Social Matter

Logic is a many splendored thing. While we frequently argue against conclusions by metaphysical reduction ad absurdum because we are most interested in disproving some popular or nonsense notion, it is also frequently worth exploring the logical derivatives of foundational or conclusive propositions to see what else may be revealed about a belief array. Careful attention to logic allows us to translate the statements made by others into more readable forms, making it easier to understand and refute. What are the logical derivations of political correctness?

Leftists are typically concerned with how minorities are presented in popular media. Of course, by “minorities” we really just mean “protected classes,” since women don’t actually constitute a minority but are submerged into the rhetoric concerning minority and victim status. For this reason, it is effectively politically incorrect to portray minorities in a negative way in popular media, no matter whether there are some individuals within that minority group who do actually act that way. Being incorrect to portray minorities this way, in reflection it is not incorrect to portray the “majority class,” i.e. straight white men, in a negative way.

Said another way and preserving logic, it is politically correct to portray straight white men negatively in media. Given it is politically correct to portray only straight white men negatively, and in tandem with the guiding supposition of leftists that portraying a group negatively in popular media necessarily informs the mass’s opinion of that group, it follows what they mean is that it is politically correct to inform the mass’s opinion of straight white men in a decidedly negative way. The conclusion of this can only be that not only is it politically correct to portray straight white men as villainous, it is also permitted to actually think straight white men are especially villainous, at least with respect to other groups.

One imagines a kind of “factual information board” dedicated to preventing misunderstandings about groups being generated by popular media. For instance, in any show that depicts Hispanic men, whether positively or negatively, why not give relevant facts and figures about the depicted groups, so that people aren’t left with the incorrect impression? If the purpose is to prevent undue prejudices being disseminated through media, then facts ought to be sufficient for the purpose of clarification. If our concern is inaccurate, misrepresentative stereotypes being portrayed, then educating on the reality of the situation should be a leftist’s concern. But that’s not really the point, after all; if a show were to depict a black man positively, then the relevant statistics would detract from this portray, but if a show were to depict a black man negatively, then it is already politically incorrect to do so.

It’s only legitimate to demonize straight white men. Never women, never minorities, never gays, only straight white men. If negative portrayal of any group but straight white men is politically incorrect, then it is correct to portray straight white men negatively. This isn’t exclusive to portraying straight white men positively, but since only straight white men can be portrayed negatively, and nearly every show is going to need a villain, popular media will be decidedly populated by a disproportionately high number of villains and criminals that are white, and a disproportionately low number of villains and criminals that are not white. Rather than depicting reality, which is politically incorrect, depicting a fundamentally unreal state of affairs is politically correct. It is the mandate of media to give the public wrong impressions about our culture, demonizing the especially civil and beatifying the especially antisocial.

How else to explain that leftists have chosen to beatify a thug? Michael Brown is heralded as a hero, which should tell us a lot about the left. A concern for actual sainthood and virtue is secondary to ascribing virtue to characters as the narrative requires. The media goes about in search of facts to support its narrative, and whatever facts do not support this narrative, even and especially those which contradict and falsify the narrative, are immaterial and unimportant. Insisting on their relevance and importance for making a complete judgment just makes you racist.

Wherever something is politically incorrect, keep in mind what it is implied that is correct. If it is always and only correct to portray straight white men negatively in the media, can one trust that straight white men are being portrayed as positively as would be accurate? If political incorrectness is assigned to accurately negatively portrayals, then we can only assign political correctness to inaccurately negative portrayals. Is this part of why the least action of white men is so circumspect in the media, while the most blatant disregard for basic standards of civility and decency can be overlooked in minority figures? If it’s hard to see, consider how a white man would’ve been lambasted in the New York Times for roughing up a shopkeeper the way Michael Brown did, while the same New York Times conspicuously overlooks this same behavior in preference of construing him as a saint.

It is politically incorrect to be suspicious of minorities. It is politically correct to be suspicious of white men. This despite the fact that white men are demonstrably one of the most trustworthy groups who break the fewest laws, participate the most in civic community, and maintain the trust necessary to do business. Overall, this leads to it being politically correct to be representationally incorrect, at least in the sense of representing reality. To be “politically incorrect” is increasingly to be “actually correct,” and vice versa.