When one thinks operationally, he or she focuses on the process underlying a word or a word-string, rather than on the words themselves. 

As Dr. Bridgman put it, “The true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not what he says about it.” In other words, don’t tell me what a word means; explain to me how it works. 

Take the words “political correctness” and “censorship,” for example. 

According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, “political correctness” means conformance to a belief that languages and practices which could offend political sensibilities, as in matters of sex or race, should be eliminated. While “censorship” means the institution, system, or practice of examining in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. 

Clearly, then, the processes underlying the terms “political correctness” and “censorship” are the same — telling people what they may not say. Ergo, the terms “political correctness” and “censorship,” stripped of all emotional content and convoluted reasoning, both have the same meaning.

You see, scuba divers can be taught; surfers can only be entertained. And I am a teacher, not someone whose mission in life is to amuse others, although I'm told I can be very funny at times. 

But please know that this site will do more for you in the long run than will most “cool” (in quotation marks because I haven't the foggiest notion what that word means except in the context of temperature) sites. 

In this regard, my philosophy is much like President Reagan's when he made the observation that if you feed someone by giving him or her a fish to eat, you'll have to give that someone a fish every day. But if you teach that someone how to fish, then he or she will be able to feed him or herself from then on without help from anyone. 

I can teach you how to (1) correctly analyze and digest information, (2) think clearly and innovatively using that information, and (3) effectively communicate the results of that thinking to others. If you learn these skills — and you can, believe me, if you want to — not only will you be able to feed yourself every day, but you'll be able to put on a banquet at the same time and feed others as well until they, too, learn how to “fish.” 

You have my word. 

Now to continue.

By “being conned” I mean being deceived by another into doing or saying something that we would not otherwise do or say, something that is contrary to our best interest.

By “legal violence” I mean legislation that confers special rights on the members of a designated group at the expense of nonmembers. Affirmative action, for example. By “administrative violence” I mean the unilateral creation and implementation of a behavior code, with violators being punished for infractions, although they had nothing to do with writing the code, nor were they ever called upon to accept or reject it. The so-called “water buffalo” incident at the University of Pennsylvania some time ago (where a male student was threatened with expulsion because he called a group of boisterous, noisy female students of a different race, who were cavorting outside his dormitory windows while he was trying to study, “water buffaloes”) is an example of what I mean by administrative violence.

By “social violence” I mean punishing people by excluding them from all normal social interactions — excluding them from social gatherings, preventing them from becoming members of social clubs, and so on. Declining to invite someone to a party solely because of his political views is an example of social violence.

There is a fourth kind of violence — media violence — that is the handmaiden, or cat’s paw, of the other three. By “media violence” I mean punishing people in the media, print or electronic, for their political views by casting them in an unfavorable light. It is usually referred to as “bad press,” as contrasted with “good press.” For example, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People enjoys good press while the ill-fated National Association for the Advancement of White People had bad press.

Media violence is effective, because newspaper, magazine, TV, and radio people are the ones who make it possible for the concept of political correctness to thrive and prosper. By adopting “politically correct” words and phrases unquestioningly in their news stories, they allow the proponents of political correctness to accomplish two things that they could not accomplish without media help: the magnification of their views and the appearance of authority.

I suspect that were it not for the tacit concurrence of  newspaper and magazine editors and TV and radio directors political correctness would have disappeared a long time ago.

They are also insidious because they are divisive; because they tend to misdirect attention away from issues of substance; and because they lay the groundwork for legislation that is rife with racial, ethnic, sexual preference, and gender biases. However, these considerations lie beyond the scope of this piece, and will not be covered in it.

The something that such a word is intended to stand for can exist in only one of two places — it can exist in the real world or it can exist in minds only, in which case it can only be imagined. 

If the something that a word is intended to stand for exists in the real world, that something has tangible characteristics — weight, shape, color, surface texture, etc. On the other hand, if it exists in minds only and not in the real world, it has only the intangible characteristics that those minds give it — beauty, importance, usefulness, value. 

Because neither that which the word political nor that which the word correct is intended to stand for has any tangible characteristics, it is purely imaginary. Therefore, the idea of political correctness has no connection with reality.

