POLITICAL CORRECTNESS; A FARCE
Neo-Fascism Exposed: Part II--Political Correctness
by Jace Walden
JasonPye.com
"If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."--Benjamin Franklin
This article is the second installment in the series of articles aimed at exposing the Neo-Fascist movement and discrediting all of its manifestations. One of the most prevalent manifestations of neo-fascism is political correctness. Political Correctness (or PC) is a linguistic concept aimed at removing words or terms that can be perceived as offensive to certain individuals or groups. On the surface, many concepts of political correctness seem civil and are completely acceptable. An example of this is the censorship of racial and ethnic slurs on television. If this was the full extent political correctness, there wouldn't be a problem. However, like most good-intentioned movements, the movement has strayed from its original principles. In the case of the PC movements, it has morphed into an all-out assault on the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and it has been a driving factor factor in the "dumbing-down" and weakening of American society as a whole.
The modern manifestations of political correctness are easily identifiable in everyday life. From the affirmative action movement, to androgynization; and from the "everyone's a winner" mentality to political censorship, it's hard to go through a whole day without either thinking/feeling/or acting politically correct. From a constitutional standpoint (and I'll admit that I'm not an expert of the constitution) the whole premise behind political correctness is flawed. According the the First Amendment, we all have a right to free speech, and inherent in that right is the freedom of expression. But there is no constitutional clause, amendment, or phrase which states that a person has the right to not be offended. So how can an American society possibly attempt to prohibit expression or language for any reason? After hundreds of years of case law, several statutes have been passed to protect against offense in the name of civility and order. Such laws include: Laws against indecent exposure, laws against public intoxication, and laws against disorderly conduct.
These laws, however, have one thing in common with each other that they do not share with the ideas of political correctness. Of the above mentioned laws, all are meant to restrict a certain behavior which is not in itself a right. For instance, a man does not have the right to expose himself to me. A man also does not have a right to go cause disrest in public because he is belligerently drunk. And finally, a man or group does not have the right to disrupt the public or private well-being, simply for the sake of disrupting it. I.E. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have no right to disorderly conduct at a funeral. Political Correctness goes one step further than any civility law. It attempts to restrict a right. Most often, it is the right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression. But as you will see later in the article, it doesn't stop there. The following are examples of political correctness at its lowest:Example 1: Muhammad is PISSED!For the first example, I'll stick with one of the more traditional practices of fascism in political correctness--censorship of non-behavior oriented expression. Earlier this year, a Danish newspaper came under a virtual PC assault due to its printing of a series of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Besides the reaction from Muslims, who were extremely upset, the newspaper came under fire from SEVERAL non-Muslim groups/individuals who were concerned that the editor/cartoonist weren't "sensitive" enough. Even in America, many on the left were condemning the paper for what they considered to be a thoughtless, cruel, and inconsiderate action.
The Cartoons themselves, as all political cartoons are, were a series of clever, single-framed illustrations which questioned calling Islam "the Religion of Peace". One depicted the prophet with a Crescent shaped halo over his head, however at the angle he was standing, the halo looked like a set of horns. Now, I can see Muslims being offended by this drawing. After all, the Christian religion has been openly mocked for decades, and Christians (like myself) have been rightly offended. But to start all-out protests and riots which included arson, assault, looting, and other forms of violent crime...doesn't that sort of prove the point of the cartoons?
The worst part about the whole incident was how much it scared the American mainstream media. Most media outlets flat-out refused to show the drawings on air in fear of offending Muslims. In essence, they decided that being "PC" was more important than delivering an accurate news report. Even Comedy Central (one network that has never been scared of offending anyone) bowed to the demands of the PC police when it refused to allow South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker to include a two-second depiction of Muhammad in an episode of South Park, although the network had no problem with the depiction of Jesus defecating on the American flag...
Keep one thing in mind. These cartoonists didn't gather up a group of Muslims and persecute or torture them for their beliefs. They didn't urinate on a Koran. And they did nothing to convert Muslims from their religion. All they did was draw a cartoon. Nothing more. All they expected was to get a few cheers and a few jeers. Instead, they stirred up a hot-bed of PC Fascism, headed by Islamic Fundamentalists and carried out by cowering news agencies who didn't think the public was good enough to hear the full story.
Example 2: You Made the Grade, You have the SAT, Too bad You're White!In 1999, two applicants to the University of Michigan filed civil suits against the University on the grounds that the University had used race as a consideration for admittance. At first sight, this should raise eyebrows seeing as how the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the laws. It basically prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc. So how could the University of Michigan get away with admitting less qualified students simply because they were of a different race? The answer is another example of out-of-control political correctness.
