Then how do you explain the absolute success of Jay MClusky or for that matter Karl Rove who were both born with 666 stamped on their foreheads.
they are republicans, and they don't care if an able person called someone fat. and then they win. this is the whole problem that baca is pointing out....no one can be perfect.
There are times that I think the goal of political correctness is to turn us into uptight, upper class WASPs that can't say anything unpleasant. When I was growing up in the 1960s near UNM the liberals wanted to "let it all hang out".
Folks! Surely there is a difference between "letting it all hang out" and people noticing and reacting when you have something hateful to say? For example, who among us uses the "n-word" even in private anymore? Are we saying we're being held to an unfair standard on social media if we're not "allowed" to use the word? Today, we're slowly deciding as a culture that verbally demeaning women isn't OK either. This whole topic on the last two posts feels like "it's not FAIR I got caught with hateful thoughts." He didn't go to jail, folks. He didn't get rape threats like women on social media do. He lost a job he held one day while working for someone who's platform includes feminist issues. And his right to say stuff like that in private, in public, on social media is intact.
The days are over when you can publicly demean women as if they are an object. You're free to say it, but you'll have to live with the consequences.
How many times have I said things I wish I could take back? Let me count the ways.And here's a new opportunity!Seriously though, the Anonymous commenter is right to defend the meaning of what has come to be known of as political correctness. Conservatism especially has tried to cloud the meaning and cast political correctness as policing of thought, or as another form of intolerance.As I see it it's simply that everyone deserves dignity and respect in the public discourse. That's because what goes out into the public, in the media, is different than, and has different consequences than, what we say in private conversation, as Anonymous points out.The issue of public discourse is part of a larger issue, of course, and the entire, ongoing discussion around these issues has had beneficial consequences, as Anonymous also points out. Jim however I think makes the point that we should extend the same generosity of spirit to everyone. This is food for thought.It's looking at the issue through a different lens, or lenses, that have to do with simply cutting people some slack in general, and about getting good people elected to office.And it's about the difference in an election coming down to who got caught saying something stupid and who said something stupid but didn't get caught.
Post a Comment