The problem is that people are short-sighted. We HATE spending money on something if it doesn't
a) measurably improve my life in some way or
b) fix an obvious problem.
I'm guilty of this too.

Nice meal out? great!
Holiday? Fantastic!
New bike/snowboard/toy? Awesome!

Even if something breaks, your brain is ok with spending money to fix it.

"Damnit, the element broke in the oven! Ahh well, better go get a replacement"

But getting my car serviced? Ugh, it's running fine!
Intellectually, I know that spending some money now will save me more in the long run, but I am still irrationally annoyed by it.

Drug treatment is the same. If you spend money on drug treatment, crime doesn't get committed. Because crimes aren't being committed people see drug treatment as a waste of money.

Prevention is always harder to see the benefits of than cure.

Plus, it's REALLY easy to blame drug-related crime on drug users. It's easy political points, whereas saying you want to spend tax payer dollars on potential criminals? Admit it, even if you're liberal, reading that sentence triggers some mild outrage in your lizard brain.

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

The term "political correctness" originally came about as a disparaging way for assholes to describe not being an asshole.

“Political correctness is what right-wing bigots call what everybody else calls being polite”
-Iain M. Banks

Basically, while there are undoubtedly some idiots who take it too far, in general, I'm ok with it no longer being socially acceptable to call people niggers, queers and bitches.

The whole intellectually/vertically/gravitationally/whateverly challenged nonsense was invented as a parody of political correctness and in general, no-one actually uses those terms to describe anyone.

The problem is that people see the worst excesses of political correctness and assume that that's the whole point. It's like seeing one police shooting and deciding that law enforcement itself is a bad idea.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who genuinely used the phrase "that's not politically correct" when talking to another human.

Oh, and even "politeness" isn't immune to politicisation. When I was younger, it was drilled into me that it was polite for a man to hold a door for a woman, or to pay for dinner on a date. It was considered polite for children to be seen and not heard. Good luck having an "apolitical" discussion about those topics.

I look at it in a simple way: words having meanings; people have motivations. A conversation has a context, and in your example the passerby isn't aware of that context. If she chooses to eavesdrop and feels offended, well, while I do feel sorry for her...it's really not any of her business what you and your brother are conversing about. You might as well turn to her, give her a once-over and criticize her choice of pantsuit. She doesn't know you; she didn't ask for your opinion; and your retort probably made her upset.

Should people try to be aware of their surroundings and try not to say inappropriate things? Of course, but that's just common courtesy...like not commenting on a funky smell at a funeral visitation. Political correctness is fine if we all agree, but we usually don't. And therefore we get people who virtue signal over others because they refuse to kowtow to the newest linguistic fashion.

Now, I'm a fairly polite guy. I hold open doors, give up my seat, offer to carry heavy packages, smile, wave and nod greetings to many strangers, etc. Yet I still occasionally get someone who disagrees with my legitimate use of a term (as I understand its meaning). Generally, I still apologize...but I don't then re-evaluate my language ability. I'm not willing to let the connotations of words take on new, questionable-yet-popular meanings.

I've had a Native American friend laugh at me for asking what he preferred I say: redskin, indian, aboriginal, first people, etc. I've also asked a "retarded" person if they preferred if I said "intellectually challenged." He preferred retarded because...wait for it...he had a lot of trouble saying the other one. Now that's irony.

I think my heart's in the right place. I was taught to be polite, and I try to be at all times. But it gets under my skin to have a total stranger "chastise" me when they know nothing about me. Frankly, I find it more offensive to interrupt and belittle a stranger than it is to overhear some stranger's questionable utterance.

Read this rebuttle on a public forum on an ad from Purple when someone brought this up:

Purple:
Hi Caitlin, we didn't sue because we has questions, as he asserted. We filed action against Honest Mattress Reviews (HMR), Ryan Monahan & GhostBed for violating the law by spreading false and misleading statements online, including specific statements that GhostBed — a primary competitor of Purple — had previously agreed to remove from its website and various social media platforms. Now, however, those and other false and misleading statements are being made on HMR and Momahan's newly-created mattress-industry-related blog. We have reason to believe Monahan & GhostBed are "in bed together" — some of the connections we've found are here: https://onpurple.com/blog/connections-ryan-monahan-ghostbed.

