Larison: "The Revenge of P.C."

Rod, I thought Steve Stark got to the heart of the race/class issue in the Boston Phoenix this week in an article entitled "Race gets in the race". It can be found under the news section at thephoenix dot com. It is a thoughtful article from somebody with pro-Obama sympathies.

Quote: "Obama’s fast-track to success could be alienating working-class white voters, reminding them of their nemesis: affirmative action."

Rod,

Powerful and honest words from both you and Larison. Allow me some personal reflection. Perhaps a sense of this underlying (and sometimes quite open) resentment throughout the comments on this blog all week has led me to be more exasperated with the topic, and more heated in my comments, than I should have been. I'm sorry to all here for any incivility I may have been responsible for. I'd like to weave together three anecdotes from my own life that inform my own perspective.

Let me highlight Larison’s quote that you cite: “The first is, as I have suggested earlier, that elite conservatives have defensively internalised the requirements of political correctness as a way of retaining mainstream respectability and gaining access to the conversation, and so insist on enforcing them against deviants on the left, oblivious that reinforcing these rules works ultimately to squeeze them ever more tightly until they are compelled to abandon entire subjects for fear of violating the ridiculous speech rules that they once used to reject out of hand.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but both you and Larison seem to both be stating that this hyper-conformity to speech codes by non-blacks, particularly conservatives, has been brought to the fore this week, and that it is not a good thing. As you say, “In other words, it's a defensive maneuver, a pre-emptive strike, however feeble, to preserve your job. But it's absolutely true that in some cases conservatives will avoid certain subjects for fear of transgressing the rules and losing their jobs.”

This is obviously an understandable reaction. Lord knows that we all act out of fear sometimes, and some of those times it is a justifiable response. And I don’t think that anyone should flaunt speech codes without good reason. But it seems possible to me that a lot of folks, primarily non-black conservatives, have with that wonderful (I’m serious here, as a fan of old WW2 movies) British-style stiff-upper-lip-endurance conservatives honor, done the best they can for years to get along with social rules that their consciences told them were wrong. What happens when we avoid doing what our gut tells us is right? We build up a lot of subconscious resentment and anger, that will inevitably boil over at some point.

For a lot of folks, this week seems to have been that point. I’ve been struck by the outrage from so many reasonable folks. Jay Nordlinger and Victor Davis Hanson at NR are both examples, in my opinion, of talented, reasonable men with a good sense of rhetoric whose reactions to Obama’s speech and to the preaching of Rev. Wright seem much more driven by decades of pent-up resentment over speech codes, rather than by the particulars of the situation. The emotional force behind some of the posters here – the CAPS in the “How DARE he say such things?!”, “Wright OBVIOUSLY DETESTS America!” – seems to me that it must be driven by some deeper factors than just the stories of the past couple of weeks, or Wright alone, and 30 years of putting up with ridiculous politically correct speech codes at the risk of losing your job or social standing despite the protestations of one’s conscience seems like a strong candidate.

Having written this, I realize I’m going long so I’m going to split this in to two posts. Thanks!

Doug

Volokh has a site critiquing the constitutionality of workplace harassment law.

www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/

His argument, in brief, seems to be that such laws, as currently incarnated, conflict with standard First Amendment free speech tests (strict scrutiny). Not entirely sure I agree, but it's interesting.

"Here we go again, condescending to white working-class voters, assuming that they can't understand "nuance" (so how come black working-class voters, presumably not quite as well-educated on the average, don't have problems with it?)"

Well--black working class people don't have a problem with it because it benefits them, affirmative action as well as this so-called "nuance." Things also become much less nuanced when affirmative action has real consequences for people who haven't necessarily "made it" in life.

I can tell you right now--my law school's affirmative action program (and those in town) is beyond absurd. The average LSATs of the summer diversity program are a full ten points below our school's average for everyone else. That's ridiculous. Doing a cursory review of credentials, one can see that minority candidates with vastly inferior (some of their performances are positively awful relatively speaking) academic and job credentials getting high paying jobs over peers who are law review and jumped through all of the hoops. Try preaching some abstract concept of nuance to my half brother, who had to wait who quite a few years to get into his union's skilled trade program because of minority preference. Had nothing to do with his merit (he's a damn hard worker).

Obama is correct about one thing: we should have an honest conversation about race in the United States. If we are going to rationalize Wright's comments, then perhaps it's time to let suburban whites explain why they really don't want to live in the inner city.

