The Bennett blunder, if you want to call it that, has got me thinking: Why has simple communication become so difficult? It used to be that if you said “A†it would be interpreted as “Aâ€ÂÂ.
Now, any hidden subtext of “Aâ€ÂÂ, either perceived or real, can and will be perceived, through the interpreters’ filters that are based upon opinion, experience and education, as they see fit. Meaning that Bennett’s statement is racist regardless of his intent, and indeed the point of his utterance, because the listener can hear it as such and is therefore entitled to this view.
This, I think, is the root of PC linguistics. Every victim group has code words that serve as filters that if ever heard will produce a response to quash genuine debate. To be more succinct: Don’t bring up the fact that a disproportional number of criminals are black, even to decry the argument that due to the recent number of more abortions of blacks, we have lower crime rates or you will be perceived as racist. [By the way, I’m not convinced of the correlation between black abortions and lower crime rate; It’s more that abortion of the unwanted, regardless of race, will result in less crime.]
So that’s really Bennett’s point: Sure, genocide of babies has been tried before and that’s just wrong, even if we target specific groups that tend to be criminals. You may as well abort every male baby since men are more apt to commit overt crimes than females. This begs the question as to whether the pro-choice feminists have ever thought of the good that flows from all this fetus scraping, and why they don’t push this statistic as a bonus, baby.
