The utter, mind-boggling stupidity of political correctness is demonstrated very clearly in three recent incidents.
1. Scholar booted from APA discussion group after suggesting there are only two sexes
[John Staddon, an emeritus professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University] has been removed from an American Psychological Association email discussion group after he posed questions on the listserv that upset others, most recently about the nature of biological sex.
“This incident just illustrates the current inability of some scientific communities to tolerate dissent about issues related to sex and race,” Staddon told The College Fix via email. “Psychology and sociology seem to be especially flawed in this respect.”
The topic that appears to have gotten him removed was the suggestion that there are only two sexes.
2. Law student faces expulsion from Scottish university for simply stating that women have vaginas
Lisa Keogh, a 29-year-old student completing her law degree at Abertay University in Dundee, Scotland, is now facing disciplinary action by the institution after making allegedly "discriminatory" comments.
Some of her fellow students took offence to Keogh's saying that "women have vaginas" or that "the difference in physical strength of men versus women is a fact."
. . .
According to the university's policies, Keogh could even be facing a possible expulsion simply for having offended people in this case.
3. Spanish politician temporarily suspended by Twitter after saying 'a man cannot get pregnant'
Francisco José Contreras, deputy to Spain's far-right Vox Party, was locked out of his Twitter account for 12 hours last week after saying "a man cannot get pregnant" because they have "no uterus or eggs."
Contreras' comments were in response to an article he shared on the social media platform about a transgender male who announced they were a father after giving birth to a baby girl.
. . .
"The hateful tweet (which I was forced to delete) was one that said: ′′A man cannot get pregnant. A man has no womb or eggs"," Contreras wrote in response to the move. "You can see this is already fascist biology. Next time I'll try 2 + 2 = 4."
Let's remember that each and every one of the "offending" statements cited above was - and remains - precisely, exactly and literally true. They're scientifically and medically incontrovertible. Those criticizing them may as well be arguing that the moon is made of green cheese. After all, there's about as much merit in that fairy tale as there is in the politically correct criticism directed at the individuals above.
The same, of course, applies in the wider sphere. The mainstream media and left-wing US politicians are united in criticizing those who claim that last November's election was rigged, and its results are fraudulent. The torrent of statistical analysis, evidence of outright shenanigans, and demonstrations of corruption in that election are growing almost by the day (witness recent developments in Arizona and New Hampshire, if you haven't been following the issue) - yet absolute, flat denials that anything was wrong have remained the stock-in-trade of almost everyone on the left. One would think that the clearest, simplest way to disprove the claims of electoral fraud would be to analyze them in detail, forensically, with all evidence examined impartially - but no, the left won't do that and won't allow it. Why not? Is it because they know there's all too much fire beneath the smoke that they're denying? It certainly gives that impression.
Political correctness is fundamentally a lie. It denies plain-as-a-pikestaff fact for political reasons. It needs - and deserves - to be exposed for the lie that it is, on every possible occasion. If it isn't . . . welcome to Newspeak and Doublethink, comrade!
Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out, in his essay "Live Not By Lies":
When violence bursts onto the peaceful human condition, its face is flush with self-assurance, it displays on its banner and proclaims: “I am Violence! Make way, step aside, I will crush you!” But violence ages swiftly, a few years pass—and it is no longer sure of itself. To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally—Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty.
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal non-participation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!
And this is the way to break out of the imaginary encirclement of our inertness, the easiest way for us and the most devastating for the lies. For when people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.
We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out loud what we think—this is scary, we are not ready. But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think!
. . .
Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.
Amen to that!
I highly recommend reading Solzhenitsyn's essay in full. It's worth your time - and, if we all followed his recommendations, it would lead to the inevitable sidelining of political correctness. It is to hope . . .
Peter
5 comments:
There is truth and there is untruth, and if you cling to the truth even against the whole world, you are not mad.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. For that reason, they MUST deny others the ability to state the truth: that two and two DO make four.
In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one is designing a gun or an airplane they have to make four.
and THERE is the weakness of their ideas. THAT is why they MUST rule by force.
That the insanity of being punished for uttering facts is so widespread these days I'm thinking that there is an outside force that has altered things.
I'm thinking that the problem is the changes that social media and smart phones have made to the users brains.
I had been unaware for the brain changes until I watched "The Social Dilemma"
The "media" CLAIM to be in "the "mainstream", but it looks like "the slough of despond" to me.
Political correctness is mostly political and seldom, if ever, correct.
Theodore Dalrymple's quote fits this story PERFECTLY:
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
Post a Comment