Don: "Perhaps it's time to let suburban whites explain why they really don't want to live in the inner city."

Amen! While we're at it, let's let suburban blacks, Hispanics and Asians explain why they don't want to live in the inner city either.

Doug

"In the comboxes earlier this week, Eric W characterized the argument we were all having over Obama's speech as (if I recall), 'an irreconcilable conflict between two metanarratives.' Yes, actually. Or, in layman's terms, culture war."

I think what I wrote/asked was: "Are we talking about competing metanarratives?" I don't think I used the word "irreconcilable."

(I can't locate the thread and comment easily, as there were several threads/topics it could have appeared in.)

I'm not sure that "metanarrative" is the proper way to describe the PC/anti-PC conflict, though the conflict may be a result of competing metanarratives. Or maybe it's the same metanarrative for all, and they just take opposite sides on this issue.

It's not the case -- as John McWhorter suggests -- that Middle-Americans have rejected Obama's speech on race "out of hand."

Most of them acknowledge that, given the history of race in our country, it is understandable that African-Americans should feel some resentment, and understandable that that resentment might sometimes lead to intemperate and immoderate statements by some leaders in the African-American community.

Where Middle-Americans take issue with Obama's speech on race was not with the fact that it allowed for some latitude for moral hyperbole on the part of African-American leaders in the dialogue on race, but rather with the *degree* of latitude that it allowed.

However understandable African-American resentment may be, it -- like everything else -- must recognize its moral bounds -- bounds, which, at least for Christians like Obama and Wright, must take precedence over ethnic partisanship.

Whether in the secular or sacred forms, those moral bounds whether in their secular or sacred forms simply don't allow for slanderous imputations like the suggestion that the country is engaged in ethnic genocide against its own people by means of AIDS or of crack cocaine. Nor does it allow for joy in the suffering of others of the sort that Wright seems to display in his sermon on the 9/11 terrorist attack, let alone for joy in the suffering that would come to those condemned to the damnation in hellfire which Wright seems to relish as a punishment for all those in the country with whom he disagrees.

A great deal of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity today could be seen as the identity-politics of working-class whites who have been deprived of (a) a universal, class-neutral, race-neutral morality by which to plead their political case, (b) a class-based morality by which to plead their political case, or (c) a race-based morality by which whites of whatever ethnicity can plead their political case.

Comments like those made by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell after 9/11 can be *understood,* in the context of the history of class in the country, as expressive of working-class resentment toward the ruling elites in New York and Washington -- understood, but not *excused.*

Likewise, comments like some of those made by Wright can indeed be *understood* in the terms that Obama recommends, but they cannot be *excused* in the way that Obama's speech on race was intended to have them be.

I grant that in asking for a more robust repudiation of his mentor than Obama has made, working-class Middle-Americans are asking a lot.

However, that said, in asking working-class Middle-Americans to excuse his mentor Wright, and to excuse his own association with Wright -- even in the absence of any commensurate acknowledgement of their own grounds for grievance, even in the absence of any commensurate allowance of latitude for moral hyperbole on their part -- Obama himself is also asking a lot, particularly when his latest request is added to his prior request that he be given the presidency, no small thing to ask for in itself.

I am not a lawyer but I am 99% sure this is a lie. My employer is a private company, I have 100% of my first amendment rights at work; if I say something offensive I can be fired, but not arrested or imprisoned. I understand the point they are trying to make, but constitutional rights are precious and I object to misleading people into believing they disappear at work.

You don't lose your First Amendment rights at a private workplace, you just can't bring a legal claim based on them. The First Amendment involves public actors, not private ones. If you feel the need to make offensive comments in conflict with corporate policy because you feel empowered by your First Amendment rights, you do that at the peril of remaining a free citizen who is unemployed.

The "culture war" over needing to say provocative, insensitive things as some sort of "speaking the truth" runs contrary to the conservative capitalistic model of the master/servant relationship that says employers should have some control over how their employees perform their jobs. When women face sexual harassment and non-white employees face racial harassment, that harms productivity which undermines capitalism.

The idea that people have been given literal "gag orders" by their corporate masters bares no relationship with reality. If an employee feels that has occurred, arguably their own agenda and sense of victimhood has clouded that perception as much as anything said during a corporate training.

