The (Semi-) Myth Of Political Correctness

[Baltic Finland (Ancient)]

Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

To hell with PC. Some people deserve to be offended.

That's fine. The point is that the offended have the right to raise their voices in response, and the response of "Oh, that's just political correctness" is little more than dismissiveness without addressing the concerns raised. Of course, a person has the right to do this, but it doesn't advance the dialogue.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?

Nobody is stating that you don't have that right. I'm not sure where you got the idea from that anyone is trying to take it away, or has succeeded in doing so.

[Baltic Finland (Ancient)]

Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?

Nobody is stating that you don't have that right. I'm not sure where you got the idea from that anyone is trying to take it away, or has succeeded in doing so.

Just stating my opinion. Isn't what I said what political correctness means?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nobody is stating that you don't have that right. I'm not sure where you got the idea from that anyone is trying to take it away, or has succeeded in doing so.

Just stating my opinion. Isn't what I said what political correctness means?

That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want. If there were such a movement, it would run straight up against the First Amendment of the Constitution (the most popular of the amendments), and wouldn't stand a chance of passing any law, or of having any such law upheld by the courts if passed.

See, my point is that "politically correct" has become a catchphrase that people use to dismiss criticism rather than addressing it. If someone wants to stand up and say something like "Homosexuals are degenerates who are destroying the foundation of our national culture" (a phrase I bumped into just recently in the comments over on Rep. Allen West's Facebook page), then I'm going to call out that person for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of scum. Now, this person is perfectly free to dismiss my response with the phrase "That's so P.C.". However, in the process, he hasn't actually responded to my accusation. He hasn't stated how considering gay people to be degenerates who are destroying the foundation of American is anything other than a bigoted view held by a homophobic piece of scum. In fact, he's essentially ceded the point by essentially asserting his right to say such a thing without the consequence of a response.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I was having a discussion on Facebook regarding concepts of free speech with various friends, and one posted this video from Dr. Ben Carson, Republican poster boy and future hope of the right. In this video, Dr. Carson makes the argument that political correctness is the death knell of open and honest discussion in modern discourse, insofar as whenever someone makes a point that could be considered controversial to anyone, one response is generally "I'm offended", which means that said offense effectively neutralizes one's ability to continue communicating said point.

But...why?

What he's saying is that people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of offending someone. Well, so what? So he offends someone. Then that person has the right to state that they're offended. At that point, it doesn't stop. He has the right to respond to that person if he wishes to do so, and to perhaps educate him or her regarding his point. He has the right to ignore that person. He has the right to stop, think about what he's said, change his mind, and agree, or at least modify his position. What Dr. Carson is really saying here seems to be "You shouldn't be offended by what I've said". Well, who is he to say what we should or shouldn't be offended by? How is it that he lacks such courage in his convictions that offense caused to another is cause for him to stop speaking? And why should anyone take his reluctance to speak further in the face of offense as cause to stop showing offense? "I'm offended by your offense" is just nonsense. The man needs to put on his big boy pants, speak his mind regardless, and stop blaming "PC" when people express dissent from his viewpoints.

Seriously, what most people call "PC" seems to me to actually be the way that free speech is supposed to work.

Now, I'm not saying that municipalities and institutions such as universities haven't occasionally gone overboard in terms of "creating a safe space" or "promoting diversity" at the expense of free expression (thus the "semi" modifier in the title), but this hardly seems to be evidence of a significant trend in society, especially since such crackdowns have generally been successfully challenged in court.

Of course, in the interests of free speech, I welcome dissenting viewpoints....

I agree with this, although you've missed adding in the fine point which excludes language being designed to offend from being protected under freedom of speech. Which coincidentally is where most arguments around political correctness start.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I was having a discussion on Facebook regarding concepts of free speech with various friends, and one posted this video from Dr. Ben Carson, Republican poster boy and future hope of the right. In this video, Dr. Carson makes the argument that political correctness is the death knell of open and honest discussion in modern discourse, insofar as whenever someone makes a point that could be considered controversial to anyone, one response is generally "I'm offended", which means that said offense effectively neutralizes one's ability to continue communicating said point.

But...why?

What he's saying is that people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of offending someone. Well, so what? So he offends someone. Then that person has the right to state that they're offended. At that point, it doesn't stop. He has the right to respond to that person if he wishes to do so, and to perhaps educate him or her regarding his point. He has the right to ignore that person. He has the right to stop, think about what he's said, change his mind, and agree, or at least modify his position. What Dr. Carson is really saying here seems to be "You shouldn't be offended by what I've said". Well, who is he to say what we should or shouldn't be offended by? How is it that he lacks such courage in his convictions that offense caused to another is cause for him to stop speaking? And why should anyone take his reluctance to speak further in the face of offense as cause to stop showing offense? "I'm offended by your offense" is just nonsense. The man needs to put on his big boy pants, speak his mind regardless, and stop blaming "PC" when people express dissent from his viewpoints.

Seriously, what most people call "PC" seems to me to actually be the way that free speech is supposed to work.

