The Bastards Changed the Rules: A Look at Political Correctness (Column 316)

With God’s help

Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.

In recent weeks, severe protests have been raging in the United States following the killing of George Floyd by a police officer, and alongside people running amok, no less run amok has political correctness (PC – Politically Correct). These days it reaches levels higher than before, at times downright absurd. Books are being removed from libraries, episodes pulled from series, and even a classic film like Gone with the Wind was removed from HBO’s streaming service merely because a director of another film (12 Years a Slave) decided in his wine-warmed benevolence that it contains Black stereotypes and romanticizes the era of slavery (far more serious, of course, than romanticizing murder and stereotyping Italians as in the immortal series The Godfather). These are acts of censorship that would make the finest priests of the Inquisition and book burners of every generation proud.

Usually this phenomenon characterizes lecturers and students in academic institutions (mostly in the pseudo-sciences), and there it can be understood. First, because most of these people have nothing else interesting to say. Still, they too must justify their existence. Second, as someone once said, there are foolish ideas that could only come out of the mouths of intellectuals (so they say). It’s no wonder, then, that word games have always typified this fascinating and esoteric population and appear mainly in its nature reserves (Berkeley corner of Tel Aviv University, and The New York Times corner of Haaretz). The problem is that these days this business is bursting out with full force into the media and politics, and society at large (see for example here). Those nature reserves have always had an incomprehensible influence on the worlds of media and academia, but it seems today that you can’t say anything anywhere. A non-standard statement, however innocent and banal, requires an apology (“my words were taken out of context,” “I didn’t mean it,” and so forth), lest harm befall the speaker. And indeed, at times harm befalls him even if he apologizes. No wonder that even the veterans of the beloved show “Zehu Ze” have decided these days to dedicate a sketch of their own to the irritating PC phenomenon.

I must note that I am far from being overly moved by all this, since such folly is the result of childish hysteria of people who cannot control their impulses (especially those few who haven’t read my recent series of columns about the place of emotion in judgment and decision-making), and therefore in my estimation it will ultimately arouse a backlash (it’s already happening) and pass from the world in a still, small voice. And yet, the very arrival of our civilization at such peaks of stupidity, and in particular the regression of an enlightened secular society to carrying out dark religious persecutions, requires some response. We cannot leave this entirely unaddressed.

The Bastards Changed the Rules

There is a saying attributed to Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s vice president when the Watergate affair exploded: “The bastards changed the rules and forgot to tell me.” That quip describes a change of norms used as a defense for those accused of crimes that many committed in the past (selective enforcement along the time axis). But in these difficult days, it is fitting to apply it to the rules of political correctness as well. The rules are constantly changing, and even Jack Robinson wouldn’t be able to keep up and know what is permitted and what is forbidden to say.[1] Even an oddball who nevertheless wants to speak correctly cannot always know how to do so. The rules change very quickly all the time (who on earth is setting them?!), and at any given moment one cannot know what political correctness permits and what it forbids.

Who knows—some man may suddenly decide to define himself as a utility pole, or a stone may regard itself as a chair, a mathematician as a sociologist, a chatterbox as a poet, a publicist as a philosopher, the weak as “weakened,” the Left as Right, a post-Zionist as a Zionist, the wrong as the right, and so on—and woe to anyone who does not treat them accordingly; and woe to anyone who does not dedicate public restrooms and beach locker rooms to the newly born gender (for utility poles cannot relieve themselves or shower with ordinary, banal men or women, heaven forfend).[2]

A nice example of this is the history of the loaded term “nigger” (in Hebrew: kushi), now called “the n-word.” The use of this term is considered today an utterly intolerable slur (not done), and the rules around it change almost every year. Whoever doesn’t keep up is in danger of physical elimination. If you try to understand what this is all about, it’s doubtful you’ll succeed. The secret is kept by the elders of political correctness. They set the rules.

