Category: Political Correctness

Political correctness is an expression of people to avoids offending or criticizing an individual or a group of people. Political correctness can provide prevention of any possible conflicts or discriminations and it can help people to have a good manner of communication. This can helps an individual to send a message with non-discriminative meaning to the receiver of the message. It also described ideas, language, behavior for us to lessen the offense and discrimination to the individuality of people or groups, even to their race and culture. Sometimes, political correctness has been used to control any controversial discussion and hot debate about sensitive topics of one’s person.

According to the collins dictionary, if we say that someone is using a language under politically correct, meaning that person is expressing and sending a message to other people without offensive words and actions. That person is also open-minded and has the heart to accept other people who have been treated differently because of their race, sex, belief or maybe because of having a disability. Discriminating and offensive words should be avoided and controlled, this is one of the reasons or aim of political correctness. Regardless of what color, culture, race, religion the person you are talking to, speaking to them with respect can give a big impact in their life Meaning every word that we are spoken can give a different meaning to the people. This is one of the steps to show awareness about politically correct.

We can be described by the languages and messages we are using and sending to other people. The way we talk to other people and the way they receive our message can tell if we are politically correct or no. If you are using words or language which are not discriminating and not offensive, your language that you are using is under political correct. Political correctness can help and teach us to be a better person. Part of being politically correct, we should be sensitive before we send or say a word to other people, it’s like ‘ Think first before you say it’. Despite the difference between you and the person you talk to, it is a must to remain sensitive and you should use a word or a message that is not offensive. Political correctness will be applied if we are continuously learning to accept other people despite the difference in beliefs, culture, race, and personality.

According to one article, they explained that people are categorized by their deeds and their actions and not only by their words. The way we speak and communicate can be both reflective of our behavior. Politically correct helps us to understand and accept that we are one nation despite all our differences. Political correctness also is an expression of the effect of our words, how we lead, how we act and how we treat other people. Everyone has the right to be equally treated and respected, no matter what race, sex, culture, country, and color they came from. All of us don’t deserve to be discriminated just because we have a difference.

Political correct also give impact to society and community by improving the proper communication to other people, it also creates an atmosphere where everyone can live comfortable, can share and open their opinions or idea without judging them for thinking differently. Community and society can be improved in many ways including the use of language that can be avoided discriminations. The people inside the community can also build a good relationship by using proper and good manners communication with each other. By being politically correct, it also helps all our future generations which are the youth to have a broad mind about accepting and treating others without discrimination and not using foul words to describe the difference of other people from them.

This political correctness is also used in schools, broadcasting, etc. In school, this political correctness is a way of teaching the students to know how to show mutual respect to their other classmates or everyone. They can learn how to be more considerate and sensitive to others’ race, religion, culture, and color. According to one article written by Don Closson, schools are using PC for the students, teachers, and management to practice the inclusivity.

But sadly to say, that nowadays there still other people who are not applying political correctness not only in the schools but also in other places. They are still criticizing white people or taking away white men’s right but it is about giving the same rights to minorities. They are still leveling other people based on their race, religion, and gender. Political correctness is a virtue, a good thing because it is based on a system of mutual respect. It is about being considerate and inclusivity. Many schools had been trying to teach character values and education based on the article “School Spends a Lot of Time Teaching Kids to be Politically Correct”, but not all are applying it. It is not easy to implement and enforce the right to non-discrimination in any school because of the haters or bashers of this kind of rights. Others thought that implementing these rights will not be beneficial for the school and them.

There is one sad research about tolerating discrimination and according to this study, black people have no right to attend the same school as white people. The school is tolerating the discrimination of color of skin. Most of the public schools are mixed and they are not practicing any discriminating process of accepting other students with different colors, but some of the private schools are segregating students based on color, race, and religions. In the 1950s and 60s the Civil Rights Era pursue to correct these problems, and through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Title VI, 42 U.S.C, Section 2000d, bans discrimination in federally funded programs. Virtually all public schools receive federal funds. This is one of the political will and civil rights to end discrimination.

If we will only look at the impact and benefits of political correctness in school or education it will help us to realize that we had to be part of ending any kind of intolerant practices or discrimination in schools. We all know that changes cannot happen overnight and maybe it will take a long time of process but it is still good to try not to tolerate any practices that can judge or offense other people and give them also the equal rights to live comfortably and without fear.

Applying this political correctness, can make you a better person and can also change the life of the people you are talking to. Nowadays, discriminating people is very normal for other people and many countries or places are still tolerating these practices. Discriminating people and saying bad and offensive words to thems is like you are also harming yourself. You are giving your own definition about yourself, who you really are. Being sensitive, compassionate and considerate to other people is one of the best things that you can do to make your life have sense and be fruitful. We all know that our words can be used to hurt other people but it can also be us to say a good and positive word to all people who surround us. Don’t choose to be the reason for someone’s discrimination but choose to be the one who can do something that can bring a difference to their life.

REFERENCES

1. The real impact of political correct https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-real-impact-of-political-correctness
2. Political Correctness by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
3. Politically Correct Education by Don Closson http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/pc-educ.html
4. 2018- School Spend a Lot of Time Teaching Kids to be Politically Correct (article) https://education.penelopetrunk.com/2018/08/22/schools-spend-a-lot-of-time-teaching-kids-to-be-politically-correct/
5. Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C, Section 2000d ET SEQ. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI-Overview
6. Overview of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 ET. SEQ. https://www.justice.gov/crt/overview-title-ix-education-amendments-1972-20-usc-1681-et-seq

In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidency, a man who has again and again forcefully demonstrated his hatred for political correctness, political correctness has become a pejorative in the media, under the belief that political correctness has ‘gone mad’ in instances where political correctness is exploited and no political change occurs, making it useless. Political correctness is the belief that language and actions which could offend disadvantaged groups (of race and sex) should be eliminated. The concept began to keep societies civil but is now seemingly tearing them apart. So where did it all go wrong? This essay will explore the use of political correctness in today’s world and whether it is the way forward for our society.

Political correctness is seen in all kinds of media, specifically social media, where it is at its strongest causing fear they are being stripped of their right to free speech. Freedom of speech is the ability to speak your mind and criticize your government without persecution or censorship. Whilst there are some real limits as we can be arrested for committing a hate crime, online you can never be free from the social consequences of having an unpopular opinion. Social media gives voiceless people a chance to ‘fight back’ against injustice, usually in the form of public shaming, but does publicly shaming individuals who are overtly offensive take away their free speech? A totem example is Justine Sacco’s case. She was a public relations executive who tweeted;

‘Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!’

In moments her tweet was trending worldwide, she was receiving thousands of death threats and her employer has been pressured to fire her. Sacco, who was a South African herself intended the tweet to mock ignorance of Africa, but due to her low status and mere 170 followers she was misconstrued, and her life was turned upside down;

“Unfortunately, I (Sacco) am not a character on ‘South Park’ or a comedian, so I had no business commenting on the epidemic in such a politically incorrect manner on a public platform.”

Sacco’s incident clearly displays the power social media combined with relentless political correctness has. Whilst Sacco’s case was a misunderstanding, if she had meant it, would her brutal shaming still be justified? Would the thousands of death threats she received have been reasonable? Whilst most people do not want those with offensive views to speak loud and proud, for us to have true freedom of speech we must allow others to say what they wish, what we do next, whether we educate and inform or belittle and shame, is up to us.

Political correctness is incredibly ingrained within our lives, as well as that of the corporate worlds’, where it is often exploited for profit. During June, LGBT Pride month, it’s hard to go long without spotting a rainbow pride flag. Shelves were stacked full of merchandise under the vague promise of a donation to charity and awareness, whatever that is, and some of the biggest brands were advocating pride such as Nike, H&M and Adidas. Whilst this helps normalize homosexuality, it’s clear that these big brands are after money, which is expected, but what seemed a little off about Adidas’ advocacy was their sponsorship of the world cup. The issue here is the fact that the last world cup took place in Russia, a country known for its strict laws on homosexuality. For example, Russia’s federal law ‘For the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values’, also known as the ‘gay propaganda law’ which supposedly protects children from homonormativity. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore. It’s also hard to pass off as an accident since the 2022 world cup is due to take place in Qatar, where it is illegal to be gay and the government prohibits people to campaign for LGBT rights. Brands such as Adidas love to wave their rainbow flags and show alliance when it results in profit, but they have yet to stand up for LGBT rights when it really matters and could result in change. It’s difficult to please everyone, and for these brands, it’s hard to know when to listen to the pressures of a politically correct society and when to stay silent. It gets to the point when it’s hard to tell whether any of us truly believe or accept any of these ideologies, or if it’s too much of a hassle to speak against them.

When it comes to the debate of political correctness, there’s an obvious generational divide that needs to be addressed. Millennials are often portrayed as overly sensitive hippies whilst the baby boomers are lazy alt-right racists, but is it unrealistic to want older generations to have the same modernist views as most young people today?

Whilst it’s obvious, older generations are, older, and have grown up around very different standards for what is and isn’t offensive. Many older liberals will draw the line where issues become too foreign, like slut-shaming or gender fluidity, and defensive when the issue becomes personal. Even when our parents were young their environment was increasingly different. Older generations were raised consuming very different ideas about minorities through film and television which some would find hilarious and some disgusting today. Whilst being a bit older doesn’t excuse avid intolerance, the generational gap isn’t as immense as you’d think, and can easily be crossed.

In conclusion, political correctness plays a very large role in our lives which we don’t always realize, and for us all to thrive in our modern world, we all need to reach be on the same page. Whilst political correctness is often exploited and overwhelming at times, when used correctly it guides our ignorance to understanding what is and isn’t appropriate, and often we need that guidance. Whether you like it or not, we’re all moving forward, some simply faster than others.

Introduction

The concept/reality that society has become/is becoming too politically correct is a question that is prominent in today’s society. Being politically correct is the act of not causing offence to others in a society based on a certain group they consider themselves to be in (which are generally considered minorities), so how is this controversial? Political correctness, by definition, is a morally justified argument. Punish those who do not adhere to a certain set of values that society has generally come to adopt. So why has this become such a controversial topic? Joel and I believe there is substantial evidence to suggest that the downfall of political correctness is summed up in 3 main ideas. The inability for normal, comprehensive discussion between the average conservative and the average liberal, the rise of media betrayal on both sides of the aisle and the mobbing of individuals/collectives in college campuses, workplaces and in public.

Research

Transgenderism

Jordan B Peterson, is a clinical psychologist from Canada that became popular on YouTube where many of his talks were being published online and successively created a large fan base. He is known for his outspoken (generally controversial) views about many topics such as political correctness, transgenderism (specifically gender identity), neo-marxism, the alt-right, feminism and depression. He has a degree in Political Science and a pHd in Psychology. One of the highlights of his career was when he went viral over his controversial, but nonetheless thought-provoking, views over the Canadian Governments Bill C-16 . Bill C-16 is a bill that adds gender expression and identity as protected grounds on the Canadian Human Rights Act, introduced by Justin Trudeau’s hyperliberal Government the bill passed through the Canadian Parliament (248-40) with an 86% approval rating. Peterson made the claim that, ‘the widespread insistence that people will have to use compelled speech is purely wrong’ . Peterson uses the words ‘compelled speech’ because that’s exactly what it is. People will always have problems with compelled speech because there are many factors that stop them from using speech that is considered PC *. Whether it’s religion or, simply, opinion people shouldn’t feel compelled to use speech that goes against what they believe in. If we live in a society where someone’s belief conflicts with other people’s beliefs and it supposedly ‘incites hatred’, it shows how hypersentive we’ve really become. To clarify, we believe that the discrimination/incitement of violence of minorities is completely unjustified and frankly disgusting. However the hypersensitive reality that the American left has now become is one that has obstructed the truth in our news, workplace, politics and debates over the fear of ‘cancel culture’, loss of job, disregard/diminishment of opinion, harassment etc… A prime example is how people are scared to talk about transgenderism anywhere in the media because there is so much opportunity for people to take offence. It is a complicated issue which has room for so many varied opinions which is why so many are offended by it. I believe that I am not an unreasonable person with whom you cannot have a genuine, safe conversation with, about transgenderism. I have fairly liberal views on transgenderism but do not believe in compelled speech on a large scale. Does this mean I can’t have a reasonable discussion with someone who disagrees with me? Apparently so. Many with conflicting opinions on transgenderism are often easily generalised with terms such as ‘bigot’ , ‘homophobic/transphobic’ etc… This can be widely observed in college campuses, the media and the workplace

Liberalism on College Campuses

To expand on how Universities are becoming more (have become) liberal, a study by the University of Oxford found that, according to the study, conservatives have a ‘right to be skeptical of scientists’, suggesting that this skepticism is completely valid due to a long (and proven) history of scholar activism. Scholar activism is the corruption of scientific findings by involving politics (in this case liberalism) thus voiding the validity of your research due to bias. Another study by The Econ Journal Watch found that liberal professors and researchers in Universities/Colleges throughout the USA outnumbered conservatives nearly 12 to 1 (the numbers get more surprising depending on the department, for example, History is in a 33:1 ratio of liberal to conservative professors.

Development on the widening gap between the Left and the Right

As described by many, the gap between the left and the right has never been further apart. There seems to be no issues nowadays in which both sides can agree on a solution. Politics and hyper-opinionated, illogical arguments seem to go hand-in-hand and affect millions of relationships daily. It slowly seems to creep into every aspect of life, forcing many into

Discussion / Development

In order to think we must risk being offensive. If we present any ideas to the public, no matter the subject of the ideas, there will be an individual/collective that is offended by it. To go to the extremes (but of which most people agree on), the holocaust. Most will agree that this was a horrific event which came to be because of extremist parties forcing themselves into power. However, present this view to enough people and inevitably someone will disagree, and likely, be offended. Because apparently in this day and age, disagreement incites offence. An example where disagreement often supposedly incites offence (due to postmodern leftism) is the current american political spectrum. Admittedly this happens on both sides of the aisle. Radical leftists are taking to the streets to force their illogical agendas and beliefs and believe that conservatism is facism meanwhile their whole ‘protest’ is based on the grounds of using violence/disruption to push a message. On the other hand, many on the right are harassing liberals, both verbally and physically in order to diminish their views. Since there is a rise of young leftism in the US (and the UK) older conservatives are quick to disregard anything that they stand for on the grounds that they are uneducated, without experience and supposedly a part of a Marxist movement (as claimed by many of those on the right).

However, there is an underlying problem that comes out of this discussion. The consistent bias throughout the US media that separates the divide between the left and the right further every day. Here in the UK, most would agree that most serious broadcasting services are fairly unbiased. Actually, there are many Media Discrimination and Bias laws in place in the UK. For example, the most watched news program in the UK, the BBC, has a royal charter stating that its reporters must be unbiased and that any complaints of bias must be dealt with immediately and concisely. This is important because the media affects millions of perspectives daily. Perspectives that can be easily altered by stimuli. I believe the US media’s baises is the predominant force in widening the gap between the left and the right and thus causing a pandemic of regression in the quality of political discussions/debates.

Change in terminology when differentiating between genders may have accentuated inequality in our society. For example, many female performers prefer to introduce their profession as being an “actor.” More and more female actors are “corrected” by people saying “I think you mean ‘actress’”. Some say that, in many ways, the term ‘actress’ is outdated, and now it was more politically correct to say “female actor,” “male actor.” Many believe that the latter is more professional. Many female actors believe that using the same word to describe all performers, both male and female, improves equality; the word “actress” appears to sound less professional and serious, according to some. The neofeminist view that there needs to be more differentiation but, more equality, is a radicalisation that has blurred what real, logical, feminism really is. Feminism is the belief in equality of opportunity for those of the female gender, a rationalisation that should be accepted by all. I was a strong supporter of original feminism, going to the extent of calling myself a feminist. Surely those who are arguing for equality can settle with actor in this case? Actor was a broad term to describe someone who performs in the entertainment and arts industry. Only recently it has been assigned a gender (by the same people who oppose using it as a broad term), yet neo-feminists have pretended as if this was always been there for the pure purpose of male authoritarianism. Should we assign all jobs to be gender specific? Not all actors are male, just like how not all accountants are male, how not all lawyers are male, how not all builders are male, how not all soldiers are male. And although we do recognise that these jobs were done predominantly by males, these career names were never gender specific. So why do neofeminists believe that suddenly, these terms have been in place only to diminish other genders throughout history, and thus keep a patriarchal system throughout every section of life?

