Wow.  From the article:  _"Politically correct" is a term we use to dismiss ideas that make us unc…

Wow.  From the article:  _"Politically correct" is a term we use to dismiss ideas that make us uncomfortable"_

That's completely backward.  The author, Amanda Taub, gives an example of what she means:

I, personally, think that the name of the Washington Redskins is racist and hurtful to Native Americans, and should be changed. So if someone asks me what I think of the debate about the team, that's what I say. By contrast, Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller likes the name and wants the team to keep it. But rather than making an argument on the merits of the name, he referred to the entire debate as "political correctness on overdrive." In other words, he's saying, this is a false debate — just another example of "political correctness" — so I don't have to even acknowledge concerns about racism.

That sounds reasonable on its face, but the problem is that when I ask people when the term "Redskins" has ever been used, in the last decade or two, in a racist manner ... they cannot come up with a single example.  I've searched for someone against the word "Redskins" to come up with one, and they never do.

Calling the term "racist," with no apparently felt need to back it up, and a refusal to even try ... that is what's used to shut people up.  By using the word "racist," she doesn't have to even acknowledge the complete lack of evidence for her position, because, well, you know ... racism!

She even goes on to brush off complaints that the criticism of the Redskins name is "fake."  There's only one reasonable way to address that complaint: provide some evidence that the word is actually used, in modern America, in a racist manner.  If you do that, then you show that the concern isn't fake.  If you can't, and you just keep saying "racist and hurtful! racist and hurtful!," then you are the one shutting down debate.

She says, That's a failure of communication and, arguably, of basic respect.

Yes, it is.  She should stop doing that.


I especially love this comment from Taub: Likewise, Chait clearly believes that "microaggressions" aren't important enough to merit his concern, and that "trigger warnings" are a foolish request made by over-sensitive people. But he doesn't spend much time considering why the people who demand them might think they do matter.

I can't speak for Chait, but I know why they think they matter: because it's a way for them to get people to shut up.  Again, Taub just has things completely backward here.

Frankly, it seems like she is doing this intentionally.  She has to know that the main criticism of political correctness is that it shuts down debate, so either she is just trying to confuse the issue to make it seem like her side is rational by levying the same criticism in the other direction even though it makes no sense to do so, or she is just engaging in satire.  The latter seems unlikely.

The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist

It's just a term we use to dismiss ideas that make us uncomfortable.