I’ll only note that this doesn’t mean it’s advisable to use that word everywhere, because there are many people, unfortunate victims of PC rules, who truly and sincerely are offended by hearing it. I think it is nonetheless appropriate to take them into consideration, despite the strong urge to kick these foolish rules in the face—especially since here we are dealing with a population that indeed was discriminated against and suffered for many years. By contrast, if there is a man who insists that I relate to him as a woman or vice versa, there I would perhaps see less room for polite consideration. The fact that someone suffers from mental illness and PC rules have caused him a slight turn of the head is mainly a reason to recommend a professional (in my experience, these folks usually believe in the benefit that comes from “professionals”[3]), but not necessarily to change our behavior toward him.

Two Types of Political Correctness

Within the deranged framework of the PC cult one can distinguish two kinds of phenomena: A. The more extreme phenomena, where a person simply denies reality at will (see examples above), and woe to whoever opens his mouth to question it. B. Verbal political correctness, where reality isn’t changed, only the formulations. Thus, for example, one mustn’t say kushi, nor even “Black.” Henceforth say: African-American. One mustn’t say “sex,” say instead: gender (yes, even I know there’s a difference). One mustn’t say “weak,” say instead: “weakened,” and so forth.

There are intermediate phenomena between these two types. For several decades now one mustn’t use the terms “truth” and “falsehood,” “right” and “wrong,” and the like; say instead: a plurality of narratives. I once thought it’s worth discussing whether this is just a mode of expression (PC of the second type) or a change in the facts (PC of the first type). I tend to think it belongs to the second type, but in the deceptive world in which we live, sometimes the problem begins at the level of definition. Note that if you define differently the terms “truth” and “falsehood,” then perhaps they mean to say that it is impolite to tell someone he’s wrong and condescending to say you’re right. If so, then we’re no longer dealing with philosophical relativism. As noted, today one cannot know.

But regardless of the boundary question (and perhaps related?), there is a connection between these two types of phenomena. Not for nothing do both shelter under the umbrella of PC. In the naive traditional world that once existed here, every term pointed to something, and every factual claim pointed to a fact in the world. But in the postmodern world there is no truth; what remains are merely linguistic expressions without reference. Thus one may and should play with words at will, with no commitment to meaning and reference. As our late master Derrida taught us, meaning exists only in the eye of the beholder/listener. Therefore, after the denial of facts and of truth and falsehood, or right and wrong, we arrive at word games. But at the next stage people are unwilling to settle for games. They need something to fight about. Despite the utopian vision of postmodernism that without right and wrong we’ll have nothing to quarrel over, a person cannot live without a fight (thank god). What remains for us to fight about when there is no truth and justice? Words. Here we have arrived from the first type straight to the second type. Of course, if someone tries to connect the fights over words and terminology to the plane of meaning, facts, and truth, that is an unforgivable crime against the laws of political correctness, and his blood is on his own head. He will be pilloried in the pages of The New York Times and on the Berkeley cathedrae.

Example: A Brief History of Misery and Weakness

Once upon a time misery was a fact, a simple function of circumstances. Whoever was poor or sick was miserable. Later we discovered that the experiential component plays a large part in creating a state and feeling of misery. A patient who is strong-spirited, relates to his illness in a balanced way, keeps a good mood and overcomes it, is not the same as a patient who constantly bewails his bitter fate and despairs of his condition. Hence: misery is not only a factual state but circumstances weighted in a person’s soul and attitude. Up to this point everything is entirely correct, for one cannot deny that mental state is not a simple function of circumstances.

But now comes the next step: misery is only a mental state. Here we have removed circumstances from the picture entirely. But note—even this one can accept, since it is certainly possible that a person endowed with unusual fortitude, though he is in very difficult circumstances, overcomes and feels well. You surely ask what the next step is. Here you go: misery is a mental state that depends on the self-definition of the miserable person. We have already seen that factual circumstances have nothing to say about the state of misery. If so, the necessary conclusion is that a person who declares himself miserable is indeed miserable. And in general, who are you, you condescending privileged one, to tell him otherwise?![4] (Incidentally, this would seem to be the law that if a rich man becomes poor we must give him from the charity fund a horse to ride. Though there there is some dependence on circumstances. Perhaps that belongs to the previous phase.)

