No words are more typical of our moral culture than “inappropriate” and “unacceptable.” They seem bland, gentle even, yet they carry the full force of official power. When you hear them, you feel that you are being tied up with little pieces of soft string.
Inappropriate and unacceptable began their modern careers in the 1980s as part of the jargon of political correctness. They have more or less replaced a number of older, more exact terms: coarse, tactless, vulgar, lewd. They encompass most of what would formerly have been called “improper” or “indecent.” An affair between a teacher and a pupil that was once improper is now inappropriate; a once indecent joke is now unacceptable.
This linguistic shift is revealing. Improper and indecent express moral judgements, whereas inappropriate and unacceptable suggest breaches of some purely social or professional convention. Such “non-judgemental” forms of speech are tailored to a society wary of explicit moral language. As liberal pluralists, we seek only adherence to rules of the game, not agreement on fundamentals. What was once an offence against decency must be recast as something akin to a faux pas.
But this new, neutralised language does not spell any increase in freedom. When I call your action indecent, I state a fact that can be controverted. When I call it inappropriate, I invoke an institutional context—one which, by implication, I know better than you. Who can gainsay the Lord Chamberlain when he pronounces it “inappropriate” to wear jeans to the Queen’s garden party? This is what makes the new idiom so sinister. Calling your action indecent appeals to you as a human being; calling it inappropriate asserts official power.
The point can be generalised. As a society, we strive to eradicate moral language, hoping to eliminate the intolerance that often accompanies it. But intolerance has not been eliminated, merely thrust underground. “Inappropriate” and “unacceptable” are the catchwords of a moralism that dare not speak its name. They hide all measure of righteous fury behind the mask of bureaucratic neutrality. For the sake of our own humanity, we should strike them from our vocabulary.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
Comments (71):
Saying that something is inappropriate isn’t necessarily an opaque appeal to institutional power, it’s just a more general category of condemnation.
If I assert that it’s inappropriate to wear white shoes after Labor Day, someone can still ask me why I think so. I might make an empirical argument about the norms of polite behavior in a certain context. Or I might make a normative case about what I think decency or modesty or fashion forwardness demands. If they think it’s appropriate, they can say, “Actually, it happens all the time. It’s no big deal, get over yourself.” or “Maybe it’s not done. But so what?” It’s not like “inappropriate” shuts down the conversation.
Calling something crass or vulgar is just as much an appeal to social norms and standards as calling it inappropriate. If anything, it’s more of a conversation-stopper because it’s a way of shaming or stigmatizing. It’s harder to argue with the conversational equivalent of a grimace. “Inappropriate” leaves open the possibility of a fact-based discussion.
Well said Mr Skidelsky. \In appropriate\ also replaces the simpler and clearer \wrong.\ The teacher acted inappropriately by having an affair with her student. As you say, how much more po-faced and evasive than saying the teacher acted wrongly.
Bureacrats also love the word \encourage,\ a velvet glove in which to hide the coercive iron fist of compulsion. I once heard a bureaucrat challenged on what she meant by the word \encourage.\ Will you take their licences away? No we will encourage them to comply. And if they don’t? We will counsel them …
\Age-appropriate\ has been another nice piece of psycho-babble, a term without meaning, or rather meaning anything you want it to mean.
Mr Skidelsky is not incorrect. It would be most appropriate for us to drop the word, even at the risk of being wrong …
Apologies to Lord Skidelsky. From the other side of the world I didn’t know that he was a member of the House of Lords. I inadvertently referred to him as Mr Skidelsky, which was wrong at best and inappropriate at worst.
“Unacceptable” very often means “we’ll have to accept it”.
It is a word of childish rage or impotent embarrassment — the protest of the minister who is powerless to do anything about bankers’ bonuses, or Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or declining standards in schools. When they tell us that they don’t accept these things — the facts — politicians are admitting that they live in dreamland.
[...] Words that think for us [...]
No, Jack, the teacher did not do anything wrong. I agree with you that, if you’re going to descend to base moralising, it is better you should do so honestly; but it is better still that you should cut the cant entirely
Ed, your statement, “we strive to eradicate moral language, hoping to eliminate the intolerance that often accompanies it” is an accurate and sad commentary on modern wishful thinking.
The worst aspect, though is not that intolerance is “merely thrust underground.” Rather, it is that we become unable to call evil by its name. Good men are condemned for doing so, and named or not, evil expands.
You are so right…I had been feeling uncomfortable with the politically correct terminology being used lately, but was unsure why. You have succinctly explained it for me.
Thank you
Agreed with the post, but while I’m very conservative, I do have to say Lindsay Beyerstein’s comment above has a really good point. “Inappropriate” and “unacceptable” bring up serious questions about social norms and are not merely political correctness gone overboard necessarily.
“As a society, we strive to eradicate moral language, hoping to eliminate the intolerance that often accompanies it.”
Strongly disagreed.
I am part of this society, and I for one believe there is too much tolerance in our society, and freedom all too frequently degenerates into license. Surely I am not alone. Surely other members of this society would not choose a moral-free zone. A society is defined exactly by the sharing of values. What exactly is a society without morals?
[...] neutralised language November 21, 2009, 1:29 pm Filed under: Uncategorized “Inappropriate” is “unacceptable.” Leave a Comment No Comments Yet so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. [...]
The first problem with this argument is the obvious one embodied in the contradiction stated in the article:
“This linguistic shift is revealing. Improper and indecent express moral judgements, whereas inappropriate and unacceptable suggest breaches of some purely social or professional convention.”
But, of course, morality is “some purely social or professional convention.” What is indecent requires the imposition of a social convention to consider it so.
The second problem lies in the assertion that there is something different about the use of “inappropriate” in terms of it having an official character. But, of course, when terms like indecent were in fashion they also had an official character: one that could land you in a lot more trouble than in the current state. I get the impression that the author is preparing to go Hayekian on modern language. Perhaps we’ll hear later that this is all part of the Left’s attempt to slip feudalism in through the back door via a political correctness regime (whereas it ought to go through the front door, as it always has in the past, using good, old, straightforward language like “indecent”).
Nevertheless, I do agree with the author that this modern language, like many such instances (euphemism has a much broader and more politically diverse pedigree than is mentioned here), is ugly and degrades the language. It is ugly in precisely this way: it allows people to judge without standing behind their judgement. It brings the passive-aggressive rhetorical tactics of committees into everyday social life. The author is correct to identify this as a corrosive cultural phenomenon. There is little reason, however, to expand the point further. The problem is now obvious: how to invoke a genuinely moral discourse that is consistent with the conditions of modern life?
The term “inappropriate”, for example, is not simply neutral and bureaucratic, in the sense discussed in the article and in my own response, it is also a sincere attempt to navigate the acknowledged fact that much of the behavior that causes us to react with moral approval or disapproval is indisputably subjective and purely a matter of social convention. “Inappropriate” allows people to speak carefully and with full awareness that it is morally unacceptable to judge someone according to a standard of which they have no awareness and to which they have never allied themselves.
In short, we will get nowhere with a project of improving modern moral discourse until we acknowledge that much of what has previously been considered a matter of morals was really a matter of ethics or manners; and we need to be aware of the boundaries.
It is good, too, to remind ourselves of the tyranny of petty, self-interested moralizers that existed in the Good Old Days, before the political correctness people decided to steal the spotlight.
[...] and a pupil that was once improper is now inappropriate; a once indecent joke is now unacceptable.Read the complete articleMore Sunday reads Cats: Misc Tags: BOOK SA – News, Edward Skidelsky, Misc, Prospect Magazine, South [...]
very interesting.
perhaps political correctness has been endorsed by both the right and the left because of the mechanism you describe — the assignment of power to institutions.
jon monroe –
the author is arguing something quite subtle and important and it relates to the core of what the “politically correct movement” (PCM) is all about.
the PCM is all about assigning behavioral control to institutions and taking it away from the traditional players — the church, the monarchy, the moneyed class, the bourgeoisie and even “mom and dad”.
if behavior is contextualized as either “right or wrong”, then the arbiters of morality control what is morally acceptable and what is not. morality has been primarily the domain of the church and through its extension into the monarchy. the church defined what was right or wrong and everyone was required to comply.
in contemporary times, political authority has been transferred from the church and monarchy to secular political institutions — who are interested in maintaining power. political institutions are supported by the news media, the educational system and the entertainment industry. all these players make it their business to develop, adopt and enforce politically-correct policies and language which is at the core of the PCM.
why? because of what the author argues — that by removing morality from the equation, the user is only responsible for “knowing the rules” as opposed to understanding “the difference between right and wrong” and that this requires that the individual assign authority to the rule-makers.
if it is “inappropriate” for a husband and wife to kiss at home or in public, but not at work, then the employer has effective control. if the couple’s child’s school adopts the same policy, then the school has control. if the the institution says it’s “not right” or “it’s wrong” to kiss at work or school, then this opens a debate about why it’s right/wrong, if it really is right/wrong and, ultimately, is anything really “right” or “wrong”. making it “inappropriate” behavior eliminates personal morality, institutional morality, popular morality and even mom and dad’s morality — and through a subtle change in language, all those players are kept out of the rule-making operation, leaving authority to those who set policy and define it through terminology. this creates a positive-feedback system that continues to reinforce institutional authority: create the terminology and policies, promote the adoption through media and in-house policy and enforce the rules. just using the institutional language supports the authority of institutions by conforming to institutionally-defined behavior and excluding the influence of all other would-be authorities.
the PCM is promoted by both the right and the left in government and with the support of the educational system, corporations, the news media and the entertainment industry. all these institutions are interested in obtaining (more) power and maintaining it. when individuals conform to their authority, they profit, and they all use language to encourage the individual to assign authority to institutional power. if they used terms laced with moral subtext, they would be sharing their authority with God, the church, the queen and mom and dad.
Dear Mr. Skidelsky,
Thank you for your insight. It is the nature of the modernists to be sly, and to chip away at virtue in small ways – just so. You are correct, and anyone who denies it is merely rationalizing and defending the slow bleed as being “progessive”.
Best regards,
mr
When someone tells you something is inappropriate or unacceptable answer ‘how?’ for the former and ‘why?’ for the latter. Guaranteed to engender evasive looks, shuffling of feet, red faces, and other signs of discomfort. If no answer is forthcoming, just walk away.
These terms are used in an attempt to assert authority while avoiding conflict. Conflict avoidance is another catchword of our society.
Both appeal to the idea of ‘consensus’, which itself is a velvet covering for an imposition of will.
This intellectually slight article is a tempest in a teacup.
Consider the author’s two examples of infelicitous uses of the word inappropriate. Both of them make sense as examples only because they explicitly refer to particular institutional settings, viz. the academy and the monarchy. Whether having affairs or wearing jeans is wrong (in the more robust, moral sense the author seems to desire) independent of any possible institutional setting is a matter for debate, but one that certainly doesn’t impinge on the point that in those particular settings that behavior is not condoned.
As a replacement for “inappropriate,” the author really doesn’t get as much conceptual mileage from “improper” as he supposes, since the two words have more or less the same meaning, which becomes very clear when one looks at their etymologies. In the Latin words from which they are both derived, “proprio” refers to something of one’s own. Negating this, we see, in the case of both “inappropriate” and “improper,” that we do not “own” in these instances is precisely the prerogative to make moral judgments, and that these are “owned” by a collectivity, or even, you might say, an institution.
Finally, as regards “unacceptable,” the author has also chosen a poor example, in which he has confused the semantic content of a statement with the rules for its performance. A joke may be lewd, but if so, what’s lewd about it is the content. What is unacceptable is telling a joke with lewd content in an inappropriate situation. Once again, there is the question as to whether a joke can be unacceptable independent of all possible institutional contexts, but I think we can all agree that certain things can be said in a pub amongst friends that ought not be said in the presence of one’s students, say, or one’s Queen.
I hope readers will excuse the pedantic tone of this comment, but I thought it appropriate to show at length how misguided the author’s faux-outrage is. In doing so, I hope I’ve shown what happens to philosophical problems when we carefully examine the use of our language: they disappear.
Outstanding! Great article!
I wonder what Skidelsky makes of the practice of Rosenberg’s “non-violent communication”. I would see NVC as the flip side of the phenomenon that Skidelsky is pointing out. Either we talk about perfectly objective, neutral rules of etiquette or else we merely express our subjective opinions about how things make us feel. I wonder if what Skidelsky is responding to is thus the growing bifurcation of the objective (e.g. rules, codes of conduct etc.) and the subjective (e.g. our feelings). This bifurcation obscures our negative evaluative judgments making them more difficult to deal with, rather than less.
Not a bad article, but has been covered in exceptional fashion by George Carlin in much more humorous detail.
Felt invigorated!!
Thank you Mr. Skidelsky for your refreshing comment–(no doubt someone will take exception to such an inappropriate opinion!). Ah-I see the official representative of political correctness has just posted that response below…It is important we be ever vigilant in case someone should escape the regime once in awhile and lose it. One often finds these maladjusted types listening to the evening news and yelling to themselves “God help me ‘inappropriate behavior’ does not cover it!!-”swine child terrorists, childhood murderers!” and the like, because to do so anywhere else might offend, and worse still, ‘tend to stigmatize’ …
For a truly belligerent expression, what about ‘normative’..
hilarious comments from the PC ‘class monitors’..
pedantic is perhaps not the word; however the more accurate descriptors that come to mind might not be appropriate. But if you have to post such dreary mini -treatises, could you just spare everyone the inflated tone (”we of the pomo cognoscenti..”)
This little article is such an intelligent synopsis of the problem (or one of the symptoms of the problem) at the end of the postmodernist regime. We are still too close in time to really see what we are left with, but I think it can only be called the ashes, as the only true legacy of PM seems something like the Berlin wall– a big, grey mound of detritus, its own ‘discredited’ assumptions, ‘false realities’, ugly language, worse art–an experiment with monumental destruction, coercion, hollow and pretentious ideologies that the worldwide Marxist association–one of its (self selected) patron saints- has long disavowed . I’m looking forward to reading Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture, very much.
Thank you Mr. Ruby for your tome which begins “This intellectually slight article is a tempest in a teacup…”
and then carps on the author’s “infelicitous uses of the word inappropriate”…and so forth..
It is wonderfully comic –you almost had me convinced it was serious. well done!
Prove it! This article doesn’t prove a thing. It merely asserts that a language shift has happened based on the author’s own feelings and subjective observations.
We can do corpus counts–it’s easy, and linguists do it all the time. You could also cite a dictionary, or the work of a lexicographer, but, no, you fall back on easy tropes. No empirical proof whatsoever. Just an argument that feels right.
I see one of the tags for this article is “linguistics.” Unfortunately, this is the kind of unsupported drivel that passes for “linguistics” all too often in the public sphere.
Go read Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/) and maybe you’ll learn a thing or two. Until then, please stop writing on a topic you clearly do not know how to research.
Another bland, meaningless word that is used in innumerable situations is “issues”. I would like to see it given a rest.
@ Jack: I fear you’ve skidded your Skidelskys. You concern yourself needlessly: last I heard, Edward Skidelsky was not a member of the House of Lords, His father Robert Skidelsky was, however, made a member of the upper house by Margaret Thatcher.
Bravo! Such newspeak as “inappropriate” and “unacceptable” blunt our moral sense and disguise the self-righteousness of the new politically correct regime. As George Orwell warned us several years back, language signals to us the threats to our freedom; and Dostoevsky’s underground man declares that he would rather be outrageous and perverse than live by the rules of the game if they are purely arbitrary. .
[...] This linguistic shift is revealing. Improper and indecent express moral judgements, whereas inappropriate and unacceptable suggest breaches of some purely social or professional convention. Such “non-judgemental” forms of speech are tailored to a society wary of explicit moral language. As liberal pluralists, we seek only adherence to rules of the game, not agreement on fundamentals. What was once an offence against decency must be recast as something akin to a faux pas. more [...]
Thanks for this – I remember how much I used to hate these mealy-mouthed (to my mind) Americanisms some time ago. Now they’ve become so common I think I barely notice them any more, well done on reawakening my entirely appropriate hatred
I believe Mr. Skidelsky has missed something very important: that while it may be true that the political correctness movement institutionalizes and degrades the character of some moral judgements, that is is nevertheless also true that the members of the PCM movement are the people today who are taking morality most seriously. The fact that they have turned to the state as a means of enforcing their codes (and where else could they turn. I wonder?) does not alter the fact that they are engaged in a moral enterprise of great seriousness. The resentment directed at them by advocates of traditional morality only highlights their success, and the fecklessness of tradition: tradition has only to whine or to radicalize. Tradition has been overturned, and yet it is somehow expected that its moral weight should survive.
No doubt, at some time in the past, the imposition of law by monarchies would have struck traditionalists with the same horror with which they now view PC. And if the slippery slope arguments used to foster fear of progressive agendas is also applied to traditionalist nostalgia… well, then… warlords anyone?.
Better to spend energy finding a new balance of social forces to underpin modern morality.
BTW: All this anxiety about moral language does need to come to grips with moral behavior at some point. I am quite sure that if we set what some people consider to be bad manners aside, that modern societies will be found at a moral peak in world history, not in the gully (even taking into account the casualties of both world wars, people have never led safer lives in conditions of greater stability to pursue genuine improvements in the human condition; only the sensitivity that has been engendered by our material and moral improvement permits us the luxury of looking on the 20th century with horror… so what, exactly, is the underlying worry here?).