"You don't lose your First Amendment rights at a private workplace, you just can't bring a legal claim based on them. The First Amendment involves public actors, not private ones. If you feel the need to make offensive comments in conflict with corporate policy because you feel empowered by your First Amendment rights, you do that at the peril of remaining a free citizen who is unemployed."

Ummm....yeah...I kinda thought...that's what I just said.

Doug:

I don't know the answer, since we all have to work. And I have some sympathy with employers who obviously need to maintain a civil environment at work. I don't miss the days of guys posting centerfolds in their cubes or hearing racial/ethnic epithets casually tossed around.

What I and my co-workers objected to is the total BAN on even FRIENDLY conversation. Make no mistake, the training was explicit--- don't even discuss Brokeback Mountain because another co-worker might OVERHEAR your conversation and be offended!

So what do we do? Well, maybe sue? This link posted above in the com boxes suggests the ban on friendly conversation can't be enforced.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/substanc.htm#WORK

What I and my co-workers objected to is the total BAN on even FRIENDLY conversation. Make no mistake, the training was explicit--- don't even discuss Brokeback Mountain because another co-worker might OVERHEAR your conversation and be offended!

If that's what they were saying--and I find it implausible--such a position has no basis in the law or good corporate practice. My experience in these things is that employers say one thing, and employees hear something completely different. Be respectful in your conversations and respect that there may be differences in opinions is heard as "don't have friendly conversations." An example of how making jokes about Brokeback Mountain can be potentially offensive is heard as "don't talk about it."

The irony is "political correctness" is actually the Christian-ethic put into a different perspective. Be kind to your neighbor, treat others as you would want to be treated. Be concerned about the oppressed and those with less. Treat people with dignity. Act with grace and hospitality.

Dana: "I don't miss the days of guys posting centerfolds in their cubes or hearing racial/ethnic epithets casually tossed around."

Heck, sometimes I miss those days. Did we trade mistaken people speaking their minds to wiser people afraid to speak openly? If so, was it worth it? Beats me. But my goodness, how I yearn to speak as bluntly as my old English grandmother spoke for her last decades! As for the centerfolds, I don't remember anything more risque than perhaps Charlie's Angels magazine covers around rowdy bachelor types in the 70's, but then I was just a kid visiting family at work so I'm sure I missed the worst of it.

Bless,
Doug

PC sucks, when its just PC. Decency and manners are to be cherished. Some people never figure out the difference and some people are too sensitive. Guess Im lucky to work in an environment where we pretty much ignore PC. Given what you do for a living I think you can talk about politics, religion and race at work. Looks like sex isnt out of bounds so Im not sure what it is left.

We sure are suit happy. I think liberals take a larger part of the blame for this, especially with the trial lawyers sitting in the Dems pockets (or is that the other way around). My sense is that a lot of this is not out of any true ideology but rather an opportunity to make lots of money.

My other take on Obama's speech that I thought Larison was heading towards, is that the speech might appeal to more educated people as they might have the background in history and literature to follow it better. It was not a sound bite speech. American Idol folks were going to get lost. I think it was inevitable that people would begin to hear only what they wanted to hear."He blamed whitey for everything" eg . They just didnt hear or see the counterpoint. His political proposals were standard.

What major American politician has spoken about race this well ever before?

Steve

Eric W's mentioning of metanarratives caught my attention. A metanarrative is a worldview. The postmodernists have tried to destroy the concept of worldviews as meaningless metaphysics. A definition of postmodernism by the Frenchman Lyotard is " incredulity towards metanarratives."

Postmodernism started as a system of criticism of the "establishment" using the withering assaults of modern philosophy (Wittgenstein, Derrida, etc.) Once they came to power in the modern university, the postmodernists found they had to have their own metanarrative to rule with (even though they are against metanarratives), so they came up with the incomprehensible amalgam that is political correctness.

The P.C. culture is held together by the force the powerful have usually used to maintain control, which is violence and threats of violence. The librarian who was harassed out of his job at Ohio State University is a recent example. His sin was suggesting a very conservative book for the reading list for students. I like his chances in the law suit he has filed against the University.

Concerning race, we honor Dr. Martin Luther King as one who ushered in full civil rights for Black Americans. But, if we truthfully examine the history of that era, we may well conclude that King's peaceful approach was ineffective. It was the violence of race riots and threats of violence from such people as Stokely Carmichael and the Black Panthers that brought about change.