Now, I'm not saying that municipalities and institutions such as universities haven't occasionally gone overboard in terms of "creating a safe space" or "promoting diversity" at the expense of free expression (thus the "semi" modifier in the title), but this hardly seems to be evidence of a significant trend in society, especially since such crackdowns have generally been successfully challenged in court.

Of course, in the interests of free speech, I welcome dissenting viewpoints....

I agree with this, although you've missed adding in the fine point which excludes language being designed to offend from being protected under freedom of speech. Which coincidentally is where most arguments around political correctness start.

But that's not an actual thing that is happening under the law. Certain words end up becoming more socially acceptable than others as time goes on, but that's just how these things have always gone. No words are excluded from freedom of speech so long as they're not designed to directly incite violence or threaten others. Seriously. You can go outside right now and shout "nigger" at the top of your lungs, and you're protected from being arrested for doing so...okay, maybe not, since it's late and there are noise ordinances, but it's not the language itself that would get you in trouble.

[Baltic Finland (Ancient)]

Just stating my opinion. Isn't what I said what political correctness means?

That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want. If there were such a movement, it would run straight up against the First Amendment of the Constitution (the most popular of the amendments), and wouldn't stand a chance of passing any law, or of having any such law upheld by the courts if passed.

See, my point is that "politically correct" has become a catchphrase that people use to dismiss criticism rather than addressing it. If someone wants to stand up and say something like "Homosexuals are degenerates who are destroying the foundation of our national culture" (a phrase I bumped into just recently in the comments over on Rep. Allen West's Facebook page), then I'm going to call out that person for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of scum. Now, this person is perfectly free to dismiss my response with the phrase "That's so P.C.". However, in the process, he hasn't actually responded to my accusation. He hasn't stated how considering gay people to be degenerates who are destroying the foundation of American is anything other than a bigoted view held by a homophobic piece of scum. In fact, he's essentially ceded the point by essentially asserting his right to say such a thing without the consequence of a response.

You do realize we're on the same side, right?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want. If there were such a movement, it would run straight up against the First Amendment of the Constitution (the most popular of the amendments), and wouldn't stand a chance of passing any law, or of having any such law upheld by the courts if passed.

See, my point is that "politically correct" has become a catchphrase that people use to dismiss criticism rather than addressing it. If someone wants to stand up and say something like "Homosexuals are degenerates who are destroying the foundation of our national culture" (a phrase I bumped into just recently in the comments over on Rep. Allen West's Facebook page), then I'm going to call out that person for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of scum. Now, this person is perfectly free to dismiss my response with the phrase "That's so P.C.". However, in the process, he hasn't actually responded to my accusation. He hasn't stated how considering gay people to be degenerates who are destroying the foundation of American is anything other than a bigoted view held by a homophobic piece of scum. In fact, he's essentially ceded the point by essentially asserting his right to say such a thing without the consequence of a response.

You do realize we're on the same side, right?

I misunderstood your use of the phrase "Political correctness is fucking bullshit". It can be read two ways, and I've been exposed to the asshole way of saying that for too long. My apologies.

[Baltic Finland (Ancient)]

You do realize we're on the same side, right?

I misunderstood your use of the phrase "Political correctness is fucking bullshit". It can be read two ways, and I've been exposed to the asshole way of saying that for too long. My apologies.

No harm done. I live in Finland, where butthurt political correctness -induced double standards are an everyday phenomenon, especially among the racist nationalists.

[Big Jim P]

To hell with PC. Some people deserve to be offended.

That's fine. The point is that the offended have the right to raise their voices in response, and the response of "Oh, that's just political correctness" is little more than dismissiveness without addressing the concerns raised. Of course, a person has the right to do this, but it doesn't advance the dialogue.

I agree. The offended have the same right to free speech that I do. I also have the right to dismiss anything that is an invalid concern or does not concern me.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Use examples.

The main thing I can think of is when black people from non-America get called African Americans.

I find that hilarious.

I find it amusing that an Indian is the one to mention this.

The Portuguese language version of orkut used "afro-brasileiro (negro)" as translation for what was most likely African-American/black.

When Portugal got about as many black people as Rio de Janeiro, and all other Portuguese-speaking areas other than us, them, Goa and Macau are black-majority.

Also hispânico/latino. Multiétnico. Most Brazilians are a single ethnicity, but they putted it on for the lack of a better option for mestiço/pardo since, understand world, we-don't-speak-Spanish, thank you very much. When I understood what was ethnicity I changed it for "caucasiano (branco)" and people poke fun on me for "denial".

[GCMG]

I don't disagree with the OP, except in its use of Political Correctness. Although, not continuing discussion when someone says they're offended is Political Correctness gone mad.* I suppose this means I also criticise the use of the example that inspired the OP. You're all wrong, GCMG says so... so it must be so.

PC Gone Mad, generally refers to things like stopping children at schools from hugging each other. (I'm pretty sure there was a thread here on that but I'm having difficulty finding it so maybe not. It's possible that the story was something different. I think the title was along the lines of "School bans best friends".)

