Politically Incorrect, Literally

Oct 19, 2015

By Herb Silverman

In Orwellian fashion, some political candidates proclaim they are not “politically correct” because it’s a politically correct ploy to gain political support. And that strategy seems to be working in the Republican Party.

Ben Carson received a boost for his presidential campaign when he denounced ObamaCare and political correctness at the 2013 National Prayer breakfast. However, he failed to note that attending the prayer breakfast is politically correct. How many candidates would have the courage to decline an appearance at a prayer breakfast because they don’t believe in the power of prayer? Carson gained more support after saying at the Values Voter Summit this year that ObamaCare is “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,” adding proudly that his presidential campaign will not be politically correct.

Not to be outdone, ever, Donald Trump told a crowd of South Carolina business leaders, “I’m so tired of this politically correct crap,” and then surged in political polls.

Perhaps someone should ask candidates at the next Republican debate, “Are you politically correct?” Their attempts to outdo one another in establishing politically incorrect credentials would be fun to watch.


Read the whole article by clicking the name of the source below.

34 comments on “Politically Incorrect, Literally

  • I happen to believe in the social equality of humankind regardless of race or sex. And I believe that equality extends to the ownership of the Earth’s resources among everyone equally.

    Obviously I am completely politically incorrect.



    Report abuse

  • It’s probably a strategy.
    As people tend to vote against political policies they don’t like (or which preachers or Pox News have told them are “evil”), the babblings of these candidates simply need to be sufficiently “politically incoherent” to avoid negative reactions from non-thinkers!



    Report abuse

  • 4
    Miserablegit says:

    Saying you are politically incorrect is much like saying you are going to campaign on a common sense platform, always open to interpretation.



    Report abuse

  • 5
    voiceofarabi says:

    My two cents….

    Back in the days when I was still immature mentally, I believed that God does exist and America was a democracy….

    Then I grew up….

    Now a days, I laugh when I hear BBC, especially program called “From Our Own Correspondents” (the English version of FOX news 🙂 ), when they label China as non-democracy because they have one party system…

    The fact is, Both USA and UK had a single party system for decades… you just need to look back at the political stance the country took over the last 100 years to notice their actions are consistent even though the “two” political parties have controlled the country at different times..

    So, and this is going to be politically incorrect… USA, UK, China, Russia, Cuba etc.. all have the same “one party” political system (but some maintain the illusion of multiple party system)…

    People in China and Cuba (and my country) know that they have no democracy, and they can either accept it or die…

    People in USA and UK, believe the illusion that they have democracy, and they will fight for it, and end up dying in wars.

    So, for me, I prefer to know that I am living in a non-democracy, than the illusion (which is why I left god in the first place….)



    Report abuse

  • As an anarchist I view dogma and toeing the party line as warning signs that not enough thinking is being done, that compromises may be parochial and insufficiently benefit the majority, that a solution has found a problem rather than the converse.

    However, in the land of free enterprise and the home of the brain-washed, politics can operate in an entirely stealthy manner. When facts are commoditised and consumers select what is most agreeable, political leaders need only march at the front of the willfully ignorant hordes, looking over their shoulders to see they have it right and counsel them to ignore the calls of the principled.

    Playwright Dennis Potter named the cancer that killed him Rupert.



    Report abuse

  • Not being politically trained but active, it is one frustrating part that we have come to realise. If you sit on principle as an individual it works but, you are one person. If you try the same as a group then it too is ineffective. Meaning, while we think and discuss and argue, others get their way. Not towing the party line causes delay after delay and nothing gets done. As I said, very frustrating but I don’t know how to get out of the loop. We elect a leader and MUST all seem to be behind them. It is not that the thinking does not go on but gets left behind.



    Report abuse

  • voiceofarabi
    Oct 20, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Now a days, I laugh when I hear BBC, especially program. . .. .

