Here's Amanda Marcotte:

While the article purports to be a lambasting of "the culture of taking offense" and censorious attitudes, it quickly becomes clear that the only speech Chait is interested in protecting is conservative or contrarian. When it comes to people saying uncomfortable or provocative things from the left, Chait comes across as just as censorious and silencing as any of the leftist prigs he attempts to criticize.

[...]

Commitment to free-wheeling public discourse is an admirable position, of course. But it has to go both ways. "I am white and male, a fact that is certainly worth bearing in mind," Chait writes. I will take him on his advice and suggest that's why he doesn't seem to realize it's two-faced to scold lefties for being hypersensitive while demanding that they tip-toe around his own hypersensitivities. But the rest of us should not be fooled.

In my opinion, and speaking only for myself, it isn't the failure to subscribe to a PC narrative that gets certain links and thoughts dismissed out of hand, it's the tendency for these sources to routinely and deliberately distort and manipulate the facts - and to generally promote ideas, policies and actions that have either been proven not to work as advertised, and/or are regressive, authoritarian and punitive in nature, unhealthily bellicose and disgustingly tolerant of racist, sexist and classist ideas and policies.  A lot of it originates in outlets like Fox News, which I consider, generally, to be a kind of poisonous tree, and blogs and sites that consistently accept Fox's version of the facts, add their own ugly spin and seek to perpetuate ideas and a point of view based on them are the fruit of that tree.

Which is not to say that the so-called liberal media (and i qualify that with "so-called," because I don't necessarily consider those "liberal" outlets to be all that liberal) doesn't put its own spin on things - they do.  And they don't always tell the whole story, either.

I guess my starting point is that I already know what I believe - I'm pretty much past the stage where I can be persuaded to support the right-wing view of things: it just isn't who I am.  I may need the media to report on things I'm not equipped to find out on my own, but I don't need them to tell me what to think about it, and I don't need them to prove that what I believe passes muster.

I don't happen to think this is all a matter of what's PC and what isn't; I think it's a struggle between and representative of fundamental differences in what people believe.  That's nothing new, I don't think, it's just more concentrated, and thus more noticeable, when the occasional conservative finds him- or herself trying to be heard over the voices of mostly liberals/progressives.

A lot of the communication he is talking about starts online. I see it here a little bit, but I see it on other sites way more. Example, try wading into a conversation with some leftists about vaccines. These people are as anti-science as any climate change denier. Once one links to, say, CNN or NYT, then whatever one writes is dismissed outright (since those sources are considered bad MSM). Some commenters are like that.

On some strong self-identified leftist sites, once one makes an argument for vaccinating to protect the community, then others say things like "But anti-biotics can be very harmful for all of humanity". Guess in this case vaccines equal anti-biotics and every last little g-d mainstream medical medication or procedure too.

So they have no motivation or desire to, say, not expose their neighbor's 6 month old, or immune challenged kids to measles.

Individualism run amok. Via the internet.  

If Commenter-A says something, links to some source, agrees or disagrees with someone who Commenter-B has some strong opinions about then Commenter-B will associate Commenter-A with everything Commenter-B hates. I see this over and over and over, and over again. No matter what 'side'. You'll see things like, "you 'liked' or linked, voted for, or agreed with such-and-such, or so-and-so and I did not like or agree with them so I will want to shut down your comments". and "Chait (or whoever) once wrote something I did not agree with so I will dismiss his words automatically."

I think it is much a function mass communication between people who basically consider themselves individuals, and not, in essence, a function of political thought. Communication between the right and left of center gets even more shut down.

But the gold is in the comments

As regards the PC-police, you and Chait may be among the few paying attention to this nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, it's still the economy, stupid - and Democrats forget this at their peril.

From where I sit, it is a defining feature of the later Obama years because of the intense disappointment that Obama did not stand up for what we thought he believed in. He governed as moderate-Republican. Now we are threatened with a Democratic candidate who will be even more Republican, a real neocon at heart.