But even if there is something to that, it’s still not the end. The next step is the sweeping conclusion that the miserable person who declared himself miserable reached his situation because of us. From now on he has turned from weak (chalash) to weakened (muchlash). There are no longer “weak,” for if someone feels any weakness, there are guilty parties: us (that is, those who don’t feel that way). Might you trouble yourself to look around and seek where exactly you are the one making him miserable and how that other became “weakened” (by you)? Here you have really missed the point: don’t you remember that facts have nothing to say on this matter?! He is miserable by the very fact of his self-definition as miserable. And thus we have arrived at the fundamental rule of political correctness: whoever feels good and confident by his very self-definition is the one who makes miserable those who feel bad. Thus they turn from weak to weakened. The sequel is of course that the miserable is always right and always deprived. Therefore he is always entitled to compensation, and he has no obligation whatsoever to do anything to improve his situation. That is the exclusive role of the hegemonic privileged who brought him to this sad state (i.e., us).

PC posits two assumptions that are not to be denied: 1. The miserable is always right. 2. The duty to correct the situation rests solely on the “weakeners,” heaven forbid not on the “weakened.” They may of course employ violence and terror. That is a legitimate step, especially when it comes together with the wails of a robbed Cossack that they screwed him and drank him dry; but under no circumstances should he take any constructive step to improve the situation.

Thus whoever declares himself screwed is screwed, regardless of what he does, what happened, what the circumstances are, and who is to blame. None of that matters. He is always right, and he must not be criticized. He may loot stores, carry out terror attacks, and shoot people, and the hegemonics will always be the guilty ones; hush to whoever would blame him. Incidentally, the people who will assassinate you if you dare nevertheless to blame him will not be the “weakened” public. By no means. It will be the hegemonic privileged public (the folks of Berkeley and The New York Times). As noted, the duty to do something to change the weakened person’s situation rests solely with the “weakener” (that is, the one who exerted himself and succeeded, and therefore feels good and not miserable).

By the way, I have a feeling that here lies the root of the connection—not understood at first glance—between the value of equality (the socio-economic Left) and political correctness. The value of equality calls on us to ensure that everyone will have what we have, even if he didn’t exert himself and did nothing for it. The very fact that you have more is enough for him to feel miserable and weakened. Hence he is right, and you are the one who screwed him over, of course; therefore you must bear the consequences. The Right, by contrast, believes in every person’s right to the work of his own hands, and in particular the right to enjoy your talents and hard work, and even the far-reaching and shameful right not to feel guilty about it.

In my series of columns on academic nonsense, which is of course umbilically connected to these phenomena, I discussed the connection between the Left and postmodernism, and especially the Marxist roots of postmodernism. The description here is the same issue from a slightly different angle. Both there and here, words replace facts, and debates about words replace debates about facts. These are different expressions of the same phenomenon.

The Distortions in the Discourse

The discourse of political correctness (to the extent that it’s discourse; I think “word swapping” is more accurate, since for a long time now these words have had no reference) is tainted by terrible patronage and condescension. The self-styled privileged act for the sake of the deprived (whether in their own eyes or not) and do not really grant them a right to speak. In their view, one cannot demand anything of the weakened, for fixing the situation is our role, and ours alone. One cannot expect Arabs not to carry out terror attacks or to cooperate. They are, after all, weakened, as is well known. One cannot say that a Black or Ethiopian person shot by the police was a criminal or bore contributory fault for what happened. Just dare to say that the protests are too wild and violent, and your end is near. One cannot say that Mizrahim (=Sephardim, in the previous, non-PC language) in Israel bear contributory fault for their situation. Try to criticize the permissive culture and the contributory fault of women who go about in revealing clothing in a discussion about rape and sexual harassment, and I wish you to make it out alive. Alternatively, try to blame the Arabs, and not Ariel Sharon, for the violent and murderous rampage on the Temple Mount that opened the intifada. All of this must not be mentioned. It’s not that a debate will be conducted against you—you will be smeared to the point of blood and presented as illegitimate.

