Like a frog boiled, we have now reached Stalinist levels of censorship. They won’t send you to the gulag, but in the later days of Stalinism they seldom did that. Rather, your career depended on compliance
I was listening to Chris Rock’s hilarious rant “We hate black people too!” and my son became alarmed, lest some one sneak up on my house and listen near the windows.
Everyone in America tells the official story of the banking crisis: “de-regulation”. The Israeli central bank correctly blames government intervention aimed at making loans available to poor people with bad credit – though even the Israeli central bank somehow neglects to mention that in America, those poor people were not poor white males.
Observe that every fiction book must have properly counterstereotypical characters to rebut the characteristics of race and sex. Thus, for example, John Ringo, having committed the unpardonable sin of a few lines about stereotypical blondes in “live Free or Die” has to make the main character of the sequel (“Citadel”) a counter stereotypical blonde. In the sequel, the rhetoric about freedom mysteriously mutates into anticolonialist, or decolonist, rhetoric, perhaps because merely having a counter stereotypical blonde as main character is insufficient penance for making a joke about blondes. Everything published must serve the higher purpose of inculcating correct political attitudes.
If you are an executive, and you use the word “blonde” as a noun your company can get whacked with a multimillion dollar lawsuit, and if you are an untenured academic and use the word “blonde” as a noun you will never get tenure. (Tenured academics, however, can and regularly do say “blonde” without losing tenure.)
Everyone is terrified of tripping over some incredibly obscure rule of political correctness that they have never heard of. My favorite in this regard comes from the history of science. Among the many recent rewrites of the history of science is that before 1972, Darwin’s big idea was natural selection, and the idea that families of species were related by blood, were actual families, with a common ancestor, was attributed to Lamarck and other predecessors of Darwin. After 1972, history was abruptly rewritten – though the original books by Lamark are still around and continue to say what they so plainly said. Yet whenever I raise this story as an example of PC, no one dares notice that old books say what they said, and that Lamarck says what he said.
O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and four fingers extended. “How many fingers am I holding up, Winston”
“And if the party says it is not four but five—then how many?”
I point people to what Lamarck said:H Elliot’s translation of Lamarck’s book , pages 19 to 38, Lamarck discusses of species, the fact that forms naturally occur in group. Pages 38 to 39, he explains them by common descent, by shared blood or sap from an individual common ancestor, Page 179, he gives a family tree of the animals, And I point them to what old books say he said, and yet, upon being notified that since 1972 the politically correct position is that Lamarck did not say what he said
Page 641 “Biology Today”, 1972:
Lamarck’s theory is not a hypothesis of common descent, which ascribes the common characteristics of a particular species to their common descent from a single species. He claims that mammals are produced by the gradual complexification of reptiles and that this elevation is going on constantly. Although all mammals are descended from reptiles, they are not descended from the same reptiles.
They will dutifully say that O’Brien is holding up five fingers, dutifully say that the position stated in Page 641 “Biology Today”, 1972, is true, even though they never heard of it until I raised as an example of political correctness gone crazy. What appears in a 1972 textbook supposedly must be true, even if it flatly contradicts what appears in a 1965 textbook, and flatly contradicts the source materials it describes. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.
Check the origins of the theory of common descent, that similar species are similar because related by blood or sap, and try it on someone. Anyone who is in the slightest bit politically correct will chicken out. All the books that address the topic before 1972 say that Lamarck proposed common descent in the sense that families of species are families by blood, all the respectable books after 1972 that address the topic say he did not. And therefore, every respectable person will say he did not, no matter that what the textbooks said before 1972, no matter what Lamarck himself said.