The PC Police

pc policeWe’re getting back into this down and dirty, people.

One thing that has been annoying me for some time is the PC police. They have become more and more powerful in our society, despite the fact that most people I’ve ever talked to will say they dislike or even hate PCism.

If that’s the case, how did they become so flipping powerful?

Shame. That’s what they wield. Public shaming. You see this in loads on Twitter.

For example:

  • You disagree with feminism or specific feminists? Oh…well then you must be a sexist pig. You misogynist!
  • What? You disagree with the doctrine of Islam? You’re a racist! You Islamophobe!
  • There’s something you don’t agree with in the Black Lives Matter movement? You’re clearly a racist!
  • You don’t agree with all of the Israeli policies? You’re an anti-Semite!

And so on.

Instead of actually posting arguments that refute their arguments, the PC police will immediately jump to the shame and ridicule card.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think you can definitely be a racist and against something like the BLM movement or Islam, but that isn’t always the case. For some people, their racism is the root of their dislike or disagreement with those movements, causes, politics or religion and in those cases, it’s absolutely justified to call them racist.

But that isn’t always the case and many people jump to the race card way, way, WAY too fast.

Hell, atheists fall into this trap. I’ve seen them criticize Christianity in one breath, and then call someone a racist when someone criticizes Islam as a belief system with their next breath.

The ironic thing about this is often that they’re being inadvertently racist because they’re assuming all people of one particular race or color has to be part of that religion. People of all races, colors and cultures can be a Muslim.

Why Is This Dangerous?

The PC police are dangerous because they stifle open and honest discussion. They shut down conversation by accusing someone of racism or some other ‘ism’ and shame them into silence.

Not with good, solid counter-arguments, but with shame.

And this PC disease goes even further. It now has begun to infect Universities and places of higher learning.

For example, DePaul University recently banned Ben Shapiro from speaking.

Bob Janis, Vice President of Facilities Operations at DePaul, in an email to the DePaul YAF chapter’s executive board, said, “Given the experiences and security concerns that some other schools have had with Ben Shapiro speaking on their campuses, DePaul cannot agree to allow him to speak on our campus at this time.”

The experiences…and security concerns?

You mean because people don’t agree with him?

If his message is so wrong and ill informed, what could be the harm in letting him speak? Isn’t that what people go to school for – to expose themselves to competing ideas? When did it become a crime to say something that others don’t agree with?

Shapiro had this to say:

Regarding DePaul’s ban, Shapiro asserted, “It’s both pathetic and predictable that the University is happy to grant a veto on speakers to snowflake leftists so long as the leftists threaten violence. This is how free speech dies: when people in power cave to the bullies rather than standing up for basic rights.”

Despite the obnoxious ‘snowflake’ remark and my disagreement with about 90% of what Shapiro usually says, I think he’s spot on with this remark.

He should absolutely be allowed to speak.

I’m in favor of free speech. I want people to be able to talk openly and honestly about subjects and not have to worry about being publicly shamed into silence.

Given the opportunity, the best arguments will rise to the top. I firmly believe that.



  1. Wally Fry ‘liked’ this post?!

    Oh, that’s priceless… a guy who, gosh, darn, golly gee whiz, ah shucks – can’t possibly follow two coherent sentences in a row because it’s just so gosh darn hard for a simple fella like he is to read AND comprehend all at the same time, who throws up his intellectual hands simply overwhelmed by the task if a comment has any criticism of his promoted whack-job religious beliefs imposed on children in his care are raised, who fully supports banning and endless moderation by all his religious blogger friends of those who dare criticize any topic about anything to do with his accepted version of Oogity Boogity!… actually likes your post about letting best arguments rising to the top!

    Priceless hypocrisy in action folks. You saw it here.

  2. There are other concerns to free speech, such as time and manner restrictions. For example, a lot of people wouldn’t allow a thousand people to crowd into their home to listen to a speaker. That would be kind of dangerous. Similarly, if this speaker purposefully incites violence, certain venues might not be able to properly keep everyone safe.

    Granted, it’s also not cool to reward people for threatening violence if someone comes to campus to, you know, say words. DePaul probably should have given more specific information as to why they couldn’t secure their campus, like diminished security spending or unsafe venues. Otherwise, they’re just setting a precedent for students to make threats (which is illegal) to ward off speakers they don’t like.

    Personally, if their campus isn’t safe to host speakers, then they shouldn’t host any. And it’s kind of their fault for not educating their students to recognize the difference between hateful speech and hateful actions.

    • To the best of my knowledge he doesn’t incite violence. Yes, he’s conservative and holds some unpopular political views.

      We are in danger of just being in two camps and never listening to what the other camp says. That is dangerous in my opinion. If this guy is wrong, then let him speak and debunk him. Tell your side after. Hold a debate. Do something constructive to further the conversation. Banning him is bad policy.

      Thanks for stopping in, mate!

  3. After out last discourse, you know that I stand on the politically incorrect side of some important issues. So I could go on about the insults I endure, and yes, I’ve been called racist and sexist. I can’t help but find some humor in it though because I’m amazed at how fast the politically correct will resort to racism. The terms Uncle Tom and Coon are thrown freely at anyone black who doesn’t support Black Lives Matter. Or if they do support the Republicans or the Tea Party, or whatever. The irony is delicious. There’s a Youtube video I love with a number of unPC blacks proudly proclaiming, “I am a coon!”

  4. Y’know, after reading my comment, I realized that a person might make a couple assumptions about me, and not unreasonably. Let me fix that. I am not, not!, NNNNNNOT! a Republican. Also not a Tea Party guy, whatever that word would be.

  5. People shut down healthy debates with accusations of “you’re ignorant” or, “you eat meat – you must hate animals!” – or any other straw man they can burn to flame up a post.

    I’ve never been P.C., myself, but I think people accusing P.C. verbiage for the lack of healthy debates is a bit paranoid.

    There are multitudes of layers to peel back…I think that’s where most people put on the brakes.

    They are incapable of wearing the shoes of another for five seconds, so are incapable of seeing the viewpoint of that person. It might be as simple as that…not some P.C. conspiracy theory, LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s