The Bastards Changed the Rules: A Look at Political Correctness (Column 316)
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?!
Discussion
**** Deleted. Irrelevant comment.
The culture of political correctness is fascism disguised as manners.
Dear Hayuta,
I am an underprivileged Haredi, and I was deeply offended by the criticism you hurled against our use of the term “vaybers.”
I insist that you apologize and immediately clarify that your words were taken out of context.
It seems you described the reality on the ground very well. It also seems that large parts of the public are quite fed up with pluralistic terror (and Candace Owens’s video proves the point: https://www.facebook.com/realCandaceOwens/videos/273957870461345/).
What I couldn’t understand from the column is where the line is drawn. Am I supposed to deal with every opinion systematically? If I sincerely believe that Jews are the source of evil in the world and therefore all of them must be destroyed, is it not legitimate to disqualify my view from public discourse? (Not mere disregard for it, but removing, for example, a news anchor from his position over such a statement.)
You wrote: “This is a statement meant to express a serious claim, and in my opinion a correct one, in literary form. It merely claims that Bibi can do whatever he wants without any limitations and still win the trust of his voters.”
Seriously? If I understand Hebrew, then what she meant is that Bibi can behave in a criminal and immoral way by any standard and still win the trust of his voters. If she wanted to express herself in a literary way, she could have found a better example. The problem with this example is not political correctness but the inaccuracy of the claim. With all due respect to the indictments, suspicions, and the general dissatisfaction with the man’s conduct—the public is not that stupid. Large parts of the people believe the cases are not all that severe. To compare this to crimes that are a moral and public taboo is unjust, condescending, and above all stupid.
Of course I agree with the general point! Just another murky wave that will pass.
I’ll only note regarding Gone with the Wind that it really is a harmful propaganda film that rewrote the dark history (yes, dark—I thought of writing “problematic,” but that would diminish the scale of the wrongs committed in the American South during slavery and afterward) of the American South and piled tons of sweetener and an especially thick fog over it.
It’s a shame the discussion about it is coming up in the midst of the current deranged wave, because otherwise there really would be something to say about it and its harmful influence—when it comes as part of the current madness, it’s a little hard to discuss the case on its own merits.
In any event, despite the problematic aspects, taking it down is foolish—just like Nazi and Soviet propaganda films are watched in order to learn from them about the mindset of those in question and how they tried to present it to the general public, so too it is worthwhile to know this film in order to see how Southerners, years after their defeat in the Civil War, saw their past and how they tried to present it. There is historical value here in seeing history as written also by the defeated, and one that influenced American society for decades.
Of course one could elaborate, but it seems to me that the subject of the post is not Gone with the Wind and not American history, right? So I’ve said the little I had to say, because one cannot entirely refrain, since that film was mentioned.
My dear Hayuta, do you think that rabbi would start appreciating you if he called you Darling instead of meidaleh??
Why, have the Ashkenazi snobs changed their attitude toward Sephardim since they stopped calling them franks??
In Germany they no longer hate Jews because they don’t call them names??
White supremacists can’t say “nigger”—does that mean they see Blacks as anything more than an evolutionary mistake??
You didn’t need to tell us you’re a writer—we could have figured it out ourselves from the depth of the arguments….
Oy, meidaleh, meidaleh.
The whole world is waking up to erase the memory of slavery and discrimination, and where are we? Has anyone noticed that the source of discrimination is Noah, who cursed his son Ham to be “a slave of slaves to his brothers”?
It is our sacred duty to remove Noah from the lexicon. Heaven forbid anyone mention the “Seven Noahide Commandments”; heaven forbid anyone sit on a “Noah chair”; and during the reading of Esther we should bang furiously every time “and had rest from their enemies,” “and had rest on the fourteenth,” and “and had rest on the fifteenth” are mentioned. It is very inconvenient, but we must exclude Noah 🙂
Regards, Live Nigger
And it has already been said in response to them: my gender is that you are wrong
Mikha Goodman once said: “The Haredi sector is the only one you can hate without being racist.” And indeed, my question here is: why, in your opinion, does PC skip over the Haredim? And surely you will agree that it skips over Jews in general? That is, antisemitism is raising its head and no one relates to Jews as poor, weakened people trying to establish a state in the heart of hostile countries after years of exile, persecution, and a slave mentality? Or is it because, with regard to Jews, the average gentile secretly knows they are rather successful and privileged, and therefore sees no obvious reason (like a different skin color) to pity them? If so, antisemitism in the PC world is a compliment. But if that is the case, why is there really no PC with regard to the Haredim, who are perceived as ignorant and poor? Is there toward them too some hidden envy, in the sense of the noble savage?