Excellent article. Edward Skidelsky is describing the way in which language is becoming benevolently imprecise. Consider the use of “around.” and “issues” A politician will say “There are issues around the Health Service” rather than daring to say ” There are problems WITH the Health Service.” All this is a shameless blurring of meaning and now part of our regular political discourse.
George Orwell would have torn “issues” to shreds
Thanks Footnote Hooligan. First I demoted the author to “Mr” instead of “Dr” and then I elevated him to the House of Lords. But perhaps it’s an hereditory title after all?
I emailed Dr Sidelsky at Exeter University to apologise but he isn’t speaking to me. He wasn’t speaking to me before, either, so I suppose that’s an appropriate response.
But seriously Footnote and folks, here’s the starkest affirmation of the point Dr Skidelsky made. It’s a quote from a Weekly Standard article on US Major Hasan’s murderous mayhem at Fort Hood:
‘There are, of course, many reasons not to trust the words of an al Qaeda cleric. But late last week, ABC News offered more details of the 18 emails between Hasan and Awlaki. In one, Hasan tells Awlaki, “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife.
‘Citing officials familiar with the emails, ABC reported that Hasan also asked Awlaki “when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.”‘
[...] Inappropriate jargon Are words such as “inappropriate” and “unacceptable” politically correct? [...]
[...] Skidelsky in Prospect Magazine writes about Words that think for us . He notes a difference in our terms for moral censure: No words are more typical of our moral [...]
Many thanks for your comments, some of them very useful. I’m relying on contacts to provide me with material for this column, so if any words particularly irk you, do please send them to me, if possible together with examples of their misuse. \Issues\ is one that has cropped up a lot already. My email is e.b.h.skidelsky@ex.ac.uk.
[...] When you hear them, you feel that you are being tied up with little pieces of soft string. — Moral Language in Prospect Magazine linkscolor = "000000"; highlightscolor = "888888"; backgroundcolor = "FFFFFF"; channel = [...]
use of “inappropriate” differs from use of “indecent” mainly by asserting the identity of the party who will be offended by the act. The latter suggests that some higher morality is breached; the lack of direct access to a source of which enables debate. The former suggests a group of humans as those subject to the unfavorable nature of the action being thusly labeled. It is more difficult to argue with this since the possibly-to-be-offended humans themselves are the source from which the notion that would have had to be discussed in the more moral case actually springs, and would be the incontrovertible experts on the surrounding facts. So in essence, the substitution of the words substitutes the offended parties; one with which there could be no communication for one with whom the speaker has direct access. This causes an obvious difficulty in argument.
In essence, when one invokes the use of “inappropriate” they are not making a statement about the action which is being labeled as such; they are making a statement about their own reaction to such an action. This of course cannot be argued with. The speaker of the words “indecent” or “wrong”, by using god or a super-human moral as a proxy for themselves, has left their statement up to argument by adding an object to the conversation with which they could never claim to have full expertise .
Then, though the word “inappropriate” has this sort of inarguable nature (when used in the context I’m describing) which would seem to give the increase in power that mr. skidelsky is attempting to argue, I would say that it gives up just as much power in the form of range of applicability. Labeling something as “lewd” describes the more fundamental nature of the action and hence is a general condemnation. Labeling something as “inappropriate” only serves to illustrate the nature of the relationship between the object of discussion and the speaker of the word himself. The environment in which the label retains its power is tiny. And this is the exchange that is made. This word certainly has a different power in usage. But it hasn’t a larger absolute value, but merely a restructuring or focusing effect in its point of application.
Inappropriate is to broad a word to use in certain contexts.
Passing gas in an elevator is inappropriate (and tasteless). Wearing ratty shorts and a torn shirt to a wedding is inappropriate.
A teacher having an affair with a student is to serious a matter for a word like inappropriate. It would be better to say that such an affair is wrong or exploitative.
[...] Skidelsky in Prospect Magazine writes about words that think for us: No words are more typical of our moral culture than “inappropriate” and “unacceptable.” [...]
[...] imagination gets slapped with the “interesting” sticker. Thus, an interesting article over at Prospect on current (and currently acceptable) terms for social disapproval caught my attention. Author [...]
Miss Beyerstein I think you’re confusing the point while at the same time dismissing it without tackling what’s being said.
“A more general code of condemnation” is exactly what the problem is here. When you remove the reasons why something is wrong and just tell us that it’s wrong because it’s against the rules, the rules begin to have far less meaning because then they only exist in order to exist..when the laws serve only their own existence (read the people in power) they necessarily serve no larger purpose.
