To Be Or Not To Be : Politically Correct?

Section 1

There is a war out there, a war that is so subtle that only those who are affected or victims of the collateral damage are able to attest to its existence. Those who would dare acknowledge its existence only expose themselves to the fiery darts of assailing enemies from all around. It is truly a war fought against an invisible foe, and sometimes it seems as if we can't really identify where the enemy is coming from. It is not a battle fought with biological weaponry or bombs and guns but it is truly a battle of attrition, a war fought with something as simple as words. 

Political correctness: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. Basically, the practice of defining terms that can and cannot be used to describe something. 

To be politically correct 

 The concept behind political correctness is a wonderful idea, it is a means to stop or prevent the use of language or actions to disadvantage the already disadvantaged (or at least perceived as disadvantaged). It is a broad term with sub-meanings and applications but I'll stick to the definition above to provide a context for our discussion. It is only natural for people to seek the politest way to speak or address people, therefore people are more comfortable using words that do not have a negative connotation. Words can be hurtful, words can be used to torment, torture, deject, injure, offend, afflict, oppress, put down, defeat, persecute, intimidate, devalue, victimize, disrespect, agonize, brutalize, abuse, ridicule, chastise or invalidate people and their emotions. And so yes if one wants to hurt someone with words one can do that, there are more than enough ways to put a point across. So a society that minds what they say least they hurt one another should be the aim of everyone. But the idea of being politically correct like any good thing can be used for bad or at least to oppress the very people it is supposed to protect. 

To not be politically correct

Who decides what is politically correct? is it the people who are supposedly being victimized or is it the “normal” do-gooders who get offended on behalf of others? Herein we have a slippery slope, I am not talking about words that are intentionally used to hurt people, I am talking about words that are used to describe, for example. What should we call you, differently abled, specially-abled, physically challenged, handicapped, able-bodied, or just disabled? The argument in no way is supposed to hurt a group, but it is used to illustrate a point, in the effort to be politically correct people lose their right to freedom of speech and others have been victimized because they used the wrong term to refer to someone, my question still stands, who decides what is politically correct? The deception is that society will always side with the one who is deemed disadvantaged forgetting that there are two parties involved all deserving of the right to freedom. 

To the socially disadvantaged (or at least perceived as disadvantaged) 

I was asked to write an essay on special people and throughout the essay, the biggest problem wasn’t about what to write but what to call them because apparently almost everything I could use had been deemed offensive by some news article, blog, or movement and I couldn’t understand why so much censorship in language. I do understand that certain phrases can be offensive and derogatory but where do we draw the line on policing language? Or at least who gets to choose what is offensive? And to the Offended should we allow these words to really have so much power over us? 

To what extent are you going to allow a word to have power over you? You can be described by a word but never let it define who you are, we are much more than what we can and cannot do. I cannot fly a plane and if society comes up with a term to describe people who lack the ability to fly a plane, then let society do that, but I will not be defined by that term, and I won’t let society use my lack of ability to fly a plane as a disadvantage to me. And so, if a society wants to support people like me who can’t fly planes, then let them, I’ll gladly accept the help, but that in no way implies weakness on my part. Victims of disability should stop victimizing those who are not victims of disability by guilt-tripping them and using language as an arsenal in a war that shouldn’t even be fought. Political correctness can be institutionalized to the extent that it restricts freedom of speech. 

Section 2

Hate speech; is abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. Here we go again, in the definition of hate speech, they just had to include sexual orientation: the only group of people who are at the forefront of advocating for politically correct terms is the LGBTQIA+(Throw in body-positive movements and the feminists in there), this is the only group that wants to censor language on a cooperate and interpersonal level on the basis of nothing else other than feelings and delusions.

The Tolerance of Intolerance 

Let me sum it up in this way, the concept of Political Correctness is inherently paradoxical, we say the cornerstone of democracy is the right to freedom of speech, this is the principle that any individual can voice their ideas without the threat of censorship or other legal repercussions, but what happens when those personal ideas are deemed as hurtful to others, or dare I say it "not politically Correct”. We seemingly live in a tolerant society but in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be "intolerant to intolerance”, now if our so-called tolerant society permits the existence of intolerant philosophies then it is no longer tolerant. A simple example to illustrate this is, if a disadvantaged group wants to express their views we shut up and listen since we are a tolerant society but anyone who wants to express a view that is not accepted by the Same movement will be labeled a “bigot”, “fat phobic”, “misogynist” and the list goes on. And in that regard, we are not a tolerant society. We see this all over the world or at least in parts where certain movements have gained traction, anyone who says something against certain movements is canceled, and so where is the freedom of speech in that? 

Section 3

The problem with racism isn’t the existence of different races, but it is the issue of overgeneralization. Many people of different races do over-generalize about the differences bigotedly and biasedly condemn other humans for being members of other races. I find the race arguments extremely depressing as when I look at it from an objective lens I discover that there are victims on both sides of the spectrum and whether we look at it from a historical perspective or not it is just a bad situation for everyone involved. Sometimes I am tempted to think that maybe we are all just fighting the wrong enemy and therefore the battle will never be won. One man put it this way, "we shouldn’t be defined by the worst of what we were in the past but we should be defined by what we want to become in the future. People are motivated to change when you give them a vision of victories that are possible and not constantly reminding them of injuries to be avoided". Why can't the narrative just be changed instead of seeing black and white and all the sins associated with our forefathers and cultures we just see people.