I agree with the spirit of the argument, but after all, we also find PC in the Torah itself, and its sentence is far more lethal—false prophets, rebellious elders, and those who incite to idolatry are punished by death. Aside from answering me that “this is a halakhah that speaks only about a false prophet or an inciter and nothing else,” would you not agree that there is here some element of censorship, of ideas that may not be expressed, and that the only way to deal with them is to eliminate them literally?
Gil, you wrote: “Is there toward them too some hidden envy, in the sense of the noble savage?”
The “noble savage” isn’t envy of the weak; it’s a reason for the privileged to kneel and wash their feet.
If the Haredim were a noble savage, then the whole cult of P.C. would come every morning to make our children sandwiches and give us—the silk yeshiva men—a pampering Swedish massage.
The attitude toward the Haredim is the hatred of ignoramuses toward Torah scholars, and the proof is that Sinai is called by that name because hatred descended to the world therefrom (Shabbat 89a). (Also because sometimes we’re annoying, don’t work, don’t serve, and sting the taxes and benefits system. But shhhh… don’t tell anyone!)
You’ve got it backwards, Guta. The PC rebbes will tell you that the attitude toward the Haredim is the hatred of ignoramuses toward Torah scholars. The truth is, of course, nothing of the sort—not even remotely. The attitude toward the Haredim is the center of a circle on whose circumference stand anger, contempt, pity, and ridicule; and for all of that—unlike their sitting on the public jugular and their malignant wretchedness—they have earned it with conspicuous fairness.
Correct. The attitude is not toward Torah scholars but toward ignoramuses.
Even before Rabbi Shach turned the entire world of Torah students into kollel yeshiva men (in the time of the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rav it was more marginal),
they hated the Haredim. They don’t need a reason.
The Chafetz Chaim said about this that it’s exactly like Laban and Jacob: after all, we know he was a liar and a cheat, that he swindled Jacob and abused him and his daughters, and yet when he meets Jacob he says to him: “The daughters are my daughters, the sons are my sons, the flock is my flock, and all that you see is mine.”
I don’t know whether the commenters are Haredi or not, but anyway your display of bootlicking and self-flagellation is pathetic. What is comforting is that if you keep this up, it’s only a matter of a few years before you kneel before the underprivileged Haredim.
Oh, you progressives.
Not that I understood who was bootlicking and who was self-flagellating and who was progressive, but your childish explanations arouse in me nothing beyond ridicule. Go on telling yourself stories that you are white as the Temple lime and others are afflicted with all sorts of maladies. Not that I have high expectations from someone like you, who was most likely force-fed from the dawn of his childhood on the intensive, sanctimonious, and utterly empty propaganda at home and outside it.
On the day the Haredim are around 35% here, even though of course they will change to some extent out of necessity, I will already be far, far away from here. From the day I came to my senses I made sure to have available emigration options, and not only because of the Arab enemies. I assume that makes fellows like you happy—be happy, with honor.
PC harms ordinary people also through affirmative action (which in its own way also harms those it is supposed to help, but I won’t elaborate).
I remember that back in the day I read the article about the threat inherent in speech and thought that all the examples came from periods in which people lacked rights and were threatened by actual physical harm. In our generation the best answer to the battalions of the offended is: choose not to be offended.
The second most terrible thing PC has done, while murdering blunt directness, is prostituting authenticity. The first is turning intellectual challenge into the world championship of feelings. As someone who has lived in Gush Etzion, specifically in Tekoa, for 16 years, and works in art and special education, I am embarrassed and especially worried for the children studying in one of the splendid institutions on the yellow hill, where the administration signals to them that it’s not so terrible if you didn’t really make an effort to solve the math problem—as long as you drew the square nicely…
Fleeing from the Edge, why should you leave? Let them leave. And it is much more likely that while the dress will remain, in a few more decades they simply won’t. One from the city and two from the family. They are drawing closer and closer to bankruptcy.
And one more vital correction: we must stop the scandalous situation in which there is an option for White to defeat Black. Black must always win!
Regards, Lovingatto Negro
I don’t think at all that they are approaching bankruptcy, and I don’t expect it to happen at all. I think things here will become magnificently bad before they start becoming good, and I’m not interested enough in stewing in that cauldron as one of the spices. As long as I have the means and the social network to evaporate from here, I’m less worried. From my point of view it is quite an expensive price to leave, because at the moment I’m comfortable with the current situation and would be happy if it stayed comfortable for me here, but being prepared to move is a necessary insurance policy. It may be that once I am far enough away I’ll be able to look with detached anthropological curiosity at what happens here.