Mr. Wright's heated words seem to me to be an effort to keep the threat of violence as a credible force in the Black community. These words ignore forty years of white society taking exceptional measures to undo the discrimination that they practiced. The problem with such an approach is noted in the Bible, those who "live by the sword, die by the sword." Appeal to violent tendencies has led to violent, self-destructive Black communities.

Mr Obama is a gifted speaker, and I sense that he is less tied to such inflammatory threats. I certainly hope so.

Exactly, Marian. Lawsuits are the only check available when the government is unable or unwilling to regulate. Most employees are at-will workers who can be fired at the whim of their employer, something unheard of in Europe or Japan. In its purest economic form, lawsuits are the economic costs that regulate capitalism and force self-regulation when the government refuses to act.

In that sense, lawsuits are a very conservative approach.

Any good thing w/o limits can become evil/dangerous/harmful. When we change from a country of law to a country of lawyers we lose freedoms.

Steve

I found myself thinking of what a great episode of Archie Bunker this whole episode would have made. Who could play a Rev. Wright figure? Redd Foxx, probably. Wright would rip Archie as a honky who could kiss his black ass, and probably throw in a good "God damn America." Archie would rip Wright as mean old bigot, and tell him how of course HIV didn't come from the CIA, everyone knows it came from monkeys and blacks in Africa let their kids eat with monkeys so HIV is the fault of blacks.

Then Archie would have a run-in with the real life Obama, like he had a run-in with Sammy Davis Jr., and Obama would explain how much he disagrees with Wright, but how sometimes young people grow to love the crotchety old bigots in their lives, and tell some heart-warming story about Wright and Obama's kids, and talk about slavery. Archie would go away with most of his prejudices intact, and rightfully still condemn Wright, but he'd end up endorsing Obama because the sharp biracial guy sure seemed right on a lot of other things, and really listened to what everyone had to say.

Oh well. My grandmother and I would have loved it.

Bless,
Doug

Good comments on this thread, esp from you, Doug. Thanks everybody.

I like what Don says about his brother. I know a guy through my firefighter brother-in-law who scored No. 1 (out of 100+ test-takers) on the firefighter exam, and kept acing the arduous physical endurance test for firefighters, yet was constantly being passed over for a position on his city's fire department (at the time I heard this, I was able to confirm it independently). The reason was race (I also confirmed this independently, because I was thinking about writing a piece on it, but changed my mind) -- the fire dept had a quota to meet. The man in question finally got a job on the fire dept, but only after someone in a position to help him pulled some political strings. He told me when I asked him that this made him feel horrible, but he felt that he had been inappropriately denied a job on the merits, which mitigated his feelings.

Imagine asking him how he feels about Rev. Wright. Not, I'd wager, the way black candidates for the fire department who in an earlier era had been denied positions because of their race. Each feels the way they do for reasons that are hard to deny.

What subjects are off limits? You never mention them. What sort of experiences have you had that ingrained in your mind that you feel that you are being forced to be quiet?

I'm sorry, but I really can't talk about it. I've been working in newsrooms all over the country since 1989, and my convictions on this matter come from experience, not theory.

Agree that reaction divides along lines of elites vs. working-class, but isn't it true also that the working-class is infinitely less likely to read or hear Obama's speech, and the elites are infinitely less likely to look at Wright on YouTube? So isn't this arguably a war of media as well as culture and class? And wouldn't it be interesting to see how things would have shook out back when JFK gave his great speech about an association with religion if he had been tarred with a YouTube brush?

Don't think this helps Obama, but it's worth saying.

Rod: "I'm sorry, but I really can't talk about it. I've been working in newsrooms all over the country since 1989, and my convictions on this matter come from experience, not theory."

OK, but surely you've heard from others about their "off limit" subjects, or know of some subjects that you never raised, but knew were off limits. You've certainly put your opinions to a number of controversial topics on this blog. What could be so controversial or heated that you won't even mention them hear (not opinion, but mere topics)?

One aspect of the Wright videos that I haven't seen any comments about (anywhere): While Wright is going on with his vituperative drivel, there are congregants behind him high-fiving each other. Frankly, it looks very strange, like they have no self-control. They get so stirred up by Wright's rage that they can't stay in their seats, and have to act like someone just scored a great slam dunk. What are they going all crazy about?

