Post by maximus on Oct 26, 2008 14:28:34 GMT 10
Elsewhere, the following viewpoint was expoused concerning the term "Political Correctness":
I hold no brief with those who mindlessly object to what they term “political correctness.” The alternative would seem to be insensitivity to the feelings of others. While one would want to avoid being precious, the subject of any remark has the right to be offended or not; while the person making a remark may be so mired in their preconceptions as to be blind to the possibility of offence (or, as often seems to be the case, intends to be offensive). Despite my opinion, “political correctness” is likely to persist as a pejorative term.
Wilst I would agree that, in certain political contexts, the term may be used as a prejorative, I submit that the underlying principle of "politically correct thought" is not progressive, but rather, suppressive.
The origins of political correctness can be found in Maoist/Marxist doctorine, as a way of enforcing orthodoxy. When divergent views are suppressed through being labeled heretical to the party-line, free speech is supressed, and tyranny is the inevitable result.
I recommend a reading of Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Chapter II, by John Stewart Mill, for a thorough examination of the nessesity of freedom of thought and expression in a free society, an excerpt of which follows:
"We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."
Discussion of this subject is welcome.
I hold no brief with those who mindlessly object to what they term “political correctness.” The alternative would seem to be insensitivity to the feelings of others. While one would want to avoid being precious, the subject of any remark has the right to be offended or not; while the person making a remark may be so mired in their preconceptions as to be blind to the possibility of offence (or, as often seems to be the case, intends to be offensive). Despite my opinion, “political correctness” is likely to persist as a pejorative term.
Wilst I would agree that, in certain political contexts, the term may be used as a prejorative, I submit that the underlying principle of "politically correct thought" is not progressive, but rather, suppressive.
The origins of political correctness can be found in Maoist/Marxist doctorine, as a way of enforcing orthodoxy. When divergent views are suppressed through being labeled heretical to the party-line, free speech is supressed, and tyranny is the inevitable result.
I recommend a reading of Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Chapter II, by John Stewart Mill, for a thorough examination of the nessesity of freedom of thought and expression in a free society, an excerpt of which follows:
"We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."
Discussion of this subject is welcome.