And if to function as a symbol is a noun’s or verb’s only reason for being, those that do not stand for, or symbolize, anything have no reason for being. That doesn’t mean that they are not in common use; it just means that they don’t mean anything. For example,  An intellectual with a responsible lifestyle makes a good role model  is as devoid of meaning as is  Shrdlu umragstro genitarsus behamenistic cronge. 

In essence, then, politically correct is a verbal ghost no picture can appear in anyone’s mind when he or she hears it; there is nothing one can point to that could conceivably represent or stand for the word-sound politically correct; that which it is intended to stand for cannot be described in concrete terms; there is no operational explanation of how that which political correctness is intended to stand for works; and there’s no figure of speech that explains it. Therefore, it has no meaning; it is tantamount to a shadow without an object to cast it. 

Even if one  tries to decode politically correct by referring to a dictionary, he comes up empty-handed. Political has a vague something to do with determining and controlling public policy (a phrase which itself is a verbal ghost) within a given jurisdiction (another verbal ghost). Correctness implies the existence of two or more ways of doing or thinking something the right way and the wrong way(s). However, to paraphrase Shakespeare, nothing is either correct or incorrect but thinking makes it so. And so if a given way is correct or incorrect, it is only because someone thinks it’s correct or incorrect. In this context, correct or incorrect are equally valid conclusions, because neither is based upon anything real.

While the idea of political correctness has no meaning, statements deemed to be or not to be politically correct may or may not have meaning. Therefore, each must be judged by itself.

To illustrate, by agreement the word “square” represents a four-sided polygon whose sides are all equal in length. But it could also stand for what we call a triangle or a circle or a tree or a mountain. All we have to do is agree that it does. But no matter what word-sound we agree represents something, say what we call a condor, it will have no effect on that something. We can continually change the word for what we call a condor, or substitute another word for it, and it will still remain what we call a condor. A condor will change over time, to be sure, but not because we change the symbol for it. To believe otherwise is to believe in word magic — that is, to believe that it’s possible to change a referent by merely changing its related symbol. And a belief in word magic is no less a superstition than is the belief held by some aborigines that revealing someone’s name will result in the loss of that person's soul. 

Substituting Negro for colored, then black for Negro, then Afro-American for black, then African-American for Afro-American, then person of color for African-American, every change made at one time or another to conform to the then dictates of political correctness, did nothing to change that which the original word was intended to stand for. The same for Oriental and Asian, American Indian and Native American (I’ve never understood why I and all the other people born in this country don’t qualify as Native Americans), gay and homosexual, handicapped and differently abled, deaf and aurally challenged, and dishonest and ethically disoriented. 

Person of color is so vague and inexact as to be meaningless. For one, everyone is a person of color; were one’s skin not to have color, it would be invisible. And for another, no two people have the same skin color no two blacks, no two whites, no two Orientals, no two anything.

Some years ago a teenager was severely taken to task on the Phil Donahue show because he had the “insensitivity” (he was told) to refer to blacks as colored people rather than persons of color. The difference between what each of the two labels is intended to symbolize completely escapes me.

Perhaps a concrete example will make the point more clear. I take you into a room in which there are 100 blacks. I tell you that 20 are Negroes, 20 colored people, 20 Afro-Americans, 20 African-Americans, and 20 persons of color. I then ask you to identify the members of each of the five classes. Would you be able to do it? And if not, why not?

Thinking and language are inseparable, because it is not possible to think without using a language of some kind (verbal, graphic, pictorial, whatever) any more than it’s possible for an artist to express himself without using a medium of some kind. 

Because all voluntary action is preceded by thought, one can control the actions of others by controlling their thinking. And one controls their thinking by controlling the way they use language. Therefore, it is a reasonable inference that when one insists that people use only  politically correct  words, the intent is to control their thoughts, and through those thoughts, their actions.

If one makes a factual statement ( “Water tends to seek its own level”) or conveys a piece of knowledge (“I ran into Charley Smith last week”), it is highly likely that his or her intention is to inform. 

