Is Political Correctness Liberal or Conservative?

President Obama and Brendan O'Neill of Spiked weigh in on the politics of safe spaces and microaggressions.


During NPR's interview with President Obama this week, the former professor of constitutional law reluctantly dipped his toe into the debate over speech on college campuses. Responding to Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep's question about protests at Obama's alma mater, Harvard University, the president said he favored a general policy of free and open dialogue.

"There have been times where you start seeing on college campuses students start protesting somebody like the director of the IMF or Condi Rice speaking on campus because they don't like what they stand for. Well, feel free to disagree with somebody – but don't try to just shut them up."

But when it came to assigning responsibility for the protests, Obama declined to point a finger at either end of the political spectrum. Instead, he offered this diplomatic hedge: "I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right."

Which raises the question: Is political correctness a liberal or a conservative phenomenon?

Brendan O'Neill believes P.C. is an ideology of the political right. O'Neill, the editor of Spiked magazine, offers his contrarian take on the campus debates in an interview with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie.

"I think political correctness is quite right wing," said O'Neill. "I think it's a very conservative idea in the sense that it's about putting a lid on controversy, stamping down heated debate, risky ideas, anything that might kind of rattle the apple cart."

O'Neill, who has called for a repeal of hate speech laws in Britain, no longer sees the state as the main opponent to free speech. The enemy, he says, is ideological conformity. Watch Reason TV's full interview with him here:

NEXT: GOP Voters Trust Trump to Deal with ISIS, But Is Foreign Policy Approach Too Militarized?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The real question is what beer is Brendan drinking?

    1. No the real question is why am drinking now?

  2. Oh ho ho ho, haha ..oh, stop, yer killin’ me!

    Seriously, ok small-c conservative in the sense that the leftwing has become the establishment and is now defending its power by shutting down dissent on college campuses and, increasingly, in the real world too.

    But to call it conservative and leave out the above explanation is deeply, deeply, dishonest, and is itself a form of politically correct speech control.

    1. Well, he is British, and Left/Right in Europe doesn’t really map to American norms (i.e. “Liberal” will generally refers to free market supporters). I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt and assume he’s using “right-wing” in the sense of fascist rather than as conservative in the American sense.

      1. Is that why they keep calling Nazis “right wing” because it is backwards over there?

        1. The Nazis ran on a platform of Christian values and conservative family values. They were supported by the Catholic Center party, opposed atheism, and signed the Concordat with the Vatican. They sent communists and socialists to the camps, and the socialists and communists in parliament strongly opposed them. That’s why the Nazis are generally considered “right wing”. And, yeah, that’s the same “right wing ” as in the US.

          1. So they lied to get elected. They were Fascists, who are all about an emotional appeal of envy and outrage against designated straw men in order for the government to grab ever more control in order to save the people from the boogie man.

          2. The National Socialists beat, jailed and killed their Socialist rivals, especially the International Socialists aka Communists. Much like Stalin vs. the Trotskyites. They were all Socialists, they were all of the Left.

            BTW, your Christianity = Nazi jive sounds very Stalinist and post-Stalinist.

      2. LaRouche got it right when he said the seating arrangements in the French national assembly during the revolution didn’t freeze political discourse for all time. How much effort does using these labels really save us?

    2. Of course it makes the same sense as that Vanderbilt, IIRC, academic who claimed that black racism is cause by whitie. And by “makes the same sense” I mean it makes no sense at all.

    3. Another example of sophistry by the left. Use words that have several meanings, do not clearly define which meaning of the word one is using, thus deceive listeners of your true intent and goals or shift blame away from oneself.

      1. Right on. The more they go on a rhetorical rampage against conservatives and moderates, the more bizarre their accusations become. The west sees itself as sanctuary for civility, but most people don’t want to debate, they want to be left alone, to stay out of trouble, get along, and be given some space in return. Social justice warriors get into people’s faces because they know that most of the time their victims will back away rather than punch them out. Lots of them have little to lose if the people they target don’t back down.

      2. Most words have several meanings. Most arguments include people using the same words to mean different things. You are not immune to this (and neither am I).

        1. Yes, but intentional obfuscation via equivocation is a feature of the Left – criticizing Islam is ‘racism’, a drunken hookup is ‘rape’, being contrarian is ‘violence’…

    1. Well Crusty,I wished everyone here a Merry Christmas ,even you.In my defense,I was drinking at the time.

      1. Let’s go bungalow shopping together.

        1. Sorry I’m spoken for.I would like to see your collection of orphans.I’m in the market for a well mannered yard keeper.

  3. Stalin and Mao were rightwingers.

    1. So the spinning goes.

      1. I would suggest that if you are attached to the idea of some dictator being right-wing or left-wing, you have not fully embraced libertarian ideas.

    2. The soviet block was a right wing creation. And Venezuela is hard right also.

    3. The proof is in the Oswald.

    4. This would explain why the voted for republicans.

      1. Sorry. Should read “This is why they voted for republicans.”
        Too much reading of “Das Kapital” by Saint Karl.

    5. Comrade SIV is correct.
      Both Stalin and Mao were adamant about employing the free market, free speech, personal responsibility, limitation of the state’s power over the individual, civil rights and civil liberties for their citizens, etc.
      Any good socialists will tell you that.

  4. I completely disagree with his premise that PC is not left-wing. The whole concept of PC and AA stemmed from the progressive ranks. It has a strong belief multicultural with a focus on achieving ‘equality’ and ‘diversity. Sounds a lot like Marxism to me. It never came out of any conservative think-tank, movement, politician, or academics. Besides, not sure what he means by ‘conservative’ because to me conservatism was always more of a state of mind for most of the time. Conservative political parties are young compared to liberal ones with having held power less than their counterparts. I get the point that ‘radical leftists of the 60s’ were talking about liberalization but conservatives have never mobilized like the left when it comes to closing down speech.

    Nope. To me it’s all part of the evolution that dates back to the early 20th century when liberalism as we knew it (ie classical liberalism) died and was co-opted by progressivism. The book ‘The strange death of liberal England’, to me anyway, beautifully conveyed this change. Liberalism died a real death a long time ago.…..rrectness/

    1. Now Rufus,we know all animals are equal,until their not.

      1. Stay tuned, the upcoming feminazi mantra will be “Two legs goooood, three legs baaaaad”*

        *Except for Caitlyn Marie Jenner.

        1. It’s OK if you car for people.

        2. Penis envy is a serious disease.

          1. Only those without one would disagree.

    2. It would be amusing to be a fly on the wall during Reason mag staff meetings. Wonder which side they’ll attack next, which side they’ll suck up to, and what news stories they’ll triangulate on. Onward and upward!…if by upward we mean “doing loop de loops”.

    3. That may have been one of the major bends in the r., but it goes back much farther. It boils down to the fact that ideology is never strong enough to hold an influential movement together, only interests are. But that means that the direction of the movement changes as interests climb on board or jump off.

