I believe he was at least kind enough to not mention the establishment by name in his article, so he deserves a little credit for that.
This is more of the completely ridiculous crap driving people apart. I'm not sure if it's a perfect fit, but I'm placing it in the runaway PC bucket. It's completely out of control and from personal interactions it seems to me a lot of people feel the same way. And trust me, my circles are heavily progressive. I don't think it's representative of the majority of us, but I'm not sure how we can manage the fringe which is driving it. Comedians can't even safely tell jokes anymore. I think we do ourselves a huge disservice by assigning it more popular support than it actually carries. It's really the power of social media - it often gives fringe positions the appearance of broad support. And I realize political correctness is not fringe, but it is primarily driven by fringe elements and then lemmings jump in line online while exercising very little of it in their personal lives. I don't know how to fix it, but it has to be done. We must be careful, however, not to over-correct and create a different crapfest.
What is interesting about rampant PC is that almost everyone I know hates it, liberal and conservative alike.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think the PC backlash is related to the fact we give so much attention to the fringe folks acting foolishly and then decide to assign those people as the standards for liberalism or conservatism. In reality, the nature of information these days just magnifies these folks
If you asked a dozen random people what defined "rampant PC"(or I think better framed as "when PC goes too far"), I think you'd get a pretty wide range of answers. It has a certain quality to it, where most people seem to "know it when they see it" but that makes it difficult to draw up some clear boundaries on where is and isn't "too far"(and those boundaries are often too subjective when we can define them)
I don't know. They are fringe, but a lot of them are coming from positions you'd think would be at least somewhat respectable. I mean, the guy writing that article is a journalist, not some nut on Facebook.
For me it's when you have to put effort into finding a way for it to offend you. There are a lot of people out there willing to put in some hard work on that front.
Nuts find their way into all fields. My doctor believes some truly bizarre stuff that has no bearing on his job, but is nutty all the same.
There's a guy really highly placed in a security position I know who heads up a local chapter of some organization for Bigfoot (or maybe aliens, or both) and another organization for paranormal stuff.
George Washington U is wanting to change their mascot to something other than George the Colonial, because evidently colonialism is too associated with oppression. No shit. Maybe think for about two seconds about what kind of a colonial George was, you [uck fay]ing dumbasses. “The historically, negatively-charged figure of Colonials has too deep a connection to colonization and glorifies the act of systemic oppression,”
I think George Washington would perhaps agree with them were he alive today, judging from his actions in his own historical context. He was all about tossing off the yoke of colonialism. Full disclosure: I wrote "yolk" at first but caught myself right away. Could of been egg on my face.
When I was at the University of Denver, they started transitioning away from "The Pioneers" towards a red-tailed hawk because of similar issues regarding how pioneers treated the natives of Colorado (Sandy Creek Massacre, etc), as well as being "sexist" for being portrayed only as a male (Boone the Pioneer). I didn't have a strong opinion on the matter, other than it being a shame to retire the only college mascot drawn by Walt Disney: Boone the Pioneer.
In the spirit of your previous post and to satisfy my historical nerd needs, I must note it's actually the Sand Creek Massacre. Sorry, I already feel guilty for this post.