If one conveys nothing but word information (information about the real world that is gained through words only as opposed to knowledge that is information about the real world that is gained through experience), he or she probably intends to parrot something that he or she heard or read, for whatever reason. 

If one conveys an opinion, judgment, or inference, choosing primarily concrete words, and balancing descriptive phrases as best he or she can, all the while appealing to reason rather than to emotion, and never insisting that he or she is right, then it is likely that he or she is trying to offer an idea for consideration. 

And if one selects verbal ghosts and intangible characteristics, strings them together in such a way as to intimidate, engender guilt, or both — in other words, to encourage feeling rather than thinking — all the while insisting that he or she is right and that there is no room for argument, then he or she is probably intent on conning. 

The intent of political correctness is clearly not to parrot or to offer an idea for consideration. If  the intent were  to inform, its proponents would select words and string them together in such a way as to clarify meaning rather than obscure it.  None of the substitutions I’ve seen appears to do that. 

For example, there are twelve different races in Asia. They include Eskimo, Armenoid, Negrito, Indo-Afghan, Sino-Mongoloid, and Ainu. In addition, Asia includes Turkey, a good part of the (former) USSR, Israel, the Philippines, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran. Who, then, are the real Asians? 

Further, Webster’s says that an Oriental is “a member of one of the indigenous people of the Orient (Chinese, Indian, or Japanese),” and that the Orient is “The East; especially the countries east of the Mediterranean; also, the countries of Asia generally; sometimes eastern Asiatic countries.” 

Now if one wishes to refer to someone who has yellowish skin, almond-shaped eyes, etc., which symbol would better reflect that which it is intended to stand for — Oriental or Asian? Or if one wishes to refer to sexual orientation, which would be the more precise — homosexual or gay? In both cases, the former has a more narrow focus than the latter, and is, therefore, likely to be used when one’s intent is to inform. The latter, also in both cases, is more obscure, and is, therefore, more likely to be used when one’s intent is to con. 

There are three reasons why this claim is of doubtful validity — (1) if a proponent of political correctness is not a member of the group whose sensibilities he or she is trying to protect, how does he or she know what those sensibilities are? (2) if a proponent of political correctness is a member of the group whose sensibilities he or she is trying to protect, by whose authority does he or she claim to speak for the other members of the group? and (3) it is not possible to offend; it is only possible to take offense. To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt: No one can offend you without your consent. In other words, there must be something within you that a given word triggers. If there isn’t, you cannot be offended.

Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when He said, “The prince of this world (generally believed to be the Devil) cometh, and hath nothing in me.”

And why aren’t all the folks in this country whose ancestors came from Egypt, Libya, South Africa (including Caucasians), Sudan, Algeria, and Morocco also African-Americans?

There are actually seven kinds of assertions — the four listed here plus three others: agreement, pass-through, and asininity. Please check out InfoTestfor a discussion of all seven.

An inference is a conclusion reached on the basis of knowledge or word information, and careful reasoning. 

An opinion is a statement made about someone or something in terms of one or more of his or its qualities or characteristics. 

A judgment is less rigorous than an inference but more rigorous than an opinion. Whereas an inference is the product of reasoning, a judgment is more the result of intuition flowing from experience. 

Because politically correct statements are not facts, inferences, or judgments, they must be opinions.

Voting for a label rather than for the person bearing the label also follows. So people are encouraged to vote for Ms A, not because she is best qualified to lead but because she possesses the right label. Or  so and so is named to the President’s Cabinet, not because so and so is the best qualified for the job but because he or she carries the right label. It’s like buying a can of food just because it has the “correct” label regardless of what’s in it.

Similarly, issues are also given labels. And so there are women’s issues, black issues, homosexual issues, Jewish issues, and so forth, as though each involved only the members of a single class. But issues are issues. They involve everyone.

To give you an idea of how absurd this notion of issues can be, many so-called esoteric bookstores have a separate section for books on “Women’s Spirituality,” as though souls have gender.

Nor are there group thoughts, aspirations, feelings, triumphs, defeats, problems, or any other characteristic common to the individual. Consequently, the constant focus on a group attribute, one that in the totality of life has little meaning — skin color, gender, sexual preference, etc. — diverts the attention of the members of that group from the rest of his or her attributes, any one or more of which may be superior to those of his or her peers regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, and so forth.