HMR’s, Monahan’s and GhostBed’s campaign against Purple includes numerous false and misleading statements about Purple and its products and services, including false claims about the safety of Purple’s mattresses, the assumed lack of adequate safety testing for Purple’s products, and Purple’s alleged deception of its customers regarding safety. In fact, many of the statements go so far as to imply that Purple’s mattresses are dangerous and can lead to serious diseases. These statements have been proven to be false and unfounded, and yet, they continue to dishonestly proclaim that Purple's products are unsafe.

The suit is public record and why we sued is clearly spelled out in it, but to clear up what seems to be insinuated — we didn’t sue because he gave us a bad review or because of his 4 safety questions (as he’s asserted). On the contrary, we encourage third-party reviews as an important part of the consumer research process. We are merely protecting our company and intellectual property against a dishonest ”reviewer” with connections to a competitor.

Since every time we discuss the lawsuit publicly evidence of the connection seems to disappear, this is all we can say at this time. Again, the suit is public record and you're welcome to review it yourself.

Actually, the video is about manipulation.

But yes, he's kind of dumb. And I'm not saying that because I disagree with his politics (hell, I don't even know what he truly believes). There are plenty of conservatives that I think are brilliant. It's just very obvious from hearing him talk that Trump is dumb. The vocabulary of a middle-school kid, the lack of knowledge about history an adult should posses (let alone the President), lack of intellectual curiosity, lack of self-awareness, etc.

He's extremely confident and arrogant, and this has helped him succeed. I know people like that from my childhood. You think they're so stupid they wouldn't even graduate high school, but they somehow end up successful.

They bet big because they don't question themselves, so they go all in, and sometimes they win. Meanwhile, a lot of extremely smart people constantly doubt themselves, are too self conscious, etc. to make any bold moves.

But of course when you bet big, you lose sometimes too. And we've seen Trump lose a BILLION dollars in a boom economy in the fucking CASINO business.

Benghazi? Private email server? Cock sucked in office?

THESE are worth bringing the entire government to a halt and spending hundreds of millions of dollars repeatedly investigating - but the executive branch in hock to a hostile foreign power IS NOT?

I knew the right wing were by definition morally and intellectually weak Bob, but that's some next level shit.

One of these days we as a species will appreciate our scientific and intellectual achievements much the same as today we appreciate dance moves, sports highlights, and cat videos.

@iaui
i do not understand you defense of corporate media pundits,who most certainly failed to recognize the actual political climate of this country.

i am not saying EVERY pundit got it wrong.there were internet political shows that did address the rise of populism,and the reasons behind it,and that trump was a valid threat and not to be dismissed.

but for the most part,corporate media pundits all echoed each others sentiments in regards to this last election cycle.

there is a REASON why bernie sanders populist language resonated with the public,and many of those people were republicans.

there is a REASON why trumps populist language,which was vastly different than sanders,resonated with another sector of the population,and not all of those people were racist,sexist,misogynist homophobes.

and none of those REASONS were addressed by corporate media pundits.they preferred to talk about trumps bombastic speeches,his racism and sexism...total cult of celebrity,because it SOLD,it made them MONEY.

it is those very same corporate media pundits that actually facilitated the rise of donald trump,and his actual presidency,because they simply did not get the current political climate here in america.which is exactly what this video is addressing,that these highly paid,and richly rewarded,pundit class reside in their own tiny,little echo chambers,that happens to reside in close proximity to the very people they have been assigned to watch,criticize and report on.

they failed on an epic scale,and it is no surprise that the majority of americans have abandoned corporate media as if it had herpes,covered in aids.

and to make the argument that this video is suspect SIMPLY because bob posted it,is intellectually dishonest,because it does NOT address the video.i disagree with bob on pretty much everything,but to ignore or disregard this video based solely on the fact that you,or i,disagree with bob politically is just incredibly weak.

now if you wish to defend corporate media political pundits,and opinion makers,and have strong case where this video is wrong in regards to how the pundit class have failed,live in a bubble,and did not understand the underlying frustration and anger boiling underneath americas working class.i am all ears,because in my opinion they have utterly failed the american people.

and i am not dismissing your polling numbers,i am just saying they are not as relevant as you are making them out to be.polls can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean,and in my opinion are not a strong basis to formulate an argument to defend corporate media.

but i suspect your argument is more against bob than the video,and your skepticism is based solely on your disagreement with bob politically.not un-warranted i admit,bob has posted some extremely slanted videos,but so haven't we all in our own way.

but in this case?
this video is spot on,even though bob is the one who posted.

do not let your bob bias and prejudice cloud your judgment.

