By the title, what I am questioning is whether the reasonable goals of PC have passed their sell-by date. We are pretty much all aware at least those who use the concept of PC that gender or racial stereo-typing will earn criticism. We are at the same time also mostly sensitive to the hypocrisy involved in some PC. But on the other hand, in my view playing the PC card is more and more getting in the way of finding solutions to very serious problems. This often starts by a PC attack on the initial question, leading to the more faint-hearted backing off from being heard. I recently found that many Brits are PC uncomfortable with the query Why is Africa poor?. Some dont even want the question to be asked. I imagine the reason is a fear that it will give license to brain-dead racist commentary. Maybe, but in doing so we shut the door on some very critical analysis. Where does the balance lie? I was brought to post this thread when I was told yesterday that it was not PC to question the corruption of the ANC in South Africa and to point fingers at the lining of pockets (lining barely describes it) of some 2 dozen elite ANC-supporting families, at the expense of the under-privileged masses. The case in point was the Minister of Health of one of the provinces being provided with a new (he already had one) 100 000 Mercedes because the Ambulance budget still had funds in it, or words to that effect. I was told that Nelson Mandela had only recently died and it was not PC to criticise his legacy with this type of question. In the Netherlands it seems not to be PC to question why, in lower income neighbourhoods, notwithstanding similar levels of income, a disproportionate number of petty crimes are committed by persons from families originating in certain foreign countries and not in others. The same applies to two groups of minorities amongst pickpockets in Barcelona - don't raise the question; not PC. It is not PC to ask if something needs to be addressed in the fact that children from single-parent families are more likely to suffer from child abuse. Don't pose the question!! This post is the result. Do you have a pet PC example which you think should be aired with full transparency and not swept under the liberal carpet? By the way, on Political Compass (PC!!) I score -2.82 in the Liberation zone.
Depends what political correctness you're referring to. I am not a believer in state borders, so I'll have to disagree with you on the immigration issue - but yeah, there are a lot of really undesirable laws.
Yes, our entire corrupt Administration that can seemingly do no wrong! Lol. In all seriousness, one of my "political correct" pet peeves lies in Liberal attacking our origins. That the States of the Union are irrelevant, that we are supposedly privileged for living in our own country. Supposing we are, what are we going to do? Ethnically cleanse all European-Americans to create a "balance"? Would it do better by making middle-class European-Americans give up even more? Why not create a meritocracy, in which no one has an advantage? Why must minorities be granted special rights? "They're not special" ? Then why don't we benefit from affirmative action? In reality, the Left is the greatest arbitrator of winners/losers that the world has ever known. And it endangers America's republic.
If you consider the left to be a danger then what are you suggesting exactly-a single party unopposed? Sounds even more dangerous, frankly. Next you can explain exactly what it is that white, middle-class Americans have given up.
