So does everyone now agree that political correctness is a problem?

You might get that impression after reading the latest criticism of that mentality, which comes from the pen of a liberal Jew who believes the “right-wing” controls America.

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait bemoaned the power that “p.c. culture” exerts on society and found a few examples to justify his worries. His examples include a large women’s group on Facebook that told White and Jewish feminists to shut up and let the POC militants speak and a Muslim getting his dorm vandalized for mocking the behavior of White liberals. Only one example is given of PC’s effect on right-leaning Whites, and those are goofy anti-abortion protesters getting attacked by a black professor. The rest involve radical leftists attacking “good” moderates like feminist writer Hanna Rosin and IMF head honcho Christine Lagarde.

Chait’s reasoning goes that the proliferation of p.c. culture is dangerous because it attacks “reasonable” liberal voices and alienates too much of society.

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination — a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half — would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.

Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight¬forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

Political correctness is a term whose meaning has been gradually diluted since it became a flashpoint 25 years ago. People use the phrase to describe politeness (perhaps to excess), or evasion of hard truths, or (as a term of abuse by conservatives) liberalism in general. The confusion has made it more attractive to liberals, who share the goal of combating race and gender bias.

But political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves. [Emphasis added]

In no time, the left eviscerated Chait for this article and widely-mocked a liberal blowhard whining about how PC hurts his feelings. Gawker had the best write-up on the subject and pointed out the hypocrisy of a writer who’s called for restricting speech criticizing others for the exact same activity. Most of the left followed the same line, with some trying to paint a picture of how wonderful political correctness is and others trying to claim that it doesn’t even exist. (Yeah, right.)

Even the right, which should agree with Chait since he expresses a seemingly conservative critique of PC, hasn’t failed to bash him for his hypocrisy and found even more examples of him calling for the restriction of free speech. This Federalist take even made the astute point that language policing isn’t an error of liberalism, it is liberalism.

It’s clear that Chait doesn’t have a genuine problem with PC—he only has a problem when it’s directed against respectable liberals like himself (who often also happen to be Jewish). Some of Chait’s points I agree with and the article is worth the time for a read through, but the idea I draw from the article is why p.c. culture is good, not why is it something to fear. If the new stormtroopers of political correctness put smarmy liberals like Chait and Lagarde in their crosshairs, I say more power to them. Chait, on the other hand, wishes they would just keep their fire on the right—but that’s not how it’s working. Instead, it’s creating a mini-schism on the left and taking away the moral authority of the old guard and placing it with radicalized nuts. Not only that, but these nuts alienate most of society and have the ability to create an equally radicalized opposition.

This was pointed out a few months ago in an article published at Thought Catalog entitled: “How Social Justice Warriors Are Creating An Entire Generation Of Fascists.”

Written by one Joshua Goldberg, the essay tries to warn readers that the actions of SJW’s will only encourage the growth of “far-right extremism”:

[W]hat SJWs do not realize is that they are single-handedly cultivating a generation of fascists. The more extreme the left becomes, the more right-wing and reactionary people will become as a result. It happened in the 1980s as a response to the left being overwhelmed with hippies and it will happen again in the future as a response to the left being overwhelmed with SJWs – only, this time, the right-wing will be far more extreme than the likes of Ronald Reagan. SJWs are paving the way for a future dominated by far-right extremists. These so-called advocates of “social justice” are the best gift that neo-Nazis could have possibly asked for: the most extreme and unpleasant aspects of the far-left amplified for all the world to see. The more absurd and outrageous SJWs become, the more the far-right gains support and sympathy. If SJWs think that they’re “oppressed” right now… well, they had better be prepared for the future that they’re helping to create.

While I would like to share Mr. Goldberg’s optimism that the future belongs to far-right extremists, I’m not entirely convinced that the pendulum will shift that rapidly (at least, not for a while). What the main point is that all of these SJW nuts will drive more people to our views and create an opening for a genuine opposition to their side—not weak-kneed liberals crying about their lack of respect. You cannot decry PC when you still believe in ostracizing impolitic views on race and human nature. This goes for both the respectable liberals and conservatives who feel oppressed by PC. You can’t fight fire with a damp rag. You need to fight it with a flame thrower.

We’ve already seen this with the rising popularity of the manosphere in response to the predominance of feminism in American society.

What many of these liberals refuse to accept is that the current iteration of PC is the natural result of liberalism; the natural result of indoctrinating generations of children into believing the inherent evil of normal White people and the myth of equality. This is the bed they made—now it’s time for them to sleep in it.

For now, we should cheer on the growth of extreme PC and hope they devour more douchebags like Chait.