“Political Correctness” is a euphemism for the silencing tactics of power elites who are pushing power-consolidating agendas. It works by isolating and marginalizing anybody who might get in the way of those agendas, through smears and threats and psychological manipulation. I think it’s critical that each and every one of us build awareness of those tactics — as well as an understanding of our own human weaknesses — so that we can keep ourselves and our minds free. Free speech is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. If we don’t push back, we will lose it. The protesters will lose their freedom as well, though, sadly, they don’t realize that.
—Stella Morabito, Follow Up About The Disruption Of Speech At Catholic U
From what I have read of Machen, he said the same thing about church politics – silence the dissenting voices! It seems to me, ironically, that not matter who are in charge, whether orthodox or liberal, those in power always wish to silence dissent or contrary thinking of any kind. Was it Machen who said that politics was brutal but church politics was even worse! I am, of course, paraphrasing.
Political Correctness = Tolerance for me, but not for thee
Richard, bingo. Which is why political correctness isn’t “whatever the left thinks,” as the right as been so successful in portraying. It’s an equal opportunity affliction–there is a sit-down-and-shut-up-or-else political correctness among the right. The same trouble arises when “social gospel” is taken to mean “whatever religious progressives think and do.” But just as there is a right wing political correctness, there is a right wing social gospel.
I dissent.
Regarding the “wish to silence dissent or contrary thinking of any kind”: It is true that power mongers act to stifle dissent and contrariness of any kind, but this is a much different animal than “political correctness,” which was born in the ’90s.
“Political correctness,” as the term has been used since its inception, is specific language that is unique to the left and its goal is to ensure absolute conformity among the citizens (or “useful idiots,” according to the parlance of the early Stalinists) with the intent of ultimately protecting the state. Political Correctness is Orwellian by nature, that is, it’s totalitarian, or statist, and is designed to control not just the speech but the thoughts of citizens. Orwell anticipated “political correctness” and its Siamese twin “hate crimes” when he coined the terms “Newspeak” and “thoughtcrime,” and our modern-day political correctness corresponds exactly to Orwell’s “Newspeak,” just as our “hate crimes” correspond to Orwell’s “thoughtcrime” — because you really can’t have one without the other. The two are natural extensions of each other.
“Hate crimes” are criminal acts that are committed with ill will toward a protected class of political correctness, because for the left it’s not enough to prosecute a criminal for committing a crime, however heinous the act may be. The left must also prosecute the offender for the thought that moved him to commit the crime, and the left calls this thought “hate,” though in reality the so-called “hate” simply refers to a mental act of defiance against political correctness, or the state. The left cares nothing for government’s absolute responsibility to protect its citizens, except to the extent that those citizens are loyal to the state — because the state is everything.
So I disagree with Stella in that political correctness is much more than a euphemism but I agree with her that those who affirm politically correct ideology deploy all sorts of tactics to silence their enemies (nb: if you are not a loyalist to the state, then you are an “enemy”).