Though I'm sure the same happens with every language everywhere. It's only ever profitable to limit the intellectual intake of our own populations. Luckily, there are the various functions of globalization which as much as people want to point out its obvious flaws, allows the common people to bypass their shitty countries and their shitty censors.

They were all low quality. Alas, proper english also equals proper english lawyers quashing their intellectual property, except for the translated clips.

I have also found this to be true with subtitled music videos in proper english. If someone puts a massive Spanish subtitle on the video, it survives the english censorship and video removal.

English videos in non english formats survive. They are the fittest and therefore your proper english, following this path, will also die out and morph into INGSOC as long as the abomination of intellectual property law scourages our world.

One of my favorite police PSAs ever.

My favorite, however, was when they cited me for possession and court ordered me to take a "marijuana" "class" taught by an ex-cop, who told us drug laws are bullshit, but as long as no one can see you smoke, it's a'ight.

I guess there's a reason he taught those classes -- emphasis on the "ex" part of "ex-cop" -- but damn. The. Court. Ordered. Me. To. Take. A. Class. Which. Said. Fuck. The. Law. As an intellectual who had only smoked marijuana like 3 or 4 times up until that point, it really opened my eyes. I was one of very few white people in that class room. That also opened my eyes.

Ahhhhh, the law. Such a fickle thing.

You are gonna hate me now, but I grew up reading Dean Koontz and Stephen King years before the librarian at my middle suggested Lovecraft, so 12? My first Stephen King was Night Shift, with the eye in the middle of a mummified hand; Jerusalem's Lot ruined my ability to sleep. For some strange reason Lovecraft comforted me but King disturbed me lol -- My first Lovecraft reading was The Festival.

Anyway, it's my mom's fault, i jus read whatever she had lying around the house, which also included Mary Higgins Clark, Robert Ludlum, Danielle Steel, Michael Crichton, and who even knows what else.

Totally agree in having absorbed the material rather than fully understood. I mean shit, how does a 4th grader even under The Rising Sun? It's just shocking and strange. Like d3coding a new language.

I also read a lot of young adult thriller suspense books, notably Alfred Hitchcock's young readers books and short story collections. Ray Bradbury collections, random Asimov Foundation books, and old copies of Analog, that my dad would buy from local library sales. (Thas how poor people shop for books hahaha) He was the old school scifi guy, but not at all into horror.

I suppose I don't mind hacks. Reading the letters of Oscar Wilde changed my opinions on EVERYTHING. If Wilde belongs to the criminal class or what Danny Devito's character Frank terms the "Fringe" class, there must be some saving grace even in the intellectual crime of the hack writer.

i see a ton of my right leaning friends post milo..milo...milo..
as if he is some bastion of brilliant conservative thinking.

the man is a professional troll.
his ability to make those on the extreme left absolutely LOSE their shit is practically an artform.

milo is smart,very smart and when he argues free speech,and the philosophical inconsistencies that bubble up from the ultra left,he is brilliant.you have to give him that,but at the end of the day...

milo is simply an entertainer,and to give him any higher of a status other than entertainer is simply being dishonest.

he pokes the hornets nest,and does so with flair,wit and an almost scalpel like accuracy.

but he is by no means an intellectual powerhouse.

and the fact that so many of my friends kneel at the altar of milo is a tad disconcerting.

Except in this case the rule was created specifically to protect members of the senate from cries of racism.

When fascism and totalitarianism take over and the rules are written by bad people for bad purposes simply saying "rules are rules" is naive and dangerous.

Still waiting on some specific examples from you on how Obama "ruined" the country (or for you to admit you were wrong). Your words have no weight so long as you run away from the slightest hint of a counter argument. I can see why you like Mitch's move here, it's exactly the sort of thing you'd pull.

You fear words because you are wrong, Bob. If you stopped to pay attention you might actually have to reevaluate your position and you're too much of an intellectual coward to do that, aren't you? Prove me wrong, by the way, let's see an open discussion, rather than your usual drive-by commenting followed up by hiding in the basement from any cogent dissenting argument.