    I switched on BBC News this morning only to be greeted by “politically correct” pseudo-science, feminist babble, in a mutually self-congratulatory discussion group, -who were in denial of gender differences of development in school children, and with demands teachers should indoctrinate children in the culture of “uni-persons” (ironically – to avoid “sexism”) – which looks so ridiculous, when it is measured against subjects like language skills, spacial co-ordination, speed of maturity, and physical sports!



    Report abuse

  • Pragma substitutes for dogma. No problem. Formulating solutions based on evidence and reason is no problem. “A party line” is the danger, not a new party policy and the need to support it (within reason and in the face of new evidence).



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer
    Oct 20, 2015 at 6:58 am

    Can I still catch it? I’m curious.

    it may be repeated later today, but I don’t know!

    It’s one of the new initiatives on the “BBC News 24” channel – to have various discussions of opinions, rather than news. –
    A backward step from collecting actual news from around the world.
    It looks like the cheap airtime-filler commonly used on low-grade channels! I only happened to see it when I was looking for news headlines and weather details on the text service.



    Report abuse

  • Congrats on dropping the belief in god. The rest of yourself hasn’t matured as much as you think. If you are incapable of seeing the difference between the US or UK government and China or Cuba, you don’t just need new glasses. If you think the USA hasn’t changed any of its policies “over the last 100 years,” you definitely need new history books. Voting matters in the Western democracies, that is why we do it, that is why 100s of millions of dollars are spent trying to influence the outcome. I think we should ask the Syrians flocking to Europe whether they think democracy in the West is an illusion… Oops! Looks like they’ve already voted.



    Report abuse

  • It looks like the cheap airtime-filler commonly used on low-grade channels!

    Bugger. Opening the door to public opinion without the effort of properly contexting it is indeed cheap.



    Report abuse

  • 16
    voiceofarabi says:

    Hi Prietenul,

    in my opinion, The USA spends millions of dollars voting for a new CEO to run the USA board (and the man with the most money wins 🙂 )… but like the CEO of any company, he is there to execute on plans set for the next 10 or maybe 50 years, and not to change any policies, and Obama’s inability to close GITMO is just an example…. But then illusions can be so powerful, that the majority will follow it.. Look at religion… There are billions…..

    Back to Syria… let me give you some figures… out of around 20 million Syrians.

    -15.5 million live in government controlled area, which is smaller than what is controlled by the rebels. (they are free to move to rebel area’s but they choose to live in government controlled area?? why??)

    -2 million Syrians live in rebel controlled area.

    -over 3million Syrians are flocking to Europe, and when asked, they say, we are running away from rebels (mainly ISIS).

    But hey… USA is No1 … USA is No 1… USA is No 1…. (that’s suppose to be sarcasm, but I know I am not good at it… oppps)



    Report abuse

  • “Perhaps someone should ask candidates at the next Republican debate, “Are you politically correct?” Their attempts to outdo one another in establishing politically incorrect credentials would be fun to watch.” It would be fun to watch. Wait no they do that anyway!



    Report abuse

  • 18
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    It would be fun to watch. Wait no they do that anyway!

    And that’s pretty much all they do. I don’t expect any shortage of slapstick insanity in the weeks and months ahead from the Republican clown car. Even Rand Paul, who was at one time considered by some political observers as the “sane Republican” has recently declared that electing Bernie Sanders President could cause the death of 10 million Americans.



    Report abuse

  • 19
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    Yes, finally! Darth Sidious has been defeated. Most pundits expected Trudeau’s Liberal Party to win the election but nobody suspected they would gain such a decisive majority in Parliament. Harper should announce his decision to step aside from the leadership of party in the coming hours and days (yaaayy!! ).



    Report abuse

  • Political correctness has become a fashion statement of irony. On a related note –

    If “political incorrectness” were what gets one votes, our Richard Dawkins would handily win high office, supported by throngs of “offended” conservatives and liberals alike. How many times has Professor Dawkins commented with scientific directness, albeit sometimes needing elaboration, and was swarmed upon by an angry, “politically correct” mob demanding sacramental blood?

