No It’s Not About Good Manners – Kate Paulk

No It’s Not About Good Manners – Kate Paulk

I recently ran across a blog post on something of next to no interest in this crowd (it’s a software testing blog, okay) where, in the context of a brouhaha that’s currently roiling through the testing blogverse, the poster mentioned that he didn’t see why people opposed political correctness because it’s really just about being polite and respectful of the other person.

I didn’t respond to that post for a number of reasons, but the assumption that PC is a way of codifying good manners and the anti-PC just want an excuse to be rude has been festering for a few days, building into something a little, well… a lot non-PC.

What we have here is a matter of framing. Of, if you will, successful propaganda. Political correctness is framed as polite and respectful and why would any decent person want to go against that? And of course no decent person would choose to be needlessly impolite – most of us are well aware that manners, at least in the form of basic courtesy, form the social grease that prevents friction between humans from becoming violent friction.

The fact that PC is neither polite nor respectful gets lost because of the framing and the way those who support it marginalize and exclude those who don’t, to deny not only their ability to be part of society, but their right to exist in that society. How often are screams of ____ist! used to shut down conversation or debate even when the group supposedly insulted or belittled by the allegedly ____ist speech repeatedly denies any insult?

Political correctness starts by dividing humans into groups based on characteristics the group members can’t control. It divides by sex (we won’t even touch the inanity of claiming women as a minority), by skin color (usually claimed as “race”, less commonly “color” or “ethnicity”, with “culture” getting used as meaning the same thing, although the last time I heard the amount of melanin in one’s skin and the proportion of red vs brown melanin has absolutely nothing to do with the language a person grows up speaking or any other cultural marker – there’s an old, old joke about this: an American rabbi takes a vacation in Hong Kong, where he meets up with the local Jewish community. An elderly ethnic Chinese woman grills him about America and his life, asking repeatedly, “Are you sure you’re Jewish?”. Finally, when he asks, “Why do you keep asking me?” she says, “It’s funny. You don’t look Jewish.”), and claims to be assisting each so-defined group by Balkanizing it into progressively smaller slices.

The individual who doesn’t meet the assumptions of whoever decides these things is presumed to be a traitor to their group and therefore evil. Worse, built into all of this is the notion that each defined group needs assistance from its betters in the form of the ever-so-politically-correct modern progressives (who are, almost exclusively, members of the same incestuous Marxist-elite cultural clique and have every intention of being the ones to send us dissidents to the gulags). Even the names given to the assorted groups (“minority” or “victim” groups) codes the eliteness in.

To those who doubt, I would ask: is it more insulting to be encouraged to work towards your goals, or to be told you aren’t capable of handling normal life so you’re going to get an easy ride, but so as not to offend you it gets called “equal opportunity”. Would you rather I said, “You can do this – let me know if you need any help.” or “You poor dear, let me fix that for you.”?

Too much “let me fix that for you” destroys people. A child who is carried everywhere will never learn to walk, and a person who is given an easy ride will never know what it is to struggle for something and succeed.

Worse, the Balkanizing effect completely ignores the impact of the individual. Each one of us has had a different path through life, and will view anything that happens in light of our experience. For many, there is a more or less common perspective, but not always. Some (yours truly among them) are just too stubborn to accept things as they stand and insist on trying to figure it out for themselves (and reach mega badthinky conclusions due to that horrible tool of the patriarchy known as logic). Others accept what they’re told and go through life believing that they can’t do things without the help of kindly superiors. Then they wonder why their coworkers resent them or don’t let them do the more difficult work. Or come to believe that it actually is ____ism that’s causing them to be unable to do the more difficult work, not the much kinder truth that due to someone’s fuzzy political correctness and sense of fairness they were promoted beyond their capacity.

This isn’t fair, and it sure as hell isn’t just. It violates the person who’s been advanced beyond their abilities and the person who didn’t get the advancement because someone undeserving got it to appease some politically correct quota. Sure, life isn’t fair, but life doesn’t tell people they can’t do something because they’re poor little victims who need to be protected from the world. Life doesn’t teach learned helplessness. Only supposedly well-meaning progressives (aka Marxists who are either too ignorant to realize that’s what they are or they’re hiding the fact that they’re Marxist behind a nicer sounding word) do that.

236 responses to “No It’s Not About Good Manners – Kate Paulk

  1. c4c.

  2. And that is why logic is an ebil tool of the Patriarchy. It leads at least as often to the wrongthink as to the correct ideas that everyone is supposed to love.

  3. I don’t suppose you’re aware of the Libreboot / FSF blowup recently?

    Short summary: A person was fired from FSF. The Libreboot project manager, a MTF TG, blew up, and claimed it was because the person who had been fired was fired because s/he(? Unsure of the fired person’s ID) was trans.

    FSF and some other folks in the project asked for proof of the allegations. The transgender person instead refused to name the person who was fired and instead named two or three men who the TG alleges is bigoted. The transgender person proceeded to then ‘remove’ the Libreboot project from FSF, screaming all the while that those named men should be fired or leave FSF.

    The person throwing the tantrum and making allegations and demands apparently has a history of focusing more on activism and making broad claims, as well as claiming to speak for the Libreboot project, when in fact s/he is not.

