the __uman Rights Code_ passed in the Canadian province of Ontario in 1994. The Code cites __uman dignity_ to justify the criminalization of __onduct or communication [that] promotes the superiority or inferiority of a person or class because of race, class, or sexual orientation._ The law has already been applied to prosecute scholars making hereditarian arguments about social behavior, and its proponents defend this muzzling as necessary for __uman dignity._ But never are we told whence that dignity is derived. It is certainly not the one to which the Bible, a text that unequivocally condemns certain __exual orientations,_ refers. Nor are we speaking here about the dignity of nonengineered academic discourse, an act that the supporters of the Ontario Human Rights Code consider to be criminal if judged insensitive. Yet the pluralist advocates of human rights codes that now operate in Canada, Australia, England, and on the European continent assume there is a human dignity. Indeed this dignity is so widely and passionately accepted, or so it is asserted, that we must criminalize unkind communication. In the name of that supposedly axiomatic dignity, we are called upon to suppress scholarship and even to imprison its authors.

A politician is a man in his natural state

All of the wars in the world are fueled by power struggles either at individual, national or international levels

Politicians are a higher breed of men. They know that this world is ruthless and that they must live accordingly to cope with it

_We had spiritually marked ourselves. This marking began_when the counterculture of political correctness began, and the assault on Christian values and traditions began. At first it seemed so ridiculous that it was harmless, kind of like a disease to which we were all immune. Soon, however, it was recolored to equal compassion, fairness, acceptance, tolerance, and equality. From there it evolved into a power with the ability to take any truth and repaint it as a lie, to take any lie and relabel it as truth.

It's not 'over-sensitivity' to ask to be treated with the same dignity and respect shown to others.

No man has the courage to approach her or initiate questions she herself rise, for all men fear a fascist and she can very well be a fascist__ wife.