      200 yrs. ago in both N. Amer. & Europe, liberalism appealed to agrarian interests. But to maintain enough of their support, the liberal parties had to sell out to other interests of farmers. So liberalism became associated with (even if the pure -ism didn’t change, just the ass’n) looting some groups while keeping others from being looted. The ideal position to get into is to get to steal from everybody else, while nobody else can steal from you. But that would get everybody allies against you, an unstable condition. So you have to assemble a large enough group that has to share the loot, while leaving enough to be looted but not enough to revolt successfully. If the looting can be minimized or those looted kept few or marginalized enough, you can still follow mostly an ideology of liberalism. Eventually, though, the balance shifts.

    4. Liberalism died a real death a long time ago.

      Not really. It became an odd branch of conservatism, at least in North America. American, and I assume Canadian, conservatism has always been a little different from the rest of the world because the traditions and principles they were trying to preserve were always rooted in the liberal tradition.

    5. Yes, political correctness is a left wing construct. However, conservatives have their own versions of it, like laws against blasphemy and indecency.

  5. “I think political correctness is quite right wing,” said O’Neill. “I think it’s a very conservative idea in the sense that it’s about putting a lid on controversy, stamping down heated debate, risky ideas, anything that might kind of rattle the apple cart.”

    I think that discussions like this are pointless without carefully defining terms. I have no idea what Brendan is talking about.

    1. Suthen He’s British. The Victorian Era. See below. =)

    2. OK, I watched the video. I will amend. He is right but both of them should just nix the references to right wind and left wing anything. They are meaningless terms.

      *I am sometimes guilty of the same thing. I will make an effort to quit doing that.

      1. I hear you. I try to use a sliding scale between authority, and liberty. It helps my little pea brain make sense of it all. =)

      2. right wind

        Port or starboard?

        1. Ah,Port a fine drink.

          1. One of life’s sublime experiences is a meal of porterhouse steak with well-cooked vegetables and a starch, having been preceded by a salad and to be followed by a slice of cherry or apple pie for dessert. A nice port ties the whole thing together with a bow.

            1. If by well-cooked you mean grilled

            2. If we’re going to have a steak and vegetables debate, at least wait until everyone’s awake.

              1. ‘Marge: What do you want for dinner?

                Homer: Steak?

                Marge: We can’t afford steak.

                Homer: Steak?

                Marge: All right, steak.

        2. “Port or starboard?”

          Ah yes, let’s talk about the right-wing bias in the COLREGS.

        3. Well, by definition, windward. Unless you want to go close hauled, you’d best go to port.

    3. You got it. Defining terms has to be the starting point for any meaningful dialogue. Since I still stubbornly cling to the hope that Liberty has a better chance with Team Red than 3rd parties (and obviously better than with Team Blue) I always have to clarify my basic position. I usually start with saying I am a libertarian leaning conservative. Since the general understanding in American politics is liberal means left of center and conservative means right of center. Although most of us understand that this isn’t an accurate way to measure ones view of Liberty, it’s a starting point. In general, most of the mainstream cons I know or read, I tend to agree with except for WOD(and other victimless crimes like porn and prostitution). To me this seems for like a lacuna in their thinking, rather than a core part of their philosophy (again except perhaps for hardcore socons).

      1. “Since I still stubbornly cling to the hope that Liberty has a better chance with Team Red than 3rd parties (and obviously better than with Team Blue) I always have to clarify my basic position.”

        You probably cling to this foolish notion because you are culturally a member of Team Red, rather than for any rational reasons.

        1. I’ll say that, as someone with a much greater cultural affinity for Team Blue, BearOdinson is right. As of today, 2015, there is no element in Team Blue that has any interest in individual liberty. So, that leaves Team Red or third parties. As a strategic matter, the American political system is heavily weighted against any third party success. If one succeeded, it would probably remap the American political system.

  6. From Wiki.

    “Victorian morality is a distillation of the moral views of people living at the time of Queen Victoria’s reign (1837?1901) and of the moral climate of the United Kingdom of the 19th century in general, which contrasted greatly with the morality of the previous Georgian period. Many of these values spread throughout the British Empire. Today, the term “Victorian morality” can describe any set of values that espouse sexual restraint, low tolerance of crime and a strict social code of conduct.

    The term “Victorian” was first used during the Great Exhibition in London (1851), where Victorian inventions and morals were shown to the world.[1] Victorian values were developed in all facets of Victorian living. The morality and values of the period can be classed to Religion, Morality, Elitism, Industrialism and Improvement. These values take root in Victorian morality, creating an overall change in the British Empire.

    Historians now regard the Victorian era as a time of many contradictions, such as the widespread cultivation of an outward appearance of dignity and restraint together with the prevalence of social phenomena such as prostitution and child labour. A plethora of social movements arose from attempts to improve the prevailing harsh living conditions for many under a rigid class system.”

    1. “The upper class (the elite) valued history, heritage, lineage and the continuity of their family line.[13] They believed that they were born to rule through divine right and they wanted this right to continue.[13] They had a paternalistic view of society, seeing themselves as the father in the family of society.[13] Noblesse oblige was their belief that it was the elite’s duty to take care of society.[13] The elite hoped to continue tradition and the status quo, through institutions such as the law of primogeniture (first-born son inherits everything).[13] The elite intended to stay on top and wealthy.[13] However, when a financial crisis threatened their position, they adapted and opened up their ranks to the wealthiest of the middle class, allowing them to buy a place within the ranks of the elite.[13] The elite were landed gentry and so they did not have to work, and instead enjoyed a life of luxury and leisure.[13] While the elite maintained their traditional values, Victorian values and attitudes changed and the elite began to recognize and promote the middle class”

      1. It’s still the Victorian Era.

      2. so the Progressives are just Victorian Elites, but it’s not passed on by birthright

    2. And when they say child labor, they mean child labor in factories. Child labor on farms, which has been the norm for human history, was idyllic and totally not gruelling, and hardly worth mentioning.

      1. This!

      2. Well, child labor on farms, you were working for mom and dad’s business.

        1. …or on one of Stalin’s collective farms as a kulak.
          The Stalinists had a great retirement plan.
          Its called death.
          No money was need to invest.
          Top that you capitalist pigs!

    3. “the prevalence of social phenomena such as prostitution and child labour.”

      Which the Victorians invented?

  7. Corrections to my grammar:

    -It has a strong belief in multiculturalism.

    -Besides, not sure what he means by ‘conservative’ because to me conservatism was always more of a state of mind for most of the time – in terms of political theory and holding power.

    1. “Corrections to my grammar:”

      Grammar is the least of your worries. Marxism doesn’t take a stand on the issues that animate political correctness debates. Marx focussed on capital and class struggle. I doubt you will even find the word ‘multiculturalism’ in his writings.

      1. – 1 Frankfurt School

        Not that I would expect you to be well-versed in the writings of say, Adorno. A bit above your pay-grade, it is.