Furthermore there is the indoctrination of liberalism on college campuses. Surely this is the largest, and most dangerous, example of political correctness in modern society. How can one argue that universities are creating a variety of individual thinkers when liberal professors outnumber conservative professors 11 to 1? And this number is only an average across all departments. A study done by The Econ Journal Watch, showed that for every 33 liberal professors who taught history, there is 1 conservative history professor. How can this not be a staggering example of the indoctrination of Liberalism in college campuses. I’m not saying that every one of these professors are heavily biased and indoctrinate their students to the point of radicalisation. It would be radical to think so. But how can anyone say that students are open to a wide variety of opinions when most students will never come in contact with a conservative history professor in their time at college; or any conservative professor for that matter.

Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, can accept that our colleges/universities are becoming more and more liberal to the day. College Campuses are quick to completely disregard conervative/opposing views as shown when famous conservatives visit college campuses. A recognised example of this is Ben Shapiro’s talks where he has received a lot of criticism at almost every place of higher education he has visited. Many universities have offered him to come and speak but then declined their invitation after a backlash from the students. A surprisingly large proportion of these students have gone to the extent of death-threats, attempted assault and calling him a ‘neonazi’, even though Ben Shapiro is a proud Jew. Shapiro talks more about the indoctrination of the youth in his book, ‘Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth’ . To clarify, I don’t believe people’s views shouldn’t be challenged; they should. Without the challenge of peoples opinions we would get nowhere as a society. But as Shapiro has stated (and demonstrated) many times, he is very open to the idea of a discussion with someone who disagrees with him. In his Q&As he has been challenged many times. This is what we need more of. Two people having a rational discussion of difference in belief. Not just the complete disregard of opinion and harassment of people who have different opinions to you. Furthermore, anyone at these talks who describe themselves as conservative is prone to the usual childish, generalised insults typically: fascist, racist, bigot, homophobes. However, on the other side of the aisle, there is the prominent presence of far right views both online and offline that hurl insults back but because neither side takes the time to evaluate and discuss arguments and viewpoints, neither side can ever learn from themselves or each other.

Both sides of the political spectrum suffer from stereotyping the other, for example it is very easy for someone on the left to criticise someone on the right for making slightly racist, homophobic or antisementic comments and just as easy for someone on the right to criticise someone on the left for being offended by a simple comment. Either way it causes both sides to easily form negative stereotypes of each other in order to increase their feeling of moral and intellectual superiority, despite the principle of political correctness being inherently beneficial to society. It is not political correctness which has damaged society, but rather society which has ruined political correctness.

Political correctness was intended to tread the fine line between opposing hate speech and still allowing for free speech to be practiced in a public space. It could have succeeded if it weren’t for

The 1st Amendment is a right that every American citizen has. It allows people of any race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, political stance, and class to say whatever they want. Their speech is protected by the court of law. This means that you can say whatever you want but it also means that anyone can say whatever they want about what you said. Political Correctness was intended to be a gateway for minorities who are easily discriminated against to be free without being shunned for something they have no control over.

Political correctness targets to abolish hate speech and a recent survey done by the Cato Institute shows that 79% of Americans have the belief that hate speech is morally unacceptable, however, only 40% of Americans believe that the government should prevent hate speech with legislation.

Conclusion

After many hours of work, research and discussion. Joel and I have come to the conclusion that Political Correctness is not itself a poor manifestation of irrational leftism but instead an attempt from the left (with good principles) to create a society that is more accepting and appreciative of minorities. Where both sides of the political spectrum have gone wrong however is the fact that the majority of both the left and the right fail to have normal, comprehensive discussions of how to fix political correctness (and many other issues) and what political correctness actually aims to do. In general it all boils down to a lack of evaluation and discussion. Those on the right will suggest that political correctness degrades everyone’s right to practice free speech. This allows fewer ideas to be heard so therefore we will struggle to progress as a society. Those on the left will suggest that political correctness prevents easily targeted minorities from being insulted and offended which allows for a more open minded society so more ideas from everyone can be heard so therefore we can progress as a society. The real issue is that neither side is willing to have a genuine discussion and debate without it turning into two people with different opinions yelling at and insulting each other without rational thought.

So no, we have not become too politically correct because by the definition of Political Correctness, we have regressed in terms of becoming more politically correct. I would go as far to state that we have become less politically correct (in general, as a society) than we used to be as we’ve normalised mobbing ideology against those with different political opinions. We have instead created an environment in which the left can call the right: bigot, racist, homophobes and the right can call the left: too ‘soft’, easily offended and radical Marxists. The aims of both sides of the aisle are essentially justified, the right want to protect their rights of free speech and the left want to create a more accepting society in which the fine line between free speech and hate speech is clearly identified. Both uphold a sufficient level of decency and principlism however what both have got wrong is the misinterpretation of each other’s ideals. Ultimately, what is wrong with political correctness is the society it manifested itself in.

What has the world come to? People are being unfairly punished for exercising their right to use the first amendment of this great country. Dave Chappelle tackled this issue in an ingenious way with his most recent show on Netflix ‘Sticks & Stones’. Also, according to Deresiewicz’s “On Political Correctness”, PC has become more about gaining power over others than what it was meant to be when the term first came out, and students are beginning to realize it. Moreover, both him and Chappelle can agree that people are not being real and exposing their true selves and beliefs due to fear of backlash or labeling from what some call the ‘PC police’. Given these points, this has become an unvoiced major issue in today’s society. The people forgot their fundamental right of free speech, which caused fear and panic over the idea of losing power or being punished, in addition, people are lying to both themselves and others by hiding what they truly believe in from their friends, and when Chappelle confronted this issue and as a result of his jokes he received intense criticism (as expected). However, he did prove his point on how far-gone the world is today when it comes to many issues including “political correctness”.

Chappelle proved that nobody likes being silenced, in any context what-so ever. Nevertheless, this is what political correctness has come to, people forgot that they are allowed to say anything without the fear of being punished. Nowadays people are being silenced figuratively and sometimes quite literally such as what happened to Dave Chappelle fifteen years ago. He had written a sketch which had the word ‘faggot’ in it. While he may have had not seen that as a problem, his network manager did. She had told him that the sketch was great except for the fact that he had to take the word ‘faggot’ out. He apologized and agreed to take it out. However, just as he was leaving he had the thought of why he was not allowed to say ‘faggot’, but was allowed to say the word ‘nigger’. So He asked the manager to try and figure out why that was, and she responded with,’ because David….you’re not gay”, Chappelle went on to say, ‘ “Well, Renée… I’m not a nigger either.” This joke had an extremely powerful double meaning which states that he is ‘allowed’ to say the word ‘nigger’ because he is still viewed that way in today’s society. By the same token, Deresiewicz mentioned, ‘ When the latter are accused of opposing free speech, they invariably respond, “How can we be opposed to free speech? We are exercising it right now!” But everyone is in favor of their own free speech (including, for instance, Vladimir Putin). The test of your commitment to free speech as a general principle is whether you are willing to tolerate the speech of others, especially those with whom you most disagree. If you are using your speech to try to silence speech, you are not in favor of free speech. You are only in favor of yourself.’ He explained that in the world we live in today, free speech is considered to be the belief that your opinions and your views are the only ones that matter and are correct. In addition, most people have different views and thoughts on societal norms, but are too scared to announce them as a consequence of the judgement they will receive from “normal” people who think “normally”. The first amendment was written to give everyone without exception a voice, so who are we to take that voice away from comedians like Chappelle for instance, because it contradicts with our opinions, beliefs, and societal norms.

Chappelle interpreted to the audience when he told a joke about the audience sounding like power hungry idiots to him, that he believes that people only want to bring down other people for mistakes or things they said in the past. In a mocking voice he said, “Hey! Durr! If you do anything wrong in your life, duh, and I find out about it, I’m gonna try to take everything away from you, and I don’t care when I find out. Could be today, tomorrow, 15, 20 years from now. If I find out, you’re fucking-duh-finished. – Trump .– Who… Who’s that? – Trump – Trump That’s YOU! That’s what the audience sounds like to me.” Chappelle stresses that people nowadays are hungry for celebrities’ heads, and the only way to satisfy that hunger Is by “feeding” the people any and everybody that makes the slightest mistake in their career. The way that everyday people correspond to today’s view of political correctness has turned 180 degrees than what it was once meant to be. It has turned to an issue of power. People realized that they can acquire immense power over others with PC. A supporting idea to the Chappelle joke would be when Deresiewicz stated in the beginning of his article “On Political Correctness”, “But so much of political correctness is not about justice or creating a safe environment; it is about power. And so much of what is taking place at colleges today reflects the way that relations of power have been reconfigured in contemporary higher education. Campus activists are taking advantage of the fact (and I suspect that a lot of them understand this intuitively, if not explicitly) that students have a lot more power than they used to.” Deresiewicz explains how college students today differ from their predecessors when it comes to power over their professors, and many more. When it comes to taking people down and having power of them it is basically in our DNA, and that’s where Political Correctness deteriorates into something truly awful.