And Obama never saw this? He never was troubled by the crazy enthusiasm of the crowd for these "controversial" sayings?

I know as a white person I'm not supposed to "understand" the black church, but I've been to black church services that worshipped the Lord. They were much more enthusiastic than what I was used to, but they were joyful and exhilerating. Wright is something else altogether, and I have to admit I think less of Obama after this whole episode.

Matt,

I can't speak for Rod, but in academia the most taboo subject of them all has to be the argument that significant differences between the sexes and the races may have an irreducibly genetic component to them. It doesn't really matter that the argument in many cases is actually strongly supported by the science.

You may recall the witch trial that Larry Summers was the subjected to recently at Harvard over merely suggesting that such an argument may be true in one instance.

The liberationist ideologies of today's academic activists *demand* that these differences be viewed as social constructs.

As I understand it, although the military was formally integrated by Truman's Executive Order, racial tensions persisted for some time afterwards.
That's true, but we're still not talking about "Jim Crow" here. The fact is that there's nothing in Wright's personal history that justifies Wright's kooky sermons, let alone the self-serving doubletalk Obama uses to excuse them.

Derek, Jim Crowe laws existed until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, at which point Wright was an adult. So of course he experienced the consequences of the Jim Crowe era. He was living in Virginia in 1959 and even in Philadelphia he would have faced colored-only drinking fountains and segregation as a child.

He was living in Virginia in 1959 and even in Philadelphia he would have faced colored-only drinking fountains and segregation as a child.

The horror.

Here's the full story:
http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

"Wright was born on September 22, 1941, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sr. and Dr. Mary Henderson Wright. His parents were his earliest influences, instilling in him a deep religious faith and a strong, positive image of his African-American culture. His father, who served as the pastor of Grace Baptist Church for 62 years was one of the first African Americans to receive a degree from the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, earning a master of sacred theology degree in 1949. Wright was educated in the public schools of Philadelphia.

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson."

He was in Virginia attending college, not sharecropping. He lived and grew up in a middle-class setting. As for the racial issues in the military, if it was really so bad, why did he re-up in the Navy?

No, there's just nothing in his biography that comes close to excusing his sermons, not even allowing for the silly double standard people like Daniel employ.

As I recall, Doug, the person killed in a car bomb outside 704 Howser Street was a member of the JDL.

Victor: Was that it? Well, 1970s metro NYC was certainly a complex hotbed of scared or dangerous social/ethnic subgroups. What a time.

Bless,
Doug

He attended an integrated school in Philadelphia. He went into an integrated military in the 1960s,

Whoa! Where were you in the 60's? Frank Rizzo mean anything? North Philly riots in 1964. When I moved there in '71 there was a very clear dividing line just west of Broad street that was the black area. It was very clear that people of color were not welcome on that East side.

The integrated military. My boot camp in'70 was punctuated by at least 2 full scale race riots. Nothing like being in the middle of drill and suddenly having guys swinging those old M1's at each other.

Now, I dont really know what he lived through and neither do you. I do know things were much worse then. We really have come a long way. If you are convinced that there is no kind of treatment a person could undergo that would leave a person that bitter years later you are welcome to that belief. I wish that were true.

Steve

After that one, I don't say much.

OK, Doug, you're right. I miss the more free-wheeling days too.

When I started practicing law in a big firm in San Francisco in 1977, no one had ever heard of preventing sexual harassment and so on. Women lawyers, and there weren't very many of us, had to protect ourselves. Luckily we were more than equal to the task.

My immediate supervisor, a somewhat immature man just a few years older than I was, went at one point on a weight-lifting kick. He lifted weights on machines, then informed everyone when he'd "graduated" to free weights and so on. So at one point he had me in his office to feel his biceps. And to look at pictures of him white water rafting, stripped to the waist. And to hear about how he'd had to buy all new shirts because his neck circumference had increased.

I really don't think this guy was hitting on me, whatever, but I was somewhat amused, felt his biceps, looked at his pictures, and generally went oooo, which is what he wanted and which was my inclination anyway. I liked and respected this guy, in case you can't tell.

Well, if that happened now we'd both probably be strung up by the thumbs, as he and I had occasion to reflect on the phone recently. Which is too bad in a way. The easy camaraderie of those days was fun. Now everyone is so terrified that someone will get offended, or at a minimum that management will be all over them, that guys like my old supervisor can't relax much, and neither can the rest of us.

