Political Correctness Is Back with a New Name: Bullying

Article excerpt

Byline: Armstrong Williams, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Over the past few years, bullying has become a hot topic of conversation. Perhaps I should amend that: Bullying has become a hot topic in the media as it has been pushed by progressives to force mainstream acceptance of their agenda.

The bullying I am talking about is not the big kid pushing around the little kid or the Steubenville, Ohio, rape case. The acts of bullying that are making headlines are about words and feelings. Many times it is used as a catch-all for anyone that challenges the leftist ideas - suspending children for expressing their religious views or making a gun with their pointer finger and thumb.

You will recognize that many similarities between the anti-bullying trend today and the political correctness movement in the '90s. This is just the latest example of a repressive movement aiming to stifle any and all dissent.

In 1949, George Orwell wrote the ground-breaking book 1984. In it he describes the idea of Newspeak - a state-created language intended to restrict man's ability to describe his own thoughts and feelings. One particular aspect of Newspeak was the idea of thoughtcrime - harboring unspoken thoughts that could be deemed contentious or anti-social. Lacking the words to express displeasure was not enough; you could be arrested for thinking inexpressible notions.

In America circa 2013, your own intentions do not matter if you express any idea that can be construed as hate speech. Intentions only matter when you enact the leftist idea of what is good - even if it destroys people's lives.

According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or other traits.

A noble gesture, but what happens when you call someone of a different race a jerk or more colorful explicative? If you are a white male, that is hate speech. If a black man says it to a black woman, that is sexual discrimination or harassment, another form of hate speech.

When it comes to policing language, it is the offendee's subjective interpretation that matters, not the offender's intent. In fact, the offendee's prior actions are not even a consideration - the person may have just run over your pet, but your anger and mental anguish does not compare to the supposed psychological damage the offendee suffers when you express outrage at that person.

All we have to do is look at any criticism of President Obama. Do not agree with his policies? Well, you must be racist. But I am black and disagree; fortunately, I have liberal white folks to tell me I am an Uncle Tom.

These accusations are not meant to point out actual racism; they are meant to discredit and silence opposition. The logical fallacies run wild: hasty generalizations, strawmen, no true Scotsman, and appeals to ignorance just for starters. Needless to say, such indictments are not valid points of debate.

The desire to silence critics is due to the left's own narcissistic tendencies. A narcissist projects his or her own thoughts onto others; he or she cannot imagine that others think differently. …