P.C = "PARTIALLY CORRECT?"

WHAT DOES P.C.  MEAN - AND FOR WHOM?

ANSWER: Depends on who (whom?) you ask. 

Loosely translated, and per my research - it means:  if you're a conservative- you probably most likely hate it. 

If you're a liberal , you probably have no real problem with it and consider it to be the courteous and correct thing to do - (sometimes).

Here's one liberal's anti-conservative definition: 

"Conservatives and reactionaries who have used the "P.C." term (in a derogatory fashion) did so in an effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination - such as racial, social class, gender and legal inequality."

Short version: "The conservatives are against people whom the right wing do not consider part of the social mainstream."

HOW LONG HAS P.C. BEEN AROUND?

ANSWER: Possibly before many of us were born.

One pundit claims, that in his 1949 book, "1984",  George Orwell stated:

"The whole idea of  Newspeak -'political correctness' is to narrow the range of thought. Every year, fewer and fewer words and the range of consciousness always (become?) a little smaller."

However, many folks claim P.C. really stemmed from the early 20th century Communist party and Joseph Stalin, it's leader (which probably was Orwell's reference point). Supposedly, after the revolution Stalin stated:

"A political thought can be 'politically correct' - only if it is 'scientifically painstaking'."

(Yeah, I'm struggling with that one, too)

Apparently, Stalin , during a post-revolutionary period, was upset that all people - primarily socialists - did not agree with his proclamations as to how to achieve "perfection". (And no, I'm not comparing Stalin with Trump)

PC is something that has been promulgated by various religious sects, religious leaders, despots, criminals, and most narcissists, presumably since the beginning of time. It's also had it's critics - and, also for some time even now in recent history.

In a graduation speech in 1991 at Michigan University, President George Herbert Walker Bush railed against "certain topics that were deemed 'off limits', certain expressions 'off limits' and certain gestures 'off limits.'"

Whether that had anything to do with Jeb's decision to run is still unknown.

Those who opposed P.C. blame much of it on the "college experience".

They claim that we appear to have transferred our "helicopter" parents theory on raising kids to a similar philosophy that is college faculty inspired - it is based on a weak minded conclusion that the true aim of college should be to protect our students from the vagaries of life  - as opposed to encouraging them to make choices on their own.

You may struggle with this analysis, if only because of the perceived irony that what these folks are offering requires the acceptance of an absolute that is almost identical to the PC that spawned their rebuttal.. 

More than likely, these P.C. critics are guilty of rehashing the theory that ALL college faculty members are liberals - and the rest go to Hollywood and write screenplays.

The University of Chicago is busy right now defending their administrative position that what we need is less P.C. on campus - and more willingness to expose our college students to the reality of life.

Oddly enough, the biggest critics of their policy are the co-editors of their student publication, who argue that this is a dangerous policy because it potentially allows hate speech to flourish.

Apparently their theory is that the subject of  free speech has now become an "either/or" proposition - which, many might conclude is also a fairly accurate and workable definition of P.C. 

WHY IS P.C. SO BIG TODAY?

Some would say it's because we live in a world where our perceptions are basically black and white with little to no"gray"encouraged  in our lives; but that theory would appear to ignore the popularity of a recent best seller book series. 

This latter ,but also popular, P.C. theory owes it's breath to a conclusion that inductive reasoning has replaced deductive reasoning.

In other words, we only support what we have already decided is correct and will blindly quote any examples that appear to confirm our conclusions - a sort of "cliff-notes" approach to rational thinking - sort of like watching Fox or CNBC.

Perhaps, it's because I've been around for so long that I remember  Psychiatrist Eric Berne's "feel good" concept of "Transactional Analysis" from back in the 50's - better known as, "I'm OK - You're OK.". ( Admittedly, you don't hear  a lot of that anymore except at political conventions or church.)

One of Berne's key arguments was that all people need "positive" strokes and will, in most instances, respond favorably depending on "how they are presented to them".

Presumably, declaring while dancing with a full figured partner, you offer a compliment such as : "For a fat woman - you really don't sweat much" -  that probably won't cut it.

However, it's possible that in some time frame I may not be around to witness, we may get back to the "honey versus vinegar" theory. But, judging from our current gridlock strategy in politics, it's probably going to be a while before we're hearing:

"Well, I'll give you this - part of what you say makes perfect sense." (The theory of "Partial Correctness.")

Until that train returns to the station, I'm going to rely on this carrot from an anonymous source:

"The proverbial line in the sand that determines which words and ideas are acceptable as civil discourse and which ones are deemed to be beyond the pale, is constantly shifting over time".

Sort of a, "what goes around - comes around " approach  which - like P.C - doesn't require the overuse of our dormant brain cells.  As a matter of fact, I think I saw this on "Twitter." 

And, of course,  I sent it right on to my friends and neighbors.