Let’s take two prominent examples. After the terrible death of George Floyd in the U.S., everyone was shocked—and rightly so. A police officer put his knee on Floyd’s neck while he was lying on the road and refused to believe his gasps that he could not breathe, until he eventually died. But in all the shock, everyone forgot that he was a man convicted of drug and violence offenses and armed robbery, and even served prison time for it. I assume that officer had reason to fear him, and I can understand why he was not inclined to believe him (again, I am not saying he was right, nor do I know the facts. But I presume the demonstrators around the world do not know them better than I do). Floyd became a Black cultural hero, and the whole world mobilizes on behalf of his family (who are likely truly suffering, but not more than many other families, of course).

The rules of political correctness do not allow a reasonable discussion of this phenomenon, and whoever dares to say something against Floyd or raise an argument in favor of the officer risks his life. Statistics about the number of white people killed by U.S. police gunfire are a datum strictly forbidden to utter in the mainstream media (roughly like statistics about conversion therapies that succeeded), unless you take care to distort them so that Blacks come out better—that is, more weakened and miserable (Gadi Taub argues that with proper calculation this number is probably no lower than that of Blacks). It’s roughly like publishing data about the percentage of Arabs in violent crimes and traffic accidents here.

As noted, this is not just in the U.S. The same thing happens here as well. We have our own cultural heroes, like the young Ethiopian, Solomon Teka, who was shot and killed by a policeman. Reading his Wikipedia entry (thanks to my son, Yossi, who directed me there), you’ll discover about him and the incident all sorts of surprising facts you usually won’t hear in our mainstream media. The fellow was shot while, together with several friends, extorting money from a poor teenager. He also threw stones at the officer who left his family and tried to come to that teenager’s aid and handle the matter, and this even when the officer disengaged and turned back toward his family sitting there. Afterwards, some of his friends gave false testimony about what happened (for example, that the officer fired two bullets; it was ultimately found that only one bullet was missing from his magazine). Two of the youths who testified later admitted they were not at the scene at all and simply lied in their testimony. It was reported that Teka held several quite menacing stones in his hands when he was shot, and the officer’s shot was aimed at the ground and not his body. In addition, there are conflicting opinions and disinformation about Teka’s criminal past. I get the impression that the laconic notices are intended to conceal relevant information. All these are facts brought in Wikipedia, yet somehow I did not hear them in the media. And in general, they did not really disturb the Ethiopian community, with the enthusiastic support of the knights of PC, from turning Solomon Teka into a cultural hero and accusing the police—based on this case too—of discriminatory treatment toward Ethiopian Israelis (an accusation that may be true; I haven’t checked). Facts have nothing to say in the matter, for it is feelings (narratives) that speak, and that is what matters.

Worst of all—and this is truly suicidal—should one of the “weakened” dare to say that he does not feel miserable, or that his fellow members of the “weakened” group bear contributory fault for their situation, one must fear for his life. The privileged will stone him with their etrogim and eliminate him on the spot. Not only because he denies their absolute rightness (and the ultimate weakness of the weakened), but mainly because he poses a real threat that could lead to progress toward a genuine solution to the problem (something the PC faithful will prevent with self-sacrifice; see below). Moreover, by the very fact that he dares to feel fine and say he isn’t weakened, he ruins their thesis. A mere weakling like you cannot tell us there are also “weak,” not only “weakened.” You are weakened, period. Facts have no standing in this intelligent discussion. They are wholly subordinate to the agenda.