I mean to say that even if they grow demographically (and even that needs to be checked, with all the percentages of people leaving religion that are steadily increasing), their religious ideology is going increasingly bankrupt. The whole area requires further study.
Regarding discrimination against Ethiopian Israelis.
I recently read in one of the newspapers that Ethiopian Israelis are arrested by the police at twice their proportion in the population, which proves, according to the writer, that the police discriminate against them.
So here is similar information:
In 1996 the reserve battalion in which I served took in new soldiers, “Stage B” recruits; the intake was near the canteen at Beit Lid. The liaison officer handled the intake, and I sat down at the only empty desk. A police officer came to my desk and asked to sit. I struck up a conversation with him. He asked me: Are these your soldiers?
– Yes
– Immigrants from the Commonwealth of Independent States?
– Yes
– They’re good human material.
The officer told me he dealt in crime statistics. According to him, the proportion of immigrants from the former Soviet Union involved in crime was twice their share in the population, and that was lower than any other wave of immigration in the state’s history. He added that this is a known phenomenon worldwide: immigrants contribute to crime more than longtime residents. In Israel the situation is relatively good compared to other countries.
In 2005 I visited one of the prisons in the north as a guest of the prison’s architect. The prison administration took advantage of the opportunity and, to the architect’s dismay, organized for us, instead of an architectural tour, a sociological-criminological tour. And among other things they told us that the representation of immigrants from the former Soviet Union within the prison walls was double their share in the population.
Dear silk yeshiva man: your words fell on attentive ears and I read your messages carefully. I have reached the provisional conclusion that you are a magical combination of obtuseness, blockage, ignorance, and personal nullity, and I hereby allot you half a kilo of freshly crushed pity. In my opinion Haredi society as a whole is a pathetic and miserable collection of people with quite reasonable potential who use it, like the convert in your midst, to drag everyone else down, down. With secular people and leftists I still have plenty to argue about. I passed the stage of revulsion long ago; since then I have been in the stage of disillusionment and organization. As far as I am concerned, you and your kind are destined to win here and live in a second-world country, and ever since I understood that it would be better for me to find another place, I invest tiny trickles of energy in conveying my opinion on the matter to the nation.
Fleeing from the Edge, what does “second-world country” have to do with anything? Read about them and you’ll understand that it’s unrelated.
Hello Hayuta.
Political correctness is nonsense from beginning to end. Its non-extreme manifestations are not phenomena of political correctness but of rules of courtesy. That is an entirely different phenomenon. Beyond its consequences, it is problematic in itself. The fact that it kills humor is a minor matter. It kills discourse, and that is a more essential issue.
She really is a brave and upright woman. All credit to her.
>The law itself draws the line: at the point where there is a tangible danger of violence and harm (physical) to people. Beyond that there is freedom of speech, and we all need to deal with claims on their merits.
Your remarks indicate a lack of understanding. Rina Matzliach did not write an academic article but spoke in the media. Extreme examples are the way to sharpen a message, and that is perfectly fine. Her claim is entirely correct in my opinion, but the question is not correctness but legitimacy.
And even if there were condescension and stupidity here—which in my opinion is not at all the case here—it would still be legitimate and protected by freedom of speech.
As you yourself wrote, the film does not promote ideas but presents a period. But even if it does promote ideas we do not like, that is legitimate. In my remarks I mentioned the comparison to The Godfather.
This really is nonsense. The attitude toward Sephardim has definitely changed, and certainly the attitude toward women. And yes, also the attitude toward Blacks. It does not necessarily follow that this changed because of the semantic wars (though in my opinion they have some part in it), but that is another discussion.
The fact that in the Haredi world (of which you are apparently a part) they relate this way to Sephardim does not mean it is so in the rest of the world as well.
So as for the depth of the arguments—first correct yourself.
In my columns about the Haredim and the coronavirus I mentioned the mobilization of the battalions of PC on behalf of the Haredim. That happens quite often. On the contrary, I am really impressed by the fair treatment the Haredim receive in our society relative to what they do to it.
As for the Jews, they are simply successful. I explained that the weak one is always right and the strong one is always not right (rather, guilty).
According to my view, in halakhah there is no punishment and no prohibition for expressing reasoned opinions. As for incitement to idolatry, that may perhaps be an exception in which even if the inciter believes it, he is still punishable (I am not sure of that, but perhaps). But even if so, this is a case of real harm where freedom of speech ends. One must remember that in those times idolatry led to atrocious behaviors.