    I had a read through the lists and boy that’s one huge bucket of passive aggressive and not so passive crazy there. Bad behavior, excused by political correctness!

  4. PC being “Just about being polite and respectful” is a classic example of Motte and Bailey. i.e a philosophy that has lots of extreme, but not easily defensible arguments (the Motte, or the field around a fortification), and one really easily defensible argument that they fall back on whenever attacked (the Bailey, or Tower).

    Just like when you hear feminists saying indefensible shit like “The male population should be reduced to 10%, kept in breeding camps except when needed,” and as soon as you attack Feminism over that they retreat to “Feminism is just about equality, why do you hate equality?”

    • You mean women have to pledge ones body to the state in order to go to higher learning? To be vastly more likely to commit suicide but have no recourse other than being told to tough it out and change your thinking when you are passed over again because you don’t hit right criteria (govt sites purporting to fight high suicide rates focus on women and GLBT)? To die young after having wages sucked from you to support elderly widows.

      But bring any of these issues up and you are a complete misogynist.

      • scott2harrison

        Did you perhaps mean men not women? Or was this sarcasm?

        • If they are equal it shouldn’t matter. But yes. Men have all that and more. Women have other issues but it’s not misandry to bring those up.

        • scott2harrison

          Or worse, is WordPress auto correcting to PC narrative? In that case WordPress Delinda Est (WDE).

      • And not to forget women certainly aren’t standing up for their fair share of deaths in industrial accidents.

        • Well that’s just cuz their legs were amputated in all those combine accident

          • People die or get horribly injured from time to time where I work. It’s only men as far as I know.

            • Apparently the complete tongue in cheek nature of this may be missed

              • I suspect the fact that so many women have to cope with men’s tongues in their cheeks* that they often miss such nuances.

                *There shall be NO discussion of which cheeks, and no sniggering if you please!

                • You deserve a carp-et bombing wallaby

                  • It has been my experience, based on some six decades observation, that folks rarely get what they deserve. Not in this life, at any rate.

                    This is a source of both personal happiness and general dismay.

                    • I confess that I never discovered Babylon 5 until long after its run. Knowing I’m opening a can of wyrms: How essential is it?

                      For that matter, I never got involved in any of the SF on TV outside of Trek, not Andromeda, not Farscape nor Stargate. Perhaps we ought designate a free day in which the advocates and antagonists of the various series can make the case for burning the tens of hours watching SF instead of reading it?

                    • Farscape is *fun*.

                      Andromida is very nearly as fun.

                      B5 hit some serious stuff, had some good moments, had some fun. Biggest annoyance is folks feeling the need to pit it against DS9, just because they’re vaguely in the same area. (Do not get me started on “zomga, look, after the Space Station was a ginormous deal especially in high school science classes for like five years, some shows about space stations came out! One MUST have stolen from the other!” bull.)

                    • I would encourage you to watch Babylon 5. The first season is probably the worst (note – I never saw Season 5, for various reasons), but it gets much better starting in Season 2.

                      If nothing else, Zack’s arc – i.e. how a regular guy tries to get by and inadvertently finds himself helping the totalitarians – is a good illustration of how things can go very wrong very quickly in society.

                    • Season 1 is laying the groundwork; there are things you won’t understand in Seasons 2,3, and 4 otherwise. For example, a major character’s motivations can be traced back in part to Episode 3 (Born To the Purple) of Season 1.

                      5 is really the weakest, in part because it almost didn’t happen and so JMS didn’t have the arc really fleshed out. Think of Season 1 as the Hobbit, Seasons 2-4 as LOTR, and Season 5 as the Fourth Age Tolkien outlined but didn’t really flesh out.

    • Patrick Chester

      “Wanting to reduce the male population to 10% has NOTHING to do with equality so stop trying to claim you are for equality when someone calls you on your sexist claptrap!”

    • Patrick Chester

      I wonder if the “relax it was JOKE” bleat is similar to this?

      Usually I see someone wanting to have something horrible happen to people who disagree with them and when called on it they huff and claim it was just a joke and the person who called them on it must not have a sense of humor. Yeah, right.

      • foxfirefancies

        Yes. I am utterly SICK of the people who examine each utterance for the faintest possible breath of an uncomplimentary opinion of ONE member of their favored group, who then turn around and talk about “All $THEM should die/get raped/contract AIDS, then get raped, then die”.

  5. woof!

  6. Martin L. Shoemaker

    Political Correctness once had a very specific meaning, implicit in the name itself. A thing might be true, but if it did not advance the “correct” agenda, it was Politically Incorrect, and must not be said. A thing might be false, but if it advanced the “correct” agenda, it was Politically Correct, and MUST be said.

    In other words, old-fashioned Orwellian propaganda.

    • Yes, this. It’s not complicated at all, is it? We can talk about being kind and we can talk about being tactful and even follow our grandmother’s rule about how if you don’t have something good to say, say nothing at all… but political correctness is about the things you are supposed to pretend, publicly, are true and about the things that are true that can’t be spoken of.

      I don’t want my divorced friend to feel like a bad mother so I have to pretend that a single mother or a destroyed marriage is every bit as healthy for children as a family that is whole. In fact, I probably can’t use the term “whole” because it implies negative things.

      PC requires looking at four lights and confessing that there are only two.

      For reasons.

      • As I commented today on being required to provide my SSN for access to a Navy base; FDR promised us that SSN would NOT be used for identification. Like all politicians FDR lied.
        Thus, the real emphasis should be on the Political not the correct. PC has all the truth and value of a Husband answering his Wife on the question, “Does this dress make me look too fat?”

    • Marxist lingo.

      In fact, Marxists would use it without a scintilla of irony.

      Of course, I have also seen with my own eyes the notion that conservatives won’t vote for non-conservative described as the right equivalent of shouting down speakers. . .

  7. Captain Comic

    Link chains dropped me off at The Red Pill. A feminist documentarian wanted to do film on the men’s rights movement. She found their arguments persuasive and made a film about rather than against MRAs.

    The backlash seems off the rails (read the Village Voice review) and shows that “politeness” takes a back seat (heck, riding in the roof-rack seat) to “suppression of opposition”.

    • Politeness is merely the accusatory bludgeon. Think differently and your livelihood, reputation and even life will be threatened. Because you are intolerant (as the word is twisted to mean ‘you think differently even if you act on no harm no foul’) they can be as sadistic as they want. Going into some of these dens of iniquity you actually do have to accept that you may need to use force to defend your life from people nominally with same interests as you.

    • Though on a side note, it’s always nice to run into people like that feminist documentarian who start with one opinion, learn facts that contradict that opinion, and then change their minds rather than trying to force the facts into the pre-established narrative. I remember another case with a guy who wanted to write a book about how Alger Hiss was an innocent victim of the McCarthy terror, found out that Hiss was guilty as sin, and so wrote a book about that instead. Even if they’re few and far between, such people give me hope for humanity!

      • You hear about it every so often on the firearms side. Give em a chance to go to a good range ad shoot appropriate firearms and they may realize some of the exaggeration.

        • John Lott?

        • I believe Hawkeye in the new Marvel movies (no, I don’t do actor names… not when they’re any good. That guy *IS* Hawkeye) went that route.

          He was reflexively against guns, he ended up learning to use them for some movie or other, and then went out shooting, and then… well, now they’ve got some in the house, just in case, although they’re seriously locked away.

        • A number of years ago, there was a paintball group that played in their local city’s parks. A bunch of middle-aged biddies (I am of-a-certain-age, so I can say that) protested – oh-the-violence and all that. The paintball group offered to let them try it out for themselves. The women took them up on it, and became total converts, even disturbingly aggressive players, according to the original group.

          • Presented without additional comment:

            This place will let you throw an ax at your ex

            After finalizing her divorce, Michele Herzog didn’t down a drink or hurl her wedding ring into the East River.

            She threw an ax.

            “Ax Your Past” parties are the latest craze at Stumpy’s Hatchet House in Eatontown, NJ, where jilted exes heave real hatchets at a bull’s-eye — or a photo of a former lover.

            “We encourage people to really bury the hatchet, so to speak, so they can move forward to a brighter and better future,” says Trish Oliphant, co-owner of Stumpy’s. “It’s better than sitting home and eating a gallon of ice cream.”

            The parties are a unique spin on indoor ax-throwing, a pastime that originated in Canada and is starting to trickle down to the US. Similar facilities recently opened in Philadelphia and Chicago.


            But can hurling axes actually relieve stress and tame anger?

            “This is something that could have some benefits,” says Deborah Serani, a psychologist and professor at Adelphi University.

            “It’s constructive deconstruction,” she says. “It’s a way to take excess energy that may be agitating you and use it in a productive way. As long as it’s all in fun, I don’t see anything wrong with it.”

            Plus, Serani says, “I imagine it would be extremely satisfying.”

      • Or this one:

        Lesbian feminist goes “undercover” as a man to study how horrible everything is. Discovers that female privilege is one of the most powerful forces in the human species.

        As one of the youtube comments says: “THIS is what I call gender studies.”

    • Patrick Chester

      Politeness to a prog means their targets are supposed to shut up and kindly let the prog insult, lecture, demonize, etc. people. We’re not supposed to talk back. That’s not how it works!

    • Mike Cernovich was singularly responsible for me ponying up to help the Red Pill kickstarter. He was the one who really put out that the documentarian was actually trying her damnest to be factual and fair – but was being memoryholed and swept aside by the socjus PC stonewall.

  8. The best, most succinct description I’ve read about PCness is that PC has never been about what someone can say, but who can say it.

    Examples of people who are allowed to make ______”phobic” or racist comments:

    Joe Biden
    Harry Reid
    Stephen Colbert
    Alec Baldwin

    And that was with approximately two seconds of recollection.

  9. If it was purely about being polite and respectful, honest errors would not elicit rage and hate as they do. Stuff like the bathroom bills could be debated in a fashion where common sense could take hold versus the ‘thou shalt’ edicts that come down now. We could recognize that men rape but women lie about it too and better 10 innocents than one guilty is just as valid for them as in a burglary case

    • Exactly. The venomous hate and uncontrolled rage are so beyond any definition of politeness.
      I wonder if – in a lot of cases – the SJWs are enraged to the point of frothing at the mouth because they have already “othered” those who oppose them — and there is a large portion of “How dare those untermenschen defy everything that is good and fair!”

      • I don’t even wonder. Just look at the attacks going on this election. Trump is many things but a fascistic racist planning to reenact the third Reich isn’t one of them. But when it is not a surprise when someone is attacked for Trump paraphernalia that is past the top. Or the kid in ICU reportedly for posting “blue lives matter”

        There is a reason I have a knife on me at all times.

      • Martin L. Shoemaker

        Pointing, laughing, and mocking are potent weapons. Refuse to acknowledge their claim to authority.

        • When they turn to assault and worse, they must reap what they’ve sown.

          • There’s been a couple of cases where they physically assault someone who disagrees with them, and when it gets them set on their tails they try to call the cops and press charges.

            In one case, they ended up assaulting the cops because they were right there, witnessed her attacking the guy, and informed her that if anyone was going to be arrested for assault, it would be her.

            • Someone suggested the other day that society’s current effeminization doesn’t allow people (particularly men) to practice dealing with anger. If true, it might explain the actions of someone who’s stupid enough to assault a cop in a situation like that. The individual is angry, but they’re not experienced enough to recognize that they need to dial back on their anger, and/or don’t know how to do so.

              I also read an article a month or two ago that talked about grown women who were getting irrationally angry on a very regular basis (at least once every week or two). The women who were specificaly used as examples in the article (three or four of them, iirc) all knew that they did stupid things while angry. And one of them even admitted that it was damaging her relationship with her step-daughter (or soon to be step-daughter; can’t remember for certain), because it was scaring away the younger girl. But none of them felt the need to actually start taking steps to curb their frequent bouts of anger.

              • I knew a woman who was proud of her ability to turn into into a (w or b) itch and didn’t think she had anything to fix. She seemed to think it was empowering somehow. The only thing I saw that it empowered her to do was drive loved ones away.

                • The women in the article were doing a bit more than just acting like words that end with ‘-itch’. All of the women in the article were engaging in regular, full on rages at people. Examples used of rage triggers were things like having someone else ‘steal’ their parking space.

                  One of the thoughts that crossed my mind while reading the article was that it was a wonder that none of the women in question had been decked after pulling that on the wrong man.

            • The idiot woman who assaulted the guy testing out his drone on a public beach, accusing him of being a pervert and ‘violating right to privacy’, started hitting him, and when he pushed her away, called the cops have him arrested for ‘assaulting her.’ Except his camera on the drone was still on and caught the whole incident … yeah. I don’t actually know what happened then.

        • Christopher M. Chupik

          One thing Larry has shown us is how their supposed power crumbles like dry sand in the face of mockery.

      • They are, in their minds, building utopia. And how dare anyone resist. Also there is also a very large component of will to power. Power to control others, and power to remake the world and its inhabitants, according to their, obviously correct, vision. There is also a lot of rage and hate expressed for its own sake. The shibboleths are only a fig leaf.

      • Patrick Chester

        I’d say it’s more of an excuse on their part to engage in hatred and to feel righteous by doing it. Like any mob member.

    • On the rape thing, though, there was actually a Colorado congressman who argued the opposite: that it was better for 10 falsely accused students to be kicked out school than to allow 1 who was actually a rapist to remain. To be fair, he got crucified in the press, even by his own side, but the cynic in me wonders if that’s actually because they were horrified by the reversal of the usual cliche or if its because he gave the game away in public.

      As far as I can tell, these “Title IX” tribunals have procedures that would make Cotton Mather and the rest of the Salem Witch-hunters saying, “Gee, guys, maybe we need to slow down and consider the rights of the accused.”

      • Oh I know. I remember that idiocy. Just drives me nuts when you get the shilling vs death penalty but then they get vapors because a ‘priviledged’ (read as politically expedient target) person got off against one of their pet classes for lack of evidence (e.g. Zimmerman)

        • They have always been for mob justice, so long as it is their mob, for theirs is a jealous mob and will have no other mobs before theirs.

        • I know you’re probably aware of this, but Zimmerman didn’t get off from lack of evidence– there was a whole lot of evidence, it just didn’t support what they wanted it to.

          There’s a freaking reason that the eye witness(es) whose testimony went against the claims of the “ear witnesses” did not talk to the media.

          • What I meant from following the trial is that the most charitable read of the scenario is that there was no evidence who initiated confrontation which would have potentially changed the innocence calculation. For instance if Zimmerman had grabbed Martin first the self defense argument could have a poisonous tree root. I think there was more than sufficient evidence that Zimmerman was not initiator but can see where you could have weighted other testimony differently and/or wrongly.

            • Charitable read as in only way you could legally ‘get’ Zimmerman. Entire prosecution was wish casting.

