Political correctness: the demise of debate | On Line Opinion

By Louis O’Neill:

Frequently I find myself holding what one might consider a politically incorrect opinion, such as having scorn for Islam, disagreeing with myths peddled by the third wave feminist movement or finding no legitimacy in the claims of the black lives matter movement.

As a result my adversaries are more than ready to deviate from the laws of discourse, veering off into ad hominem, red herring or appeal to emotion fallacies…..

To disagree with the wage gap myth should not equate to being misogynist. One who believes that the doctrines of Islam and tenets of Sharia Law cannot peacefully run alongside a secular, democratic society should not be labelled “Islamophobic” or xenophobic.

To suggest that black-on-black crime is a cause for increased police confrontations in African American communities should not equate to being a racist. To comment that the institution of marriage is aimed at incentivising long-term heterosexual relationships as they are most conducive to a positive upbringing for a child, should not be tantamount to homophobia.

We are amidst an era of ideological fascism, incited by the left-leaning media, celebrities and television which has begun to pervade every crevice of popular thought……

Source: Political correctness: the demise of debate – On Line Opinion – 19/8/2016

7 Replies to “Political correctness: the demise of debate | On Line Opinion”

  1. Hmm… Mr O’Neill is onto something worth debating here, and it would be good to hear (read) other opinions, but I’m not 100% sure that he isn’t victimising himself in the process. It is speaking in generalities like “…having scorn for Islam…” and “…myths peddled by the third wave feminist movement…” that creates the problem in the first place. You can’t debate with a movement or a religion, you can only debate with individuals. That is almost never done in this age of keyboard debating from the private solitude of the home office. There are dreadful people in all “categories” (if I may use such a demeaning term) but there are also decent people there too who are often the silent majority who can’t understand what all the fuss is about, even when the vocal minority cry foul and grab the headlines. Shame on the media for letting them.

    Re: feminism (for example), my perception is that it has achieved 90% of its aims in Australia, while the last 10% gives meaning and purpose to professional feminists still banging on an open door. Of course they’ll shout foul when they can – how else can they stay in business? That’s just simple Darwinism – nurture whatever keeps you alive. It’s why there’s still a Flat Earth Society even though its members are just in it for fun.

    I’m not Islamaphobic, but I agree sharia Law is incompatible with democratic law. Anyone giving it 10 seconds thought will arrive at the same conclusion, since religions (none of them) are democratic. You can’t vote Muhammad, Jesus or Yahweh out of office.

    But why Mr O’Neill feels he’ll be demonised for saying something similar, escapes me. I certainly don’t. Perhaps the problem lies in the saying (and perhaps the reading, since few people practise generous reading anymore).

  2. Louis O’Neill is studying writing at Macquarie University.

    great pedigree,huhn? hope he studies hard


  3. So we shold return to ignoring the existence of the wage gap, not allow Muslims to exist in democratic societies, allow blacks to shoot one another so cops won’t be involved, and believe, without proof, that hereosexual marraiges are best fro raising families.
    And mosts of all, we should not criticize those who have no answers but rather rant as misogynistic, homophobic, racist, xenophobes even if they are incorrect and ignorant.
    No need for discussion on their end either.

    1. Social media is full of emotional rants from all sides. That minimizes the chance of rational debate based on careful examination of the underlying data. The Thomas Sowell video below illustrates the dangers of confirmation bias, where we seize on facts that support our argument, without careful examination.

  4. Louis O’Neill is 100% correct. His second paragraph is one that should be read over and over again, as it is the crux of the matter. There is no true discourse at the moment, and the amount of logical fallacies in the media are astounding. Many are due to people educated by a dumbed down demand driven and marxist inspired education system based upon equality of outcome, but many of the fallacies are deliberate and calculated from the likes of Plibersek, Wong, Shorten et al. They are very clever, and freedom lovers on the other side of politics are not equipped or articulate enough to debate them and call them out. The left have them on the run as we march towards socialism.

    Frank, you are correct with what you say about Sharia Law and Islam, but with Christianity it is very different. The Bible does not call for a theocracy, it does not call to force all to be believers, it does not call for non believers to be killed. What the Bible did give the West is a system of absolutes, a standard of right and wrong, a standard of justice and the rights of the individual, business conduct, personal responsibility and so on. Regardless of what one thinks of the Bible, the West is as prosperous and free as it is because of its teachings and principles (Mosaic Civil Law and New Testament teachings codified in The Doom Book by King Alfred, leading onto British Common Law, Magna Carta and so on)

    Anyway, copy and paste these links below from CNN and Fox re Black Lives Matter for a refreshingly honest assesment:


Comments are closed.