The term political correctness, typically abbreviated PC as the term has come to be used since the late 20th century, has morphed again into a pejorative to be thrown at anyone who objects to politeness.
The definition: Political Correctness; the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
This seems like it isn’t so bad. Who really thinks excluding or insulting groups that have been disadvantaged is cool? Really, when I first started hearing the term in the 1980s I thought, well isn’t that just being polite? Today we hear people complaining about PC culture because people object to the use of the N-word, or making fun of disabled people. But before PC ever came to the fore, polite people wouldn’t say or do those things anyway. (Or at least not where it would cause offense.) And how did it come to be a badge of honor to proudly be impolite, rude, and offensive? There is nothing wrong with being polite, nor from voicing objection to someone being rude. Whatever you call it, politeness or political correctness, some of that is okay.
So I do understand both the need for us to be conscious of what we say and how it is perceived by those who hear us, and that we also should be free from attack by those who are really trying to stifle free speech and prevent someone’s view from being offered to the public forum. There are times and places for every word, and incumbent on us to understand when those words are not pejoratives. The reason political correctness has become such a derided term is not just because rude people don’t like to be called rude, it is also because some people are looking for a chance to be offended. They have taken the general idea of not insulting or demeaning people to the extreme level of not allowing discussions at all, regardless of the merit. This is PC overreach. It was politically incorrect to make fun of a cripple. Now it is politically incorrect to use the word cripple. Acceptable terms change, but when a person is called out for saying someone suffered a crippling injury, that is overreach.
Now I’ll get on to the point, which is crackpots. Merriam-Webster defines crackpot as: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions. That seems simple enough. And I’m not going to explore in depth the etymology of the word, but I’m guessing it is comparing a person’s head with a pot, and that a cracked one will result in leakage. A crackpot then has something leaking out of his head, and that explains his eccentric or lunatic notions. But while PC overreach has tried to halt the use of certain terms, or criticism of certain groups, Political Correctness overreach has also demanded that we give fair time to every opinion as long as those alluded to words are not used, or groups are not addressed. And crackpot is a pejorative. And you shouldn’t call someone a crackpot. At least not until you are sure that they are.
PC has failed us as far as crackpots are concerned. We have become so inured to the idea that every opinion should be heard and treated fairly that we give crackpots the platform to advance their lunacy. Including the rantings of crackpots in discussion gives them credibility that the uninformed may take seriously. and to their great harm.
Some may question the connection I make between crackpot theories and PC culture, but I see them as linked. They are linked through the words “free speech.” As if to deny someone a platform to voice their opinion is the same as oppressing them. The recognition of the overuse of that phrase cannot be exaggerated. At times I think “free speech” is the most overused phrase in American English today. Likewise, it is among the most misunderstood phrases being bandied about. In the strictest sense it is the right to express an opinion without censorship or restraint. But we all know that some speech deserves no such blanket freedom.
If some middle aged man is standing in your living room and in front of your adolescent daughter describing the sex acts he would like to perform on her, I expect ( I hope) you’re going to censor the hell of out him. Censor him right out the door with stipulations of serious consequences should he approach your threshold or daughter again. Likewise is it with everyone’s home and every other property or venue except those which are in their nature public forums. And even then some fair regulation to that speech is appropriate. You may stand on the street corner saying what you like, but you may not threaten passersby with violence.
That’s the broad use. The pointedly American use is found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution where such freedoms are protected. This is precisely stating that the government may not stop you from having your say. And again, there remains room for some restriction in some cases. The short of it is that the First Amendment does not require that every crackpot theory must be heard, only that the government can’t make them stop.
But the cries of “free speech” have become so frequent that many of us have come to believe that we must let them have their say. This is political correctness run amok.
TV news anchor: “NASA is developing the means to send a manned mission to Mars. Now for another viewpoint and in support of free speech, let’s hear from a man who says the Earth is flat and Mars is just an image projected by the government to control us and keep us from finding the truth.”
This example is extreme, but only a little. The truth is that in our PC world today we hear someone say the Earth is flat, or that the Moon landings were faked, or that commercial aircraft routinely spray chemicals to poison the population, and we treat these claims as if we must oblige them a forum and equal treatment to other claims. We do not. These are the mental ramblings of unhinged crackpots. And every time we hear them we should be identifying them as such. We should call them crackpots, PC be damned.
What’s that? You think that 300 years of history never happened but were just added to the calendar? (Phantom Time Hypothesis) Oh I see, you’re a crackpot. Buildings with windows partially below the street level is evidence of a world-wide mud flood that has been covered up and removed from the historical record? (Mud Flood Hypothesis) You’re a crackpot. The Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax) is invalid because Ohio wasn’t a state when the Constitution was signed? Crackpot. You can declare yourself a sovereign citizen and you’re no longer subject to federal law? Crackpot.
We have millions of Americans who actually believe that the world is controlled (to one degree of another) by shape-shifting reptilian overlords who originate from outer space or from another dimension. They are all crackpots. Some never had the mental facilities to know any different or how to analyze information, while others must have had something leak out of their heads. The latter had their pots cracked, while the former were born with them so impaired.
The standard of evidence for claims is relative to the claim itself. If I say that I saw a movie about alien abduction, it is a claim that can be believed without any evidence. Claiming to have seen a movie hardly warrants scrutiny. If I say that I was abducted by aliens myself, it is a claim which requires a high degree of evidence, beginning with evidence that aliens exists at all in any way other than theoretical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A million people or more asserting something and insisting that it’s true, are not evidence of anything other than the widespread belief itself. Their belief, their initial claim, must have evidence that rises to the level of the claim.
Crackpots.