To paraphrase Walt Whitman: There’s much more to everyone than appears between his hat and his boots.

A signal reaction is one that is taken with the least possible delay; there is no thought or prior evaluation involved. For example, the crack of a starter’s pistol is a signal to a runner to get started at once. And when a signal reaction is manifested in a sudden change of feeling, it is also without delay, thought, or prior evaluation. A symbol reaction in contrast is one that is not made to that symbol directly, but to whatever it is that that symbol is intended to represent. And it is made with as much delay as thought and evaluation require. 

Constant focus on political correctness conditions people to react to words as signals rather than as symbols. When that happens, the mind shuts down and pure feeling takes over. It’s a scenario that might be described as the hypnosis of verbal conditioning.

Similarly, those who insist on political correctness do those they purport to protect a grave disservice by also focusing on labels rather than on process, by encouraging words to be treated as signals rather than as symbols, and by insisting that there are good labels and bad labels. So colored, Negro, black, Oriental, handicapped, homosexual, American Indian, and other labels  deem-ed to be politically incorrect (or bad) can cause feelings of inferiority, inadequacy, shame, and so on, giving rise to verbal sicknesses of all kinds, when all they really are are labels. Nothing more.

For example, it was reported in the electronic and print media after the televised Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 that many women viewing the confrontation became nauseous and subject to fits of vomiting during the encounter. A reasonable inference would be that their illness was self-induced, that it was a function of the meaning each gave to the words “sexual harassment,” followed by the fear that Judge Thomas “would  get away with it.” Yet “sexual harassment” has no more objective meaning than does “beauty,” which, as has been agreed to for centuries, lies in the eyes of the beholder.

The problem is that with enough repetition and with the misguided assistance of those  “protectors,” he becomes blind to what’s happening. And coming to grips with the real problem, whatever it may be, never happens. 

The effect of conditioning is always the same — choices become restricted. Which is a tragedy, for as long as one is conditioned to blame others for his problems, he’ll never solve them.

There were two Jewish kids Sammy and Abie who were born in the same mid-Western small town. They became very close friends. When the Second World War came along, they were both drafted. One was sent to the West Coast for training, and the other to the East Coast for the same purpose. They wrote each other daily, and even spoke by phone from time to time.

Training completed, they were both sent into combat Abie to the Pacific Theatre and Sammy to the European. With time, they lost touch with other. Eventually, each decided that the other had been killed.

A year or so after all hostilities had ended, Abie was walking down Broadway in New York when all of a sudden he saw Sammy coming toward him. At that moment, Sammy saw Abie coming toward him. They both let out cries of joy, each realizing that the other had not been killed, and started running toward each other. They locked in embrace, they cried, they pounded each other on the back, they kissed, they held each other at arm’s length, and hugged again. Finally, after several minutes, Sammy said to Abie,  Abie, kid, what are you doin’ in New York?
 

I-I-I-I-I c-c-c-c-c-came t-t-to l-l-l-l-look for a-a-a-a j-j-j-j-job.
Great! What kind of job are you lookin’ for? 
I-I-I-I-I w-w-w-w-wanna b-b-b-b-b-b-be a-a-a  r-r-r-r-r-radio a-n-n-n-n-ouncer.
Swell, How are ya doin’?
I-I-I-I-I-I h-h-h-had an-an-an au-au-au-au-dition l-l-l-last   w-w-week.
Didja get the job?
N-n-n-n-no. B-b-b-b-b-but y-y-y-you know, S-s-s-ammy,   th-th-they’re a-a-a-a-a-all a b-b-b-b-bunch of anti-S-S-S-S-Semites! 
The beauty of this story is its universality. Meaning that you can substitute any human characteristic you choose for religion  — skin color, gender, age, ethnicity, obesity, whatever  — and the principle suggested will still apply

 But even more, encouraging people to focus upon labels rather than upon content is not an act of care and concern, but rather one of manipulation. With protectors such as these, who needs predators?