      • If they weren’t guilty (all men are guilty of something, it’s their fault for being born with testes), they wouldn’t have been accused. Womyn are Always Right because Smash the Patriarchy! (Almost any man would consider the possibility that it might smash back. It’s a guy thing.) Sentence First, Verdict Afterward!
        The biggest reason such silliness has become so prevalent is that those who find it convenient to cater to the fringe elements of society for political power also find it convenient to tear down the rights of the accused so they can get at their own enemies. After they’ve expelled the decent-behaving males from universities, they’re going to wonder why thugs with harems are trashing buildings and burning books.

      • In regard to accusations of rape, the accused have no rights, they are already guilty of being male.

        I wonder what happens the first time an accused rapist opts for a defense of “I am not male; “I identify as female and thus cannot have committed rape; you are just a bunch of transphobists.”

        On a side note, this was time-stamped 1:04 pm but came through my WP email delivery at 5:32 PM.

        After I had received email editions of replies to this comment.

        WP delenda est.

        • Legally, nothing changes. Even the federal government finally got around to changing its legal definition of rape to acknowledge that a woman can rape a man.

          Culturally, of course, your guess is as good as mine, particularly if there’s strong evidence that the rapist in question actually considered itself to be a trans before the rape took place.

    • scott2harrison

      Better that 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent be imprisoned. (it was backwards)

  10. Forgot the box

  11. As I’ve said many times, if everything I say is wrong, I’m free to say anything I want! And I’m quite happy to do so, and laugh in the faces of the perpetually-outraged.

  12. This is not the first time I have lived through thought policing by social bullying. I would hope it would be the last, but knowing human nature I don’t think it will be.

    Bullies tend to align themselves with whatever the popular power game is at the moment. Years ago I was told that bullying stopped by third grade. No, by third grade the smarter bullies have begun to learn to justify their abuse as establishing social norms. Whether it is charges of ‘n-word lover’ and ‘commie-pinko-fag’ or ‘racist-sexist-homophobic’ it is being used to shut down the conversation and impose a particular position.

    I worry when such things get as extreme as they presently are, having seen and read reports of bizarre rules and occurrences at a growing number of the universities. I fear for the future if this we haven’t reached the zenith of this particular swing of the social pendulum.

    • Zenith? Or nadir? Or….?

    • scott2harrison

      I don’t worry about what the universities are doing. Soon they will find that no-one with any talent will have anything to do with them, then the value of their diplomas will crater and they will be sued into oblivion. I worry about the attacks on people’s jobs and even more so the physical threats and attacks on people. That is what will prompt defensive violence possibly including violence against the police from normally law abiding people. If that happens, the only way it can go is down.

      • Exactly. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. The more resentment and inequity is bottled up, the more explosive it’s release

      • About those attacks on people’s jobs …

        How Silicon Valley Punishes Innovators Who Don’t Embrace the Liberal Agenda
        The latest victim of Silicon Valley political groupthink is a man who once adorned the cover of TIME magazine: Palmer Freeman Luckey, a tech entrepreneur who is the founder of Oculus, a virtual reality startup that was acquired by Facebook. It turns out that in addition to VR, Palmer is passionate about politics, with a strong libertarian bent and a stated aversion to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He donated money to an organization called Nimble America, and that’s what’s caused all the upset.

        … One Reddit user named “speizer” explained the issue (as quoted in Business Insider): “At the end of the day, this isn’t about his supporting Trump. It’s about his way of doing so. He’s a public figure. This isn’t a situation you can just ignore or regard as having a minute amount of importance. He’s a VR visionary and people looked up to him.”

        The implication is that you can’t possibly be a visionary and not be a liberal Democrat.


        I gather that in Hollywood today the price of pitching a film typically includes donating to Hillary’s campaign, i.e., “I am interested in discussing your idea; get with me at that fundraiser Matt Damon is throwing for Hillary Thursday and let’s talk about it.”

        When the venture capital is in the hands of those who “share the wealth” according to “whom you’re down with” then everything is political.

        See also: powerlineblog[DOT]com/archives/2016/10/hillary-obtained-pentagon-access-for-chelseas-friend.php

    • We are in a pre-civil war period. We don’t know when, but it’s a comin’.

      • This election guarantees it. We’re in the “factors leading up to” phase..

        • We might manage to avoid the ‘civil’ bit. But it’s been more and more clear that we’re going to be involved in a major confrontation *somewhere* before all the fall-out is finished. And I’m not talking about a regional side-show like Iraq or Afghanistan.

          • WW x? Quite possibly. But I think that we will have a civil war as well. We have internal enemies to get rid of.

            • Maybe, maybe not. The ’60s were a mess as well, and we managed to back out of that one eventually. Now admittedly, there were differences in the political parties at the time. But the madness spiral was dialed back.

              And one more thing to keep in mind –

              The only Dems who are really known at the national level right now are Clinton and Kaine. And based on what I’ve heard about the debate the other night, Kaine’s doesn’t exactly have high standing in the eyes of the public. If Hillary wins, there’s a whole bunch of Republicans who have public name recognition that can run against her in 2020. But if Trump wins, which Democrats are going to run in 2020 and 2024?

              • Hillary! has had 8 years to smother any potential Obamas for this election. 2008 was a big surprise for her, so she has worked hard to keep the field small.
                Even then, some old Socialist from Vermont gave her a pretty good run of it.

