As noted before, on the right, we worry about actual issues: regulation-fueled economic decline, corruption in Government, the erosion of individual liberty, the unsustainable fiscal path of the national Government.
On the left, they worry about vocabulary.
Fox News still uses “homosexual” to describe gay people. http://t.co/My5IchDdK2
— Media Matters (@mmfa) March 24, 2014
And your point would be? RT @mmfa Fox News still uses “homosexual” to describe gay people
— V the K (@VtheK) March 24, 2014
In part, this is a mark of desperation, David Brock and his merry band of Soros-paid nutjobs are desperate for anything they can fling against the one news outlet that airs opposition views to leftist hegemony. There is no real racism, sexism, or homophobia on the right. So the left, in its desperation to remain peeved and aggrieved, must constantly lower the bar and change the rules. Hence, they declare that a previously inoffensive word is now offensive, so they can have their self-righteous tantrums about it. Also, note the new phenomenon of the “micro-aggression,” defined as a behavior that would not bother a normal person, but sends a politically correct leftist into paroxysms of outrage.
It’s also like the old English Aristocracy’s custom of establishing obscure collective nouns to refer to animals (a sleuth of bears, a whoop of gorillas, a murder of crows). The primary purpose for which was to distinguish themselves from the ill-bred peasantry, who were presumed not to know these things. In the same way, the left’s obsession with PC vocabulary is also intended as a social marker; those who use PC terminology are part of the class. Those who don’t can be safely mocked and looked down upon.
The real obsession of the left isn’t inclusion, it’s exclusion.