One can frame a true statement in numerous ways, and some ways are more effective than others. Recognizing how certain ideas become dominant in a systematic sense, and recognizing factors which may steer discourse (trade interdependence), can help one figure out how to be most effective. It is from that perspective that I argue there is much to be said for non-offensiveness.

The memes are not successful for anyone but themselves. Memes have no volition, they simply reproduce themselves. It is simply a fact that PC and multi-culturalism have reproduced themselves effectively, and it didn’t happen by accident. It happened for systemic reasons.

I too believe, thanks to years of activism, that our culture is superior than cultures which encourage persecution of minorities, censorship, and so forth. If we want to encourage these values to spread, we must understand the dynamics which cause ideas to spread.

The fact that PC and multi-culturalism are successful memes should be looked upon with interest, and perhaps it would be good to think about how to encourage repressive countries to adopt such pluralistic perspectives. To me, it seems obvious that social democracy should, by its nature, automatically foster such pluralism… and while it wouldn’t be perfect it would be a step in the right direction.

I do agree that it is offensive that people were brought there in the first place. I understand some hate speech laws when they are intended to thwart those who advocate murder and so forth, but this is not in that category by any means.

Of course I think that even a brief glance at recent history should show that threats to our civil liberties have come mainly from the Right in recent years.

I didn’t mean to say that I thought your words promoted military action. I just think it is pretty well understood that a lot of the propaganda generated in support of the war in Iraq revolved around these sorts of things: defense of democracy, fear of islamization, etc.

I think it would be useful to think about how not to be misconstrued.

I have frequently interacted with a few people who have been whipped into a frenzy by horowitz, steyn, wilders, etc. They are generally viewed as quacks at best, closet racists at worst.

There is a professor on my campus who single-mindedly posts articles on this subject on a daily basis on the college’s electronic discussion board. Many have stopped bothering to respond to him a long time ago. I have always tried to respectfully engage with such people, since I haven’t been very impressed with many on the Left either, and hopefully the discourse can be fruitful.

Considering most have such a low opinion of people concerned with this issue, especially because it is viewed as an implicit support of war, a change in strategy might be worthwhile.

I agree we must do everything we can to preserve freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and all the other fundamental components of democracy.

That said, the threats stemming from Political Correctness have been relatively minor, and for the most part, not here in the US. Abroad, Canada’s Human Rights Commission had no business putting Steyn on trial, but then again, they have also tried imams for inciting hatred of homosexuals. The fact that he wasn’t convicted also should make claims of islamization seem even more ridiculous.

Since it is apparent some of you guys commenting here are reasonable, I almost find it hard to believe that you are trying so hard to make Steyn seem respectable.

It is very easy to find quotes of his paranoid delusions.

“The problem, after all, is not that the sons of Allah are ‘long shots’ but that they’re certainties: every Continental under the age of 40 – okay, make that 60, if not 75 – is all but guaranteed to end his days living in an Islamified Eurabia.”

Also, since you seem to be skeptical of military actions, how do you make sure your views aren’t simply used as a rallying cry for more unnecessary wars?

I can respect that position, and I think most people would. However, Steyn was certainly presenting an unrealistic scenario. In the US, muslims currently make up 0.6 percent of the population. Even in Europe, where people like Geert Wilders are decrying “islamization,” the numbers are usually well below 10 percent. While I agree we must maintain sensible immigration policies, much of the fear of islamization seems pretty paranoid to me.

I understand there are systemic factors that are likely to keep fundamentalism as a force to be reckoned with, but there are just as many factors pushing in the opposite direction. While irrational belief will be with us for a long time, there are reasons to believe society will be relatively self-regulating with respect to the most extreme reactionary forces.

The only problem is that we are in an age of Global Guerrillas in which small groups can wield a lot of power. However, no amount of military force can ever eradicate that threat. We must be reasonable in the amount of energy we expend on this issue.

As for my beliefs in the rationality of humans and groups, I do think that in groups there is a sort of “wisdom of crowds” effect when decision-making is decentralized, as mentioned today on Science Daily. As for individuals, our predictable irrationality is well documented in literature about cognitive biases, and I hold no illusions about it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090310155609.htm