        1. Adorno was the “writing poetry after the Holocaust is barbaric” guy, right?

        2. Rufus was talking about Marx. Not about thinkers who came into prominence in the 1960s who had to be called ‘the new left’ to distinguish themselves from the old-school Marx.

          I would invite readers here to reconsider their take on political correctness. These debates only rage within a fragmented, fractious and ineffectual left. A disunited, squabbling, sectarian left is behind the pc debates. Rejoice! Save your hand-wringing for when a strong and united left takes the stage.

          1. Rufus was talking about Marx.

            No, the term he used was “Marxism” but feel to continue making an ass out of yourself.

            1. What do you want for Christmas Heroic?

            2. “No, the term he used was “Marxism”

              But if you know about Adorno, then you should realize this Marxism is not as simple and straight-forward as Rufus imagines.

              1. I find great amusement in your ignorance of the etymology of the phrase.

                I first heard the phrase “politically correct” in the late 1940s and early 1950s in reference to the political debates between Socialists and members of the United States Communist Party (CP). These debates were an everyday occurrence in my neighborhood in the Bronx until the McCarthy committee and HUAC silenced political talk on the streets. Members of the CP talked about current party doctrine as the “correct” line for the moment. During World War II, the Hitler-Stalin pact caused many CP members considerable pain and often disgrace on my block, which was all Jewish and mostly Socialist. The “correct” position on Stalin’s alliance with Hitler was considered to be ridiculous, a betrayal of European Jewry as well as Socialist ideas. The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in equalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

                Or is Herbert Kohl just another right-winger?

                1. and my memory was by the late 70’s or early 80’s the term was being used by the right to disparage the left, who insisted that people not speak their mind but instead echo what was deemed to be ‘correct’ (or suffer the consequences)

              2. then you should realize this Marxism is not as simple and straight-forward as Rufus imagines.

                I see no evidence of Rufus “imagining” Marxist thought to be “simple and straight-forward” beyond your tortured mala fide reading of him.

                1. “I see no evidence of Rufus “imagining” Marxist thought to be “simple and straight-forward” beyond your tortured mala fide reading of him.”

                  My advice: read his comments. He claims that multiculturalism is an essential part of Marxism. As you know, this is not the case. Hence these debates. There are divisions among Marxists on issues such as multiculturalism. You are well-versed in the Frankfurt School.

                  1. I did not speak about Marx per se as you claim nor did I make an assertion that it’s an ‘essential part of Marxism’. Infer all you want. Free country.

                    1. “I did not speak about Marx”

                      I’m trying to tell you that Marxists are divided on issues such as multiculturalism. There is no strong belief in multiculturalism on the part of Marxists. Multiculturalism came out of Canada of all places, and it was promoted by Canada’s fairly conservative Ukrainian community who wanted some of the attention that the Francophone community (and its nasty biculturalism) was hogging.

                      Since the 60’s we have had a ‘new left,’ that’s why we have pc debates. Marxism is not monolithic and you are engaging in caricature when you make broad sweeping statements about it.

                    2. It’s not what you were ‘trying’ to say because you focused on my talking about Marx.

                      But whatever.

                      News to me it was ‘invented’ in Canada. Canada foolishly made it a feature of our Charter (hence, becoming part of our value system – whatever that ever meant) but Canada rarely invents philosophies. Most – if not all – of our values and concepts was imported from elsewhere – notable the United States. We’re just louder about it is all.

                      The ‘concept of this word we call ‘multicultural’ dates back quite a way and is difficult to nail. But you seem to have it under control. Write a book.


                    3. My God – with apologies to grammar again.

                    4. “It’s not what you were ‘trying’ to say because you focused on my talking about Marx.”

                      I’m focussed on the pc debates being due to the weakness and fractiousness of the left. Marx was never interested in identity politics, and there are plenty of his followers today who feel the same way.

                      Never heard about Canada’s role in multiculturalism? I suggest you steer clear of these lurid and contentious websites of yours. Try wikipedia.
                      You really don’t have to read much before Canada’s name pops up. If you read further, you might come across this:

                      “The Canadian government has often been described as the instigator of multicultural ideology because of its public emphasis on the social importance of immigration.[13] The Canadian Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism is often referred to as the origins of modern political awareness of multiculturalism.[14] In the Western English-speaking countries, multiculturalism as an official national policy started in Canada in 1971, followed by Australia in 1973 where it is maintained today.[15][16] [17][18] It was quickly adopted as official policy by most member-states of the European Union. “

                    5. I DIDN’T SAY I NEVER HEARD ABOUT CANADA’S MC. I’m bloody Canadian. I’m responding to your assertion ‘IT CAME OUT OF CANADA – which it didn’t. I SPECIFICALLY explained to you we ENSHRINED in our Charter but that the idea came from elsewhere.

                      Lord me.

                    6. “that the idea came from elsewhere”

                      Multiculturalism came from Nazi Germany. Everyone knows that!

                    7. Marxists are divided on lots of things. That doesn’t change the fact that multiculturalism is an essential part of neo-Marxism, aka Frankfurt School ideology.

                      The idea that it originated with “Ukrainians in Canada” is ludicrous.

                    8. I got the impression that here in the US ‘multiculturalism’ was a push back against the idea of ‘the melting pot’, that people should be allowed to Balkanize themselves.

                    9. Something about tossing salads instead of making fondue.

                    10. “The idea that it originated with “Ukrainians in Canada” is ludicrous.”

                      If the notion that Ukrainians were involved in the promotion of bi- to multi-culturalism offends you, lets try for the Chinese. Canada’s Chinese community was also certainly involved and are not white. You can also blame the Nazis who were the true inventors of multiculturalism.

                      “Marxists are divided on lots of things.”

                      But primarily on how to account for the identity politics that arose during the 60s. You’ve read my comments, and have not asked me any questions so I assume you understand these things. Thanks to a weak and divided left we have these pc debates.

          2. Save your hand-wringing for when a strong and united left takes the stage

            As in The Terror?

            1. “As in The Terror?”

              Yes. Save your hand-wringing until the pc debates subside. At the moment the left is no threat to you.

              1. mtrueman|12.27.15 @ 12:49PM|#
                “…At the moment the left is no threat to you.”

                Stupid even by trueman’s low standards.

              2. Save your hand-wringing until the pc debates subside. At the moment the left is no threat to you.
                Just ask Mao, Stalin, Castro or Pol Pot.
                They’ll set you straight.
                …and don’t forget to vote for Comrade Bernie Sanders.

                1. “Just ask Mao, Stalin, Castro or Pol Pot”

                  Those were the days. More nostalghia for the cold war. Welcome aboard.

                  All dead or mostly dead. Are there any living leftists you feel threatened by? The communists of Portugal or Greece? How about those really threatening leftists who got thumped recently in Venezuela? Wow do I feel threatened!

          3. mtrueman|12.27.15 @ 12:27PM|#
            “Rufus was talking about Marx.”

            1) Can’t read.
            2) Hopes to push the goal posts to where he can confuse the issue more.
            3) It’s trueman; what do you expect?

      2. And yet the people leading the PC battles and pushing multiculturalism are mostly admitted marxists. Cart before the horse much? They are using PC and multiculturalism as tools to dismantle the current order and rebuild a marxist one.

        PC and MC did not come from marxist philosophy but they are very good weapons for marxists.

        1. “And yet the people leading the PC battles and pushing multiculturalism are mostly admitted marxists.”

          As long as they are battling other admitted Marxists, you should be glad.

          1. “As long as they are battling other admitted Marxists, you should be glad.”

            Really? Glad? No, “glad” would not be the word I would choose to express on the matter.. I hold dear a few principles dwelling within the blast radius of that little “battle”, (the right to) free speech being ground-zero. So casually dismissing the splash damage of their internal conflict does us all a disservice..

            1. Yeah…

              “Fear not, the Bolsheviki are only interested in putting down the Menshiviki. You have nothing to worry about!”

              1. “Fear not, the Bolsheviki are only interested in putting down the Menshiviki”

                The Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks no longer exist. Today we have Sally Kohn and Eleanor Clift, according to one of our commenters here. I believe these two scary embodiments of communism today are marginal and unthreatening. You pine for the days when fearing communism actually meant something? You’re not alone. Cold war nostalghia has always been big here.

            2. “So casually dismissing the splash damage of their internal conflict does us all a disservice..”

              There’s nothing casual about it. My dismissal is entirely deliberate. These pc debates are all the evidence we need to prove the weakness and sectarianism of the left today. If you insist on continuing to feel threatened by the left I’ll be generous and put you down as a relic of the cold war. You’ve got plenty of company here.

              1. “There’s nothing casual about it. My dismissal is entirely deliberate.”

                Painfully obvious..

                “If you insist on continuing to feel threatened by the left I’ll be generous and put you down as a relic of the cold war. You’ve got plenty of company here.”

                Well, aren’t you glib. I don’t feel threatened by the left.. I feel threatened by the extensive collateral damage in their race to bottom, to destroy personal liberties under the guise of conscience. Try reading for comprehension.

                1. “to destroy personal liberties under the guise of conscience”

                  You are worried about the destruction of your liberties? I suggest you couldn’t have picked a more marginal, divided and ineffectual foe than today’s left.

                  1. “I suggest you couldn’t have picked a more marginal, divided and ineffectual foe than today’s left.”

                    Marginal and divided, granted, but.. mainly on how to go about imposing their common goal. Ineffectual? Really?

                    1. “Marginal and divided, granted, but.. mainly on how to go about imposing their common goal.”

                      Being divided means not having a common goal.

                    2. Bo? Is that you?

                    3. mtrueman preceded Bo Cara’s claim to “most pretentious moron” on H&R. He seems to be attempting to regain his stolen crown

                    4. “”Marginal and divided, granted, but.. mainly on how to go about imposing their common goal.”

                      You evidently haven’t yet come across the little crown stealer quoted above.

                    5. semantic twaddle. bo deserved to one-up you as King of the Retards. he knew when his points were stupid and tried to mendaciously disown them. you double down. Your dumb overwhelms your pretense. His was more evenly balanced.

                    6. “semantic twaddle”

                      You seem confused. Mine is a simple point. That pc debates arose from a fractious and weakened left. That’s it in a nutshell. Is that clear enough for you?

                  2. So, I guess the guy who lost his business because he refused to bake a gay wedding cake really never had anything to worry about. Or the kids kicked out of school on rape accusations. I guess no one in NYC has to worry about the new “gender” rules getting pushed with threats of massive fines.

                    Are you deliberately disingenuous or are you really that stupid?

                    1. It is a delightful mix of both.

                    2. “So, I guess the guy who lost his business because he refused to bake a gay wedding cake really never had anything to worry about.”

                      I thought the baker came into grief through contact with local government officials. I doubt very much these officials were the communists, socialists, or leftists you find so threatening. They were garden variety government bureaucrats. Their power is potent and it is them you should find threatening.

                      “Are you deliberately disingenuous or are you really that stupid?”

                      Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, and that should help you with any questions you have.

        2. Neo Marxism is rooted in the idea of truth being socially and linguistically constructed. That is why controlling language and PC enforcement are so important to neo Marxists. It also embodies the idea that different cultures are equally valid, since according to neo Marxism, there is no objective way to decide truth or utility of different cultures or beliefs.

          1. “You have your truth, and I have my truth!”

          2. Neo Marxism is rooted in the idea of truth being socially and linguistically constructed. That is why controlling language and PC enforcement are so important to neo Marxists. It also embodies the idea that different cultures are equally valid, since according to neo Marxism, there is no objective way to decide truth or utility of different cultures or beliefs.

            Comrade Win Bear is right as usual.
            Controlling language and PC enforcement are important, otherwise the socialist revolution in the People’s Republic of America will not become a fact. Control of speech is the issue here., and only socialists should be allowed to have it to show the world how they are not afraid of free speech or the dialectic by suppressing free speech for the good of the collective.
            Different cultures are equally valid. because there is no objective way to decide truth or utility of different cultures or beliefs. After all, wouldn’t we all prefer to live in North Korea or Cuba than a capitalist hell hole like the United States?
            The answer is obvious for any right minded socialist.

          3. “Neo Marxism is rooted in the idea of truth being socially and linguistically constructed.”

            That’s structuralism you’re thinking of. Neo-Marxism, or the New Left, is still Marxism, but has taken on some of the identity politics that was coming to the fore at the time.

      3. You’re right. Grammar is the least of my worries.

        My daughter is insisting I make her bucatini pasta with bolognese sauce. I want to make puttanesca.

        Incidentally, we had a lovely Mexican meal last night prepared by friends not named Playa from California.

        1. “Incidentally, we had a lovely Mexican meal last night prepared by friends not named Playa from California.”

          Eating Mexicans is barbaric, even for you! Stop appropriating, cis-shitlord..

          1. Even if we asked for permission from our SJW overlords?

      4. I think Rufus nailed it.

        “The whole concept of PC and AA stemmed from the progressive ranks. It has a strong belief multicultural with a focus on achieving ‘equality’ and ‘diversity. Sounds a lot like Marxism to me. It never came out of any conservative think-tank, movement, politician, or academics.”

        As usual you are completely full of shit and wrong, wrong, wrong.

        1. That was directed at mrtrueman.

          1. “Sounds a lot like Marxism to me.”

            Try reading Karl Marx. He was all about class struggle, not identity politics.

            I agree that these pc debates originate in the left. I am pointing out that they arise due to the weakness and marginality of today’s left. If you disagree with me, state your case. You’ll be the first to do so.

            1. Marxism evolved; neo Marxism very much is concerned with these issues. Read Frankfurt School writings.

              1. “Marxism evolved”

                For some yes, for others no. That’s why there are debates.

  8. “Stop shoving your pc-ness down my throat.”