I suppose I should have been offended or something, but I wasn't, so shoot me.

Any woman over the age of 16 knows how to say No.

I wouldn't be too sure of that any more.

Daniel, for the first time ever, I think, I unpublished one of your posts. You know better than to use that kind of language here. Watch it.

Sorry about that, Rod. I was trying to illustrate a point and should have been less specific.

Subjects Rod cannot discuss:

Anything related to GLBT "lifestyles" and any consequences thereof. AIDS, for instance - as a result of promiscuity.

Deserved work related criticism of any "minority" co-worker.

But more importantly, it's HOW you can't discuss something... For instance... It becomes general knowledge that pop culture figure "X" is 15 and pregnant. You can say "why didn't she get abortion?". You cannot say "This child has no business having sex at her age!".

You CAN put up a poster that says: "MARRIAGE means everyone", and you can't put up one that says "Marriage is a man and woman". It is perfectly acceptable to be rude, angery, vituperative, and vengeful against people for "Christian" beliefs.

You can say "Gee, I hope they tax the rich more!". And you can't say "Good grief, taxes are too high!". Mind you, that's in an extreme environment, but I've known situations where, if you said taxes were too high, the person would literally come unglued in anger and offense. Basically, you just can't discuss taxes, regulation, or any other facet of business controls or burdens. In some enviroments, you can, but it has to be "out of earshot" of certain "sensetive types".

A couple people have tried to be defensive of PC-ness, claiming it's just "christianity from another perspective". No, it is not.

It is precisely what it is called "Political Correctness". In the good old USSR, they had the same thing - just enforced by a non-apologetic government. Certain ways of thinking, subjects, even just items that demonstrated the wrongness of the strictures were just "off topic" and violating that rule had serious consequences.

So, today we have it here. A specific group of human "subsets" have been granted the position of "must not be offended". The rules, however, are not set by the individuals in the conversation, they are set by political stereotyping - a black person will be offended by a noose, a gay will be offended by criticising promiscuity, an Indian (oops, native American) will be offended by the flag, "low income" people will be offended by references to taxes, and the list goes on and on.

Note that these are not "rules" based on being kind or being personally unoffensive to someone else. These are rules which are political constructs, created by political stereotypes, of politically defined "victims".

In this crazy PC-ness, then, the defined "victims" are given the power to artifically construct pre-emptive controls over the topics, the political positions. But not even that is true. The topics, positions, ideological bents, and so on are PRESUMED by stereotyped definitions of "preferred" groups. And of course, we know who these groups are. I'm just waiting for the day when pedophiles officially join the ranks. We're already seeing PC'ness slipping them in as a preferred subset of humanity.

And of course, these rules are applied to "white, conservative, heterosexuals", but not to any other. It's ok for Blacks to hate Jews, for Latinos to hurl racist epithets against Arabs. Oh, and they can all be just as mean, nasty, hate-filled and vile as they want to be when talking to or about "white, heterosexual, conservatives", and nobody dare talk about firing, demoting, disciplining in the workplace. Or, be sued.

No, this has NOTHING to do with the notion of being courteous, respectful, and kind to all humanity, regardless of differences. It is "political correctness", where politics defines what's "correct" and enforces it without conscience or rational thought.

THAT is what people rail against, when they rail against PC politics or anything else PC. Not all forms look the same, nor go to the same extremes, but they inevitably lead there if allowed to progress in their natural course.

I'm not trying to say that PC'ness was born of wrong or angst or some kind of subversive effort. Rather, it is a result of our failure to accept something called "judgement". Put any group of random human beings together over time, and as they get to know each other, they find and learn each other's boundaries. Boundaries are learned by reaching them, or crossing them. In our daily, ORDINARY lives, we attempt to use the boundaries we have learned to avoid offending people, but at the same time, we should not be making broad assumptions about others, based on skin color, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual (anything), and so on.

I believe political correctness was born of the effort to prevent errors in judgement by substituting the "shortcut" of "policy".

In our society, judgement has largely been replaced by policy. Schools have "no tolerance" policies for "drugs" and they expel high school girls for having Midol. Mindlessly stupid? Of course. But when policy (which can be defended with lawyers) replaces judgement (not as easy to defend with lawyers), this is the obvious result.

Sadly, PC'ness has grown far beyond its modest beginnings as a reaction to litigiousness, and has become exploited, codified, court-enforced, and an ideological pillar of the left, which has found it useful in silencing opposition.