You see, the University had what is known as a "quota" policy. Which was a policy that forced the admissions department to set aside a percentage of its acceptances for certain minority groups. The concept of the policy was to promote diversity among the student body. Not a bad idea, right? Not until 1999. In that year, among several thousand applicants, two white male students applied for admission. I won't lie and say that the two boys were rocket scientists. However, they did exceed the set standards for university admission. To their surprise, rather than a letter of acceptance, both received a letter of denial. As any qualified student would be, both were upset and questioned the University's decision. After several months, they found out that several students who had been accepted, had earned lower GPAs and lower SAT scores than the two boys had. After further investigation, the boys learned that the less-qualified students were all members of racial minorities. They also discovered that the University had a policy of meeting quotas for the different races.
After filing suit against the school for racial discrimination, the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In a controversial 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS upheld the University's discriminatory policy--basically legalizing racial discrimination and overturning the Fourteenth Amendment. This is PC at its worst. Admitting college students on the basis of race undermines the American education system. From kindergarten to 12th grade kids are taught that if they work hard in school, they will earn a spot in college. I don't know about you, but I never once heard, "Jace, if you work hard in school you will earn a spot into college only if you belong to a certain race." But in essence, that's what SCOTUS has allowed.
This abuse of PC totally contradicts with the idea of equal opportunity. At one time, equal opportunity was supposed to mean just that, equal opportunity. Everyone is born with the chance, but there is no guarantee what the outcome will be. Thanks to the PC police, the concept of equal opportunity has evolved into something extremely troubling--equal results. They have slandered the meaning of the word to say that equal percentages of every race, sex, socio-economic background, MUST achieve equal results in every field of endeavor. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a racist or sexist. I doesn't bother me if a person from a minority does better than me at something. I don't see people as minorities or majorities, I see them as people. But saying that all members of race X must be exactly the same as all members of race Y is nothing more than socialism. It completely rules out the possibility of effort and hard work.
For instance, there's a position open in a company. I apply and a black man applies. According to company policy, they have to hire 25 white people and 25 black people. Well, let's say that they're one white person short. Now, what if that black man was infinitely more qualified than me. He had the experience, he knows the system, and he has a good resume. But me, I'm just white. Is it right to hire me over him just to meet a quota? Not in a million years. I would expect him to be hired before me on the basis of his merit, not his skin color.
Affirmative action is a betrayal of the concept of merit. It is a betrayal of what Martin Luther King, Jr. said when he gave his famous speech: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." It is an over-emphasis of political correctness, and an embrace of inequality.
Example 3--Everyone is a Winner, Except for everyone who LOST!This isn't going to be one specific example. Instead, I will briefly discuss several examples of how unbridled political correctness is weakening and dumbing-down our society. The first example is found in the school. It's when teachers give credit to a student's incorrect answer as long as the student can explain how he came to the completely wrong conclusion. I might say 2 + 2 equals five. But as long as I can explain why I think 2 + 2 equals five, then I would receive full credit. This is stupid. It's like being a stock broker, telling a client that in one year his investment would be worth 5 million dollars, when really he will go broke, and trying to say, "but sir, let me tell you how I got to 5 million and you can pay me full price." In life, you can't go back and try to explain. You're probably going to get killed, fired, or chewed-out. Learn to deal with it early.
My favorite example comes from the book "Muzzled" by Michael Smerconish. He tells us about youth baseball organizations that give out "participation" trophies. As in, you lost every game this season, but here's a trophy for participating. Please, I know they're just little kids, but C'mon! In the real world, you don't get credit just for showing up. If I came to work and did nothing all day, my boss wouldn't just give me a check for showing up. Just like showing up to church doesn't necessarily make you closer to God--it's what you do while you're there. The whole "everyone is a winner" mentality is having a detrimental effect on the competitive spirit of America. From my family making fun of me because I get competitive when we play poker, to anyone who takes a game seriously being labeled "too aggressive". It's a shame, and it's a mockery of the spirit of our founding fathers. Everyone is not a winner. Competition is a fact of life. Once again, learn to deal with it early.
I'm not an advocate for anarchy. I think people should show a little bit of class, rather than just offending everyone at random. But sometimes, being offended can be beneficial. It makes the students work harder to solve problems the right way, it promotes competition, and it strengthens political debate. Lou Dobbs says it best, "Too often, political correctness is all about controlling language. We must tell it like it is." When the PC police come knocking at your door, just shut them out--if they're offended, believe me, they'll get over it. After all, isn't honesty the best policy?