Honesty is the foundation of any relationship of any kind. During his show, Chappelle made quite a bit of comments that were ‘wrong’ and ‘inappropriate’ about topics that would offend a good number of people. Chappelle talked about how he is and feels as a person when it comes to victims. He stated, ‘ I… I am what’s known on the streets as a victim blamer. You know what I mean? If somebody come up to me like, “Dave, Dave, Chris Brown just beat up Rihanna.” I’ll be like, “Well, what did she do?” “Dave, Michael Jackson was molesting children.” “Well, what were those kids wearing at the time?” . Some would argue that everything about that joke is offensive. However, all Chappelle did was embrace his own truth. He owned up to his own beliefs and ideas without the slightest fear or paranoia from peoples’ judgmental thoughts. He opened up about how he felt about a topic, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Similarly, Deresiewicz had realized from his time teaching at college campuses that people are holding their beliefs for the sole reason of fitting in. He went on to explain in his article that he had a ‘strong feminist’ student who told him that ‘ she tends to keep quiet about everything, because she never knows when she might say something that you’re not supposed to’. who wrote about a friend whom she had known since the beginning of college and who, she’d just discovered, went to church every Sunday. My student hadn’t even been aware that her friend was religious. When she asked her why she had concealed this essential fact about herself, her friend replied, “Because I don’t feel comfortable being out as a religious person here.” To put it briefly, the point that both Deresiewicz made and the idea that Chappelle implemented about the subject is, fear of judgment by the ‘pc police’ causes people to hold back their real selves from others. Consequently, relationships do not last as long as they used to, before the horrid term political correctness emerged.

All in all, Chappelle’s ‘Sticks & Stones’ seems to be simply provocative at first, however when given ones’ complete attention and analysis of the meaning behind his jokes, one would find a lot of points and ideas parallel to those of Deresiewicz’s ‘On Political Correctness’. Such as , the idea of our freedom of speech getting taken away both indirectly and sometimes quite directly. Also, they had both pointed out the idea of people chasing after power using the excuse of political correctness. Above all, both the author and the comedian proved an extremely important point on people hiding their views and ideas in order to fit in, and who are we without our own unique views and ideas.

The original definition of political correctness was something of good intent. The basic idea was to not treat anyone differently just because of the color of the skin or any other superficial features and to help those who are disadvantaged in some way. Ever since the early nineties, however, things have gotten extremely out of hand. What began as a positive way to live by has since been distorted by the passage of time. Political correctness has now been taken to ridiculous extremes which instead of helping, has pushed the nation back greatly. Political correctness in the time of today now seeks to value feelings more than evidence and logic, to give special treatment to people who are “victimized, and to control the thinking and feeling of the majority. What once seemed like common sense is now an ideology demanding the participation of everyone and anyone who resists is ripped to shreds. However, if people shift back to the original line of thinking we once had, the people who live in this world can mature and grow and not shelter themselves in the distorted idea of something that was once admirable. The political correctness movement we know today brings plenty of possible negative repercussions which we must address in order to become better than people currrently are now.

One of the foremost negative aspects of the political correctness movement is the act of making an attempt to be politically correct features a tendency to distract from the initial meaning of the communications. When individuals are always making an attempt to settle on words or phrases fastidiously, people will notice the end result to be problematic at best as a result of this. “It has devolved into a tyranny of the most offended person in the room” (Karlson). PC complaints now range from the sublime to the ridiculous, and are stifling the honest assessment, and debate, of issues in our lives. The words chosen in professional writing or oral displays could instead be found foolish, as a result of the self censorship taking place. Again, the general public assumes a deaf person is deaf. If one refers to a deaf person as “auditorily challenged” then one might discover the audience laughing at the selection of words instead of hearing the intended message. In turn, the individual goes extremely out of the way to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, which is obvious to anyone witnessing the person’s work. Granted, the effect could avoid offense however another effect may additionally yield laughter. If laughter was not the supposed results of one’s actions then the actions would be deemed a failure. The distortion of intent is the common effect of going to ridiculous extremes in order to be politically correct at the expense of using “good” language. “America has been, and remains, the refuge for brilliant, creative, ambitious, and independent thinkers of other lands. Their dreams can only be accommodated in the land of the free and the home of the brave.” (Adams). The main focus ought to be on the writing of the individual, not on the individuals affected by the writing.

The limitations or “speech codes” schools put on the speech of individuals inhabiting it is more of a problem than “offensive” speech ever was. Speech codes are created due to the “speech police” believing the emotions of those residing in the school are more important than the capacity to learn. The focus on emotions rather than knowledge is a problem for numerous reasons. The obvious one being that sheltering students from the harshness of reality creates a narrow-minded and unrealistic mindset hurting them rather than helping them later on in life. “Unfortunately, the “closing of the American mind” is an educational fad largely imposed by those who claim to embrace human diversity but who react with horror upon encountering an actual diversity of ideas.” (Johanson). A result of the narrow-mindedness created is the schools end up suiting only the preferences of the students, rather than showing everything available.

“For instance, many schools only invite outside speakers who meet the ideological terms and conditions set forth by their students. At times, this approach includes declining to welcome certain speakers on campus altogether. The consequence is the creation of restrictions around speech not just from outsiders but from those within the school community whose mode of expression might be viewed as uncivil or obnoxious.” (Johanson).

Eliminating other methods to disperse knowledge in the youth inhabiting the schools only ends up hurting the students, creating close-mindedness when the opposite effect should be strived for.

The intended purpose of comedy was to make dark days less dark and to shed light on the main and current issues of our world and the way we live in it. Functioning as a more comfortable setting for discussing the problems most of society does not want to talk about. ”Most humor has a basis in fact. That is what makes it relatable to people and therefore funny. The best stand-up comedians and humorists take everyday situations that most in their audience have experienced and weave in some dynamic storytelling and a few exaggerated outcomes.” (Hoffman). The problem with political correctness is making facing these realities much harder, and as a result, more difficult to enjoy humor in life. This is because of members of the political correctness movement attempting to govern the way people speak and act as if there is only one appropriate way to do so when in reality there is so much more to think about.

“It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.” (Carlin).

People in the political correctness movement think restricting humor will somehow make people less racist and intolerant. By joking about sensitive topics people are acknowledging these things are real while also acknowledging people do not need to be held down by the hurt or pain brought about from these serious events or words.

The aim of the political correctness movement is to destroy the very thing making people unique, our identity. The movement seeks to strip whatever views and thoughts people have that go against the mold and instead create a hivemind devoid of free-thought, something able to be bent and molded into whatever deemed appropriate, rather than what the people contained within think.

“Political correctness seeks to eliminate individualism, identity and confidence; three characteristics indispensable to American greatness. If you want to see the end result, look no further than Europe. The intellectual tyranny, self-loathing and choking conformity of this ideology has feminized and weakened a once great continent which now aspires to mediocrity.” (Adams).

The concept of individuality to the political correctness movement is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is instead what people are. Only caring about qualities such as race and societal standing rather than judging a person through character. The movement takes but a single glance at a person and thinks everything is known about that individual just because of the color of skin or what gender a person identifies as. “Individuals are submerged within and reduced to social categories defined and imposed by ideologists dreaming their own utopian dreams of a socially engineered world reflecting their notion of a new race- and ethnic-conscious society.” (Ebeling). The political correctness movement treats people as nothing but a label to further an agenda.

Here is the essential problem that lies within the very core of political correctness. The movement does not change what people think, the only thing changing is what can be said.“The concept of political correctness is based on the belief that speech or behavior that is offensive to various groups’ sensibilities should be eliminated, by means of regulations or penalties if necessary.” (Reynolds). When the movement limits what people can say, people internalize what is thought. When internalizing what cannot be said, resentment is formed. When resentment has been created the intensity of the feelings begin to fester and grow and the person starts to feel even stronger about the issue. “Political Correctness doesn’t change us, it shuts us up.” (Beck). Political correctness exacerbates the very feelings it intends to quell. One might say speech causes harm, so regulation is in order. There are plenty of cases where the movement can arguably tie speech to harm but violence is never direct. Someone has to hear the speech, someone has to understand the speech, and then react in a harmful way. The best response to bad speech is good speech, which furthers a conversation that needs to happen, to make real progress as a society. Making specific words and ideas taboo just impedes the conversation, it is counterproductive.