When the laws serve no larger purpose than themselves, whoever is in power can do with them what they please. Someone like Hitler built an entity that was more powerful than the German laws of the day which had been devalued by the same thing that affects us now, moral relativism …Such new fangled entities like Hitler’s or Pol Pot’s regimes are always defeated by a unified and universal morality, but never by changing secular laws which some people might say “are the same thing as universal moral laws” but quite obviously aren’t.
In this way abortion is fine because “life is sacred” becomes just an old law that is now obsolete because of human overcrowding. When “life is sacred” is a universal moral law delivered by the Creator of All nothing never no way no how can change it. It’s eternal, always was and always is, even if we choose to ignore it and belittle it as an archaic superstitious intolerant nonsense rule.
I am so thankful to read the responses of ‘Jacob the Jew’, “Jack’ Jim McH , Michael, and others, which are much more thoughtfully expressed than my own. The ‘mealy-mouthed’ postmodernist agenda is so thoroughly entrenched here in Canada that the only thing it inspires in me now is a sort of incoherent spluttering. I have no way of knowing where you are all from, or what your day to day experience is like..but here, and especially in academia, the PCM regime has been total…everything must be passed through that tedious inspection, and given a ‘reading’; everything one says or thinks or writes must conform to some arcane yet not very subtle or modulated code..
it has been and is still exerting a stranglehold on culture, reducing everything to the same predictable forms. But beneath the porridgey grey and pernicious blandness– there’s a crome yellow effect like those hideous coiled fluorescent lightbulbs we are urged to buy… and which will undoubtedly create the same kind of depressing effect. Its language, as someone noted above, is an extreme form of passive aggression. I see it in all the ever-so patiently worded replies, gently correcting our thoughts and putting them back in line.. Ms Beyerstein, I know you don’t see it this way, but it is a fascistic sort of line to take…it is choking the life out of things
I’ve been saying this since 1994, when some dippy broad on a BBS tried to tell me that my criticism of something or other was “inappropriate.” I kept asking here, “on what basis?” And she just keep responding that I should be aware that what I was saying was “inappropriate,” and it wasn’t her responsibility to “educate” me. Basically, it just comes down to people trying to stigmatize disagreement. Its somehow “inappropriate” to come to conclusions different from the ones they have reached.
Jack, Robert Skidelsky is a lord, not, as far as I know, Edward. So no impropriety there!
How “appropriate” is it for the government to pay bankers to write financial education books for schools? People need confidence about daily money from INDEPENDENT sources. Frank forthright facts can be found in new plain-speaking financial literacy book http://www.moneybarebasicfacts.co.uk
Superbly simple straightforward and, importantly, it is impartial.
Ted, you are so right. The PC form of thought control is becoming so entrenched that anyone who questions it is now subject to shunning, as with cult members who question the cult’s dogma or leadership.
I understand that the trend has gone wild in Canada, enforced by a tribunal. Do I understand correctly that a Canadian lady who repeatedly protested outside an abortion clinic was jailed for some years? If so, surely this is heading for the end of free speech and the unfolding of a Stalinist era of thought control. Like Mao devotees, we will each be carry our “Little PC Book” of politically correct thoughts, imposed by the cultural revolution.
This author misses the most important points of the very issue he raises, using deceptively neutral and authoritative language to frame what were and remain moralistic values judgments some people thrust at others.
It is inherently dishonest to frame personal or small group values judgments as if neutral. They are not.
It is inherently abusive as well as dishonest to pretend bigotry driven values judgments are statements of absolute authority, as neutral boundary language attempts to make them appear. They remain relativistic complaints that someone hasn’t followed certain social or religious expectations, that others think should be universal, but are not. The change this article discusses in language is little more than disingenuous passive aggressive manipulation, to pretend those using faux-neutral language are saying something other than, \you’d better act according to my sense of hate cult bigotry.\
The primary reason for dishonest reframing of moralistic cult dogma as if authoritative expressions of universal values or boundaries is that society and law have changed. The mix of increasing social and religious diversity, and adoption of civil or human rights laws more broadly, have resulted in archaic social traditions becoming dysfunctional and abusive in many cases, if not sometimes also criminal.
The author is correct only on a superficial level. Passive-aggressive deception tactics to dishonestly mask bigotry are inappropriate, for a long list of social, psych pathology, and legal reasons. The real problem behind this shift of language isn’t the words, but the fact that millions of people haven’t grown up or died off fast enough to end the forms of social practices behind the language of imposing predatory and abusive tactics in efforts to violate and coerce oppression of the core rights of neighbors.