It is about not standing up for what is right. It is about compromising with crazies, to govern as Republicans not quite as bad as the worst of them. If we wanted a Republican as President, we'd have voted Republican.

When lefties point out injustice after injustice after injustice, the Chaits of the world accuse them of questing after unicorns and admonish them to tone it down. Because, Republicans.

One can only wish that it would happen to other pet conservative causes such as voodoo economics, globalization, tax cuts for the rich, warming denial, financial deregulation, attacks on social programs like Social Security and Obamacare, and the entire litany of failed idiocies that have come to characterize American conservatism. This is where the weakness of the Democrats really lies: Neither the Clintons nor Obama were brave enough to take these idiocies on, leaving the less educated members of the public believing, improbably, that the party that presided over the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression is better for the economy than the party that has for the last three quarters of a century produced better economic results in almost every presidential term.

The word "Liberal" meant support for minority rights, including gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, freedom of speech and a right to peacefully assemble.

Enter the Vietnam war. The Right labeled the protesters "liberal." As social issues blossomed the term "Limousine Liberal" came to mean the "rich," mostly college educated, demanding an expansion of welfare and of other benefits. Legalization of MJ was added to the mix as well as single payer health insurance. The often violent Vietnam war demonstrations finalized the transition. Liberal became the Left in the media.

Conservatives were co opted. To the opposition of big government, firm support for the constitution, a mix of social issues, many supported by the Left, was tossed in. The Right, watching the success of the Left, brought politics in. You can no longer be for limited government in many areas, expanded in others, without being a "Liberal."

OTOH, you can't believe in many "liberal" positions, but against them in others, without being a "Conservative."

The truth is that we no longer have "Liberals" and "Conservatives."  We have "Left" and "Right" and many people in both groups are very much opposed to anyone who doesn't totally agree with them.

This can be seen in the blogs of both sides.

The country is trending to the Right outside the big cities. The cities remain firmly to the Left.

Talkleft has been around a tad over 12 years. Just as FNC and MSNBC have become more fixed in their positions the commentators here have become more fixed and many who debated have left. Actual debate, without snarks, on divergent views has become less and less and most of the debate is between "Left" commentators over small points of policy with an occasional fight between supporters of different politicians. Like most civil wars they tend to be the most violent.

Being dismissed:  This is a cite with "Left" in its title.  Some debates have been had so many times, to raise the same tired GOP talking points is...well, pointless.

  Cite new evidence from a credible source, and you probably get a better response....

From my perspective, I believe I understand the GOP all too well.  Appeals to Reason and Compassion that liberals tend to want to make are ineffective.  Conservatives are not moved by Reason and Compassion but by Power and Money.

I have never heard of a mj smoker developing the kind of illnesses, including organ failure, that plaque people who consume alcohol.

Rove compares Benghazi conspiracy to birtherism and warns against it.

There is as much respect for Rove on the left as there is on the right -- that is, close to none.

Where do you stand on "moderates"?

According to Gallup the break down of Americans is...

Conservative - 38%
Moderate - 38%
Liberal - 24%

Problem was, he left a lot of evidence around.  both victims' blood INSIDE his car, along with his own.  Victim's blood on his sock.

One glove at the scene, the other at his house along with the murderer's cap.

Don't get me started.  Fuhrman was no better or worse than an average L.A. cop, but he found the evidence that meant OJ did it.  OJ's team had to destroy his career and life by painting him as someone who framed OJ.

Most people thought O.J. was going to be convicted because they focused more on the media portrayal of Simpson, not the actual evidence vs. burden of proof.

So how that was made into conclusive evidence that the glove didn't fit has always puzzled me.

A reality I think we would all acknowledge is not getting much better despite promising employment numbers.  The participation rate is still historicaly low, new jobs are often part time and wages remain stagnant.

All this can cause people to turn to disability.   Here is an article from NPR discussing the causes for increased claims.

NPR - Planrt Money

Here is another from CNN Money discussing all the reasons not just fraud.

Any government program is open to fraud and abuse.  The question is how much and what can be done to fix it without hurting the real recipients.