“Politically correct”起源於上個世紀初，與在共產黨員及美國社會主義者之間圍繞斯大林主義的教條式運用有關。忠於黨的路線，即為政治正確。上個世紀70年代，美國新左翼開始採用這個用法。對於政治正確的這個非常“不純的血統”，政治正確的狂熱鼓吹者諱莫如深。至80-90年代，特別是里根總統當政期間，政治正確受到廣泛批評，其中的代表作品The Closing of the American Mind (by Allan Bloom)還成了那個時期的暢銷書。隨着時代的推移，政治正確這個大筐里裝的東西越來越多，其中也不乏一些積極的成分，如反對種族歧視，性別歧視等等。這也是我不完全反對政治正確的原因。但左翼分子在這個筐里塞了太多的私貨，使得現在越來越多的清醒的人們不願再被他們綁架。現在的政治正確幾乎是無處不在，無時不在，已演變成一種文化馬克思主義，它的典型特徵就是沒有容忍度。對此我們有必要保持適度的警惕。轟轟烈烈的共產主義運動已成過眼雲煙，但對此沒有切膚之痛的西方左翼卻皮癢地很，他們就像一場流行病爆發過後殘留的病毒，伺機捲土重來。社會主義的幽靈正在歐洲，北美上空徘徊，並且正在蠶食西方民主政體，侵蝕我們來之不易的言論自由空間。而對美國政治的日漸左傾，教育及學術界的天然左傾，蘇聯東歐的崩潰（沒了對手），及洶湧而來的劣質移民大潮都起了很大的作用。大江大河及海洋常常有非常強大的自我淨化功能，但中國的揚子江，黃河不照樣也被污染了，現在連海洋也被污染了，因為這種自我淨化功能也有它的limit。所以我看美國的政治家們及普通公民，可千萬不要學中共，對其制度有太高的不切實際的自信。如果今天從墨西哥或中國空運一億人到美國，那十年二十年後的美國將不再是今天的美國，而是充滿了拉美味，中國味，成為一個非常腐敗的國家。美國這個大熔爐中如果塞滿了廢銅爛鐵，總有一天，她也會熄火。下面我想從幾個事件來看看政治正確是否有點過頭了。
2． Princeton students stand up to political correctness
去年在普林斯頓大學，200名黑人正義同盟的成員向校方提出了很多無理要求：The Black Justice League’s demands include a dorm for those who want to celebrate black affinity; mandatory diversity training; and a requirement that students take a course on so-called marginalized peoples. They also want the renaming of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the removal of a mural of President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson, who graduated from Princeton in 1879 and who served as the university’s president from 1902 until 1910, formally segregated the federal workforce.
可是他們的這些要求受到了更多的普林斯頓學生的阻擊：1,300 members of the university community signed a petitionto ensure that Princeton “maintains its commitment to free speech and open dialogue and condemns political correctness to the extent that it infringes upon those fundamental academic values.”
3． 政治正確已經走得太遠了，以下是加拿大CTV近期作的一個調查，'No offence': Has political correctness gone too far?
Canadians are known as the most polite citizens in the world and a new poll digs into the motivations and reasons for our political correctness. According to a survey by the Angus Reid Institute, the majority of Canadians say we’ve gone too far when it comes to our need to say “no offence.”
Thepublic opinion poll found that 80 per cent of Canadians say that “it seems like you can’t say anything without someone feeling offended.”
Still, about four in five Canadians say that there are some things you “just shouldn’t express in front or people you don’t know.”
When it comes to motivations for keeping quiet, response held true to the Canadian stereotype: 87 per cent said they self-censor because they “want to be polite” while only 13 per cent said they bit their tongue because they don’t want to be judged.
Millenials, or people aged 18 to 34, were most likely to say that people are too easily offended compared to other age groups, and while both genders are equally likely to self-censor, men are more likely to say too many people are easily offended by other people’s language.
When the answers were examined through a political lens, only 21 per cent of Conservatives said people should choose their words more carefully, compared with 40 per cent of Liberals and 38 per cent of New Democrats.
The online poll was conducted among 1,510 Canadian adults who are members of the Angus Reid Forum.
下面是加州大學的一位在校女生對政治正確的感受，我感覺說得非常誠懇。
I believe passionately that Political Correctness is an essential tool in liberating oppressed minorities, and that we should be careful how we use language.However, there is a point at which political correctness makes people afraid to speak, which is the opposite of its intent. Political Correctness started as an essential movement to remove the fear of speech minorities and to ensure that everybody felt comfortable and safe in their environments. However, with this onslaught of constant offense and deep emotional injury from the slightest accidental political incorrectness, especially on college campuses, the PC movement has begun to achieve the exact opposite of its goal— to make people feel unsafe and afraid to speak up. Intolerance occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. We all need to learn to be more sensitive and thoughtful with our speech.
可見現在在校園內，狂熱的政治正確訴求有時已經到了動輒得咎，人人自危的狀態。
最後解釋一下為什麼知識分子大多擁護社會主義，哈耶克的這個解釋至今仍然適用。
Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism。
寡兄受委屈了。。。其實你刪掉的華山的貼主要“公雞”對象是我和嘎子，不是對你自己。你是為了保護我不讓我受傷而做的。真巧在你刪除之時我已看到，還正好在給華山寫回貼。不過，以我跟華山長期交戰的經驗來說，那已經不算什麼攻擊了。況且他攻擊我只是一個 gimmick, 畫外音很明顯是針對嘎子的。這不，還在問， 嘎子的 a few 是一個排，一個班嘛?
