This viral thread on what people can and can't say due to 'political correctness' is gold.

When people decry "political correctness," what are they really railing against?

Political correctness is a loaded term. People bandy it about with eye-rolling disdain whenever someone gets called out for saying offensive, sexist, racist, or otherwise hurtful things, claiming everyone is just too sensitive these days. The concept comes up more often in social than political discourse, and complaining about it seems to be the habit du jour for many.

A recent poll by NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist found that 52% of Americans are "against the country becoming more politically correct and are upset that there are too many things people can't say anymore." NPR shared the results in an article on Twitter with a "Warning to Democrats."


Then Twitter user Julius Goat expertly took the posting, the poll, and the entire concept of political correctness to task in an epic thread.

If you want to know what underlies complaints about political correctness, make people say what they say they can't say.

Julius Goat (which is the popular Twitter account of author A.R. Moxon) is known for thoughtful, hard-hitting threads that force people to think.

"Ask them to name the things they can't say anymore," Goat wrote in response to NPR's tweet, "ask them to list each one."

"Don't allow these bullshit euphemisms," he continued. "Make them say the things they 'can't' say. They [sic] things they still say, in certain company."

Then he pointed out an obvious—but often overlooked—truth.

"No one who complains that they 'can't say ... things ... anymore' is prevented from saying anything," Goat wrote. "What they mean is, now, if they say those things, they are perceived as the kind of people who say those things. What they object to is simply personal accountability."

"The real objection isn't that there are suddenly so many things they can't say. The real objection is there are suddenly so many things that other people CAN say. Things like, 'what do you mean by that?' and 'here's why those words demean and hurt me.'"

Yup.

Goat continued, "'There are things we can't say anymore' is a phrase intended the [sic] skirt accountability. Poll the exact things. Ask those questions. 'What things?' Let's see the demographics of Americans mad they can't say n***** any more. Or f**. And a hush fills the punditry."

Goat also pointed out that the way such polls are conducted and analyzed add to the problem.

Asking people if they think political correctness is a problem is a different question than asking if people embrace the idea of demeaning marginalized people, but it's basically the same idea.

"The fact that polling doesn't ask those specific questions, but it does employ accountability-evading terms like 'political correctness' tells you a lot about the poll's complicity in the dodge," Goat wrote. "As do the articles analyzing the poll."

"Why do we only see 'Poll Offers Stark Warning to Democrats for Identity Politics in 2020' and not 'Poll Shows White People Love Slurs?'" Goad asked. "Both require the same amount of analysis. Both bring a worldview to data. Thus you can detect the worldview of seemingly neutral parties."

Those of us who think words matter need shouldn't fall into the trap of arguing about "political correctness" when the term itself—ironically—is so often used to evade accountability and to avoid calling a bigoted spade a bigoted spade. Who is actually being overly sensitive—the people on the receiving end of hurtful language, or the people who can't handle being criticized for using hurtful words?

Goat's responses to people's predictable comments on the thread are just as spot on.

These tweets speak for themselves, and they all say BOOM.

And finally, a bit of humor that highlights the absurdity of some people's claims about what feel they can no longer say:

Well done, Julius Goat. While some will never grasp the fact that "political correctness" is really just polite consideration that anyone in a civilized society should champion, this thread at least points out how ridiculous people's arguments against the concept really are. It's not that you can't say things anymore. You just can't say them without social consequence or criticism—which is how it should be in a society where everyone has an equal voice.    

lop
More

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture