Anyway, today's measured diatribe involves that most perfidious of liberal ne'erdowells, the PC brigade. Countless times the hard work of the Mail Group and the Daily Express have alerted us to the dangers they pose to all hard-working BMW, Audi or large Skoda owners, but does this government listen? Not on your nelly!
Let's first of all disavow ourselves of the notion that there is such a thing as a 'PC brigade'. There is no organisation that tries to restrain the rights of citizens to say 'what has to be said', or from raising issues of the injustices in society. A member of the PC brigade is anybody deemed unwilling to allow largely ignorant cliches or stereotypes to be repeated.
Those who find themselves up against the PC brigade are people who are chastised for using comments of the above character, but who are linguistically ill-equipped to adapt to the rules which political correctness have already established. Rather than adapting to the core of the argument, the individual instead feels aggrieved that his opinions are being ridiculed and discriminated against for their content, and not for their presentation. I'm sure that many people accused of racism are actually simply unable to satisfactorily process information, which leaves them with only a small knowledge of hackneyed phrases and stereotypes to repeat regarding those they perceive as different to them, stereotypes which the politically correct culture is designed to erase.
Here's my fun analogy. One day, our subject (let's make it feel more personal, and call him X-200Beta) decides that he wants to go out and spit at people. However, the people upon whom he spits take exception to being the recipient of his flob, and invoke a system designed to remove the habit of spitting at others from society, known as the law, a system of which X-200Beta is unaware. X-200Beta is dragged off to court, a situation with which he is unhappy; As far as he was concerned, there had been no problem with spitting at people if he wanted to, but society had already decided that spitting at people was not conducive to its' own smooth running before X-200Beta went on his drool-spraying rampage.
So X-200Beta finds himself in court, and unaware of the prior reservations of society regarding his actions, feels he is being unjustifiably discriminated against. The legal representatives of the claimants lay out the legal case for his prosecution, based around established rules (law) for the act of spitting at people. X-200Beta, unsure of how to react but sure of the righteousness of his case, lays out no legal defence but instead chooses to spit at the lawyers and judge. He is unwilling, or unable, to adjust his behaviour to suitably represent his case, and instead his argument is disregarded as a defence.
So there's my story, a harrowing tale of a man who believes that he has every right to continue with his actions as he chooses, but is unaware that the manner in which he chooses to act has already had judgement passed on it and the particular mode of expression which he projects is already an old, stale part of the argument.
We're all well aware that 'nigger', 'Paki', and all of the rest of these terms are offensive. The reason they still arise amongst supposedly 'normal' people is that they are unable to see beyond the original argument, the content of which has been concluded long ago. Until people are made to realise that they're adding nothing new to the debate by questioning why a term is offensive, rather than considering the second stage in considering how to eradicate either their use of offensive, the political correctness will not be seen, correctly, as a positive force for society, but as an unreasonable brigade who chase after the 'hard-working majority' for simply saying exactly what they want.
