As to political correctness, its great insidiousness lies that while you can complain about it in a manner of a religious person complaining abstractly about hypocrites and Pharisees, you can’t ever back up your attack with specific examples
My fault for using a politically charged word for a joke (but I couldn’t resist). Let’s do it properly now: What exactly does “political correctness” mean? It is not just any set of taboos (we wouldn’t refer to e.g. religious taboos as political correctness). It is a very specific set of modern-era taboos. So perhaps it is worth distinguishing between taboos in general, and political correctness as a specific example of taboos. Similarities are obvious, what exactly are the differences?
I am just doing a quick guess now, but I think the difference is that the old taboos were openly known as taboos. (It is forbidden to walk in a sacred forest, but it is allowed to say: “It is forbidden to walk in a sacred forest.”) The modern taboos pretend to be something else than taboos. (An analogy would be that everyone knows that when you walk in a sacred forest, you will be tortured to death, but if you say: “It is forbidden to walk in a sacred forest”, the answer is: “No, there is no sacred forest, and you can walk anywhere you want, assuming you don’t break any other law.” And whenever a person is being tortured for walking in a sacred forest, there is always an alternative explanation, for example an imaginary crime.)
Thus, “political correctness” = a specific set of modern taboos + a denial that taboos exist.
If this is correct, then complaining, even abstractly, about political correctness, is already a big achievement. Saying that X is an example of political correctness equals to saying that X is false, which is breaking a taboo, and that is punished—just like breaking any other taboo. But speaking about political correctness abstractly is breaking a meta-taboo built to protect the other taboos; but unlike those taboos, the meta-taboo is more difficult to defend. (How exactly would one defend it? By saying: “You should never speak about political correctness because everyone is allowed to speak about anything”? The contradiction becomes too obvious.)
Speaking about political correctness is the most politically incorrect thing ever. When this is done, only the ordinary taboos remain.
By merely mentioning political correctness means that many readers will instantly see you or me as one of those people, sly norm violating lawyers and outgroup members who should just stop whining.
Of course, people recognize what is happening, and they may not like it. But would still be difficult to have someone e.g. fired from university only for saying, abstractly, that political correctness exists.
If this is correct, then complaining, even abstractly, about political correctness, is already a big achievement.
It has been said that even having a phrase for it, has reduced its power greatly because now people can talk about it, even if they are still punished for doing so.
Of course, people recognize what is happening, and they may not like it. But would still be difficult to have someone e.g. fired from university only for saying, abstractly, that political correctness exists.
True. However a professor complaining about political correctness abstractly still has no tools to prevent its spread to the topic of say optimal gardening techniques. Also if he has a long history of complaining about political correctness abstractly, he is branded controversial.
I think it was Sailer who said he is old enough to remember when being called controversial was a good thing, signalling something of intellectual interest, while today it means “move along nothing to see here”.
My fault for using a politically charged word for a joke (but I couldn’t resist). Let’s do it properly now: What exactly does “political correctness” mean? It is not just any set of taboos (we wouldn’t refer to e.g. religious taboos as political correctness). It is a very specific set of modern-era taboos. So perhaps it is worth distinguishing between taboos in general, and political correctness as a specific example of taboos. Similarities are obvious, what exactly are the differences?
I am just doing a quick guess now, but I think the difference is that the old taboos were openly known as taboos. (It is forbidden to walk in a sacred forest, but it is allowed to say: “It is forbidden to walk in a sacred forest.”) The modern taboos pretend to be something else than taboos. (An analogy would be that everyone knows that when you walk in a sacred forest, you will be tortured to death, but if you say: “It is forbidden to walk in a sacred forest”, the answer is: “No, there is no sacred forest, and you can walk anywhere you want, assuming you don’t break any other law.” And whenever a person is being tortured for walking in a sacred forest, there is always an alternative explanation, for example an imaginary crime.)
Thus, “political correctness” = a specific set of modern taboos + a denial that taboos exist.
If this is correct, then complaining, even abstractly, about political correctness, is already a big achievement. Saying that X is an example of political correctness equals to saying that X is false, which is breaking a taboo, and that is punished—just like breaking any other taboo. But speaking about political correctness abstractly is breaking a meta-taboo built to protect the other taboos; but unlike those taboos, the meta-taboo is more difficult to defend. (How exactly would one defend it? By saying: “You should never speak about political correctness because everyone is allowed to speak about anything”? The contradiction becomes too obvious.)
Speaking about political correctness is the most politically incorrect thing ever. When this is done, only the ordinary taboos remain.
Of course, people recognize what is happening, and they may not like it. But would still be difficult to have someone e.g. fired from university only for saying, abstractly, that political correctness exists.
It has been said that even having a phrase for it, has reduced its power greatly because now people can talk about it, even if they are still punished for doing so.
True. However a professor complaining about political correctness abstractly still has no tools to prevent its spread to the topic of say optimal gardening techniques. Also if he has a long history of complaining about political correctness abstractly, he is branded controversial.
I think it was Sailer who said he is old enough to remember when being called controversial was a good thing, signalling something of intellectual interest, while today it means “move along nothing to see here”.