And then along comes Vladimir Putin to reignite it.
It’s a problematic proposition, and normally one I actually enjoy examining and unraveling. It is, of course, less amusing for those living in the moment. Meanwhile, it is very easy to see how this works:
• A does not appreciate the behavior of B.
• Behavior of B is observably a reaction to behavior of A.
• As A attempts to engage discussion of B behavior, B responds that the discussion cannot take place without consideration of A behavior.
• A walks away from the discussion.
To sum it up in a very juvenile manner, A wants to continue to offend B through recognizably offensive behavior patterns, and expects B to simply shut up and behave. That A and B are allegedly mature adults is interesting, exasperating, and probably largely irrelevant, of course, unless A wants to make this about B being childish.
We might also include or disregard, according to wont, the suggestion that it is rather quite silly, and even pathetic, that such circumstances occur so regularly in our lives.
A question that seems to arise frequently in my circles is whether or not the idea of political correctness is inherently evil. Perhaps I need new circles.
The thing about political correctness is that it is just a form of polite discourse. And some people resent any sense of obligation toward being polite.
Most men can recall learning all sorts of nifty words, for instance, denoting women’s breasts. Titties, gazangas, melons, rack, and so on. But in my youth, if the question of a women’s breast size came up in the presence of elders, one might speak in terms of endowment. Large breasts were described as “well-endowed”. I would not, at age twelve, have used the phrase “mondo gazangas” in the presence of my grandmother. It’s not some yoke of social slavery, but, rather, being polite according to the company I was in, and also avoiding a distracting family scandal.