Political Correctness (PC) and Truth/J. Colannino

There is something vulgar about political correctness that has nothing to do with its point of view. Supposedly, enlightenment includes “tolerance,” though I find such to be a confused concept nowadays: to be clear, one cannot tolerate a point of view that one embraces; else it is no longer tolerance. I do not tolerate hot fudge sundaes. How could I? I love them.

When I was seven years of age, I tolerated tonsil surgery. For me, most points of view lie somewhere between hot fudge sundaes and tonsil surgery. Thankfully, not many rank too closely with the latter. If they approach the hot fudge sundae side, I embrace them; if they are closer to the tonsil surgery side, I tolerate them. Tolerance means that I disagree, and that sometimes I debate those ideas vigorously. So please don’t suggest that I am intolerant because I disagree with your point of view – that’s the necessary part of a constructive argument.

The Real Reason PC is Vulgar
But the reason I find political correctness vulgar is not even due to its lack of tolerance and irrational insistence on complete agreement. The reason I find political correctness vulgar is due to its willful denial of truth. If we begin suppressing inconvenient facts then we are well on our way to group think, collective stupidity, and much darker things, including tyranny and oppression.

The Man Thing
Suppose I suggest that men on average are larger, or stronger then women, based on overwhelming and undeniable evidence. Now, it may be that I am wrong. It has happened before. In such a case, I expect and demand an argument based on evidence, not wishful thinking or personal shock or outrage. There is a place for all those things, but not within the pale of constructive argument. I see the leading sentence of this paragraph as a value-neutral factual statement with no prejudice toward a particular gender. Indeed, as a Christian man, these kinds of prejudices are unallowable, as I hope to show. And if you disagree with me, I hope you will tolerate my arguments long enough to consider them as evidence for the veracity of the historic gospels.

The first century A.D. was a time of great chauvinism within a patristic culture that exaggerated the virtues of war and wealth and oppressed and marginalized precisely the people groups many of us champion today – the poor, the sick, the needy.

Remarkably, women and shepherds were considered such untrustworthy sources that their testimony was barred in all courts of law. Yet, the Incarnation was heralded by shepherds, and the first to witness the resurrected Christ were women. Had the gospels been a fictional story, there is simply no way that the gospel writers would have chosen the two most significant events in recorded history to have been averred in such an embarrassing way.

Jesus, Himself, was a companion of the poor, the lame, and the destitute. Indeed, He went out of His way within a socially caste society to seek out the broken and distressed. Sadly, at that time, persons were considered socially if not biologically inferior for being female, racially crossbred, immoral, or non-Roman. The woman at the well of Sychar is an example of a person from all the aforementioned categories. Indeed, she expressed complete astonishment that a Jewish Rabbi such a Jesus would even converse with her let alone ask to use one of her drinking utensils. Yet the gospels faithfully record all of these facts that during their day could only be regarded as embarrassing and demeaning. There is simply no reason to do so, unless the story is true.

The apostle Paul stated specifically that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3.28)” This high standard for valuing people of all stripes is nothing short of a miracle in the context of the time in which it was written, and it has not been equaled by any other major religion, even to this day.

Back to Tolerance
Well, perhaps you disagree. And if so, thank you for tolerating my point of view. But if you choose to grant me the gift of your time to comment, at the very least, let us consider the facts, even if inconvenient. If you value diversity, then please do not be schizophrenic in your endorsement. Either people and groups are different or we are all the same. If we are different, we cannot be the same in every category. Perhaps that is inconvenient, but it is true. And far from being limiting it may liberating, and even divine.

LIBRARIES AND RSS, by Richard W. Boss/Comments, J. Colannino

As part of our assignment on collaboration we were required to comment on at least one article selected by another student. I have selected the above entitled article because I do not know much about RSS feeds. This brief paper gives a good sketch of what RSS is and how it works. RSS uses XML and stands for something like “really simple syndication” (there is some dispute about the acronym). No matter, RSS allows for a subscriber to link to a site of interest and authorize the host to automatically send new updates about a topic as soon as the information is available. Thus, the technology is a push-by-permission technology. The feeds may be pushed to the user’s web browser without the need to provide an e-mail address. If the feeds become annoying, one may cancel or restore them at the click of a button without having to send an unsubscribe e-mail or wait from any action by the host organization.

This article suggested that RSS would be a good idea for libraries, and by extension, anyone wanting up to the minute news on any topic. The host site must have enabled RSS transmissions. This is usually shown by an RSS or XML button located on the site. The user clicks it and follows instructions to allow for automated downloads. The user also needs an aggregator. Mozilla’s Firefox browser comes with an aggregator built in, Firefox is free.

So now that I know what an RSS feed is and how to enable it, will I use RSS feeds? No. The technology looks nifty but I have developed a strong aversion for push technologies. When I want something on the web, especially from a favorite site, I have little trouble finding it. I find even e-mails to be a distraction and nuisance when they interrupt my daily routine. To borrow a phrase from manufacturing, I am a just-in-time (JIT) infophile. I want my information when I want it, not before, and not very much afterward. When I was younger, we called people with this attitude “spoiled” children.

Am I a spoiled child? To a degree, yes. A child who has their slightest wish granted often grows to be a tyrannical adult. Oh, I certainly don’t qualify for that "honor," but there is something about just-in-time or on-demand service that pushes one in that direction. I worry if we, as a culture, will lose our civility and I have observed signs of it everywhere and at an increasing pace. We have just-in-time Christianity (get your miracle), just-in-time food (fast food), just-in-time relationships (chat rooms), just-in-time sexual satisfaction (pornographic sites), just-in-time travel (road rage)… well, you get the picture. If patience is a virtue then just-in-time is a vice. Its fine for things and bad for people.

The trouble with just-in-time is that some things are best savored and are even demeaned otherwise. One cannot have just-in-time parenting or just-in-time love without doing grave injustice to oneself and others. What good examples have we of love? The premier examples used to be in the home, but divorce and a culture of instant gratification have begun to assault that bastion with increasing alacrity. Many I speak with are confused about what love is and are surprised to learn that sexual gratification is a very small drop in a very deep ocean – an ocean that rewards years of exploration with indescribable treasure. Once you are privileged to find it, you need never hurry on or look elsewhere, even in the face of social distractions with really simple syndication.