Matthew’s comment > Likes and Comments

Matthew, I stand by my analysis. No one is arguing against common civility. The question is of PC in principle. You reply by equating opponants of PC to Aryan Nation. You call Felicks and others trolls and yet here you are, doing what? You have your own 1000+ post thread where you've been attacking religious people and others who don't share your views. Now you show up here. Reply if you like but if I want to go back and forth with a troll, I will do so on Yahoo. I'm here to discuss books.

And who told you this, Felix? Or have you been perusing my activity on Goodreads? Either way, I would say that's mighty creepy! But I would point also point out that what that man does is go from discussion to discussion and attack people personally. Anyone who knows him knows this. The man is an incorrigible taunt and takes whatever position is contrary to what is being said. And we never attacked anyone in the thread about religion, sir. If you head read through it, you'd know that we were simply criticizing its excesses and abuses.

Much the same is true here. All I've done is disagree with you. If you consider that trollish, then I'd say you've got a definite issue with being challenged. And who are you to say that I'm equating criticism of PCness with the Aryan Nation? You are the one equating it with Newspeak. Fine bit of the pot calling the kettle black there.

Incidentally, we never attacked anyone for not agreeing with us in that forum. It was Felix who attacked the original poster for his beliefs and claimed he was condoning hate against religion. Which, interestingly, is what you've accused me of doing. Do you always equate questioning or criticizing something as "attacking"? If so, my point is made. You see PCness as an attack because it takes issue with how you and others choose to think. And we can't have that can we? Lord knows your right to free speech entitles you to never listen to anyone's disagreements.

Matthew, as you see, I have listened and have heard you. If you find my knowledge of your rants to be "creepy", I remind you that this is a public forum. You are a hate-filled individual looking for a fight. It somehow never occurs to you that your unbridaled accusations of bigotry are hypocrisy. I take issue with assaults upon free speech, which side you are very clearly taking. You are the self-appointed "PC cop". To somebody so adament, and defensive, that their rants should not be questioned, the only appropriate response is silence. Now, if you'll excuse me, that shall be my response to you.

Really? I'm to believe you read through a 1000+ post threat to get an accurate measure of my opinions? That's a joke. All you've done is taken Felix's opinions (a man who does nothing but attack people, btw) at face value. He accused me and others of being hate filled because we criticized the excesses and abuses of religion, and for no other reason than because he found the idea offensive. I shouldn't be surprised to see you parroting his stances. You accuse me of being hate-filled for no other reason than because I've chosen to challenge your incredibly narrow views. And considering you are making PCness out to be an Orwellian conspiracy, you are no position to pass judgements on anything. From what I can see, you're a close-minded individual who takes all challenges to the things you believe in as hate and attack. Again, not surprising because that is the nature of reactionary minds. They go on the offensive against things they don't understand then hypocritically accuse others of not tolerating them.

But please, if you want to make some weak attempt at martyring yourself by running away, be my guest. This place is made greater by your absence and I look forward to never again hearing from you.

Matthew,Matthew. You're taking this way too personally.
Just by the by- since you're so fixed on this- I know Feliks by name, as someone you were going back and forth with. You talk as if this guy- whoever he is- is standing here beside me, as I type. Very strange.
I acknowledge that my own intemperate language has only thrown gas on the fire. I regret this because it is the reaction you seek from me. Look at your first post's last paragraph. I mean, come on. It's like defending, say, home-schooling and then saying "And besides, it is opposed by Somali pirates, Satanists and Democrats- are these really what you call, good people?" -knowing that the person you are talking to is probably a Democrat. Not only is this ad hoc, ad hominum and non sequiter- if you claim that you meant it in good faith, you are insulting my intelligence as well.
In your next-to-last post's closing smear, you display the classic PC double-standard. (I'm not quoting you, no; don't go pedantic on me; you say are pro-PC, and that's what I'm responding to): anything I say is racist-this and homophobic-that, but when you attack my group, suddenly you are all about "free speech". Ah, but what's the point of being logically consistant, when all that counts is pushing the Agenda? -That is how I equate PC with Newspeak.

Oh. Also, about your closing diatribe about "running away": that is a way of inviting you to end the argument, by offering myself to bow out first. If the ways of peace-loving people perplex you- well, I can only hope, perhaps in time you'll understand.

Is that a joke, Glenn? You called me a hate-filled individual and then claimed you refused to speak to me anymore. If this is your idea of taking the high road, and you would accuse me of making a diatribe, then you are beyond hypocritical. But then again, we can all see that was a lie wasn't it? Because here you are again, claiming persecution while you simultaneously go on the attack.