    1. Then, swallow it!

  9. Of the people I’ve argued with, people on the right have always seemed more eager to convince than people on the left. Both sides know their thinking is correct, but while the right appears ready to convince you why they’re correct and you’re wrong, the left seems to dismiss anyone not in agreement as anomalies not worth allowing into the market of ideas, cancers needing to be carved from society.

    1. In my experience, leftists are incapable of not getting personal in debate. The nicer ones merely scoff with contempt and/or raise their voice, rather than calling you a Nazi or racist. But it’s always personal

      1. The nicer ones merely scoff with contempt

        A person with your obvious level of intelligence would have this opinion.

        1. Heh, a good example of that reaction came from a lady I worked with while I was still bartending. Except I was in my 20’s and she was in her 40’s and a (crappy) server. I’m not one to judge someone by their station in life, but I happily did it with her after finding out she was a weirdly smug Hillary supporter

      2. The nicer ones merely scoff with contempt

        Does the smug comtempt come from leftism, or do smug contemptuous people migrate toward leftism?

        1. The chicken came first, obviously, since eggs don’t have fully developed sex organs.

    2. In general the Right believes their opponents are wrong. The Left believes their opponents are evil. (I borrowed this from Dennis Prager). Obviously there are exceptions (for example some in the very hardcore socon Right). But as a rule, I think this holds. That is why you Sally Kohn, and Eleanor Clift don’t need to get bodyguards, but Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter do.

      1. The Left believes their opponents are evil.

        Well, yeah. The Left has good intentions. Anyone who disagrees with them must have bad intentions. As in they’re evil. It is the only possible explanation for disagreeing with the Left.

        1. I think the problem is that they get so emotional that they can’t make rational choices. Most of us have probably done something stupid in a moment of extreme and abnormal anger, sadness, or maybe even happiness.

          My theory is that the people who are in a perpetual state of intense emotion over certain issues (like the conditions of the poor) are incapable of thinking – in other words, they will support a despot if he tugs at their heartstrings and promises to alleviate these conditions that make them so emotional.

          Now there’s nothing wrong with being emotional over a political issue. I’m sure many of us get that way when we look at how much individual liberty has been trashed the wide world over. But if one cannot turn off that emotion for a moment to analyze the possible courses of action, they will end up with all kinds of wonky conclusions.

          1. Whoops, that was supposed to be a reply to your reply below – the one that begins with “They don’t wake up in the morning and ask themselves”….

            EDIT BUTTON 2016!!

      2. The left is evil

        1. They don’t wake up in the morning and ask themselves what the most evil thing they can do today might be. They really do have good intentions. But, being blind to the consequences of what they support, they pave the road to hell with those good intentions.

          1. That is the essence of evil.

            You know who else thought he was doing the right thing?

              1. Hitler! The correct answer is always Hitler!

          2. Not to mention that, to them, anything they support BECOMES good.

            At root, leftism is a religion. The State is diety and Top Men the priests.

            Thus, just like blowing people up, cutting off heads, and setting people on fire is repellant to normal people but becomes holy when done in god’s name, So too does anything done to advance the leftist doctrine/narrative.

    3. That’s because people on the right tend to think themselves into their positions, whereas people on the left are guided by their emotions. People on the left can’t explain what they think because they don’t think. They feel. They are guided by good intentions and are completely and totally blind to the results of the policies that they support. Therefore anyone who disagrees with them is either questioning their good intentions, or worse has bad intentions. Regardless, there is nothing to be gained with trying to reason with someone on the left. They’ll simply get emotional as they defend paving the road to hell.

      1. “That’s because people on the right tend to think themselves into their positions, whereas people on the left are guided by their emotions.”

        Parroting what you heard on TV again? Despite your handle, I suspect you truly believe in this nonsense.

        1. Oh the irony is strong with this one–but I don’t think he recognizes it.

          1. Don’t tip him off, you will ruin the effect.

        2. Does it fall at freefall speed?

        3. Thank you for proving my point.

          1. “Thank you for proving my point.”

            But it’s hardly your point, is it? Just because you’re the last in a long line of parrots repeating the same platitudes, doesn’t make it your point.

            1. Idiot, if you learn some self-awareness, you might begin a path to maturity.
              Until then, you’re a whiny, self-important nitwit worthy of laughter.
              Yes, you did exactly prove his point and you are entirely to imbecilic to realize it.

              1. “worthy of laughter”

                Kind words indeed from my closest reader here at Reason. All the best to you and yours in the coming year. I fear we’ll need all the best we can get…

            2. Attack me while ignoring my point? Check.

              Make baseless accusations in a failed effort to put me on the offensive? Check.

              With a complete lack of self-awareness, unwittingly prove my point by acting like an emotional twit? Check.

              I shall call you “fiddle,” because you play like one.

              1. “Attack me while ignoring my point?”

                Ignoring ‘your point’ is about the kindest thing I can do for you at the moment.

                1. All you’re doing is proving me correct, fiddle. Keep it up, it’s hilarious to watch.

                2. Why don’t you smugly accuse me of watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh? You can do it! I know you can. C’mon fiddle! Good boy! Speak! Roll over!

                  1. “..watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh..”


    4. Pretty much by definition political correctness is left wing.

      However, Americans on the right do exhibit pc-like behavior when people engage in America-bashing. For example, C&W listeners went pc when the Dixie Chicks said they were sorry for George Bush at a concert in London. Or, flag burning. The right has also suggested that His Holiness should keep his ill-informed economic and political opinions to himself. (No economic opinion is so ill-informed as one that was formed in Argentina.)

      Many on the right can be pretty quick to reflexively dismiss those who bash America. Many on the left embrace America-bashing to the extent of allying with those who would chant “Death to America”, and think it is horrible to censor or even to criticize any expression of America-bashing. Seriously, though, one either must be entirely loony to think that “political correctness” is typically a phenomenon of the American right, or one must classify American progressives as right-wing. The latter is not as absurd as it may seem: Mussolini summarized his ideal of fascism as “the State continues to be sole arbitrator in political and social conflicts, … all remains within the state and nothing outside the State, because it is impossible to conceive any individual existing outside the State unless he be a savage” and he defined it as the marriage of the State and the corporation. American progressives pretty much share this view.

      1. The right has also suggested that His Holiness should keep his ill-informed economic and political opinions to himself.

        Expressing disapproval of an opinion = PC-like behavior? I guess all the Great Yokel Hunters here are all PC advocates.

      2. It is true that the right tends to be reflexively defensive of everything related to the military, but not to the point of censoring those who disagree. That’s what the left does.

        1. Only a card carrying commie would vote against expansion of the next military appropriations bill..

        2. Eh, there’s the The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, passed unanimously (I think?), thrown out by the Supreme Court but with a dissent in support of the bill from Alito, joined by Scalia and Thomas.

          1. So, being against fraud = censoring?

    5. People on the right frequently make references to God’s law or universal truths, just as dogmatically as the left.

  10. IMO Brendan O’Neil is making a comparison between PC morality, and Victorian era morality, that’s where he get’s the idea that PC is conservative. Combine paternalistic, elitist morality, and a marxist ideology, and you get the American progressive. A socially conservative left wing nightmare.

