>>PCness puts a straight-jacket on discussion. It
>>replaces sincere reflection and resolution with
>>undigested signs: one uses supposedly correct language
>>and, poof, magically that makes one anti-racist,
>>anti-sexist, etc. Wouldn't it be better to go to the
>>thing itself, as ugly as it might be, rather than
>>delude ourselves with linguistic mirages?
>>
^^^^^
CB: Depends on whose using the term "correct". In its origins in the Communist Party ( As Michael Pugliese correctly :>) discusses) it refers to correct _content_ , correct concepts, not hollowly correct language. The correct concepts are arrived at through "reflection and resolution" , hard thinking and analysis, and political PRACTICE not at all mindless use of undigested signs, rather terms with well digested concepts behind them.
In general, Mailer is wrong when he focuses on language and censorship, since the left has no ability to censor a Norman Mailer through illegitimate means. ( I realize there is a twist here in that the NYT reporter he's angry with is not a leftist) The left can only make arguments against his politically incorrect statements , said arguments being effective against Mailer or someone else _only_ by the force of their content and validity, not the power or position of the one who makes the arguments. This is a legitimate way to counter anything anyone says, and is not censorship, but criticism. Calling Mailer's statement racist is not censorship, but the type of political criticism that U.S. political discourse sorely needs more of. We could just as well say that Mailer is trying to "censor" use of politically critical terms like "racist" by his shallow criticism of it as pc. Mailer response should be "My statement is not racist" not " calling my statement racist is suppressing my freedom of speech." That's assuming a fake victim role , well politically incorrect anyway.
The PC debate goes back to liberal vs radical, postmod vs Marxist philosophical debate on how much we can be certain and definite about truths, whether anything at all _is_ correct or true, or whether all is relative, uncertain. This is liberal pluralism vs radical self-discipline and scientific socialist attitude to struggle. A certain amount of certainty about one's beliefs is necessary for effective activity. Universal agnosticism and skepticism undermine action.
Sure one can be mistaken. But take a chance you are correct. You only live once. And we learn from errors. Go for it ! Make corrections if trial shows errors. After reflection and thought, act with some certainty, and don't be afraid to say you are correct or someone else is incorrect.
All and all anti-pc discourse as it has arisen in this period is another rightwing trojan horse on the left today. It should be thrown into the historical dustbin.