It is worth factoring in the socioeconomic and educational situation here as well, and then you will arrive at lower results.
I used that term as another point on the first-world/third-world axis. What is expected here is not a deterioration into a third-world economy stricken by corruption and violence, but rather a significant creeping decline in the standard of living (together with a significant creeping rise in distress) that will move us even farther away from the first-world countries.
Is there any limit to freedom of speech? That is, if Rina Matzliach had chosen to compare Bibi’s propaganda to Nazi Germany’s propaganda (and I believe there are those who think that—quietly, of course), would we still have been supposed to allow her airtime as part of freedom of speech?
If in your opinion there is a limit (and I doubt that this is your opinion), then the question is where it is drawn. Her claim, as you present it, is legitimate (and in her view correct), but the example she used crosses the boundary of good taste and compares severe crimes to bribery offenses. In my opinion they did well to suspend her.
I already wrote clearly. My opinion is that there is no limit whatsoever. A comparison to Nazi propaganda is entirely legitimate, even if it is incorrect. The limit is a tangible danger of violence and harm to people.
Manners never led anyone anywhere. On the contrary, it was precisely the forcefulness of political correctness that enabled it to influence the norms of discourse. There is a reciprocal influence between culture and language; they change one another. The fact that someone is not allowed to call me “meidaleh” today lets me breathe, and that is the product of a power struggle, of a culture war, not of manners. In war, as in war, there are excesses—when the cannons roar, etc. There must be balances; a war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness in which there are only righteous people and people who are wrong is a concept I rather hate, one fit only for Hitler. The problem is the exaggeration that turns Ezer Weizman with his “meidaleh” into Hitler. He is not Hitler; he is impolite; and it is excellent that political correctness sends him to hell.
Exactly. I agree with every word.
After all, I wrote here (in the comments) that political correctness has an effect, and indeed that is contrary to mere manners. Therefore I wrote to you that there is no non-extreme political correctness (that is what is called manners).
And even so, this phenomenon is really stupid and foolish. Many steps and approaches can have an effect, and that still does not mean they are not foolish. There are also quite a few religious beliefs that are completely foolish. I do not deny at all that they have an effect. On the contrary: that is why I oppose them. Some of the effects are even positive, and then this falls into the category of noble lies.
One may argue that in order to achieve results, one may take problematic measures, and stupidity is really not too heavy a price. If it is permissible to imprison and harm and even kill in order to advance social goals, why should it be forbidden to lie and stuff us with rules of political correctness?! The problem, in my eyes, is that the prices of this folly are terrible. Perhaps it is easy for me because I am not “weak,” but in my opinion the paralysis of public discourse and its flattening to the level of paving stones is too heavy a price for the achievements. One should remember that political correctness does not bring the results by itself. It has some effect on the achievements. Does that justify the insane stupidity and the prostitution of discourse and research in entire fields of academia? In my opinion, no.
That’s too high a price for me and women like me to have oxygen? So that people who look like you too will be invited into the conversation, and not only privileged secular people? So that a little Ethiopian girl will see an Ethiopian reporter on Channel 12 and want to be one when she grows up? No, in my opinion that is definitely not too high a price. But yes, one must fight the extremism and the madness, fanaticism of every kind—just as in other matters.
According to the rules of political correctness one must support the “weak one.” Since nowadays whoever violates the rules of PC is very “weak” indeed—therefore one must support him and strengthen him, and heaven forbid injure the honor of the weakened violator of PC 🙂
And in the cause of truth and justice I have hereunto signed, Archbishop Privileginger
Not true. If the weak one is wrong, it is not proper to support him; one need not support every stupidity that has developed out of political correctness. A woman who falsely accuses a man of harassment that never happened should be pursued exactly as we would pursue the man in the opposite case. Common sense, fairness. Balance. A triangle that is a cure for most strange things—to be taken every morning with a glass of cold water or herbal tea.
With God’s help, 8 Tammuz 5780
To Hayuta – greetings, the culture of “political correctness” is the op
Michi, you’re pathetic.
Despite your attempts to outflank him, Prof. Amir Hetsroni is better than you as a funny troll from academia.
Try to get a professorship, open a TikTok channel, and improve the jokes in order to give him more fight
The culture of political correctness is the exact opposite of “fairness and balance.” PC is a tool in the hands of various strange privileged people to silence whoever criticizes them.
There is also a good side to this, because in that way those “privileged” people make themselves repulsive in the eyes of the public. Then the public opens itself to hearing the other side as well. Therefore there is no need to be alarmed by all the noise and commotion of the knights of PC.