    1. Also sorry for the bad grammar. Still drinking my coffee.

      1. Coffee. That is what I forgot even at this late hour. I must be off in my 200 horse carriage to the nearest shop of convenience for the magical brown serum.

        With sweetener and half & half, of course, as I like my coffee beige, like my women.

          1. The infusion was invigorating. Throbbing, pulsating through my every being.

        1. Scotch is the magical serum.

            1. Pure grain alcohol, and distilled water..

  11. Hm. Seems to me Brendan still hasn’t come to the conclusion that, at its simplest premise, progressive ‘enlightenment’ and Marxism (early or not) are incompatible with liberty and freedom. They always rely on some form of coercion at the end of the day. They speak of ‘liberty’ but so did/do communists and socialists.

    1. For progressives, Freedom is freedom from, not freedom to. They want free people from their nature and from the risks of living, rather than free them to meet life head on with all the resources they can muster.

    2. It does seem that there are plenty of people who see the coercive power of the state as an irrefutable starting point.

      Evidence of closed-mindedness if you ask me.

    3. They are believers in positive rights.That is all you need to know.

      1. Entitlements not rights.

  12. I thought conservative was reactive, reactive toward Progress?. That would make PC a reaction against progressive values like equality, equanimity and progress itself. I’m confused

    1. “I’m confused”
      So are nearly all progressives.

    2. Well,the Red Terror in France is proof that the TOP MEN can change a country for the better.

  13. “I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right.”

    Which raises the question: Is political correctness a liberal or a conservative phenomenon?”

    Three points:

    1) In that particular response, Obama is talking about things like global warming and creationism–rather than political correctness. Maybe we’re expanding the definition here, not that Obama has any authority to do so, but he isn’t talking about going out of the way not to marginalize historically aggrieved minorities and women.

    2) Nothing Obama says should ever bring up any questions for anyone. His speech is calculated for effect–he’s a walking, talking noble lie. To take anything he says seriously is not only to be politically naive–to never have been exposed to Plato or Machiavelli–it’s to actively participate in his manipulation.

  14. 3) The primary reason so many people on the right are so closed to considering global warming, among other things is because Obama is a walking, talking noble lie. They know that would use global warming as a convenient excuse to push the kinds of socialistic and authoritarian policies he wants regardless. Denying the science in that situation isn’t irrational when the objections to the policies being pushed are actually political (too authoritarian) and economic (too socialist).

    Certainly, if the right is unreceptive to Obama’s attempts to further socialize our society, it isn’t because they’re close-minded. His true objectives have actually been carefully considered and rejected.

    1. “Denying the science” is a term that cannot die a fiery death soon enough.. It’s an empty term..

      1. If they’re denying the scientific consensus, then it is what it is.

    2. Eh. The reason people on the right are opposed to global warming is that the “solution” is a tax on energy, reduced consumerism, wealth distribution and other left wing ideas, all the while the people preaching it all fly around the world in private jets and live in mansions..

      If the solution were more nuclear plants, more people on the right would be amenable. If the people preaching doom were acting like they genuinely believed it and cut their own carbon footprint then people on the right would probably find it more convincing.

      1. Yeah, responding to a bogus scientific question (that’s really about politics and economics) with answers about politics and economics is perfectly rational.

  15. The idea that women are a special, weak class of being, which a needs protections from strong men… that has a certain classic feel to it.

  16. The left has largely abandoned the slight bit of liberalism that they had. They have even mostly stopped referring to themselves as liberals which is something I support. They have little use for pluralism or tolerance. Marxists or progressives works better for them, and yes, in many ways they are deeply conservative.

    1. I refuse to even refer to them as progressives unless it’s in scare quotes. What they advocate is not progress; it’s a reversion to despotism under which humans lived for most of history. “Progressivism” resembles a primitive tribal system where the chief is worshipped as a demi-god and never questioned.

  17. His true objectives have actually been carefully considered and rejected

    I hope you’re right about this. Or, maybe you mean that the right has rejected his objectives. My hope is that the Obama years will have soured all but the dyed-in-the-wool leftists on socialism and we can get back to our relatively slow decline into authoritarianism.

    1. Yeah, I mean that the right has rejected his true objectives.

      “I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right.”

      Like I said, he’s talking about global warming–and, especially, lay people on the right–who are “denying the science” in that statement

      Regardless of what people on the right say, they don’t care about global warming because of the science. The reason they don’t argue about string theory t is because Obama (and others) aren’t trying to use string theory to make America a more authoritarian and socialistic place. However, they do care about the science around climate change–enough to reject it–and that’s because progressives are using global warming as a proxy for authoritarian and socialistic solutions that they want to impose on America anyway, no matter what the science says.

    2. So, people on the right are effectively rejecting the authoritarian and socialistic solutions–especially the socialism. They’re rejecting Obama’s solutions. They understand socialism well, and they reject it–just like the right rejected ObamaCare. Obama is basically playing a shell game. He’s saying that if you reject his socialist solutions, then you’re rejecting the science. In response to that, lay people on the right–quite rationally–are rejecting his science Trojan Horse becasue they don’t want what’s in the Trojan Horse. It isn’t irrational to reject a proxy for something you don’t want–even if the proxy is science.

      And true “science” is being misused here. Science doesn’t tell us how much we should be willing to sacrifice for the environment. Whether I should be willing to sacrifice my standard of living for the environment isn’t a testable, refutable question–Obama can’t answer that question with science. It’s a question of politics and ethics. Science doesn’t prescribe socialist solutions either. Why are progressive solutions the best? FU–because Plato says it’s better when people believe in what their leaders want to do–regardless of whether what they say is true–that’s why?

  18. So, we have a bunch of far-left people behaving like far-right people? Hmmmm.

  19. Speaking of authoritarians, we’re fat because of the first amendment. I am not joking.

    Srsly u gais

      1. He looks like he likes to think he’s tough. I bet he does aikido or triathlons.

        1. You’d think he’d have a hookup for some T replacement. I guess not.

          1. David Simon. That’s who he looks like.

          1. I’m adding this to the list of reasons why I own guns.

            What’s his name? Robert Paarlberg?

            Robert Paarlberg is why I own guns.

            1. because both derive from our modern conditions of personal freedom and material abundance, conditions elected leaders must always pledge to enhance, not diminish.

              Those words, on the surface so innocuous, yet with one picosecond of thought it is clear that they are an expression of unadulterated evil.

              1. This is a perfect example for my “And I’m just the guy to do it!” thesis. Every social policy suggestion Robert Paarlberg comes up with will lead directly to a paycheck and social status of some kind for Robert Paarlberg. It’s quite the lucky coincidence for him in light of his disinterest.

            2. What Playa says. Times ten.

              Do I have this correctly? Obesity and global warming, one fictional and one self-induced, are problems worth destroying liberty in order to solve? I am gonna guess that in truth Robert Paarlberg thinks that liberty is the real problem.