                • Sure, Sanders did surprisingly well in the Dem primary. But Mondale did quite well with the Dems in 1984. That didn’t exactly translate into electoral success in the General Election… In short, popularity in the Primaries does not guarantee popularity in the General Election, where there’s a much broader array of voters.

                  In fact, there’s a great deal of evidence to suggest that the primary reason why Sanders did so well is because he isn’t Hillary Clinton. If Biden had decided to run as well (and he’s done so in the past), then Sanders might have ended up as a minor footnote.

            • I think the whole world is going to go up in flames. It’s a long time coming. I also think America will be the best place to weather this out.

              • The only caveat to that is whether the US ‘comes together under flag’ but groups still carry out wars on others or if you get groups starting to separate.

      • And the silly asses pushing us into it are forgetting the the most important part of a civil war- you need guns to fight it.

  13. I honestly love reading your opinions on liberal/leftist culture. I think you articulate things that I sometimes feel but don’t have the inclination to express. As someone that considers herself ‘socially liberal’/libertarian but who grew up very conservative, it was odd for me to encounter liberals who’ve lived in that echo chamber their entire lives. Yes, liberals *do* have an echo chamber, too, and many of them don’t realize it.

    • This is actually Kate’s article. I am libertarian-libertarian. 😉

      • Cat herder

      • And I’m not entirely sure what I am, but I guess libertarian gets closest.

        • Labels as often misidentify as guide. Pay too much attention to them ans you find yourself being defined by your label rather than defining your label by who you are.

          Gimme that old Constitution,
          Gimme that old Constitution,
          Gimme that old Constitution,
          It’s good enough for me.

          It was good for the Founding Fathers,
          It was good for the Founding Fathers,
          It was good for the Founding Fathers,
          It’s good enough for me.

          Gimme that old Constitution,

          It was good for Calvin Coolidge
          It was good for Calvin Coolidge
          It was good for Calvin Coolidge
          It’s good enough for me.

          Gimme that old Constitution,

          It was good for Ronald Reagan,
          It was good for Ronald Reagan,
          It was good for Ronald Reagan,
          It’s good enough for me.

          Gimme that old Constitution,
          Gimme that old Constitution,
          Gimme that old Constitution,
          It’s good enough for me.

  14. And it should be noted that not only does PC-ness or SJW-ishness mean actually fighting racism or establishing justice, but it often works against it. For example, take what is happening at Oberlin College right now.

    Oberlin College is a liberal arts school and is well known for “social justice”. Last year the students had a protest because their school cafeteria was “culturally appropriating” disadvantaged people by serving sushi that was not high enough quality for the student’s discerning palates and by not making General Tso’s Chicken properly. (The students were under the mistaken impression that General Tso’s Chicken was Chinese.)

    Then the black student’s organization issued a 14-page list of demands, claiming that Oberlin was a white supremest organization and demanded, among a long list of other things, that students be paid to organize protests and that certain professors be fired for crimes such as “teaching music theory that is rooted in whiteness.”

    And then an alumni association discovered that an Oberlin professor had been posting racist things on her Facebook account: claiming that Jews were responsible for the terrorist attacks in France and other places, that they were rich and controlled the world, and so forth. They also documented other anti-semitic incidents on campus.

    You can guess the reaction of the PC students to this: silence. Total silence. Not one protest against this undeniably racist professor. Then they spoke up: asserting that their racist professor shouldn’t be punished because of “free speech” and also complaining that the “rooted in whiteness” music professor hadn’t been fired yet.

    And this year, now that the racist professor is under suspension, the student’s counsel has finally made an official statement condemning what has gone on: that the alumni association dared to bring to people’s attention that one of their professors was racist. They are now complaining that “wealthy alumni” do not represent Oberlin, and that because their racist professor happens to be a black female that it is unjust to complain about her actions or beliefs.

    So, no, the PC crowd isn’t fighting against racism.

    • The PC crowd is fighting against racism — your racism. Their racism is a perfectly reasonable response to all the injustice in the world.

    • Remember. Only illiberal whites can be racist.

    • “Last year the students had a protest because their school cafeteria was “culturally appropriating” disadvantaged people by serving sushi that was not high enough quality for the student’s discerning palates and by not making General Tso’s Chicken properly.”

      When this happened, my suggestion was that the school open a “cultural appropriation free” dining hall that serves nothing but gruel and water. Water, after all is a biological necessity, and pretty much every culture independently came up with the idea of boiling grain into mush to make it easier to eat. Any student feeling triggered or microaggressed by the sushi served in the regular dining room is free to go to that safe space.

      Frankly, I still think it’s a good idea.

    • I’ve realized that the typical college student having a meltdown over some sort of triggering incident is just another form of LARPing

      • I’m going to keep that in mind – looking thoughtful and saying, “Not bad, not bad, but the pathos seems weak. Could you try to stay in character and run that scene again?” would probably send them running in circles.

        • Back when the internet was young I and allies established the Carvile Cup Award for best Proglodytic internet rant, recognizing that in the absence of any meaningful content the only appropriate basis for evaluation to most such was to treat it as performance art, focusing responses on discussion of style rather than (nonexistent) content.