Oh, and as for your relationship with Felix, I accurately described what you were doing, which was simply repeating his views without the slightest attempt to familiarize yourself with the nature of our discussion. In this, as well as all other forums, Felix did nothing but show up to attack the other posters personally and then ran away, as he always does. For you to take his side in this only shows that you have no measure of his character, or mine for that matter. Wherever he has gone, he has alienated people and made enemies for his trollish behavior. But I guess you'd blame others for that, wouldn't you? You and he seem to have that in common.

And I find it interesting that you would think I was deliberately challenging you hoping to get a reaction. Is that your way of excusing said reaction? Was I not being appropriately sensitive to your right-wing views? You want to talk about insulting people's intelligence, this is it! If you're views are so narrow they can't stand challenge, then you were right to say you were bowing out. Clearly, you're not capable of having a discussion with anyone who doesn't agree with you.

And since you don't understand the nature of free speech, let me inform you. Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to say whatever you want and not be challenged. My freedom to challenge you is part of my freedom of speech. If you want to be able to say whatever you want, without reproach, my advice is talk to yourself or move to a commune where all people share your views.

Shall I expect a reply, or will you be true to your word this time and spurn me with silence?

Matthew! Yes, of course: picking up where we left off. When you ran off screaming like a little girl.
No, seriously, really: I have other uses for my time, than answering a borderline psychotic's accusations. And yes, that is a horribly un-PC thing to say. Stigmatizing the mentally challenged: that is truly double-plus ungood.

And, God forgive me for "stalking" you but, yes: I've read your post to Jori, in addition to your posts on other threads. You are the Goodreads "local bully". Why not just be forthright, and declare that you are mad at the whole world, and wish to lash out at anyone who speaks? Time to get a life, my friend. Time to get a life.

I definitely think it is akin to Newspeak and that it isn't an exaggeration to describe it as such. It is a tool to warp and debase language; no longer serving the purpose of any kind of 'courtesy'.

Well that seems to be the general consensus of the political right, who claim that asking people to mind what they say is akin to the most brutal form of censorship ever dreamed up in the English literary tradition. This is at best an exaggeration; at worst, it's an attempt to martyr themselves on the altar of free speech. While I don't deny that PCness has itself been warped into a form of legal liability that's fallen far from its intended purpose, comparing it to Newspeak still seems blatantly overly dramatic.

I can agree with that position.

I'm not a fan of Political Correctness, especially when it is pursued for its own sake (e.g. in the health care field, as Glenn pointed out elsewhere).

But saying that PC is a tool to undermine the language in order to reduce meaning and render certain thoughts unthinkable -- that is more than a little hyperbolic.

Even if it *were* (and that way lies conspiracy theory, for someone would have to be behind the plan to undermine the language), it wouldn't work, for the same reason that Newspeak would never work: people would just invent new words to represent their thoughts and ideas. Humans have been doing that since "eek" was used to express what "ook" cannot.

" The entire purpose of political correctness was simply to make people more sensitive to each others' differences and be aware of how their words can affect other people."

We value freedom of expression in this country. The P.C. sorts (and I'm no right winger, btw) seem to think their desire that SOMEone, SOMEwhere not be offended presupposes that nothing THEY say will offend anyone except folks of a certain political persuasion, who don't matter to them.

P.C. is just another political bias that claims just the opposite. When you try to say someone else's words are invalid, you're being politically biased--just look at your own post, where you lay into "bigots and ultra-conservatives" and folks with different views on marriage than you (or me).

You may say it's all about not offending people; you're showing you believe it's all about not offending the Correct people. How that is anything but just another political bias hiding as "fairness" is beyond me.

I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.
P. D. James

PC mostly determines what words can be said *in public* and *on record*. The same concepts can be (and are) expressed with substitute words, as with any actual language. Orwell was wrong about that bit. Language evolves to meet the needs of the speakers. I find PC terms to be a bit useful, actually, because they demonstrate that the speaker is trying to hard not to offend whatever group their PC terms refer to. Shows whose bark they're most afraid of.

Interesting take, Mkfs. And while I do agree that the whole issue has become tiresome, monotonous, and represents a distortion of what it set to do, this is in keeping with how ideas become counter-productive once they are made into rules.

@Mkfs: Well it's pretty much a truism, that there are different standards for private and for public speech. I like the story of FDR being told of vitriolic speeches made against him on the Senate floor. He replied, "I wonder what they say about me in the coat room."
Thing is, technology and social media are narrowing the private sphere and broadening the public. Even this, right here: is it private? Public? That issue now with prosecuting Facebook use is a case in point.