              *Speaking of owning guns I just wasted more than half of the morning searching every crack and crevice in my garage. I was cleaning my Browning Auto 5. The recoil spring is sleeved around the magazine tube and has five friction rings on the end of it. When I took the cap and forend off of the gun the damn spring shot those friction rings across the garage. It took a whole minute for them to stop bouncing, rolling and clinking their way down into the most obscure hiding places. I had to tear my garage apart to find them all.

              1. I have a guest bathroom that’s all white and tile. 1/2 a bathroom, really. It’s the only room where the springs come out.

                I’ve made the mistake of doing it in my garage. Never again.

              2. Sounds like a pain in the ass.

                It reminds me of the time my brother was taking apart his 10/22 at my kitchen table and some kind of tiny pin got launched out. We searched up and down, then grimly realized that the pin had probably gone into the trash can. He put on rubber gloves and meticulously sorted through every bit of trash (meanwhile, I was trying to tell him that it would be easier to just spend the 88 cents on a new pin). He finally found it; it had landed inside of a beer can in the trash.

              3. Friction rings, ingenious really..

          2. Robert Paarlberg, praised by Reason here

            I have a vague memory of this guy writing something for some food industry trade rag about 10+ years ago… and me writing a long rebuttal, and it getting into a long back forth. Before there were “blogs”. It was like an online debate via Letter to the Editor.

            1. Bailey is not wrong there. Paarlberg got one point right. After all, no one can be wrong all the time about everything. Well, unless their name rhymes with ‘Oh, drama’.

              1. Well, yes. Depending on one’s accent, I guess “oh, drama” does rhyme with “Bo Cara”.

                1. If he shows up, I’m blaming you.

                  1. Tulpa never leaves. He reads every word that gets written here.

                    1. He reads every word that gets written here.

                      You have to admire the idiot savant-like ability he possesses. Some autists memorize entire lists of train boxcar specifications; it’s brain has chosen a monomanic focus on the comments section of a quasi-political blog.


                    2. It’s the holidays. What else is he going to do?

              2. Which I believe was part of our argument – we agreed on the basic issue that there was nothing ‘sustainable’ about the modern use of that term in ag production. Where we disagreed was about … I’ll guess it was the issue of whether govt controls of food production would ever produce ‘better’ outcomes, price stability, diversity, etc. At the time I was a food-industry analyst, and represented a “markets are better” view

          3. He’s…special.

      2. Excessive exposure to Kryptonite, and male pattern baldness would of killed lesser men long ago, HM..

    1. In the United States, we consistently stop short of using our most powerful policy instruments: taxes and regulations.

      I got as far as this line, then I had to stop or I was gonna piss myself.

    2. In Europe these measures are widely employed, and obesity rates are often less than half as high as ours. [List of measures.]

      It is cute that he does not even attempt to demonstrate a causal link between these measures and lower obesity rates.

      1. Shut up and do as you’re told. Churl.

        1. He should just cut to the chase and advocate for adding DNP to the water supply.

          1. Not nudgey enough. He’d tax non-DNPed water instead.

    3. The most recent official data on obesity were a shock. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 38 percent of American adults are technically obese (with a body mass index over 30), up from 35 percent in 2011-2012 and 32 percent in 2003-2004.

      But see, BMI is pretty much bullshit when used as the sole measure of someone’s obesity or non-obesity. I lift weights 3 days a week, run 4.5 miles 4 days a week, and eat healthy. I’m 6 feet tall and weight 220 pounds… So I’m “obese” according to the BMI chart.

      1. I’ve been obese all my life acccording to those measures as well.

        Even when I was the starting strong safety on a Texas high school State Championship team and a third string strong safety in college.

        1. And there’s the problem… until you’re totally emaciated, and suffering from Rickets and Pellagra, you are still a disgusting fat-body. Quit stuffing your fat bourgeois face, and get to starving, for the good of mankind… then we can move on to the next first-world problem..

        2. Just think of all that food you had to eat to stay so buff, and how that food could have gone to starving children down the street…the radio commercial this morning told me 1 in 5 American children go to bed hungry (besides being obese)

    4. “Yet responding [to obesity] with treatment alone fails badly on equity grounds. The groups in the United States most likely to become obese are racial minorities”

      Oh noooo! There’s not absolute parity in obesity rates from one ethnic group to another!! That means that obesity is racist and if you oppose higher taxes on manufacturers of foods deemed to be “junk food”, you’re a racist too!!!

      Wow, it’s almost like different cultures have different cuisines, and that some cuisines might be less healthy than others.

      1. The average height of someone from Honduras is about 4’10”, and they all look quite round to me. I must be racist

  20. The problem is not using “conservative” in a generic sense though the inevitable conflation with the political identification is confusing. The problem with what he said is that it is a “right wing” phenomenon by definition. It makes it impossible for any left wing movement to utilize oppressive tactics. Sorry, that is just rigging the debate.

  21. Human thought is too complex for anything to be a straight line continuum. Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican etc, etc. It’s easier for me to (still over simplified as it might be) see the continuum as a circle, with pure anarchism at 12 o’clock and pure statism at 6 o’clock. From 6 to 12 is left, no property rights perfection while 12 to 6 is right, private property rights. The question is are you going to be closer to 12 o’clock or 6 o’clock – are you going to demand more statism (6) or more individualism (12). And what is the basis for your attitude when it comes to a standard concept – default individualism or default statism.

    I’m at about 1 o’clock – private property rights, no subsidies of any kind,”state” necessary to protect property rights from Force or Fraud – the basic libertarian stance. So, for example as one would cross over 12 o’clock to about 11 o’clock and your “Noam Chomsky’s” of the world, we could be quite close on those ideas of individualism, but we’re going to vastly far apart on the role of “state” in our mix (the distance between us that would necessitate the passage through “6 o’clock”. So, that’s how fascism and practical communism are really not so far apart when it comes to their statist functions (clustering around either side of 6 o’clock) though they may be fundamentally far apart when it comes to the individuals’ role within society (the distance between 5 0’clock and 7 0’clock that has to traverse through 12 o’clock.

    1. As for PC, built into that concept is “political” which speaks of government, which is the state, and to statists of either the right or left will demand (at least outward) obedience or punishments will ensue. 6 o’clock is all about hammers and nails and efficiencies and homogeneity. Whether it’s the proletariat (supposedly) holding property in common or The Volk coordinating ostensibly private property in painfully efficient centralized manner, both are going to demand manifest behaviors that doesn’t challenge the State and its super-ordinate Goodness.

      1. This a perfect take, My brother is a perfect example, he’s a results oriented person as he worked for an electric co op for 30 years and knows how bullshit the green arguements re renewables. They have their place but greens are idiots if they think renewables will keep the power on. Also is very skeptical of climate change TM, because he knows how energy is produced and transmitted.