          Alas, the East German judges tended to base their scoring on agreement with party doctrine rather than the established criteria of incoherence, irrelevance and inanity.

      • Polliwog the 'Ette

        Wishing there was a “like” button for that comment.

  15. Political Correctness is just politeness — politeness weaponized, which is extremely rude.

    • Actually, no. Politeness weaponized is what happens when I or anyone else with that ability goes freezing-polite and ever so clinically and politely vivisects the enemy.

      Political correctness is the wolf in a sheep’s pelt going “baa” and trying to convince everyone the blood dripping from said pelt came from that “wolf” over there (which is actually a sheepdog).

      • I knew (know? But it’s been some time since last communication) a person that dropped verbal bombs in quantity that might have given LeMay pause. It’s when that stopped that the wise (and even some of the smarter foolish) dove for cover. What had been the relief valve’s output was being diverted into the resolve chamber.

  16. Two things amuse me about the SJWs.

    First, the presumption that they will always be in the driver’s seat;
    second, the presumption that the pendulum will never swing back.

    Oh wait, there’s a third thing: that pressure cookers never explode.

    • They might assume that they’ll be able to ride the pendulum back the other direction without losing their place.

      • Martin L. Shoemaker

        They’re assuming that when the pendulum reaches where they want, they’re going to dismantle the mechanism and keep it there.

        • Because they’ve been successful at ratcheting the trend in American Society, the farther they push the pendulum the more the new default position serves them. Keep pushing that Overton Window leftward and pretty soon its center is far left.

        • And the flabbergasted incomprehension when you point out that if they can use a law against their enemies, their enemies can use the same law against them is… mind-boggling. They truly do not understand that this happens.

          • Martin L. Shoemaker

            I don’t think it’s incomprehension. They expect that, once they’re in charge, there will be no enemies left. They expect a permanent reign.

            • Correct – their view of the Law is that it exists as a tool of the party in power, to be used for the crushing of enemies. To them “Rule of Law” and “Law of the Rulers” are semantically identical.

              They agree with Anatole France — ‘The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.’

            • If (When *Sad Face*) Hillary wins in November expect to hear the tired old trope of “Permanent Democratic Majority” especially if they pull significant wins in the House and Senate.

          • Kate, that’s because it doesn’t. Most of the time, they’re on friendly ground like a university, or they have enough sympathetic bureaucrats and judges to use a legal system biased in their favor.

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            But but but… If we write it correctly, the law could only be used against “Bad People”. [Sarcasm]

            Some idiot on Baen’s Bar seemed to think “narrowly written hate speech Laws” could only be used against “Bad People”. 😦

            • Some idiot on Baen’s Bar seemed to think ‘narrowly written hate speech Laws’ could only be used against “Bad People’.

              That … that’s hate speech! What a horrible person.

              Everyone knows the only way to properly narrow it is to limit it to [Jews/Kulaks/Infidels/Deniers/Write-In]!

            • That’s exactly the attitude I’ve seen. It’s somewhere between hilarious and sad.

              • Humans speak thru words and actions. Remove words and action all that is left. And not all of the left’s enemies will withdraw as churches have.

            • And of course, the definition of Bad People will never change.

            • And of course the definition of “Bad people” never changes and we always know exactly who they are, and it isn’t us.

              And if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.

              • Hey, give me a time machine and a million US dollars (c. 1850) and Arizona will have ocean front property.

                Damn Cheapskate Gadsen!

          • Q: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
            A: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
            Q: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!


            • Better link:
              In Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” (Sir) Thomas More argues with his ambitious underling, Roper:

              More: There is no law against that.

              Roper: There is! God’s law!

              More: Then God can arrest him.

              Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

              More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal, not what’s right. And I’ll stick to what’s legal.

              Roper: Then you set man’s law above God’s!

              More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact – I’m not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forrester. I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God….

              Alice: While you talk, he’s gone!

              More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

              Roper: So now you’d give the devil the benefit of law?

              More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

              Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that.

              More: Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man’s laws not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

              Yes, I’d give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.

            • Exactly!

            • Game, Set and Match!

      • And some of them will.

      • I think that they believe that there will never be any pushback.

        • They believe that the state of affairs will always continue as it is. And anyone who is wise enough to realize differently is mocked and abused for stating so.

          • Oh, if only that were all there were to it, but they denounce such people as wanting that state of affairs to not continue.

    • I found myself in the middle of a group of them, saying Hillary was so wonderful and they just needed four more years to get the rest of us to shut up.
      Um… that third thing. They have no clue.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        Four years is nothing when it comes to adults changing their natures.

        It is easier to make people shut up than it is to change their minds.

        When something is subtly wrong, it is easier to gaslight people into compliance. Hammery is a blunt object with no eyes.

      • The danger is that the escapades of the government where it is weaponized against the undesirables will diminish and destroy legitimacy. We may have repeats of the last Clinton presidency. And not the fact that he got the benefit of tech boom and was unable to squelch it.

        • That’s already happened.

        • Well, Comey pretty much destroyed the idea of Equality Under the Law. And Hillary’s not even back in the White House yet.