    And the “sin” he allegedly committed? He spoke out of the bounds of “politically correct” discourse. He simply offered another point of view. He spoke with scientific sobriety, seemingly beyond the emotional comfort zone of many. That the religiously delusional should easily take offence is expected. But the same reaction from the supposedly rational, educated, enlightened secularists? Unable to maintain open minds and ears, to condemn without inquiry, judge without dialogue, and respond in passion instead of reason is not only a failure of communication, but critical thinking. If such thinking be political correctness, I rather be incorrect.



    Report abuse

  • Unfortunately, it only makes the whack jobs knuckle down. We’re a pretty bull-headed culture, and we haven’t even got into the heart of election season yet. Sigh.



    Report abuse

  • The difference is that a program like The Newsroom, which (I’ve only seen 4-5 episodes) does a good job of calling out US media / politics on their BS, is a critical and commercial success in the US, and similar programs have flourished in the UK. Can you imagine such a program in China or any of the other countries you mention (I hope tongue in cheek)? If an episode ever managed to air, do you imagine the producers/writers/actors would have a career boost – or a fair trial followed by a quick execution?

    In the case of the UK, there was a dramatic change in government following WWII when the victorious wartime PM Churchill was ousted by socialists who (gasp) actually made radical changes. There were socialist or left-leaning governments on and off through to the 70s.

    It does seem that post-Thatcher, the two parties have become virtually indistinguishable. IMNSHO this is not evidence of active collaboration between the two parties but just the natural tendency in any party or institution, over time, of the early founders, firebrands and true believers being replaced (when they die or retire) by the “empty suits” – those who join up for a career and put their personal career ahead of principles.
    (In other words, they say what they think will get them elected and having been elected will do anything necessary to get re-elected.)

    In the US, it’s a bit more complicated: there are plenty of the same “empty suits” and career politicians, but also a new wave of empty-headed religious muppets funded by corporate interests.



    Report abuse

  • MadEnglishman
    Oct 21, 2015 at 12:57 am

    being replaced (when they die or retire) by the “empty suits” – those who join up for a career and put their personal career ahead of principles.
    (In other words, they say what they think will get them elected and having been elected will do anything necessary to get re-elected.)

    In the US, it’s a bit more complicated: there are plenty of the same “empty suits” and career politicians, but also a new wave of empty-headed religious muppets funded by corporate interests.

    Isn’t that exactly what the aristocrats and corporate interests have historically wanted? –
    Empty suits, empty heads and religious nuts, providing lots of “politically correct” diversions to distract from the deep-rooted underlying rip-offs they want keep out of the public eye! (Like the $6 trillion Bush and Blair spent on weapons industries and silly wars – followed, by sub-prime bankers’ bonuses, before telling the public to brace themselves for “essential” austerity to fix the crisis).

    Empty heads and empty suits employed to “represent and defend the public interest”, is precisely what the filthy rich exploiters want to offer feckless opposition to their plans, while posing as looking after the public interest.

    I see in the UK Osborne has been shouting about cutting benefits to the disabled to save £billions for “taxpayers”! – He did not mention which class of taxpayers he was saving the £billions for, but he is a Tory in an “Old-Boy cabinet”, so it is not too hard to work it out!



    Report abuse

  • 25
    voiceofarabi says:

    Hi MadEnglishman,

    I love your name, as it tells me where you are from, and the state of your mind all at the same time. 🙂

    OK, just because I think USA and China both have one party system, it does not mean I prefer to be shot at dawn because I said the king (emperor) is mad, or I hate democracy. In fact, I would love to live in a country that has democracy.. What I am saying is…..

    USA, UK, “the free world” generally has the illusion of democracy, in the form of free speech, etc… but the moment a serious threat to the one party system exists, it will be crushed, just as happened in the wall street thingi.