At the end of the day, fairness and balance pay off. The public is not stupid. Whoever knows how to express himself with fairness and balance—his words are heard.
Even in a worthy dispute, a dispute for the sake of Heaven, like the dispute between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai—they were more successful, those who were gentle and humble and who would first mention the words of their opponents, thus giving a fitting response to the opposing arguments.
Regards, Shatz
As for herbal tea in the morning, it seems to me that Wissotzky tea is preferable, for R. Kalonymus Wolf Wissotzky was one of the students of Rabbi Israel Salanter, who demanded of a person constant self-examination and care to be good toward Heaven and toward people; and of the tea he founded it may be said: “This tea hour is an hour of mercy and an hour of favor” 🙂
Forgive me, Hayuta, but you are really whiny (and one must say, talking like a feeble-minded person. Sorry for the lack of politeness). Why should they invite you to the studio because you’re a woman (and also religious)? They invite someone because he is interesting. If you are interesting, they will invite you. It’s in their interest—to get ratings, no? Why should there be a reporter on Channel 12 who is Ethiopian just because he is Ethiopian? Isn’t that discrimination? There should be a reporter who is professional (good at his job). This is exactly the corrupting discrimination that was discussed here. You no longer need to earn your place of work on the basis of qualifications but on the basis of belonging to some group or other that you invent—and the main thing is that it be underprivileged (which of course is a matter of the underprivileged person’s own declaration and feeling, and not of any objective reality).
It is obvious that you did not understand at all what the rabbi wrote in the article here.
Oh, holy innocence.
We are repeating ourselves. I already said that when you fight extremism you are fighting political correctness. The non-extreme phenomena simply are not political correctness.
And indeed, this insane price is already too high in my eyes. Unequivocally. And the reasons are many: 1. In order to save you, all of us suffer from lack of discourse and stupid, baseless wars. 2. PC did not save you, but at most had some partial role in it. 3. Today the situation is already very different, and there certainly is no justification for this madness. 4. Others suffer greatly because of it, and one does not save Reuben with the blood of Simeon.
Fine, you defended me, though not on my grounds. Hayuta understood better than you what I wrote, although I do not agree with her criticism. In my opinion there is a certain place for affirmative action, and I did not write here that there isn’t. I am talking about PC as it was presented in the column.
Hayuta, and that is exactly what I wrote. Protection of the crazy kind is PC. Reasonable protection is not PC.
I did not come to defend you at all. And there isn’t too much to understand here (it’s not such great wisdom). But her whining is exactly of the kind of serial offendedness presented here. The issue of corrupting discrimination simply angers me because of its injustice. Men naturally stood at the forefront of history and they do not need to apologize for that (all the historical “wrong” done to other groups would have been done by those groups if they had had the power. Women and Blacks were not more moral—if anything, I can guess less so). There is no place at all for this discrimination. One simply needs to allow fair competition. If women’s voices aren’t heard in interviews, let her open her own television program and interview only women for all I care. Fine—but write a column on corrupting discrimination and I’ll elaborate there
Did she ask you to be ashamed on her behalf?
To Noah’s credit it should be said that Ham was the one who first violated the rules of PC, by taking advantage of his father’s helplessness in order to shame him publicly. It seems, in any case, that one should maintain a correct and respectful attitude not only toward “underprivileged populations.” People greater than you also deserve respect…
Regards, Son of Manoah
I’ll just say that what happened historically was not that the wicked were successful (there simply was no moral awareness in the world; everyone was wicked) but that the strong were successful. And that is exactly the claim. Now the people of corrupting discrimination want to correct a “wrong” solely by virtue of their being weak. Maybe you also don’t understand yourself, because that is exactly the point here. Everyone deserves something because he is owed it simply by virtue of being weak (according to his own view or not), and not by virtue of moral right. Maybe I understood you better than you understand yourself. I understand your need to defend Hayuta, who edited your books, but I know her here from the column and my previous remarks are well founded.
An incidental note: Agnew’s statement that “the bastards changed the rules of the game” was said about a bribery affair in which he was involved, not about Watergate as stated.
The obligation to preserve a person’s dignity applies also to the great and the honored, but extra caution is required when dealing with the weak, who are easily hurt, and one must be careful not to wrong them with words; and there is an additional prohibition regarding an orphan and a widow, and a person is especially cautioned regarding wronging his wife, “for her tears are frequent and her hurt is near” (Bava Metzia 59a). And even regarding a sinner whom one is obligated to rebuke, the Torah commanded “you shall not bear sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17), that is, not to shame him.