          • Oh I know. It’s not merely the weaponization but the response. The US govt claims to be able to attack terrorists and enemy police state apparatus with minimal regard to casualties. What happens when that gets turned around on them? (Pentagon vs WTC argument)

    • Didn’t “make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom” prove that wrong?

  17. No prizes for identifying this quote.

    Political Correctness is really just about being polite and respectful of the other person.

    “Oh please, please . . . all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crisp toast.”

    From the same source, this description of what we now recognize as the embodiment of the SJZ: “She’s the sort of woman who lives for others – you can tell the others by their hunted expression.”

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      Sounds like something C. S. Lewis said.

      • It is–it’s from the Screwtape Letters.

        • Time for me to reread that, I think

          • It is always a good time to reread that.

            If you can find the audiobook performance by John Cleese it is spectacular, although all such readings merit attention.

            The reading by Joss Ackland is also qute good, save for a tendency to demand “Diplo-matic Im-munity.”

            • Yes! I have the John Cleese unabridged, and I listen to it at least once a year. There’s always something new that I gravitate to, each time, depending on my current circumstances.

              The man who shouts out how much he loves his Fellow Man, but treats the actual people he knows poorly, is particularly appropriate these days. And I’m always struck by the kind of laughter that Screwtape approves of.

      • SheSellsSeashells

        Precisely. First one is “Screwtape Letters”, and I think the second is also, but it may have been “The Shoddy Lands”, which is a tad more obscure.


  18. it’s about issuing blood libel against you and then demanding you be civil once you lose your temper.

  19. PC is….well….

    Folks tore down manners, because oh my gosh how repressive.

    Then they were slapped with the reality that, hey, manners restricted what they wanted to do, but it also restricted what other people wanted to do. A lot of which they really didn’t like.

    So they tried to reverse-engineer “manners” on a basis other than the Christian one that previously existed, stopping the stuff they didn’t like but not restricting themselves at all.

    This doesn’t work, because– even on the “tear it all down, it’s restrictive” side, they’re not all the same.

    And not being on a Christian basis, it lacks the prior system’s failsafe of charity.

    As several folks have pointed out, it’s the usual “what could it possibly hurt?” “Wait, why isn’t this awesome?” “How were we supposed to know?” thing.

  20. No, Political correctness is not about being polite and respectful to the other people, although it does wear that mask. It’s about trying to control how people think and feel by controlling the language they use.

    It doesn’t work that way. Human emotion has deeper roots than language. If people feel love or respect on the one hand, or hate or contempt on the other, they will create language to express it.

    • Or use the approved words in an unapproved way, leading to the creation of a new set of approved words, which will be co-opted just as quickly.

      The only way to change how someone thinks is to let them discover that what they knew isn’t so, and even then you’ve got a damn small chance of them actually changing as opposed to heading so far up de-nile they passed the headwaters several cognitive disconnects back.

  21. When I am accused of being ____ist, I say “thank you” (and watch their eyes bulge…)

  22. Jessee Thorson

    too stubborn to accept things as they stand and insist on trying to figure it out for themselves

    One of my kids is borderline retarded. He was raised with the assumption, we were not going to help him, unless he needed help. So, four years ago he left home (moved about 100 miles away) to make it on his own. We get the phone call when he’s stuck, and we help him out. But, we still refuse to help him with things we know he can do, no matter how difficult.

  23. [P]olitical correctness [is] really just about being polite and respectful of the other person.

    That’s raaaaascist. Or sexissssst. Or somekindaphobic.

    At any rate, it is deplorable.

  24. Liberalism is a loose coalition of far-left radical ideas and lunacy. Political correctness was originally a sort of code of conduct to reinforce the coalition. Thus if you were a “Save The Wales” sort of lefty, for your politics to be correct, you also had to be a Gay Rights kind of lefty, or at least fake it. To not fall in step with every form of far left lunacy was to rick being drummed out of the movement for being politically incorrect.

  25. I’ve survived 5 sexual harassment accusations, 2 of them while on active duty. I followed the advice given in SJWs Always Lie, long before it was published. If you didn’t do anything, don’t apologize. Don’t allow that there might have been a misunderstanding- because there wasn’t. The attack/accusation is made to destroy you, so fight back. here’s almost never any there there. I assume from the gitgo that all such accusations are false until proven true. Because so many well publicized accusations have been false. But to sum up- I’m not a fan of PC, nor being polite to those who insist on it.

  26. Christopher M. Chupik

    The problem is with so many on the far Left is that they don’t think they need to have good manners, because they have political correctness.

  27. “Political correctness is framed as polite and respectful and why would any decent person want to go against that?”

    It’s self-censorship used to keep an offended party from *being* rude about it.

  28. While reading around about that Leah Rowe tantrum vs FSF thing, I ran across this:

    The language is to be strictly interpreted using feminist theory. Under no circumstances should the language be compiled, as compilation and the use of a compiler imposes an oppressive and toxic relationship between the high-level descriptive language and the low-level machine code that does all the labo(u)r. Instead, C+= is interpreted, which fosters communication, itself a strong female trait.

    I think I hurt myself laughing.

  29. You are a baaaaad drow…. 😉