        He just started brewing beer since his wife and kids a starter kit last Christmas and he has brewed some pretty tasty stuff. He posited yesterday (something he read in a craft brew rag) that ambev and miller/coors are buying up local beer distributors so they can force the distributors to only sell craft brew brands they own. I pointed out that craft brews are 5% of the market and it would be idiotic for them to delve into local distibution. Less the fact that beer sales here seem to be shrinking. These multinationals are buying brands in places like china and india because that’s where growth will be. They don’t give a fuck about a brewer in Missoula, MT, that brews 10,000 barrels of beer.

        Yet he buys the schtick.Craft brewers tend to be progs, at least around here and I think Montana is second to Vermont in craft brewers per capita. I enjoy their brew but Budweiser ain’t coming to get them, that’s simply p

    1. Wait, they shot the woman who just opened the door first and then went on to another apartment to shoot the guy with the bat? Am I reading the sequence of events correctly?

        1. I am stunned.

          If it makes anyone feel better let me say this. I have been to a couple of prisons in New Orleans to both pick up and drop off people. They are exactly what you would imagine hell on earth to be like. This guy is going to get what he deserves.

          1. Or will he be transferred to a prison outside of New Orleans?

          2. If that stuned you Suthenboy you might need to undergo concussion protocol after reading this one as well.

            The cops are crooks by any sane definition.


            Why is not this entire department under RICO inestigation ? According to the article they did nothing but make several million dollars and never investigated anyone or anything.

        2. That photo looks much more flattering to the arrestee than the mug shots the pigs normally release. Not too difficult to figure out why.

        3. A local court reporter tweeted the photo of Thomassie with his newly clean shaven chin that prosecutors said he sent to his new girlfriend at the same time. Rodrigue told jurors the couple had flirted about whether he preferred women to be shaved.

          “He responds, ‘No hair is best,'” Rodrigue said, according to the newspaper. “Hours before sitting in court for trial for the aggravated rape of a 7- or 8-year-old girl.”

          Thomassie, who was wearing the red jumpsuit for maximum security prisoners Tuesday, hasn’t been officially fired from the New Orleans Police Department.

    2. “Mayor Rahm Emanuel addressed the shooting while on vacation in Cuba…”

      They don’t even try anymore, do they?

      As for the shooting it sounds like both were shot at the same time, the woman by mistake. By the description there it sounds like maybe the bullets that hit her went through the kid first. Cop didn’t see her standing behind him.

    3. Rahm Emmanuel would vacation in Cuba.

    4. How grotesque.

  22. “I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right.”

    Where do right-wingers get to “not tolerate” other points of view?

        1. Not sure what school boards you are talking about, but here in Knoxville they are not controlled by the right of anything and they tolerate no contrary points of view.

          1. And you can’t imagine the inverse in a different community?

            1. Sure I can. “School boards” however, is not an automatic answer to the question since they are largely, shore to shore in the US, run by leftoid pushers of government schooling. Now run out there and find a “right wing” school board that encourages competition and use that for your example.

              1. “School boards” however, is not an automatic answer to the question

                Never claim it was.

                1. Then by all means, name the “right wing” school board of which you speak.

                  1. I heard that in Indiana in the late 1970s & the early 1980s, the 1st thing the Religious Right took over, after their Republican organiz’ns, was the school boards.

              2. You’re awfully hostile. Be nice. Heroic is smarter than you. You might learn something.

            2. And you can’t imagine the inverse in a different community?

              No, actually. The people who gravitate towards school boards are busybodies who want to force their advice onto those who have enough sense not to listen. They exist in every community, no matter how conservative. And they’re usually leftists.

              It’s like anything government related. Good people do not seek out to force their ideas onto others. That’s why government will always suck and why libertarians will always lose.

  23. Dear Whitey

    no, its not last year’s movie-version. Its possibly less-original.

    1. Too bad I can’t read that. My News Year’s resolution is to stop reading/watching things addressed only to white people.

      1. So you’re giving up on Taylor Swift! Excellent.

        1. Goddammit Heroic.

          I was drinking that coffee!

          *goes to kitchen for roll of paper towels

            1. I’m getting over a bad cold. Last night I had a glass of wine with dinner, and suddenly had a sneezing fit as I was drinking the last mouthful of wine. The wine coming out my nose and going everywhere was awful.

        2. I’m gonna have to rethink that resolution because my status as a basic bitch means most of what I read/watch is addressed to white people. No Adele, Graham Norton, Downton Abbey, Peaky Blinders. No libertarian blogs. Basically, I’d need to go content free. I must be a racist.

    2. “My aim was to engage, in this very public space, with the often unnamed elephant in the room.”

      I had to stop there. A subject that we never stop hearing about, one that is whined about in every political discussion, constantly used as a weapon to discredit and silence opponents is an elephant in the room that never gets named.

      Got it.

      The real elephant in the room is the naked racism of those who can’t shut up about race.

      1. The language. It’s so bad. Cargo cult English composition.

        1. His or mine? I make no apologies for mine, though I probably should.

      2. It is sort of amusing how modern race-trollers use the same rhetorical m.o. as 19th century ‘white man’s burden’ advocates –

        “(Insert race) just needs to be properly educated in order to join modern, enlightened society. Some, of course will resist. Which is why we need more power to ‘correct’ them when needed.”

  24. and Bill Maher is a politically incorrect libertarian according to this scoring system.

  25. “I think political correctness is quite right wing,” said O’Neill.

    Aww, how sweet. The idiot confuses being reactionary with being “right wing.” Or he thinks everybody else is an idiot.

    1. The guy confuses feeling with thinking.

    2. The author is just defining anything bad as “right-wing”.

      1. In the UK cosmotarians call themselves“trotskyists”. Weird, huh?

    3. “Or he thinks everybody else is an idiot.”

      He’s just a polemicist and contrarian with a column to fill. Pretty much everything he writes here is fluff and filler albeit with a twist of outrageously silly claims. Believe me, I know what I’m talking about.

  26. The busybody left…..body-left/

  27. OT, and pay-walled, but the headline says it all:

    “Gun purchases up despite California’s strict firearms laws”
    “Even as California has enacted some of the toughest gun laws in the country, firearm purchases in the state have steadily increased.”…..ate-result

    Regarding the proposed solution, well ‘You don’t have to look and you don’t have to see/You can feel it in your olfactory!’

  28. Is word reassignment conservative or progressive?

    1. It’s the 21st century, and words are meaning neutral, and the SCOTUS reaffirmed that.. Check your cis-privilege, cave dweller..

  29. Tell me the definitions you’re using, and I’ll tell me whether conservatives are politically correct.

  30. Political correctness is a phenomenon of both the Left and the Right, namely because most human beings are defensive-minded conformists?regardless of their ideological camp.

  31. fascism ALWAYS comes from the left. the elitists know what it takes to make a perfect society and if it takes sacrificing individual rights, so be it. (Actually, they are willing to sacrifice much more, millions of lives, to create the perfect state, e.g, Mao’s cultural revolution.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.