    I am not saying I hate democracy.. I am saying the entire world currently seems to be made up of countries run by one party system, with the illusion of democracy. given this situation, I prefer no to live in an illusion……



    Report abuse

  • voiceofarabi
    Oct 21, 2015 at 7:34 am

    USA, UK, “the free world” generally has the illusion of democracy,

    Democracy is one of those words which politicians use to mean whatever they want it to mean, – with each asserting their “own interpretation” is the Trrrrooo version! – A bit like religious preachers’ “faith interpretations”!
    It usually involves some sort of vote, but beyond that in many places, it is just a bendy term used to confuse the masses and cover a multitude of malpractices!

    It has the one saving grace (in the absence of rigged elections and masses of media manipulated gullibles), that it can eventually remove bad governments without bloody revolutions.



    Report abuse

  • 27
    John332 says:

    It’s not that simple.
    A childhood friend was an only child. They lived in a terrace house.
    Next door was a Catholic family with many children.
    Assuming both families had about the same income and had paid off their mortgages, according to your belief my friends parents should have donated part of their income to the family next door so the Catholic families children could have a standard of living in parity with that of my friend.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Phil,

    You’re an Anarchist? how amusing.

    I view dogma and toeing the party line as warning signs that not enough thinking is being done …

    Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing this out. It also cuts both ways.

    … the land of free enterprise and the home of the brain-washed …

    No, not the sarcasm, it stings! it stings!

    … political leaders need only march at the front of the willfully ignorant hordes, looking over their shoulders ….

    True. Rule by the mob is your bag though, no?

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Atheos,

    That the religiously delusional should easily take offence is expected.

    That’s fine as long as we don’t equate expected with normal social behaviour. Taking offence is essentially a selfish act. Taking offence in a political context is passive-aggressive behaviour.

    Taking offence at another’s speech act (including in writing) is an anti-free speech act. It says: My personal emotional reaction trumps your thoughts – irrespective of how rational, how justified, or how well supported by facts your speech act may have been.

    But before we fly too high on our wings of righteousness; Rational people are also emotional people.

    Political correctness, done right, is a form of self-censorship that recognises that words, even in everyday life, have power and – therefore – we should consider how we use them to make our World a better place.

    When we hear politicians moan about political correctness they’re moaning about the burden of self-censorship. They know that we all feel the burden of having to think, even in otherwise non-thinking situations, and that we also naturally dislike censorship and that political correctness is also increasingly dictated (think of workplace rules).

    As Phil Rimmer points out (above) political correctness has also become dogma – both in the Pro camp and the No camp. As you rightly say:

    Unable to maintain open minds and ears, to condemn without inquiry, judge without dialogue, and respond in passion instead of reason [this] is not only a failure of communication, but critical thinking.

    No, it certainly isn’t a failure of communication. The anti-political correctness stance says much to the political audience. It may say, to some: “We should be free to turn our dogma into insult and our insult into action – just like the good old days – bring back [fill in blank of choice, racism, sexism, Jew-baiting, child labour, extra-judicial corporal punishment, contract slavery … ].

    Unlike many people I welcome the anti-political correctness stance. I like to see politicians saying what they mean. I despise censorship in all its forms, and self-censorship most of all. Say what you think, no matter how crass, unfeeling, obnoxious, despicable, ignorant, stupid, foolish, or mad.

    Do that and I know who you really are.

    Unlike Herb, I cannot celebrate the sound bites of ignoramuses who don’t realize they’re shooting themselves in the rhetorical foot. Give me politics red in tooth and claw; show me who the racist, mysoginist, elitist scum are by letting them simply tell me … openly.

    The very fact that Herb can point to these errors is evidence that political correctness may even have become its own worst enemy. The anti-correctness brigade on the political right are taking offence at political correctness and making anti-correctness rhetoric into a hiding place: Vote for me, because I’m a secret bigot hidden behind political correctness … just … like … you.

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Not one of your better postings voiceofarabi, which I always enjoy as they are usually quite insightful.
    The UK has not had “a single party system for decades”, but whichever party is in power is constrained by public opinion, which is pretty centrist, so neither can stray far without being kicked out at the next election.
    In the UK at present the main opposition party (Labour) has just imploded, leaving one party far ahead (Conservatives, or “Tories”). This party would like to become the permanent natural choice of the majority, but it is now fighting itself as different factions within it (loosely ‘left’ and ‘right’) have no external enemy to attack.
    Give it time and either Labour will get its act together, the Liberals will rebuild after their last collapse in the polls (after the end of the coalition government) or the Tories may even split, with Europe the issue that may tear them apart.
    What there will NOT be is a one-party state or single party system!



    Report abuse

  • 32
    voiceofarabi says:

    Hi Kay,

    I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am sure I will disappoint many others in the future, as my opinion sometimes clashes with others.

    I can’t do anything to change your mind, and in fact, I don’t intend to.. My job is just “Unweave the Rainbow”, and let you decide.

    Let me tell the story about how I fallen out with god….

    I belonged to one of the Abrahamic faiths, and I always complained how our faith is broken by seeing what people do… everyone kept saying to me, hey… it is not the religions fault, it is the people who are applying it wrongly…

    I know enough about science to know if the system has any self correcting mechanism, it will get back to equilibrium naturally, i.e. self correct and heal.. Broken system on the other hand can not.. Human body is an example of that.

    Religion is not a sound system, and that’s why it is failing all the time….

    Sadly, the UK’s democracy is a broken democracy, as they have enslaved the world for hundreds of years, and they still do in parts of the world, that you may not be aware of. I doubt that the average UK citizen wanted the war crimes, including genital mutilations committed during The Mau Mau Uprising to be in their name……



    Report abuse

  • Hi Stephen,

    Thank you for your input. We are in much agreement.

    By “That the religiously delusional should easily take offence is expected,” I was not equating “expected” with “normal social behavior”, though taking offence is usually considered normal and expected in pious social groups and preached from the pulpit as a “time-honored” tradition. Rather, I was referring to the proven tendency of said group to easily take offence based on irrational dogma and emotion.

    “But before we fly too high on our wings of righteousness; Rational people are also emotional people.”

    Agreed, you and I included, the difference is frequency and degree with which one’s emotions override reason, whether one is aware when it occurs, and whether one is even willing and able to entertain another’s argument. I think “rational people” would/should prefer more to walk with evidence than fly with wings of righteousness.

    “Unlike Herb, I cannot celebrate the sound bites of ignoramuses who don’t realize they’re shooting themselves in the rhetorical foot.”

    I did not read the article as Herb celebrating them, more mocking instead. I could be wrong.

    My point was that I’m more concerned with being factually correct than politically, with the promotion of rational discourse. There is nothing sacred about social norms; we need look no further than sociological and anthropological findings. My comment referred to the reactions Professor Dawkins garners from otherwise “scientific”, reasonable people who, perhaps unknowingly, are quick to assume and condemn the professor’s position without asking, who follow dogmas of “political correct” thinking triggered by the mere mention of a topic or phrase. These are reactions no different than those quick to accuse the professor based on religious dogma.

    Some recent examples:

    15 Of Richard Dawkins’ Most Controversial Tweets



    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile, the deluded are full of self-righteousness while politically and legally incorrect!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34638721
    Scientologists in Brussels court on fraud charges

    ****Eleven members of the Belgian branch of the Church of Scientology have gone on trial accused of fraud, extortion and running a criminal organisation**.*

    An investigation was launched after an employment agency complained that the church had made fake job offers to recruit new members.

    A conviction could see the Church banned in Belgium.

    Two organisations affiliated with the group are facing similar charges. All parties deny the allegations.

    Belgian investigators first began investigating the Church in 1997, the AFP news agency reported.

    A second investigation was launched in 2008 when an employment agency in Brussels alleged that the Church was recruiting new members by offering fake jobs.

    The Church said last week that it “goes to court with the firm intention of seeing the fundamental rights of its Belgian members finally recognised”, AFP reported.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.