Yeah, there's a LOT Rod can't say, not because it is actually offensive, but because it has become DEFINED as offensive or POSSIBLY offensive, and rather than behave as people of good will and interacting on good faith, finding, and respecting boundaries as INDIVIDUALS set them, the boundaries are defined by political means and to achieve political ends - some of which are very, VERY bad.

I'm with Marian Neudel: "And here we go yet again, branding any attempt at sensitivity to other people's problems as "pc." My mother, may she rest in peace, called it "plain courtesy."

And with Daniel: "The irony is "political correctness" is actually the Christian-ethic put into a different perspective. Be kind to your neighbor, treat others as you would want to be treated. Be concerned about the oppressed and those with less. Treat people with dignity. Act with grace and hospitality."

My husband says political correctness is simply about not offending people. Why on earth people WANT to offend others escapes me.

Come on now,even I copped on she wasn't a bloke a while back. Serves me right for assigning people default genders I guess.

Max (& Peter?),

I am a guy, a "bloke" - sigaliris has it correct - I am a married gay man. There's quite a few of us, considering it's legal in 7 countries.

DO try to keep up.

No apologies necessary. The world in general needs to stop making assumptions about others, that's all.

But I admit I AM curious, just how you "copped on she wasn't a bloke a while back"? Was it just my repeated references to my husband?

"Max (& Peter?),

I am a guy, a "bloke" - sigaliris has it correct - I am a married gay man. There's quite a few of us, considering it's legal in 7 countries.

DO try to keep up."

I recommend you refer to my post to you on that other thread. 7 countries can pass laws that circles are square, but the ink on the paper does not change an ontological impossibility.

Two left shoes do not make a pair.

But being a gay man who thinks he's married makes a certain "sense" in light of your posts. As I wrote elsewhere, it is the embrace of the mutually exclusive and self-contradictory.

When I was a child, there was a certain invidious activity at which some boys were experts. It went like this. Find someone you don't think is able to beat you up. Then hit him on the upper arm, or in the ribs. Those were two of the best spots. Don't hit him quite hard enough to make him yell and attract the attention of the teacher. Sneak up on him every few minutes and punch him again, on the very same spot. Try to use your knuckles for maximum pain. Eventually, he'll turn on you in a rage, possibly curse you or hit you back. You then spread your hands in injured innocence. "Whaaat? I didn't do anything! I didn't even hit him that hard! One tiny little hit! What a cry-baby!" When reprimanded--if you are reprimanded, as you may get away with it and persuade the teacher that your target was at fault--say, "It's not fair! I didn't do anything! Teachers are always picking on me! Cry-baby! Sissy pants!" This can be very satisfactory, as it may prompt more reaction from the target, or the authorities, to which you can then respond with more protests. "Whaaat? I didn't say anything! All I said was, he's a sissy cry-baby! Because he IS one! I didn't DO anything! I always get picked on! It isn't fair!" And so forth. I leave the implications of this story to be unraveled by the attentive reader.

Any woman over the age of 16 knows how to say No.

I wouldn't be too sure of that any more.

They know how, Victor. They're just not saying it any more much, for reasons best known to themselves.

Watcher,

Your "List of things Rod cannot discuss" needs some clarification...

"Anything related to GLBT "lifestyles"

Well, since we have LIVES not "lifestyles", and considering Rod has no qualms whatsoever in regards to blogging on either, seems unnecessary to add those to the list in the first place.

"and any consequences thereof. AIDS, for instance - as a result of promiscuity."

AIDS is not a "result" of promiscuity. It is the result of a virus.

"Deserved work related criticism of any "minority" co-worker."

If only it were "work-related" (instead of having to do with said co-worker's minority), I doubt anyone would object.

"It becomes general knowledge that pop culture figure "X" is 15 and pregnant. You can say "why didn't she get abortion?". You cannot say "This child has no business having sex at her age!".

Just yesterday, I overheard a conversation about the traditional family in which 15 year old females got married and had children less than a year later, and those children likewise got married at 15 and had children, resulting in a 30 year old grandmother. I guess my point is, who gets to decide what is the right age for other people to be having sex at all? You? However, your 'concern' has in no way stopped Rod from "discussing" it.

"You CAN put up a poster that says: "MARRIAGE means everyone", and you can't put up one that says "Marriage is a man and woman"."