The political correctness movement has gone full circle with racism. Demonizing white people just because of the color of skin and the actions of ancestors, rather than judging the individual for actions or choices. The movement also constantly advocates the celebration of cultures of other races but a white person can not even mention race without being accused of possessing “white privilege”. People are putting down a race to raise up a different race, a racist action. “This not only dehumanizes individuals who by accident of birth happen to be the descendants of Caucasian parents, but this does it no less to those who may be black or Hispanic. You are a “victim” as a “person of color.” (Ebeling). The race-shaming attitude displayed by the movement also harms the races the movement is trying to empower. Putting other races in the place of a victim only makes escaping that role harder for people to escape and become what is aspired of themselves. The people cast in the role will find it impossible to break free of the victim label if the movement succeeds. “Rather than advancing harmony and understanding, as intended, political correctness has fostered hatred and violence, as people blame each other for their misery and groups fight each other for superior claims to victimhood.” (Kalman). The quality and strengths of people are not characterized by skin color, to say so is simply incorrect and racist.

The problem with PC culture is many of the people get offended by what is said because these people have never had anyone challenge them mentally. Often many are used to living in an echo chamber, constantly stroking their egos and does not go outside of what is comfortable with their brains when it comes to thought processing. “And while I do recognize the enormous improvement humanity has had in this regard, I believe we have now developed an unhealthy obsession with sensitivity. This obsession has made our skins too soft and has allowed our feelings and emotions bleed out of ourselves too easily.” (Navarro) The act of constantly living in these “safe spaces” just gives people an inaccurate perception of life, giving them a life where as soon as something negative happens it can be erased by pretending it does not exist. This ideal life does not exist, what is the point in pretending, this only hurts the people who believe in this dream. “PC is rooted in weakness. It’s weakness because it’s a hypersensitivity that creates more division than it does bring people together.” (Howse). To grow as people, it is instrumental to accept things making us uncomfortable and somehow live alongside theuncomfortability of it. Looking for shortcuts or completely ignoring what is not liked only stunts the growth of people.

The political correctness movement has certainly left an impact on the world of today, the impact is less than good though. The movement, in its attempt to be serious, only creates confusion and foolishness with every term and message distorted. When that does not work the goal will then be to eliminate anything going against their agenda by dismissing counterproductive thinking as hate speech or “white privilege”. Leading to the creation of narrow mindsets and unrealistic expectations which will never be met, and should not be met as this line of thinking only dumbs down people and takes ahold of individuality, forcing people to conform if desiring any chance to survive in a society of victims. Even then there is no stopping, the social justice warriors then intend to take away and restrict methods to cope with the negative effects such as comedy or anything else deemed as offensive. Then seeking to dehumanize individuals by judging through race, thinking everything is known about that person just because of the color of the person’s skin. Disagreeing with most of these members will only lead to a series of name calling and a damaged ego requiring calming down in a “safe space” until it is possible to face the real world again. The world the political correctness movement seeks to create is a world that is only a lie, a lie created to provide shelter against the harsh realities of the world. Instead of accepting the world and growing as people the movement seeks to pollute the world with falsehoods and hypocrisies until the fictional safe haven that it can never be, becomes real.

Religion and secularism portray different aspects of modern society. Certain individuals who believe in the practices of spirituality represent the significance of faith in a religion, while other secular individuals have no association or affliction to spirituality or religion. This essay will discuss the Pakistani activist, Malala Yousafzai’s perspective on female education based upon human rights. In addition, the opposing terrorist group, the Islamist Boko Haram expose the enactment of school attacks in Nigeria. Furthermore, the examination of fundamentalism explained by Spickard’s in the story, ‘Good old way’, demonstrates religious conservatives and fundamentalist groups spreading ideologies through the new media.

In order to understand the meaning behind an individual’s claim for female rights, it is important to reveal the historical context of the country the individual originates from. This is further noticed in Malala Yousafazi’s story behind her outcry in the media concerning the opposition of female education. Consequently, her outcry in the media comes through the historical and religious context of the extremism, terrorism and violence instigated by Pakistani Taliban groups. Due to the Islamic increase in Pakistan, the Taliban has endorsed the denied freedom of expression which further endorsed the opposition to modern education. As mentioned by Spickard’s 2006 story, ‘good old way’, “fundamentalist groups re-imagine society as following religious codes and laws” (Spickard, 2006, pg. 306), following this quote religious laws are significant in the Pakistan case where the Islamic law had considered secular and also Western idea, which had further caused a “Holy war” (Tolentino, et al., 2015) against modern education for both genders. Due to such war against education, the Taliban had banned female education and bombed more than hundreds of school buildings. Additionally, Malala’s point of view for being determined to receive an education comes through the refusal of “surrendering her rights to education” (Tolentino, et al., 2015) which causes the power of her voice to international attention. Furthermore, Malala’s determination to her education rights is further noticed through participating in interviews stating, “They cannot stop me. I will get my education if it’s at home, school or somewhere else.” (Tolentino, et al., 2015) This further becomes secular modernity in society as Malala’s campaign for “peace, social justice, and education were acknowledged” (Tolentino, et al., 2015). Moreover, the campaign has been noticed by the South African activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu and recognised Malala’s peacemaker to Pakistan and potentially changed the Islamic law. Overall, the effectiveness of contemporary society comes through Malala’s determination to education rights which becomes secular modernity when Gordon Brown launched a UN petition which caused Pakistan’s first ‘Right to Education Bill’.

The concept of a bond among society comes within the religion as relationship. The meaning behind religion as relationship is to ‘Create social change and support in response to the challenges of contemporary society.’ (Woodhead, 2011) Social changes arise through the sudden change from a colonial era to the global trend of terrorism. This trend led to the innocent killings in Nigeria after the colonial era which was originally at peace with the citizens living in harmony had become diminished by a rebellious group called Boko Haram. The Boko Haram group mainly are responsible for opposing female education and in doing so, they have afflicted into, kidnapping schoolgirls and killing teachers as well as religious leaders of both Christian and Islamic faith. The terrorist attacks have brought fear in citizens in Nigeria, bringing the attention of the Nigerian government through the demands of the Boko Haram group, with the abduction of innocent schoolgirls and older females and also demanding the Sharia Law to be applicable all over the country. In comparison to Malala’s case where at the age of fifteen the activist being shot to the head by a terrorist group, as alike in the Boko Haram group case, where abducting school girls and older females became a way to oppose females from attending a school or be educated due to the religion of Islam rules. Furthermore, the ‘religious codes and laws’ (Spickard, 2006, pg. 306) provided by the Islamic group in Boko Haram’s case is taken to the demands to take a separate Islamic state to “practise their religion unhindered” (Abdulrasheed, Joda, 2015). However, in 2009 the leader of Boko Haram was arrested and passed away during custody, but it did not stop the Boko Haram from having a new leader. Additionally, this case becomes a religious conservative with the Islamic group becoming theism towards forcibly abducting schoolgirls and kidnapping women.

Political rights can be endorsed through freedom of speech and expression in most countries around the world. However, in the case of Malala Yousafzai and Boko Haram’s worldview, both cases are in contrast to ‘religious codes and laws’ (Spickard 2006, p. 306) and also relate to ‘rejecting secular modernity’, both cases ‘effectively use new media to spread their ideologies.’ (Spickard 2006, p. 306) In the case of Malala, the effectiveness of the terrorist group, Taliban, who shot her in the head at the age of fifteen, survived the procedure and further fought for the rights of education for females who “remain vulnerable to oppression, and are an untapped potential for the world and themselves” (Upton, 2018). This case proves that secular modernity in contemporary society originates through the outcry on social media as mentioned in the quote, “use new media to spread their ideologies” (Spickard, 2006, p. 306), and was proven by the Nobel peace award that Malala received through the rights to education for female as alike to herself. With regards to Boko Haram’s case, religion is noticed in a disservice in a way where the terrorist group abducted schoolgirls and alike older females, further contrasting to Malala when Pakistan is at holy war with the terrorist group bombing more than hundreds of schools. Boko Haram is known as ‘West education is forbidden’, meaning the Islamic group demand girls to be banned from schools. Additionally, modern society spreads the ideology of the media outcry behind the Boko Haram attacks and the background story behind Malala’s disagreement for the opposition of female education. The opposition of female education comes through the religion law that schoolgirls were abducted because they received secular education, “the militants believe corrupts the value of Muslims” (Signe, 2018). Consequently, the Boko Haram case is known to be of the enlightenment era, as well as the Taliban, due to enlightenment starting with education, and the refusal of girls to be educated, means that Boko Haram are denying female their humanity.

Overall, this essay has discussed both religion and secular modernity respectively contributes to political actions being made to the weak government countries who have gone through terrorism as a belief of their religious law. In both Malala and Boko Haram’s case it is proven that the lack of government causes harmony in a country towards terrorism as one religion demanding to preach their beliefs in the Islamic way, rejecting secular modernity to oppose against female education. However, throughout the essay, it is proven that a female activist at a young age can successfully change the terrorist attacks through the media outcry on the education rights for females. Fundamentalism is also preserved through the re-imagination of society as an Islamic group demand their own state in a country to take over the law, however, the government act upon the terrorist attack and female education is reaffirmed in both Nigeria and Pakistan.

Let me ask you this, do the majority of people look up to Donald Trump, the president of the United States? Do people respect and agree with what he posts on his Twitter account? How many people get offended by him everyday? In today’s world, more and more people are becoming sensitive towards topics that are difficult, such as issues with race, gender, suicide, mental health, and many more. This is why “Political Correctness” is necessary. First off, I would like to define what Political Correctness means to me, since after all, it is a very ambiguous topic. Political Correctness is a component of language in the modern era that is used to prevent being offensive towards others, especially people in oppressed groups. This is what Political Correctness means to me. It is not a way of censorship and neither is it a way of hindering the truth. Political Correctness is a positive evolution and expansion in the English language because first, Political Correctness prevents the repetition of offensive words to do with race, gender, mental health, suicide, etc. It prevents the normalization of jokes/words that are offensive and helps smooth social interactions and improve respect for minorities in society, and second, it protects marginalized people from abuse and language inciting hate crime. Is political correctness really as unnecessary as you think?

Firstly, I would like to elaborate on how Political Correctness prevents the repetition of offensive words to do with race, gender, mental health, suicide, etc. and why it’s necessary. By the use of political correctness, it is harder for people to express topics that are sensitive because it creates boundaries in language. The psychology of repetition is a very important aspect in the matter of the spread of non-PC language which later plants opinions and ideas in one’s head. Repetition is a known technique of persuasion. I’m sure you’ve heard it in your English class, debate class, and yes, it is very real and very effective. In Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman touches on the behavioral psychology research about repetition: “Anything that makes it easier for the associative machine [aka, your brain] to run smoothly will also bias beliefs. A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.” According to this researcher, the human brain does not easily distinguish familiarity from the truth because the human brain is simply lazy. This is also called the ‘Mere Exposure Effect’. People tend to develop preferences merely because they are familiar with them. This clearly relates back to the necessity of Political correctness. Political correctness limits people from saying things that are inappropriate. Without political correctness, society would be able to say whatever they want to say about whatever topic. The increased frequency of the repetition of the topic brought up, the more people hear about it. The more people hear about it, the more repetition it is. The more repetition, the more normal it sounds. The more normal it sounds, the more people think it’s okay to talk about certain inappropriate topics with such and such offensive words. Let’s take an example. Again, Donald Trump. Have you ever noticed that Donald Trump is very keen in repeating what he says. For example, Trump sometimes ends his statements by saying, ‘It’s true. It’s true.’ ////////

Although many people characterize political correctness as censorship, it is in fact, like I already said earlier, the opposite of censorship because it enables people especially in oppressed groups to speak their mind without being attacked. Oppressed groups have enough difficulty in trying to discuss difficult topics and being politically incorrect could hinder opportunities for these discussions to reach its potential or to even happen at all. For example, a mindset that black people are inferior will discredit ideas by African Americans, and the mindset that women act based on emotion rather than logic, unlike men, discredits the ideas of women in a discussion or debate. By using PC, people cannot discredit one’s idea but listen to it. Let’s take Kiah Morris’s case as an example. Kiah Morris was the only African American woman in the Vermont legislature but was forced to quit after 2 years of abuse. According to BBC, “the state’s attorney general agreed that the former Democratic representative had been subjected to racial and gender harassment, but he ruled against criminal charges, citing free speech.” Just because racist speech is considered free speech, this woman, Kiah Morris did not receive any help. The use of political correctness can help people in oppressed groups like Kiah Morris. It is not fair that she had to quit her bid for re-election midway through her campaign just because she was being attacked for being a black woman in politics. In a situation like this, political correctness would enable Kiah Morris to have free speech, instead of being silenced. Political correctness can protect marginalized people from abuse and language inciting hate crime. Preventing hate speech may also reduce racism over time and lead to greater equality.

Next, I would like to give a response to what the opposing side believes. Non-PC advocates believe that Political correctness hinders facts and is based on personal feelings, or in other words, political correctness censors the facts by using alternative imprecise words just because the “truthful” words may be non-PC and offend people. I would like to say that almost all strong opinions and moral values are based on personal experience and therefore, there is always an emotional reaction to certain situations and words. Separating “fact” from “emotion” is nearly impossible. The solution cannot be to deny any emotional component to one’s view, but to acknowledge and address it. The non-PC advocates claim personal feelings should not matter in a debate and should not be taken into consideration, as it censors the truth, although their claims of being “hindered” and “censored” are also a result of their personal feelings being hurt. It is impossible really, to face facts without any interference of personal feelings. Therefore, this is not a valid claim.

In conclusion, I would like to restate my claim that political correctness is a positive aspect of the evolution in the English language. Political correctness prevents the repetition of inappropriate topics to do with race, gender and other topics which automatically prevents the normalization of jokes and words that are offensive and helps smooth social interactions and improve respect for minorities in society. Political correctness also protects marginalized people from abuse and language inciting hate crime. It enables people especially in oppressed groups to discuss topics that are difficult without being personally attacked. Instead of being a censorship, political correctness simply enables free speech. Isn’t political correctness the way to go?

Doesn’t political correctness rightfully deserve its title as a trend?

George Orwell, a well-known British journalist cum author, wrote a book by the name “Nineteen forty-eight” ironically in the year 1948. George talked of a totalitarian society that deprived people of the freedom to discourse their contemplations. The situation brought fear amongst people. The novel argues that the government thought up “newspeak” language as a way to bar citizens from contemplating about parse’ “unacceptable” subjects (Orwell, p.32). The book was a precaution measure against the dangers of totalitarianism. The author warns of the adverse effects of power and ultimate control from the government — the author revolts against oppression. The government monitored human actions. It was against people expressing their thoughts freely. Newspeak discouraged free thinking. The new language featured the use of euphemism to avert the use of outlawed phrases or words. Newspeak omitted many words meaning that you couldn’t identify a word that could be regarded as a crime.

Consequently, the misconduct itself could not be committed. This instance contrasts well with the current occurrences of political correctness. The modern era uses the same approach when addressing ethical values in society.

Political correctness seems ineffective and of no purpose due to many reasons. First and foremost, the phrases meant to censor inappropriate subjects still bases on the “sore” topic. A good example would be calling a deaf person, “an individual with the hearing disorder.” The phrase will still insist on the deafness. The word the phrase poses the same meaning, which is an inability to hear. Referring to someone as “African American” yet that you are not in Africa means you are avoiding using the word “black” or “dark,” which is some sort of racist. You are insinuating that the term is black is offensive, but the reality is you thought of it been abusive. From the mentioned illustrations, political correctness doesn’t substantiate its claims.

Political correctness inadequacy is quite eminent when it is applied to words that are presumed to be offensive. NYC DOE (New York City Department of Education) put out a list of 50 words in 2012, which were supposed to be aggressive (CBS New York). However, one would wonder how words and expressions like religion, dinosaur, homes with swimming pools, and birthday would provoke other people. Surprisingly, if there are authorities who consider the phrase “lay off/sack” as an insult to the labor force than their perception of “retrenchment or hiring,” then it is an insult as well. Based on this rationality, then a good number of the hypothetically offensive words or phrases should be outlawed altogether, which is irrational.

Newspeak restricts conversations and drains language because it doesn’t come out naturally (Ely, p.56). Speakers ought to mind their words in dread of lawsuits or get punished. As a result, the speaker lacks his freedom of expression, thus leading to stress. Stress and an unsettled mind make people less cognizant and more agitated, which can lead to an intentional slur. Individuals are held accountable for their utterances and their reactions. However, they should be mindful of what they say to other people. People shouldn’t assume the retorts and words they are used to. It is more logical to use direct words rather than the politically right words. It would be easier to notice and insult with direct words because it’s unrealistic to employ nice and pleasant words that seem comforting, but they mean the same as the habitual words. Inexorably applying politically correct substituted seems wasted labor become one’s expression is confined in fear of torment or lawsuits.

Political correctness is not natural because it drains the expression of community values and traditions. Anyone in their right frame of mind would concur that it has surpassed the essence common sense. How can we assume that we are comforting people with polite words, but potentially, they can be hurt by the substitute words? The bottom line about the issue of political correctness is baseless and ineffective. The practice still defines and tunes the censored words to the same meaning. That said, correct political substitutes are insulting, as well. For the modern “Newspeak” to actualize its objectives, many of the words had better be outlawed. Since the practice doesn’t suit everyone and spurs agitation and stress and confines people to their circles, yet we are living in a free world that should become a choice for everyone.

Work cited

1. Orwell, George. Nineteen eighty-four. Everyman’s Library, 2009.
2. Ely, Robin J., Debra E. Meyerson, and Martin N. Davidson. “Rethinking political correctness.” Harvard Business Review 84.9 (2006): 78.

Has society become too politically correct?

What was originally designed to prevent certain groups from being offended has turned into a witch hunt. From the television screens to the playground, we have all seen or heard something which is unambiguously offensive but on the flip side of the same coin terms such as ‘racist’ are flung at every minute contradiction. Even my own friends are guilty of this crime as is everyone else in the nation. Nationally it’s a joke to be sarcastic and is in line with the consensus of British humour but I’d liken political correctness to communism. In theory it sounds good but its execution makes it tyrannical mainly due to its extreme. Join me, as I delve deeper into what political correctness gets wrong and how it counterproductively threatens progress in the rights of women, the LGBTQ community and other minorities.

Racist, sexist and words of the like are so freely thrown around in the modern world even when it’s not relevant, that they seem to have lost their meaning. Once a negative name not to be associated with, it is now a playful pass between friends and I think society being too politically correct has something to do with it. These terms are tossed so freely their once catastrophic bearing and taboo nature as terminology has faded with them now being just valued as labels used by the oversensitive. Like the boy who cried wolf, the constant falsified uses of these words have drained them of their impact and significance.

I’ve mentioned the term political correctness but what does it even mean? Any time an argument is more about politically ‘right’ in the circumstances, as opposed to whatever the facts or the evidence says, would be ‘PC’. A term pioneered by the more accepting millennial generation, in the modern age now the words are used almost solely for progressive ‘political correctness’, generally as a positive totem on the Left, and a stick to bash the Left with by the Right. The OED defines Political Correctness as: ‘The avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.’ Who could argue with that? Well, loads of people, actually. The possible positive impact it bares to society, learning and business from diversity are credible and noteworthy however that doesn’t mean it should be impossible to question how diversity is brought about, or what is considered to be insulting, marginalising, or discriminatory.

Political correctness is unfortunately often treated as a way of shutting down debate, of acting like you are clearly more intelligent for having the ‘correct’ opinion, or that those who contradict you are attacking you. That doesn’t help persuade anyone who doesn’t share the same views as you but rather it alienates people who might otherwise sympathise and become a supporter. PC is politics, not truth and not law. There is no law enforcing political correctness. No matter how hard some would want you to believe, it’s not considered hate speech to be politically incorrect. Furthermore it’s not an incitement to violence as they would also care for you to believe. Saying words that a listener finds uncomfortable or unpleasant can be very politically incorrect but these words may be factually true, or a reasonable opinion, or even the starting point of a discussion. Declaring that simply hearing certain words or having to walk past a statue is actual violence, is absurd. What’s to stop everyone else attempting to ban things they don’t like? Pretending that we can restrict the right to take offence to oppressed minorities only, is politically delusional. Declaring that certain people don’t get to speak about a topic, white men for example, doesn’t make your point of view appealing to them. Nevertheless I’m not saying that since we have free speech we can say what we want. No not at all, common decency and respect among all peopel should be standard. What I’m trying to convey is that we can’t dismiss each other’s opinions and should openly discuss our maybe heavily differing views so to reach a compromised peace.

If you want to persuade someone that you are correct, you have to actually engage with them and not just blurt insults at them. Declaring them ‘racist’ or ‘islamophobic’ or worse may make you feel better, but it doesn’t help you win the argument, and it won’t help change their mind. However some would argue that in fact these sorts of people who are called out, feel political correctness is a negative only due to the lack of it in the past and so by the drastic progress made in the last few years, they are finally being called out on their discriminatory views. Honestly i agree with this since as an ethnic minority myself I know how hard it can be to live in a predominantly white country. I understand the unnatural amount of hate some people can have over the dumbest things but we can’t change their minds and create a world of love and equality if we don’t kill these weeds, we need to change their thought process no matter how disgusting and change them to see the path towards a life without global issues. They need to have this opportunity to voice their unadulterated opinion so we can assassinate it based on its prejudices or in the rare chance maybe even agree with a controversial yet factually sound outlook. Civil rights at one point in time would have been seen as politically incorrect or it would have be politically incorrect 50 years ago to think homosexuality wasn’t wrong, but thanks to people speaking the unfiltered truth about these controversial truths we wouldn’t have been able to make the advancements we have done as a society. No matter how low the chance we also can’t allow for PC to silence brilliant people who may bring about great change. We may never be able to understand each other fully but that doesn’t anyone can be dismissed out of hand.

People are entitled to an opinion, even the ‘wrong’ one, if it comes under their right to free speech, not a hate crime, and it’s very true that in the world there are some hateful people who will say or do things we don’t particularly like or agree with but even if we don’t like it, you nor I have the right to silence them. We only have the capability to change their minds through debate and discussion.

A fallback for political correctness supporters is to claim that: what it basically comes down to is political correctness means being a pleasant person. They would claim that political correctness is nothing more than treating others with respect. In some regard I can respect this idea they promote. When done correctly to the point in which discussion isn’t strangled by PC, it serves as a pivotal tool to respect the poor victims of life’s hardships, but isn’t this just having good manners? This argument would be the same as me saying to not be a hateful trash bag of a person. It isn’t a particularly fancy or new thing to know that we should respect and be nice to each other, that is an obvious concept to us and it is one of the earliest things we are taught, so doesn’t that kind of make the point of PC a bit redundant then? Is it just dressing up good manners with a political agenda? No, if PC was to be used in the right instances and only used for the genuine problems in the world then it wouldn’t appear to be so meaningless. Instead it would be a sacred tool to minimise the trauma survivors feel from their experiences and in fact help them to open up about it. However this is only possible if we as a society learned to use the right moderation of PC so we can meet each other half way.

So is being politically correct just being nice?

Being nice is not using hurtful words. It’s letting people speak, especially those who may not usually be heard. Being nice is not silencing people’s opinion. It is not telling people that they should shut up. It is not assuming the worst about people’s background or motives. Being nice is never sending anyone abuse for any reason, even if they disagree with you, even if you think they are very wrong. PC is used in relation to politics and social issues but down to its bare bones, it is ideologically the same due to being nice being such a vague catch-all term. The issue I’m attempting to raise is how when PC is too prevelant in some parts of the world, it can’t fully serve its purpose of advancement and may only hinder it by causing vital voices in discussions to be muted as a result of its unfiltered heartfelt nature.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: ‘Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.’Nothing is ever black and white, so by offering an alternate view that maybe heavily opposing or discriminatory, discussion and debate should be initiated so that views can be changed or understood, they shouldn’t be seen as an attack or insult. Society as a whole shouldn’t shy away from sensitive topics in fear of being politically incorrect. With PC in its purest form, we can effectively gain more rights for these minorities as we can learn to persuade the masses and not just try overpowering them. Personally I think helping the minorities to gain rights is more important than just being nice to them. PC has skewed the minds of society so much so that in order to stroke their own egos, the privileged who don’t want to actually do something about the grotesque grimace in the world, have an out to their own incompetence by waging crusades on people courageous enough to play devil’s advocate and discuss the key issues plaguing the world or by instead advising others to avoid using the words ‘white’ or ‘black’ since they can have ‘negative implications’. Negative Implications on whom? Which little boy or girl would be heartbroken to learn what they look like? It’s not offensive to describe a person; it’s just facts if it’s said in such safe terms. I and others who are informed would say that by teaching children that talking about things like race and religion is taboo, we vilify their perception on speaking about the big issues and are inevitably creating a future in which people do not talk about their problems as it may be seen as inappropriate. We shouldn’t be promoting such nonsense, we should in reality teach them that these rabid issues in society deserve to be tackled and put down.

How can you fix the current state of political correctness?

Well in reality there aren’t very many things we need to do since a main thing if fixing the problem of PC having gone mad in our society, is to not making it a free speech debate. In the current debate free speech and PC are stationed as enemies, even I’m guilty of doing it in my speech but free speech is a pivotal part of life and our human rights but by making it not directly oppose PC it can be utilised to champion the polices of PC with trigger warnings and safe spaces coming under the cover of free speech. By promoting discussion of how to solve the genuine problems of access, opportunity, safety, and inclusion, we can further progress as the progressives we are. Also in my personal view, in order to reel in the level of PC shown, we must let speakers speak and protestors protest. A discussion must be made and solutions have to be agreed upon. If we are to live in a world where one side doesn’t listen to the other, then how can we help those who need it most?

Personal Background

I was born and raised in Yiwu, China, a city near Shanghai. It is famous for its international wholesale market, which exports hundreds of thousands made-in-China merchandise to all around the world. My father used to run a local engine oil business, my mother is a housewife. When I was 13, I moved to Canada to live with my aunt, who had immigrated to Canada a few years ago. It was mainly because my parents got into some complicated troubles at that time, therefore they could not spare enough time and effort to take very good care of me. They also heard that Canada has very advanced education system, so they believed that sending me to Canada would be a great opportunity for me. I was so excited to start a new life abroad, mostly because I heard that Canadian high schools have very little homework. My friends were also jealous of me being able to escape the heavy workload and the weekly tests of Chinese high school. So Canada I went, along with nothing else but a suitcase that packed two pairs of pants and one jacket.

I lived in my aunt’s apartment in the first two months of my arrival, then I moved to homestay for shorter commute distance to school. During my four years of high school, I had three homestay. First one is with 86-year-old Leo from Czechoslovakia. The second is with Martha and Frank from Columbia. The third is with Li and Huang from China. After graduating from high school, I started going to SFU. I also moved in with my boyfriend, Zhang. I started my university career with economics major, because I was not sure what I wanted to do with my life yet, and many of my Chinese friends had chosen economics. Two semesters after, I took an online statistics course and found it very interesting, so I decided to take more statistics course and maybe transfer to statistics major. However, the statistics major require a minor, preferably computer science. As I was trying to work on both the statistics major and the computer science minor, the workload was much heavier than my expectation, and the complexity of the math courses involved was really challenging. I lost many hair, weight, and confidence trying to catch up with the program. So I eventually transferred to the education faculty, which I really liked and loved. I am very happy to be where I am right now.

A Critical Event

In my past seven years of living in Canada, I have noticed that Canadians take political correctness very seriously, especially the way they talk. When talking with Canadians, I often sense that they are paying a lot of attention to their choice of words in order to avoid offending any minority groups.

One time I was in my Grade 12 art class, one of my classmate, Ocean, was chatting with her friends happily. Ocean was saying that people often astonished to learned her name, because it is also a common noun “Ocean”, not a commonly used name , like Sara or Emily. She said that one time someone learned her name before meeting her in person, and that person assumed she is Chinese. And they all started to laugh.

I happened to pass by them. I was about to grab some acrylic paint from the shelf behind them. And suddenly they all stoped talking and laughing, and looked at me with a guilty and sorry look.

It was really awkward because I was not offended at all. Yes, it is a little stereotypical to think that people who have weird English name are usually Chinese, but to me, this types of thinking are not stigma. It is more of a funny joke, not an insult. In fact, I would laugh about Chinese people having weird English name, too. I knew Chinese whose names are Circle, Hill, Smile, Bright, Christmas, and X. And we laugh about it, we also make fun of it sometimes. It was not a big deal. So, what is it that imposed this sense of guilt? I did not know how to respond to their apologize. I could not accept it because I never need it in the first place, but I could not refuse it, either. Because I appreciate this mindfulness of cultural diversity and the efforts to make an inclusive environment in Canada, even though it limits how I say certain things or refer to people. As time passes, I started noticing myself developing the same habit. I hesitated when greeting people during holiday season. Should it be “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holiday”? Or should I say “Happy Lunar New Year” instead of “Chinese New Year?”?

Theoretical Discussion

“According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the word sorry means “feeling sadness, sympathy, or disappointment, especially when something unpleasing has happened or been done.” It stands to reason that the official meaning of sorry can be used if a person feels regret about an action. This reasoning is consistent with Humber (2008) who notes that it is appropriate to use the word sorry if you have committed a wrong action. He notes that sorry will make the situation more pleasant, although, it will not solve your mistake. However, Canadians seem to use the word in a different way. Onstad (1999), for example, maintains that Canadian culture is “an apology-mad culture” (p. 23).

Most Canadians would acknowledge that the word sorry is an important part of the Canadian psyche. In terms of what research can tell us about this phenomenon, Onstad (1999) points out that people often apologize in the Canadian media, and because of this overuse of the word, sorry has almost become meaningless. It seems that many Canadians no longer know what the actual meaning of sorry is anymore but tend to use it as a reflex or as meaningless form of politeness (Keeler, 2017). How could a Canadian apology become meaningful? Wiebe (2018) believes that an apology will only become acceptable if it is accompanied by actual action because “words are meaningless unless actions and policies change” (p. 11).

Significantly, Keeler (2017) points out that an important Canadian value is being different from American culture. Although a number of authors have noted that Canadians apologize all the time—sometimes even as a reflex or nicety—the word sorry is reportedly not as common in the United States (Keeler, 2017). In fact, Keeler (2017) argues that in the United States, sorry is sometimes seen as a sign of guilt or even weakness. It seems that Canadians want to be seen as different from Americans, and one way they do this is by apologizing frequently. Conventional wisdom has it that people use sorry to express regret. However, Canadians could also use this word to avoid potential conflicts. Based on my own experiences, this way of using the word sorry is not the case in the Dutch culture.

It is well known that Canadian nation has a reputation for multiculturalism and peacemaking. Hence, Canadians have a lot of pride and may want to maintain this positive self-image. Keeler (2017) notes that people who apologize quickly are more likely to minimize conflict. This practice can be witnessed in official Canadian communications. For example, Sillars (1998) notes that Canadian authorities use the apologize-tactic often in official apology statements. Keeler (2017) also believes that the Canadian government retains official relationships by repeating the diplomatic “sorry”. This practice could be understood as a way for the Canadian government to maintain its positive relationships with different groups and maintain political stability. In fact, Onstad (1999, p. 23) maintains that “the apology has become a convenient political tool” for Canada.”

Over seventy percent of Canadian confirmed that they are self-censored to avoid offending (Augus Reid, 2016). Political correctness is increasingly becoming a Canadian etiquette. Just like every superhero, great power comes with flaws. With the rise comes the opposing argument, the anti-political correctness, such as political correctness harms the clarity and conciseness of conversation, threaten culture identity and social attitudes (Lalonde, 2000). These opposing arguments, my personal critical events, and my early experience of living in a multicultural environment, these three factors led me into thinking about the controversy of political correctness. According to Lalonde (2000), there is two great questions to the political correctness controversy, “Why this apparently increasing focus in politics on achieving social and political change through changing culture and changing language?” and “For those who are politically committed to substantive social and political change (whether on the right or on the left), what place can a politics centred around culture and language have in a political strategy which is to have some chance of success?” This question has no perfect answer. I would say political correctness is beneficial to the society to promote equality. But it should not constraint itself in the form of language usage. The polite, politically correct languages are meant to be a reflection of the respect towards different culture and ethnicity, a diverse yet inclusive environment.

References

1. Augus Reid Institute of Public Interest Research, August 29, 2016, Majority of Canadians say political correctness has “gone too far”, For Immediate Release Canadian Public Opinion Poll Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016.08.27-Political-CorrectnessFinal.pdf
2. Fairclough, N. (2003). `Political Correctness: The Politics of Culture and Language. Discourse & Society, 14(1), 17-28. doi:10.1177/0957926503014001927
3. Lalonde, R. N., Doan, L., & Patterson, L. A. (2000). Political Correctness Beliefs, Threatened Identities, and Social Attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 317-336. doi:10.1177/1368430200033006