The Harms of PC

Incidentally, real miseries sometimes ride this wave too. For example, there is no doubt that many Palestinians are in a difficult situation and suffer greatly. What I very much doubt is the degree to which we are the ones to blame for it (and certainly I doubt that we are the only, or even the main, guilty party). Moreover, at times the truly weak are weakened by hegemonic populations—such as in the case of Blacks in the U.S. But still they use the distorted and harmful PC discourse to advance their interests (with close accompaniment by their privileged oppressors full of guilt), and permit themselves to distort data, make unreasonable demands, harm people and property with violence—all under cover of the principle of the absolute justice of the miserable (that is, under the cover of “weakenedness”).

The politically correct discourse has become so tainted that it’s impossible even to discuss seriously relevant claims of discrimination and to think about ways to improve the situation. One mustn’t speak and mustn’t debate; hush to anyone who would deny our guilt for all that has happened to them, and of course one must not deny our absolute duty to rescue them from their situation. It is forbidden to mention data that contradict the agenda of ultimate “weakenedness,” and certainly not to speak of the contributory (or absolute) fault of the various weakened parties, or to expect them to take part in seeking solutions. As noted, facts are not relevant to the discussion, for it is entirely narrative-consciousness. Even if the Palestinians are to blame for their situation, they are still miserable, and therefore right, of course. The same applies to Blacks, Mizrahim, Ethiopians, women, Haredim, and so on.

But it’s not only that we cannot discuss these phenomena and sift the relevant claims from among all claims. The politically correct discourse actually causes the perpetuation of the problems and prevents, by force, any possible solution. Like every movement, PC looks after its own survival, and absent the miserable and the weakened, we will have nothing to die (and even more: to kill) for. What is our justification for existence if we do not have a few miserable people by our side upon whom we can unload our condescension and patronage by accusing the whole wide world of condescension and patronage?!

This is true even when it concerns real phenomena. The politically correct discourse ensures their perpetuation and actively thwarts every possible solution. It simply forbids discussion itself and the raising of substantive claims, demanding an a priori capitulation to every demand of the weakened/miserable. This is also in situations where the capitulation will severely harm the weakened. I recall that Gadi Taub, in his book The Flabby Rebellion, ties this to a psychological motive—so that, heaven forbid, “there shall be no pauper ceased from the land.” How would we exist if we had no miserable people to blame ourselves for their situation? For whom/what would we fight? For what would we live?

To take one example among many: political correctness demands, on the one hand, over-policing in Arab towns to deal with the problem of violence (which of course didn’t exist there and it was strictly forbidden to discuss it or cite data about it until it could no longer be ignored), while at the same time it complains about over-policing and discriminatory treatment by the police toward Arabs and demands that the police be removed from the villages (as in the Black neighborhoods in the U.S.). This will, of course, lead to deterioration in the condition of those places, but that does not much interest the PC knights. Needless to say, at the same time these round-table knights are very understanding of Arabs who oppose cooperation with the “occupying Zionist” police and Blacks who oppose the “discriminatory” police, thereby turning their neighborhoods into nests of crime and violence. As a resident of Lod I am familiar with Arab complaints about unauthorized weapons in many private homes, but I have not heard of a mass mobilization of Lod’s Arab residents for the police or calls to cooperate and hand over the weapons holders to the authorities. Time and again it becomes clear that PC complaints are not meant to solve problems, but mainly to supply meaning to the lives of the privileged complainers. Precisely for that reason they also ensure the perpetuation of the situation and torpedo every solution. We’ve already said: facts are not the issue in such debates. What matters are the words and expressions.

Beyond all these problems, political correctness also arouses antagonism in broad sections of the public. It may look as if, in current American discourse following Floyd’s killing, PC has the upper hand and violently (physically, not only verbally) crushes everything that stands against it. But in the long term and beneath the radar, this manner of discourse creates a broad public antagonism that will not allow us to discuss and solve the real problems that exist in relations between Blacks and whites. The average American citizen (except for a few CNN journalists, artists, and disconnected intellectuals from Berkeley and their helpers) is not willing to accept unbridled rampage—including violence and looting—as a fundamental right of the miserable. It’s worth hearing Gadi Taub’s remarks about the harms of PC, and no less his surprising predictions about the results of the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. See also here an analysis by Galit Distel Atbaryan, who brings data that mustn’t be voiced and discusses the destructive consequences of this violent discourse regime. And from a less expected direction, Amalia Rosenblum in Haaretz also criticizes this discourse regime (mainly its stupidity and oversensitivity, less its violence) and its harms.

But there’s no need to resort to futuristic forecasts, since the past shows this quite clearly. Trump’s election (and, to a large extent, Bibi’s and other conservative leaders’ around the world) is the masses’ backlash against PC discourse about the various “weakened” and the ridiculous and automatic accusations against the strong and established. There is a limit to how much filth and how many accusations the public is willing to take for no fault of its own just because a few commissars of political correctness decided that the public is guilty of everything and the public will pay?! In the end the public rises up and throws these commissars into the sea. Of course those academics and journalists find themselves surprised time and again when they discover that all the “massive legions” standing behind them don’t actually exist. They live in a movie of words instead of facts, and see ten journalists/artists saying the same things and filling the kiosk near Kikar Malchei Ha’Ir in Tel Aviv as if it were the whole wide world. The truth is laid bare at the ballot box, when real people are counted—rather than words written in op-eds or academic articles or in a speech at a 13-man demonstration in the square. If you listen to the relevant media (FOX in the U.S., Israel Hayom and Makor Rishon in our tiny country, and the growing right-wing segments in the mainstream media), you’ll hear the arguments and easily discern the parallel currents that find nearly no place in the liberal mainstream media. Incidentally, the reaction to the PC regime is responsible for the extreme realms to which these responses go (Trumpism, La Familia, and the like).

Examples and Implications

Examples and implications can be read and heard every day. There is hardly a media report about any social phenomenon that is not afflicted with failures related to this irritating and harmful phenomenon. We all know that one cannot today hear in the mainstream media the expression “weak strata” (which was itself sometimes somewhat laundered). It seems that today the language editor already corrects the broadcaster or journalist: say henceforth “weakened populations.” This, of course, without any connection to facts about the weak and the weakeners. The word “weak” is simply illegal in the contemporary PC language, period. Bringing examples here would be rubbing salt in the wound. Still, I’ll bring two examples from just the last few days, and use them to show an important conclusion: PC has two sides to its coin.

The first example is highly recommended. You should watch Zehava Galon’s amusing segment in the Sagal & Libeskind studio (before they were shut down). Our Zehava simply refuses to allow Libeskind to mention the term “rape,” as if the term’s absence makes the thing nonexistent, and as if there is nothing more terrible than rape (including a massacre and the annihilation of a state and all its inhabitants). You can see there how Libeskind tries again and again to raise a perfectly reasonable analogy, and Galon, instead of arguing, simply does not allow him to say it. The PC regime that Zehava tries to impose (and in fact rules her with a heavy hand) causes an intelligent woman to respond and behave before the whole world like a foolish child. Incidentally, I suspect that if this had happened on CNN or in The New York Times, Libeskind would already have been fired after tearful apologies to rape victims (“my words were taken out of context,” etc.). You probably think I’m exaggerating—well, I’m not. See here about the firing of an editor at The New York Times after he dared to argue that opinions contrary to the editorial line should also be aired regarding the Black protests.

By happy fortune, the second example will show you that this happens in the other direction too. I’ll preface with what needs no saying: our Bibi has lost what remained of the tact and inhibitions he once had and has, unrestrainedly and together with his family, turned into a Byzantine emperor of the banana republic called Israel. The man has completely lost his brakes and simply relieves himself on all of us from the high dive (worth reading, for example, here and here, and that’s only a partial description). As is known, this does not prevent most of his supporters from continuing to back with great enthusiasm the king of Israel, attributing all criticism—justified or not—to an agenda of a gang that systematically persecutes precisely this very hidden (very) righteous man. And lo, the journalist Rina Matzliah, who merely wanted to express this situation figuratively, also used the rape metaphor, just like our Zehava, except that this time she did so toward the opposite side (against the Right). She said that even if Bibi raped his voters’ daughters, they would keep voting for him (which is, in my eyes, quite close to the truth. I hope the site’s management doesn’t fire me. Oren, my words were taken out of context). Instead of disagreeing with her and explaining where she is wrong, she was simply suspended. To her credit it must be said that they also tried to extract an apology from her, but she refused (perhaps in the end she did?!). She apparently thought that toward the Right this is permitted, but to her surprise she discovered that the bastards had changed the rules and hadn’t told her.

And yet, after a moment of satisfaction, modest me wonders: what is illegitimate about this statement? One might claim it’s in poor taste—and even that I’m not at all sure about. It is a statement meant to express, in a literary way, a serious claim that I think is true. She is merely asserting that Bibi can do whatever he wants without limits and still win his voters’ trust. Again, in my view this is simply a factual claim (since that is precisely what is happening in practice). But even if someone disagrees, he is, of course, entitled to. Let him argue against it. I cannot see anything problematic in such a statement. But she made the mistake of mentioning rape (see “Zehava Galon”) and paid for it.

Reaction and Counter-Reaction

I confess and am ashamed: nonetheless I am filled with satisfaction at what happened. I have no doubt that the Left here was hit by the Right’s backlash, which leveraged its PC regime against itself. Instead of arguing, it’s far easier to take offense and forbid airing the arguments. What, only Zehava Galon is allowed?! Admit it’s much easier than dealing substantively with the arguments themselves. I won’t repeat here about Gurvitz and his utterly legitimate remark about amulet-kissers, which raised a holy uproar here (see in columns 10, 243, and also here). Not to mention Moty Yogev’s exceedingly legitimate D-9 remark. So indeed, our leftists have it coming, and that’s great. Thus the Right and the religious, in a crushing blend of stupidity and cynicism, leverage PC to their advantage. Incidentally, it seems to me that in the end the Right and the religious were the ones who started. Try offending the religious sensibilities of the Muslim with Muhammad and a pig, of the Jew with Yona Wallach’s “Tefillin” song or “The Jews Are Coming,” and of the Christian with evolution and parodies of Jesus, and so on. So our technique of taking offense and our own PC blew up in our faces—and good that it did. Measure for measure: he who silences will be silenced.

In the above article by Amalia Rosenblum there’s an opening I really liked:

It is customary to assume that only conservatives have feelings. Pride parades offend their feelings, and so do pictures of women. But in the last period it turns out that at the other end of the spectrum there is a group no less sensitive.

In the last month alone we witnessed outrage over a new Bezeq commercial that supposedly offends transgender feelings, a commotion against the disappearance of the woman’s figure from the “Salit” salt packaging, and a lawsuit against actor Itay Turgeman for remarks on the TV show “Survivor” that allegedly offend the dignity of members of the Ethiopian community.

I watched the Bezeq commercial. It shows Gidi Gov “feeling at home” in a public place, and among other things gossiping on the phone about someone who apparently changed sex. Some will say the ad encourages vulgar behavior; some will say it’s amusing. In any case, to find in it an offense to the transgender community requires great effort—or very thin skin.

They too want to take offense and be sensitive. And in general, if they don’t take offense, the impression could arise that only the religious have values and matters of sanctity, and that they, the secular Left, are an empty wagon. On other implications of this distress—the invention of sensitivities and puffed-up values for the sake of sacred equality—see column 233.

I hope there will be no misunderstandings. Exactly as on the Right, so too on the Left, the thing operates in a marvelous combination of stupidity and cynicism, except that behind the cynical-foolish pied piper on the left side of the map there are hardly any troops—at most, here and there, some deprived and weakened minority with two lecturers and students from Berkeley. These are esoteric sects of Newspeak that, as noted, live and operate in a not-large savannah (Berkeley corner of Tel Aviv University and The New York Times corner of Haaretz). Outside these endangered and disconnected nature reserves—which have a disproportionate, though diminishing, presence in the media—these statements are not very popular. A normal, reasonable person (as opposed to entities supposed to make a living from nonsense articles on gender studies) usually understands the folly in them. It seems to me that from such a perspective you don’t really need Gadi Taub’s analysis to understand who will win in the end. The conservative reactions in Israel and around the world (which swing the pendulum to an extreme) are the clear expression of this. So perhaps PC policemen of all sides should take this into account when setting the rules. You cannot know when they will be turned against you. Remember: when the bastards change the rules, they probably won’t tell you…

Public Discourse

But beyond the considerable moments of satisfaction afforded me, I am nonetheless very worried. The blows both sides are taking can certainly afford satisfaction to any intelligent lover of knowledge, but the result is that public debate here simply doesn’t exist. There is no room for argument and substantive discussion, certainly not for listening. A person cannot raise claims and arguments if they do not fit the regime of political correctness from all sides (against Zionism and nationalism, against the Jewish religion or the PC, LGBT religion, and the like), and without discussion, problems are not solved, only swept under the rug at best. When we do not talk about violence or traffic accidents in Arab society, about sexual harassment in Haredi society, about the possibility that women may be less talented than men in certain fields, about problems in the LGBT community, about the success of conversion therapy, and so forth—the situation cannot improve. But problems have an annoying nature: they usually do not disappear on their own.

Under a regime of political correctness one cannot discuss anything. And so, instead of debating and raising counter-arguments, we simply take offense and demand an apology (and suspend). What a great public discourse we have. Actually, it’s not discourse—it’s the tree on which public discourse was hung. I have written many times in the past that freedom of expression and debate is the lifeblood of a healthy society. Thus, for example, I argued against any unnecessary limitation on it. In column 6 I argued that banning Holocaust denial is, in my eyes, a scandal. In my view, anyone who has an argument in any field is entitled to raise it for discussion, and the public will have to grapple with and examine it. Once mouths begin to be gagged in righteousness, there is no end to it. Such has been the situation in the religious world since forever (where gagging is institutionalized via labels and tags like heretic, apostate, etc.), and now such is the situation in the world of the PC religion, no less fanatical—and now they are getting it straight back in the face. Measure for measure.

And we haven’t even spoken about the biases in the discourse and its politicization. This is certainly related to PC culture, in which words and agendas replace facts—but I won’t go into that here.

[1] The expression “Jack Robinson” was used in my childhood (wow, there really was such a time?) to describe something that happens very quickly (“before you can say Jack Robinson,” or in Talmudic phrase: “before you can say ‘peace upon you, my teacher and master’”). A few years ago I saw a film called 42, about an American baseball player who was the first Black player to participate in professional league games. The fellow’s name was none other than Jackie Robinson, and as is the way of baseball players, he was swift and athletic. After I saw the film, I thought this was the source of that obscure expression. But now I checked the above entry in Wikipedia and saw that the expression existed already at the beginning of the 19th century (so who said there’s no divine providence?!…). There goes my vort.

[2] See here. And if you think this is only in America, see also here.

[3] Have you ever wondered why the term “professional” refers specifically to psychologists? Aren’t engineers professionals? And doctors? And what about cobblers? And plumbers? I think there’s an amusing inversion here, like in that story I heard from my sister who studied criminology and which I already mentioned once. She told me that at the beginning of every course they would devote time to defining “science.” I told her that in physics I don’t recall that ever happening.

[4] It amazes me that Yitzhak Tshuva has not yet declared himself miserable (since he lacks the tenth billion; and besides, don’t forget he’s Mizrahi), for in such a case all the knights of political correctness would be forced to act according to the rules and leave him alone. On the contrary, they would begin to fill with guilt and collect money to compensate him. How has that not happened until now?!