Very easy oversimplified article you’ve written.

You think the article is lazy, yet your response is poorly written, unsubstantiated, and demonstrates a clear lack of reading ability?

I doubt the author intended the generalizations to suggest that everyone is called racist when they criticize Obama, or that minority kids always get off easy in relation to white kids, et cetera. I understand those points more as a way to drive the point with a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. There are cases of all of that happening, so while the generalization that it always happens would be a bit far if he was serious, he isn’t wrong at the core of the argument.

I also don’t think his point was that vulgar and racist terminology is not offensive. The author talked about the importance of using respectful language towards others, so I think you are either overlooking that so you can try to make a point, or your analysis is sloppy. Being offended over obvious things like you talk about is not what is being discussed.

It’s hard to respond to your second to last paragraph because you begin by saying there are better ways than being offensive or “PC,” but then you contradict yourself to go on about how being PC is important. I think it’s a lazy generalization that if you aren’t PC, you are committed to being rude and using inflammatory language. People are against PC culture because, like the author says, it motivates people to silence people they don’t like, such as Secretary Rice like the author mentioned.

Having your ability to speak in a public, academic setting blocked by people just because they disagree with you is certainly a de facto attack on free speech.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.