Just some food for thought.
by Jace Walden
JasonPye.com
"If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."--Benjamin Franklin
This article is the second installment in the series of articles aimed at exposing the Neo-Fascist movement and discrediting all of its manifestations. One of the most prevalent manifestations of neo-fascism is political correctness. Political Correctness (or PC) is a linguistic concept aimed at removing words or terms that can be perceived as offensive to certain individuals or groups. On the surface, many concepts of political correctness seem civil and are completely acceptable. An example of this is the censorship of racial and ethnic slurs on television. If this was the full extent political correctness, there wouldn't be a problem. However, like most good-intentioned movements, the movement has strayed from its original principles. In the case of the PC movements, it has morphed into an all-out assault on the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and it has been a driving factor factor in the "dumbing-down" and weakening of American society as a whole.
The modern manifestations of political correctness are easily identifiable in everyday life. From the affirmative action movement, to androgynization; and from the "everyone's a winner" mentality to political censorship, it's hard to go through a whole day without either thinking/feeling/or acting politically correct. From a constitutional standpoint (and I'll admit that I'm not an expert of the constitution) the whole premise behind political correctness is flawed. According the the First Amendment, we all have a right to free speech, and inherent in that right is the freedom of expression. But there is no constitutional clause, amendment, or phrase which states that a person has the right to not be offended. So how can an American society possibly attempt to prohibit expression or language for any reason? After hundreds of years of case law, several statutes have been passed to protect against offense in the name of civility and order. Such laws include: Laws against indecent exposure, laws against public intoxication, and laws against disorderly conduct.
These laws, however, have one thing in common with each other that they do not share with the ideas of political correctness. Of the above mentioned laws, all are meant to restrict a certain behavior which is not in itself a right. For instance, a man does not have the right to expose himself to me. A man also does not have a right to go cause disrest in public because he is belligerently drunk. And finally, a man or group does not have the right to disrupt the public or private well-being, simply for the sake of disrupting it. I.E. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have no right to disorderly conduct at a funeral. Political Correctness goes one step further than any civility law. It attempts to restrict a right. Most often, it is the right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression. But as you will see later in the article, it doesn't stop there. The following are examples of political correctness at its lowest:Example 1: Muhammad is PISSED!For the first example, I'll stick with one of the more traditional practices of fascism in political correctness--censorship of non-behavior oriented expression. Earlier this year, a Danish newspaper came under a virtual PC assault due to its printing of a series of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Besides the reaction from Muslims, who were extremely upset, the newspaper came under fire from SEVERAL non-Muslim groups/individuals who were concerned that the editor/cartoonist weren't "sensitive" enough. Even in America, many on the left were condemning the paper for what they considered to be a thoughtless, cruel, and inconsiderate action.
The Cartoons themselves, as all political cartoons are, were a series of clever, single-framed illustrations which questioned calling Islam "the Religion of Peace". One depicted the prophet with a Crescent shaped halo over his head, however at the angle he was standing, the halo looked like a set of horns. Now, I can see Muslims being offended by this drawing. After all, the Christian religion has been openly mocked for decades, and Christians (like myself) have been rightly offended. But to start all-out protests and riots which included arson, assault, looting, and other forms of violent crime...doesn't that sort of prove the point of the cartoons?
The worst part about the whole incident was how much it scared the American mainstream media. Most media outlets flat-out refused to show the drawings on air in fear of offending Muslims. In essence, they decided that being "PC" was more important than delivering an accurate news report. Even Comedy Central (one network that has never been scared of offending anyone) bowed to the demands of the PC police when it refused to allow South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker to include a two-second depiction of Muhammad in an episode of South Park, although the network had no problem with the depiction of Jesus defecating on the American flag...
Keep one thing in mind. These cartoonists didn't gather up a group of Muslims and persecute or torture them for their beliefs. They didn't urinate on a Koran. And they did nothing to convert Muslims from their religion. All they did was draw a cartoon. Nothing more. All they expected was to get a few cheers and a few jeers. Instead, they stirred up a hot-bed of PC Fascism, headed by Islamic Fundamentalists and carried out by cowering news agencies who didn't think the public was good enough to hear the full story.
Example 2: You Made the Grade, You have the SAT, Too bad You're White!In 1999, two applicants to the University of Michigan filed civil suits against the University on the grounds that the University had used race as a consideration for admittance. At first sight, this should raise eyebrows seeing as how the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the laws. It basically prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc. So how could the University of Michigan get away with admitting less qualified students simply because they were of a different race? The answer is another example of out-of-control political correctness.
You see, the University had what is known as a "quota" policy. Which was a policy that forced the admissions department to set aside a percentage of its acceptances for certain minority groups. The concept of the policy was to promote diversity among the student body. Not a bad idea, right? Not until 1999. In that year, among several thousand applicants, two white male students applied for admission. I won't lie and say that the two boys were rocket scientists. However, they did exceed the set standards for university admission. To their surprise, rather than a letter of acceptance, both received a letter of denial. As any qualified student would be, both were upset and questioned the University's decision. After several months, they found out that several students who had been accepted, had earned lower GPAs and lower SAT scores than the two boys had. After further investigation, the boys learned that the less-qualified students were all members of racial minorities. They also discovered that the University had a policy of meeting quotas for the different races.
After filing suit against the school for racial discrimination, the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In a controversial 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS upheld the University's discriminatory policy--basically legalizing racial discrimination and overturning the Fourteenth Amendment. This is PC at its worst. Admitting college students on the basis of race undermines the American education system. From kindergarten to 12th grade kids are taught that if they work hard in school, they will earn a spot in college. I don't know about you, but I never once heard, "Jace, if you work hard in school you will earn a spot into college only if you belong to a certain race." But in essence, that's what SCOTUS has allowed.
This abuse of PC totally contradicts with the idea of equal opportunity. At one time, equal opportunity was supposed to mean just that, equal opportunity. Everyone is born with the chance, but there is no guarantee what the outcome will be. Thanks to the PC police, the concept of equal opportunity has evolved into something extremely troubling--equal results. They have slandered the meaning of the word to say that equal percentages of every race, sex, socio-economic background, MUST achieve equal results in every field of endeavor. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a racist or sexist. I doesn't bother me if a person from a minority does better than me at something. I don't see people as minorities or majorities, I see them as people. But saying that all members of race X must be exactly the same as all members of race Y is nothing more than socialism. It completely rules out the possibility of effort and hard work.
For instance, there's a position open in a company. I apply and a black man applies. According to company policy, they have to hire 25 white people and 25 black people. Well, let's say that they're one white person short. Now, what if that black man was infinitely more qualified than me. He had the experience, he knows the system, and he has a good resume. But me, I'm just white. Is it right to hire me over him just to meet a quota? Not in a million years. I would expect him to be hired before me on the basis of his merit, not his skin color.
Affirmative action is a betrayal of the concept of merit. It is a betrayal of what Martin Luther King, Jr. said when he gave his famous speech: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." It is an over-emphasis of political correctness, and an embrace of inequality.
Example 3--Everyone is a Winner, Except for everyone who LOST!This isn't going to be one specific example. Instead, I will briefly discuss several examples of how unbridled political correctness is weakening and dumbing-down our society. The first example is found in the school. It's when teachers give credit to a student's incorrect answer as long as the student can explain how he came to the completely wrong conclusion. I might say 2 + 2 equals five. But as long as I can explain why I think 2 + 2 equals five, then I would receive full credit. This is stupid. It's like being a stock broker, telling a client that in one year his investment would be worth 5 million dollars, when really he will go broke, and trying to say, "but sir, let me tell you how I got to 5 million and you can pay me full price." In life, you can't go back and try to explain. You're probably going to get killed, fired, or chewed-out. Learn to deal with it early.
My favorite example comes from the book "Muzzled" by Michael Smerconish. He tells us about youth baseball organizations that give out "participation" trophies. As in, you lost every game this season, but here's a trophy for participating. Please, I know they're just little kids, but C'mon! In the real world, you don't get credit just for showing up. If I came to work and did nothing all day, my boss wouldn't just give me a check for showing up. Just like showing up to church doesn't necessarily make you closer to God--it's what you do while you're there. The whole "everyone is a winner" mentality is having a detrimental effect on the competitive spirit of America. From my family making fun of me because I get competitive when we play poker, to anyone who takes a game seriously being labeled "too aggressive". It's a shame, and it's a mockery of the spirit of our founding fathers. Everyone is not a winner. Competition is a fact of life. Once again, learn to deal with it early.
I'm not an advocate for anarchy. I think people should show a little bit of class, rather than just offending everyone at random. But sometimes, being offended can be beneficial. It makes the students work harder to solve problems the right way, it promotes competition, and it strengthens political debate. Lou Dobbs says it best, "Too often, political correctness is all about controlling language. We must tell it like it is." When the PC police come knocking at your door, just shut them out--if they're offended, believe me, they'll get over it. After all, isn't honesty the best policy?
Just some food for thought.
posted by BLAIR2BE at 3:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home