Regards, Shatz
For some reason, about the attitude of Arab society toward women—such as polygamy and honor killings and more and more—you would not dare write; PC, as we said?
By the way, it is beyond me how no one noticed (and no one really understood) what those Likudniks actually said to Rina Matzliach. After all, no Likudnik is really willing for his daughter to be raped for Bibi. That was obviously a provocation. What they really meant to say is that they are willing for their daughter to be raped so that the left will not be in power (they hate the left), and Bibi simply represents what the left hates. That is already completely understandable, because hatred really can bring a person to such a thing (a person is willing to have both his own eyes gouged out, so long as one of his enemy’s is gouged out). And the left has no grounds for complaint. After all, they too are willing to do such a thing for the “anti-Bibi,” their holy and exalted leader (the Antichrist). I believe they would have been willing, in order that Bibi not be in power, to do things far more extreme than that, as we can plainly see.
Attaching an insulting nickname to one’s fellow is no less severe, and the Sages already said that one who gives his fellow a nickname has no share in the World to Come, even if he has already become accustomed to that nickname.
Regards, Shatz
Do you think this strange conduct is the only way to make progress? It seems rather that female advancement (for example) did not occur because of PC. On the contrary, sometimes it seems there are groups who fear this trend, and therefore denounce even blessed changes that ought to happen regardless (such as the status of women in religious society). Perhaps it happened somewhat in parallel, but the change in the status of women and the approach to weaker populations advanced thanks to human developments, the possibility for women to acquire education, and so on.
Eran, of course there is not only one way to make progress; the progress of the world has been achieved, thank God, in many ways. But whoever thinks that culture and language have no part in that progress is mistaken. Culture and language influence one another, and changes in one require changes in the other, in both directions. Unfortunately, there is no escaping the fact that revolutions require a kind of force, and the force—and even violence—present in PC has definitely contributed to the advancement of underprivileged populations.
I would not bring Ben Caspit as a supporting authority; the man has been repeatedly caught lying about Netanyahu (I think he was even once forced to pay over one of his lies). I understand that in your opinion Bibi should pay out of his own pocket for the armored car that the state deems useful to place at his disposal. The first prime minister in the history of the state who was required to do so.
Tony is right, but leave it—just another brainwashed person who understood that these days it’s the bon ton to bash Netanyahu.
Hayuta, more power to you. Your approach is beautiful, balanced, and full of compassion and understanding. I hope you are not offended by the ugly and condescending reactions. I was offended on your behalf.
Every socio-political movement branches in many directions, and one of them is the extreme and even the most extreme. That is fine; all in all it is a natural and familiar process in the course of history. Those who complain about it are those who are losing power that they inherited without much toil.
Everything is fine: PC has become very extreme and deviated from its path, but at the same time it is correcting wrongs of hundreds of years.
Thank you!
In short
One may say that PC (politically correct) is like a PC (private computer): both can be used for great benefit, but can also, God forbid, bring great harm, and therefore using them requires intelligent filtering.
Regards, Kushi Rimon
Personal computer
And this response, Eran, nicely illustrates what lies at the heart of the matter: a struggle over control and power.
This sheds light on struggles such as “the revolution in women’s Torah study,” which, in the way Hayuta promotes it, certainly contains revolution but certainly does not contain Torah. That is, it contains Torah if “Torah” is defined as the body of knowledge found in certain books, but it does not contain Torah in the sense of studying that by which one fulfills the commandment of Torah study. Because the Torah is being used as a tool in a struggle, it is not the end. (The struggle of recent days over the Chief Rabbinate exams illustrates this, since there is no need for them in order to be a Torah scholar; they are needed in order to conquer positions of power.) One of the best definitions I know for the concept of “holiness” is: that which you would not agree to use instrumentally.
In short, the cloak of righteousness is only camouflage. Even if it comes with boo-hooing a kilometer high. This is not a female version of Hillel climbing onto the roof of the study hall; it is a Jewish-religious version of Catharine MacKinnon.
About reactions such as these, Saramago wrote Blindness; and if he didn’t, he should have.