Where are these "psoters" anyway?

"It is perfectly acceptable to be rude, angery, vituperative, and vengeful against people for "Christian" beliefs."

Ah, but the more pertinent point is, should Christians be "rude, angery, vituperative, and vengeful against people"? Or should they do as Christ commanded and love one another and do to others as they would be done unto?

" And you can't say "Good grief, taxes are too high!"."

You CAN'T Why ever not? Lots of people say that. And they say it here, on many occasions.

"So, today we have it here. A specific group of human "subsets"

Why do we so often get the feeling that its specific groups of "sub-human" sets that get talked about???

"a black person will be offended by a noose"

As well they should.

"a gay will be offended by criticising promiscuity"

No, gays get offended by criticising their being gay.

"an Indian (oops, native American) will be offended by the flag"

"oops" INDEED!

"It's ok for Blacks to hate Jews"

It IS???

"for Latinos to hurl racist epithets against Arabs."

Since when?

"In our daily, ORDINARY lives, we attempt to use the boundaries we have learned to avoid offending people"

We DO? Don't see much evidence of that in your post.

"but at the same time, we should not be making broad assumptions about others, based on skin color, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual (anything), and so on."

Yet YOUR "broad assumptions" (above) are okay? Hmmm, odd that.

"rather than behave as people of good will and interacting on good faith, finding, and respecting boundaries as INDIVIDUALS set them"

You've shown no evidence of good will OR interacting on good fath OR on respecting boundaries in your post. Tell us why we should believe you.

It's striking, and sad, how much inner torment R-EP lives in.

I don't care to speculate on the mental health of R-EP. It only appears to me from the content and style of his posts that he lives with an extreme amount of anxiety, and a desperate need for approval. I find it hard to imagine being so perpetually aggrieved about the failure of people whose religion and politics I hated to approve of me and the choices I've made on how to live my life. Ultimately, I think, it's sad to carry such an obviously painful burden, one that only he has the power to remove from his shoulders. He can spend the rest of his life shrieking at his opponents, trying to convince every single person on the planet who finds homosexual acts to be intrinsically immoral that they are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! But that's Sisyphus and the rock stuff.

Or he could actually, you know, get on with his "recovery" from Pentecostalism, and actually get revenge on his perceived enemies by living happily and at peace with himself.

"In the second sentence, you diagnose a mental health condition--extreme anxiety."

Sig, not every one lives out of the DSM-IV chapter and verse. Please allow for simple observations. (Speaking of the DSM, since homosexuality was voted out of the DSM, why haven't they voted out depression, bi-polar disorder, OCD?)

Oh, and while you're at it, if you won't allow for the irony of my psuedonym, at least quit taking up for the guy. The irony is too much.

As far as projection goes, I'm not the one in Cloud Coo Coo Land convinced two guys can make a marriage and then appealing to statutory law as argument that the miss-matched gentailia are irrelevant to that marraige.

But hey, Sig, if you are compelled to protect gay guys, then go ahead. But watch out you don't suffer from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Well, Max, it seems we both "take up" for someone, me for re-P and you for Rod. I can't decide if I should picture us in striped band-collar shirts, circling each other with bare knuckles on guard, or with jackets buttoned up over the jabot to leave no gleam of white at thirty paces, our respective seconds nervously holding the horses in the dawn twilight. If the former--Tom Brown vs. Slogger Williams--I get to play Tom, of course.

I don't feel compelled to "protect" the re-P, since he's been doing a stellar job of lobbing his hand grenades into your trenches without help from me. Whenever the blog stalwarts begin discussing someone in the third person, it's a sign of desperation, not victory. But it's also a low tactic that piques my sense of injustice and indecency. Foolish as it may be, I have higher expectations.

"As I thought I about this, I was reminded of all things of the bogus CBS national guard story on Bush in 2004 that lost Dan Rather his job. What was the mainstream media's feeble standard response, that "while the story was false, the underlying issue was real"? Someone please refresh my memory here."

Glad to oblige. The documents were apparently bogus. The story has never been disproven. We know for a fact that W sat out the Vietnam war defending the skies of Texas and Alabama from Vietcong incursion (successfully, I might add!), and being trained at considerable expense to the taxpayer to fly the newest and coolest jets; so far as anybody knows, he got these perks because his papa was a VIP.