Vaunting
I read this comment by one Joshua over at Vox Day’s blog:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-ignorance-of-irreligious.html#c7569555299514107814
When I was young they told me to be reasonable and negotiate and not resort to violence. I stupidly believed them, and was instantly beset upon by bullies who would push me around and torment me. I tried reason and truth, but that doesn’t work at all.
Eventually I decided to rebel against authority and decided to lift weights, become strong and meet force with even greater force. Unsurprisingly, this worked immediately, as the beaten bullies helpless retreated bloodied and humiliated from my iron fists.
These Leftists have never had to fight. They come from soft comfortable environments run by nannies and other overprotective womenfolk, who frown on masculinity and teach their boys to be sissies who act like women.
It was written on a topic unrelated to this, but by an odd process of association, I was inspired to write the following:
I believe that even a Christian gentleman is allowed, from time to time, to vault over a fallen foe, and point out if the man fault in a dastardly, low and craven fashion rather than like a fellow noble. In the war of words called the Culture War, a similar rule applies, but obviously to a smaller degree, since this war is still in the phase where heralds exchange defiance, and no weapons have been drawn nor drawn blood.
The latest cultural warrior marching under the banner of barbarism against the cross of Christendom and civilization appeared under the ironic name Liberal Genius and came to vomit ink all across my pages, boasting and swaggering and declaring victory before the engagement had even begun. His comments were unreadable stream-of-consciousness oxbows of hysteria and halfhearted attempts at wit.
My reaction in all cases was merely to request he phrase his arguments in a logical form, so that they could be answered.
There were FOURTEEN messages from this toad, consisting of nothing but dreary self-congratulation, non-sequitur, ad hominem, insult, nonsense, and strawman-mugging kabuki theatrics, without once actually making an argument in a logical form.
Fourteen times, I allowed myself to be spat upon, and the heard of my beard plucked out, without raising a hand to defend myself or my honor. Each time, without agreeing nor disagreeing with anything said, neither returning insult nor asking to retreat from the conversation, I merely requested that he restate his argument into an answerable form.
Finally, my patience paid off. With an effort that no doubt left his red in the face, brow drenched with sweat, cross-eyed with concentration, and tongue protruding from his mouth, the man who calls himself a genius managed to cobble together a weak and sophomoric, but actually passable argument. At least, the false statements were put into a coherent order. Amazing. He finally, finally did it.
He could not restrain himself from pooping insults and self-lauds all over his pants in public, because that is an innate part of the Leftist mindset and approach, but beneath the layer of garbage, he actually almost made a coherent point: his argument was that I had defined my terms incorrectly:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/09/rightwing-political-correctness/comment-page-1/#comment-103830
Any dictionary will correct your mistaken ideas about what the phrase “Political Correctness” means. “politically correct (adjective): agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people”
“POLITICALLY CORRECT: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated
— political correctness (noun)”Mirriam Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct
I hope you can see that “Not offending people” is not the same as abolishing the very concept of truth.
Here, abolishing the very concept of truth is his characterization of what I said Political Correctness was.
I replied with two points: first, that his definitions contradicted an earlier contention he raised that both Right and Left were equally eager to use Political Correctness (which there was equated with any partisan speech) but that this contention could not fit the definitions given; second was that the definitions I had given were based on the historical use of those who had first coined the terms, a point he had yet to address:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/09/rightwing-political-correctness/comment-page-1/#comment-103847
You offer two definitions of Political Correctness. Neither has anything to do with the historical origins of the phrase.
One says “agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people” this is the definition of courtesy, not of political correctness, and it has nothing to do with the historical origins of the phrase. It is a misleading definition, to say the least, as it does not distinguish political correctness from other forms of polite speech.
The second is “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated” which raised the question of what constitutes ‘political sensibilities’. Note that this second definition gives an imperative to eliminate, what one assumes, from the definition, to be a current practice.
Now, you earlier made the contention that Rightwing and Leftwing equally indulge in political correctness. But, by the first definition, that would indicate that Right and Left are equally concerned with polite and inoffensive conduct. Look over your messages to me and mine to you and tell me if that is the case here?
By the second definition, your contention is that Rightwing and Leftwing equally wish to eliminate language and practices which could offend political sensibilities as in matters of sex or race.
Notice that the definition emphasizes the subjunctive, that is, language and practices that COULD offend, not ones that are. It is a subjective definition, and implies the party alleging himself to be offended gets to define the standard of what constitutes offense. While I am familiar with many, many Leftwing examples of this subjective standard, I can think of no Rightwing ones.
In either case, there is no Rightwing political correctness, even by your definitions, because Rightwing political philosophy is concerned only with matters of law and government and public policy. We don’t consider matters of personal courtesy to be political issues. It is not an issue where the government has an interest. We don’t consider language to be subject to politics. You and yours do.
And you have not answered, nor even addressed, the historical argument. Gramsci and the Frankfurt school were primarily concerned with the Marxist overthrow of existing Western economic and political structures, not with personal courtesy, and it is from them that the phrase, and the idea, and the definition of ‘political correctness’ comes.
AND I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HIM SINCE!
Is that clear? After riding in full and blazing panoply up to my shield, and pounding on it for day after day, writing page after page of defiance, blowing his horn, challenging me to a passage of arms, finally, finally, I emerged from my pavilion, armed at all points, and spurred my charger toward him, and lowered my lance at his flimsy little targe.
And the caitiff fled into the wood, whimpering.
Because you have refused to respond in any meaningful way to anything I have written in any comment on this topic, I have no hope whatsoever that you will do so now. I am unsubscribing from notifications, deleting this site from my history, and removing past notification emails from my inbox. Instead of responding to this comment, please re-read what you wrote in the article above, and reflect on whether it embodies the values you profess.
Emphasis mine. His last word to me while in full blown, fingers-in-the-ears retreat, was his begging me not to respond to his comment. But he cannot speak without spewing nonsense:
Finally, I beg of you, please seek competent psychiatric help. You don’t have to stew in your hatred for liberals like this. All we want is to help people, even people who hate us. It’s really not so bad when the government does things for the public good. Even conservatives used to recognize that, before the Reagan Revolution.
Emphasis mine.
ADDENDUM: In the name of honor, not because of any inclination of my own, I sent a copy of this article to the self proclaimed Liberal Genius. His email is disconnected. Not only did he run off, tail between legs, whimpering, but he brushed away his footprints after.
I bring your attention to the opening paragraph above, the comment by Joshua:
These Leftists have never had to fight. They come from soft comfortable environments run by nannies and other overprotective womenfolk, who frown on masculinity and teach their boys to be sissies who act like women
And, apparently, they teach their boys to emote like schoolgirls and not to reason like men. They can neither fight literally, in war, nor fight figuratively, neither in debates with scholars, nor in the free market for customers, nor a non-totalitarian polity for the assent of voters and lawmakers. It is no wonder they hate reason, hate capitalism, love totalitarianism.
It is not because all they want is to help people.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