Forgive me, Hayuta, but I have to tell you that you have no idea how pathetic your statement that PC “gives you oxygen” sounds. If a certain group of people looked down on me, I would withdraw and distance myself from them. On the contrary, their company would harm me. Otherwise I would start seeing myself through their eyes. In order to advance and develop, I need to distance myself from that kind of people. And I certainly would not think of forcing my company on them. And what you are saying—that without men’s approval “you have no oxygen”—means that without them you will have no self-respect. That you need their approval. Don’t be surprised that with such an approach people will continue to disdain women. After all, the world of men is competitive (testosterone), and whoever reaches some summit had to compete (whether justly or not) in order to get there. Even when there is nepotism. After all, even a prince needs to earn the kingship, at least in his father’s eyes (and in practice also in the eyes of the nobles and ministers). And what you want is for men to grant status to women and Blacks (for some reason they cannot do it unless privileged white men grant them status—where is their self-respect?) simply by virtue of their being such. That is, simply by virtue of their being weak. That is, simply by virtue of their lacking status. That sort of logic. What competitive man in the world would agree to that? The reason women advanced is not because of some real moral development of the world. (There is development, but only outwardly, aesthetically.) It is simply internal male competition in which some men use the garb of the righteous (that is, justice)—leftists or liberals in their own eyes—in order to feel superior to their peers/rivals, the conservatives. Believe me, they don’t care about women (or Blacks) one bit. They are only an object for a feeling of righteousness. All this social “equality” is a fata morgana. In a moment it can all disappear. Like that trained cat waiter who wore a waiter’s suit and served in some restaurant, but the moment he saw a mouse forgot everything he had learned, threw down the tray, and ran after it. And in fact all your claims are simply feminine manipulation (crying and emotionalism) to get from men what you want (I believe not consciously—like a two-year-old child who cries to get what he wants and knows nothing of all this). There are simply stupid men who don’t understand this (and are also not conscious of themselves).
And believe me, I am not cynical. I do believe there is real justice and real people. Just not in a world without God and without self-awareness about human nature. But not in moralizing discussions in universities and in the media, and not on this site either. As for me, I can’t believe how naive Rabbi Michi is to fail to see this. It doesn’t suit him.
It’s personal computer
To Emanuel – greetings,
If I had used “personal,” there would have been room to accuse me of the “ad hominem fallacy.” For fear of the “ad-hominophobes,” I preferred to use the word “private,” which emphasizes the rights of the individual 🙂
Regards, the careful guardian of the “rules of discourse”
Line 2
… I preferred to use …
1. Firing a journalist over remarks made on air does not contradict freedom of speech (unless the government forces private newspapers to fire in that way). Freedom of speech does not oblige giving a unique platform (such as a journalist’s position) to everyone, and in any case that is impossible (and today also less necessary since almost anyone can express himself on the internet).
2. The claim about Likud voters that they would vote for Bibi even if he raped their daughter is (to put it mildly) a severe breach of manners and definitely a legitimate reason (though not a necessary one) to fire a journalist.
3. This is not specifically about rape but about any sufficiently severe and blatant crime.
4. There is no content of value in this statement that could not have been conveyed in a statement such as, say, “Bibi’s supporters would vote for him even if it were proven that he stole a billion dollars from the state and also caused the country’s economy to collapse alongside a wave of terrorist attacks.” (Unless she meant it literally, in which case it is simply obvious nonsense.)
Thus the clash here is between manners and (perhaps) literary quality, and there is no harm here to the ability to discuss things in a real and fair way. In my view this is an entirely reasonable price for manners.
5. Moreover, in my opinion those “literary” expressions only blur the message and make it harder to conduct a discussion that reaches the truth, and in particular to understand what people really think and what is “literary” exaggeration. Consequently it is also harder to criticize such claims substantively.
6. Perhaps they should not have fired her but sufficed with an apology while clarifying that the next journalist who expresses himself similarly will be fired (because of the harm dismissal may cause the dismissed person), but I assume that is not the point of the article.
Speaking of cinema, it reminds me of a tiny weak point that touches on the matter. In the series House, the protagonist (an acerbic eccentric genius who lives in pain) specializes in violating the rules of political correctness and even of manners: he mocks women, Blacks, Jews, religious people, and people in general. B-u-t, the writers themselves took care to satisfy all the standards completely. The hospital director? A woman. House’s most loyal and devoted friend? A Jew. The smartest and most level-headed doctor on House’s team? Black. And House himself also makes sure to break all the rules equally, and even in that the writers actually softened the deviation (in my humble opinion). They script and weep.
This really borders on a lack of self-awareness.
With God’s help, 14 Tammuz 5780
To Yehoshua – greetings,
Being careful in one’s phrasing and saying things in a way that will not hurt may lead one to refrain altogether from speaking about what needs to be spoken of. But on the other hand it may lead to saying the necessary things in a pleasant and acceptable way. For example, when a math teacher comments on a mistake in solving a problem, he can begin with something positive: “Wow, what a beautiful square you drew. You’re really talented. Now let’s try again to solve the problem.” Strengthening the student’s self-confidence by noting his success may encourage him to progress also in what he is less strong at.
