Author Topic: Political Correctness: Coercion With a Smile  (Read 105 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,510
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Political Correctness: Coercion With a Smile
« on: June 21, 2014, 03:31:15 PM »

Political Correctness: Coercion With a Smile

William Lafferty 35 mins ago

Who can fathom the pain that would be inflicted on minorities if we did not have hate crimes, political correctness and government directives on how to think about race, sex and gays?   

That question is actually best answered by another question: who can fathom what would happen to freedom of thought, expression, and conduct when political correctness is imposed on an entire population? 

Those who favor political correctness often imagine themselves in the shoes of minorities who have been treated poorly, and justify thought-control as a way to right wrongs.  Walter Williams describes the 15th annual White Privilege Conference in Madison, Wis., attended by 2,500 public-school teachers and administrators and students from across the nation as follows:

"In one of the workshops, "Examining White Privilege and Building Foundations for Social Justice Thinking in the Elementary Classroom," educators Rosemary Colt and Diana Reeves told how teachers can "insert social justice, anti-racist information" into their lessons that "even little kids" can understand.

"Kim Radersma, a former high-school English teacher, hosted a session titled "Stories from the front lines of education: Confessions of a white, high school English teacher." She said that teaching is a purely political act and that neutral people should "get the (expletive) out of education" (  ).

She also explained: "I have to every day wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply embedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose every day to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way" (  ).

Pittsburgh Tribune Review, May 29, 2014.

So, let's summarize what we learn from this:
◾Some teachers believe the public school curriculum does not adequately address race problems
◾The solution is for individual teachers to introduce "social justice" components into their instruction
◾This is permissible because teaching is essentially a "political act"
◾Every teacher should realize that he/she is deeply embedded in racist thoughts and actions
◾Students should be taught to realize this also about themselves

Since we already know that political correctness is the coin of the realm in public schools, that progressives are good and conservatives are heartless, that "incorrect" T shirts can get you expelled, that fashioning a pretend gun with forefinger and thumb can get you arrested, that having aspirin in your purse can result in suspension, and that disagreeing with politically correct race-consciousness can get you sent to "sensitivity training," what happens to these kids when they grow up?

As I will demonstrate hereafter, children who attend these schools grow up to be college students and then adults who have incorporated political correctness into their thinking.  They will be convinced that the banning of free speech and thought is the morally superior thing to do and they are morally superior for doing it.   

As you might expect, since the ivy league is the most politically correct of all politically correct universities, when ivy leaguers graduate, 96% of them who make financial contributions to their alma maters vote for the same progressive presidential candidate.

Michael Bloomberg, the gun-hating former mayor of New York, voted for that candidate too, but this uniformity among the nation's elite was too much even for him. Speaking at a commencement at Harvard, Bloomberg suggests that ivy-league political correctness is so pervasive that there was more disagreement among Soviet Politburo members than there is among Ivy League graduates.

Bloomberg goes on:

"The role of universities is not to promote an ideology. It is to provide scholars and students with a neutral forum for researching and debating issues—without tipping the scales in one direction, or repressing unpopular views.

Requiring scholars—and commencement speakers, for that matter—to conform to certain political standards undermines the whole purpose of a university.

This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw—or have their invitations rescinded—after protests from students and—to me, shockingly—from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.


It happened at Brandeis, Haverford, Rutgers, and Smith. Last year, it happened at Swarthmore and Johns Hopkins, I'm sorry to say.

In each case, liberals silenced a voice—and denied an honorary degree—to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. That is an outrage and we must not let it continue."

Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2014, "Notable and Quotable: Mike Bloomberg at Harvard."

Bloomberg has it right: political correctness destroys not only the institutions of higher learning, but also the very concept of freedom.

But when college kids grow up and get jobs, doesn't it stop then? Doesn't political correctness fade into the past like long-forgotten fraternity keg parties?  Actually, no, it doesn't.  The college kids become government officials and proceed to enact rules, procedures, and laws based on what they have been taught in school: repression.  Senator Ted Cruz reports that there is now pending in the United States Senate a proposal for a constitutional amendment that would restrict speech in election campaigns.  Cruz has this to say about the proposed amendment:

"Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposed amendment to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech. The text of the amendment says that Congress could regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." The amendment places no limitations whatsoever on Congress's new power."

Wall St Journal, June 2, 2014, Opinion, "The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment."

According to Senator Cruz's understanding of this proposed amendment to the Constitution, congress could regulate raising or spending money to support certain candidates, what films could be produced in favor or against certain candidates, the raising and spending of money by the Sierra Club or the NRA to support or criticize certain candidates, a labor union's spending money to support or oppose a certain candidate, and even the spending of money for internet service to write blogs that criticize the government.  As Cruz says, "The contemplated amendment is simply wrong. No politician should be immune from criticism. Congress has too much power already—it should never have the power to silence citizens."

Far-fetched?  No, it is what is to be expected from adults who grow up indoctrinated by political correctness.  What is really far-fetched is that anyone in congress would even think of amending the Bill of Rights in order to protect themselves from what might be said in federal election campaigns.

Political correctness is not just a harmless, morally superior way to ensure politeness and harmony.  It is a fool's game that destroys the possibility of freedom, of independent thought even among very bright people, and eviscerates the demand for truth, replacing it with ideas that favor those in power at the time. 

Over the years, political correctness has taken many forms.  In Hitler's Germany, enthusiastic support of the dictator was enforced by the SS.  In Mussolini's Italy improper speech was the business of the OVRA (Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism). In Stalin's Russia, it was the NKVD (Commissariat for Internal Affairs).

In the United States, the actual arrest and killing of dissidents who speak the wrong words and think the wrong thoughts has not yet occurred, and hopefully never will occur.  But if history is our guide, that is not certain, and in the meantime, freedom is subservient to political correctness, which is just coercion dressed up with a happy face.

Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo