Again, no such thing as a 'religion of political

Quote:

Many on the left think conservatives demonize political correctness because they resent having to suppress their own prejudices. That might be true for some. But as someone who teaches a college class on political rhetoric, I’ve come to appreciate that anti-PC attitudes are part of a longer tradition of suspicion toward carefully calibrated language.

Throughout history, our species has tended to distrust people who have a knack for political oratory. Part of this stems from the fact that most people are not good public speakers at the same time most people have an affinity for people who are like them.

This is something psychologists call “homophily," and is the reason so many of us tend to want to vote for somebody we'd "like to have a beer with" rather than someone smarter than us.

And there my dear righties is the 'Rosetta Stone' for understanding the Dubya presidency and what is certain to be a very short half-life Trump presidency. Like to work a little physics terminology in just to make it more interesting. LOL!

Seriously though, how many people that you've liked to drink with would you actually vote to ANY office? Don't answer unless you're sober as you type. I should probably post that entreaty after most of what I request a response to. LOL!

Conservative politicians who criticize Obama and “political correctness” understand that eloquence is often perceived less as a mark of intelligence and personal style and more as a product of artifice and self-indulgence. T

his is why they can muster up the backhanded compliment that Obama is a “good speaker” or a “gifted orator.”

Why do we hate political correctness so much? Our suspicion of sensitive political language goes back to ancient Greece, when the sophists got a bad rap for going around Athens training wealthy kids to become more talented speakers so they could win votes or dodge prison time.

Plato famously distrusted rhetoric, although his student Aristotle would rehabilitate its reputation as an essentially virtuous endeavor. Political correctness, in which public officials are careful to avoid language that alienates or offends, requires a certain type of expressive competence.

In the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has critiqued this expressive competence while being wholly unequipped with it.

But political correctness is a longstanding American tradition and a deeply rooted value. Our country’s founders placed a premium on the ability to persuasively articulate opposing viewpoints.

They rejected government censorship precisely because they trusted individuals could and would regulate themselves in our proverbial “free marketplace of ideas.”

They didn’t prohibit offensive speech because they believed truth lost its vigor unless confronted with falsehoods, and tolerance lost its social acceptance unless it could stand in contrast with ugly prejudices.

They knew the value of an idea laid in its ability to gain favor in debates, which should be, in Supreme Court Justice William Brennan’s words, “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Trump can say what he will about Muslims and Mexicans, but thoughtful journalists and pundits can and should say what they will about Trump.

If you are one of the many Americans who think political correctness is a detriment to politically vibrant debates in this country, you have it all backwards: People who use politically correct language aren’t trying to stifle insensitive speech. They’re simply trying to out-compete that speech in a free and open exchange.

Every time Trump says something that’s ugly or false and then claims political correctness is “the big problem this country has” and something we “can’t afford,” he’s basically blaming this free marketplace itself.

He's petulantly arguing with the umpire. He’s blaming you and me—the public—for exercising the freedom to decide which ideas are good or bad. In the end, many of you don’t like or want what he’s peddling.

You reject his racist tirades and narcissistic antics. You support common-sense gun legislation which would help prevent another terrorist hate crime like the one that occurred in Orlando. You reject praying for political leaders based on those leaders' party affiliations. And you don't think women deserve to be compared to "pigs" or "dogs" by people seeking our country's highest office. I happen to think you're correct, politically.