Regards, Shatz
Regarding the rabbi’s harsh words about those low in the social hierarchy who accuse others instead of looking for a cause and solution within themselves, I would like to remark that the rabbi does not know (apparently has not experienced, despite his unusual beard and opinions) what discrimination is and what power social conditioning has.
For example:
There is indeed a difference between Mizrahim and Sephardim. Many Sephardim—if not most—are less “Eastern” than many Ashkenazim (supposedly). For you that means nothing, but for them it does. What if someone said to you that you were a Muslim instead of a Jew (because it’s the same thing, the same dirty beard; people have already shouted at me “fucking Muslim” in France?) or if neighbors said to you, “hello, Jew.” That’s not false, and nevertheless it hurts.
Besides, you surely do not know French Jewry, but there many (most of the experts interviewed in the national media such as France 2) among the Sephardim reached the heights of the media, music, academia, medicine, etc. (thanks in part to French education and with almost no discrimination; it deteriorated and is deteriorating). Yet those same families (with the same background—for example split families) who arrived in Israel became simple Mizrahim in Kfar Saba or Holon.
What is true for them can be (and likely is) true for others.
With God’s help, 15 Tammuz 5780
No one fired Rina Matzliach over her grave remarks. They merely suspended her from broadcasting for a week. The sanction of dismissal is reserved only for the employee who leaked the video of Shelah’s tirade—may the Lord prolong his days like the days of Methuselah. They didn’t even fire Libeskind, who exposed the conflicts of interest of the High Court justices; they merely moved him to a less-viewed time slot. Here we preserve freedom of speech 🙂
Regards, Living Speaker
I did not understand everything written here. Who talked about the Sephardim in France? I am talking about those here. I certainly know the phenomenon of the difference, and I have even written about it here in the past.
And the difference between Mizrahim and Sephardim does not interest me in the slightest. It is just terminology. And even if it is inaccurate for some reason, so what? Whoever chooses to be offended—good health to him. By the way, even if they shouted at me that I was a Muslim, I would not be offended. It would be a mistake, not an insult.
In short, nothing here seems relevant to what I wrote.
The history of political correctness – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujdG7TxX40w
Who opens the eyes of the blind, who releases the bound!
Professor, you’re pathtic
I can’t manage to be impressed by the sneering struggle against political correctness. True, this correctness has its nonsense and its excesses; of course I don’t think Gone with the Wind should be removed from any list, just as the Bible shouldn’t be removed from anywhere despite a few episodes in it that are embarrassing for women. On the other hand, I am definitely pleased that people are no longer allowed to call me “meidaleh,” as used to be customary, and that on TV panels they interview Mizrahim, women, religious people, and gays—not only men from the same milieu, in the same shade.
As far as I’m concerned, political correctness—apparently a necessary thing—has two main side effects, and both are connected to culture. A. It kills humor. Archie Bunker, the chauvinist misogynist from All in the Family from our childhood days (!), was genuinely funny. So was Jack Nicholson, the gay-hater in As Good as It Gets. The tension built there was meant to be broken, to create a reversal. Without a negative pole there is no positive pole, no spark, no electricity—in short, it’s boring. There are excellent Holocaust jokes, and also jokes about every ethnic group, without exception. It’s a bit of a shame to give them up.
B. It also flattens literature. True, the expression “meidaleh” is annoying and belittling, as is “doll,” but what about the poetic “girl” or “little girl”? Even Yechiel Mohar, in his beautiful song “Autumn Wind,” noticed that not all times are equal, and not in every context can you call a young woman whatever name we feel like:
Here, in such an atmosphere
one no longer says to a young woman:
“Hey, doll, sweetheart, come dance” –
but rather: “Behold, an autumn night…”
And there is one expression that, in my opinion, still exists in Haredi society: vaybers. “Women,” but dismissively, in a contemptuous tone. Like meidaleh, only without the faux-charm. About a decade ago I interviewed the wife of a very distinguished rabbi for my book Nechama. The rebbetzin was a knowledgeable and intelligent woman, and we had a serious and useful conversation for a long time. When her husband returned from the evening prayer and saw that we were still talking, she said to him apologetically: “Nu, vaybers.” Meaning: we’re women, after all—what can one possibly expect from us? I was ashamed for all of us: for me, for her, and for Nechama Leibowitz as well.