Alternatively, it's for things like the whole BC/AD versus B/CE thing... where things that are wrong replace things that may be wrong but often don't have anything wrong with them at all. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of things. Naturally, people disagree on the wrongness, which is why people declare that a European Common Era is somehow more accommodating than Before Christ. (And it's not even like we're saying that this is the point where the first world war can be said to exist... i.e. there is an existence of even an inkling of a truly global community. For most of this period only Europe and Asia had any meaningful contact with other areas of the world, i.e. whichever of the two wasn't them.)

In a discussion, something like the below does happen but it's not what I primarily associate Political Correctness as a thing with being.

"Maori were bastards too."
"That's not very PC."

Basically, the common perception is (and I'm sure this is familiar to everyone) is that the British were the baddies. Maori are treated both as being far more united/meaningfully similar than really was the case, and broader points are ignored (such as, um, the British govt. was generally bad to everyone except itself... but more significantly things like the Musket Wars).**

This is more in line with the criticism of inconvenient statements that seems to be the thrust of the OP. At the heart though, it's similar. Situations where broadly true concepts are applied to events/circumstances/ideas where they're not relevant/true. I guess I'm saying that Political Correctness arises from simplification.

*Seriously, the idea is that people shouldn't be offended. That's the PC view. It's Political Correctness gone mad because it mutates into, "One can't say anything that causes offence." As the OP points out, just because someone is offended doesn't mean that their offence is based on valid grounds and, of course, even when that isn't the case, whomever is speaking should stop and think about the remark. Explain things or reconsider.

**Note, that last example is questionable. The Wars were conducted essentially as Maori conflicts with European weapons (the muskets), how Maori got the muskets is played up. It's just inconvenient in this era, where Maori-ness is trying to be restored and tension still exist, to present Maori in any kind of negative light. That talk of a Maori Holocaust was actually a Thing says something. The narrative is (and this is factually grounded) British govt. bad... discussing anything that complicates this view isn't PC. The political conscience of the time, disagrees.

[Conservative Conservationists]

Depends what you believe. If you follow Basil Bernstein's theory of class, codes and control, the language used defines what occurs. The battle for language is a first step towards controlling the outcome.

This occurs all the time. If you listen to the sides for and against migrants arriving by boats, you will see the language change between "illegals" and "asylum seekers"

Language is always being manipulated for personal reasons. The politically correct want people to follow their beliefs and try and achieve it each time they deem a word acceptable or not to say.

[Ethel mermania]

To hell with PC. Some people deserve to be offended.

That's fine. The point is that the offended have the right to raise their voices in response, and the response of "Oh, that's just political correctness" is little more than dismissiveness without addressing the concerns raised. Of course, a person has the right to do this, but it doesn't advance the dialogue.

you really cant argued against offeded, it changes the conversation from the one at hand to being "offended".

once offended comes into the game, its morality, with the "offensive one automaticly being placed in the" bad? possition. and the one who claims offense in the "just" position.

[Big Jim P]

That's fine. The point is that the offended have the right to raise their voices in response, and the response of "Oh, that's just political correctness" is little more than dismissiveness without addressing the concerns raised. Of course, a person has the right to do this, but it doesn't advance the dialogue.

you really cant argued against offeded, it changes the conversation from the one at hand to being "offended".

once offended comes into the game, its morality, with the "offensive one automaticly being placed in the" bad? possition. and the one who claims offense in the "just" position.

Whether or not the offense is justified.

[Alien Space Bats]

That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want. If there were such a movement, it would run straight up against the First Amendment of the Constitution (the most popular of the amendments), and wouldn't stand a chance of passing any law, or of having any such law upheld by the courts if passed.

See, my point is that "politically correct" has become a catchphrase that people use to dismiss criticism rather than addressing it. If someone wants to stand up and say something like "Homosexuals are degenerates who are destroying the foundation of our national culture" (a phrase I bumped into just recently in the comments over on Rep. Allen West's Facebook page), then I'm going to call out that person for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of scum. Now, this person is perfectly free to dismiss my response with the phrase "That's so P.C.". However, in the process, he hasn't actually responded to my accusation. He hasn't stated how considering gay people to be degenerates who are destroying the foundation of American is anything other than a bigoted view held by a homophobic piece of scum. In fact, he's essentially ceded the point by essentially asserting his right to say such a thing without the consequence of a response.

To play Devil's Advocate for just one second, opponents of "political correctness" will argue that "impolitic" speech in the workplace can get you fired. This, they say, is an offense against "free speech" and should not happen. They''ll cite examples of media figures or political aides who said something that offended some women, LGBT individuals, members of a racial or ethnic minority, disabled persons (or whomever) and got the axe for it. "Being politically incorrect can cost you your job!" they scream, "And that's just wrong."

My response to this? If you're in the public eye on someone else's dime, then you had better be keenly aware of just how much flak your boss is willing to draw from your comments; and if you're in the public eye on your dime, then you'd better be ready to have people punch you back in the pocketbook. If you slut-shame women in public, you're making your employer choose between you and his or her potential viewers/listeners/customers/voters/workplace environment/sensibilities — so don't be surprised when said employer cuts you off at the knees. Aren't conservatives always saying that actions have consequences, anyway?

Again, what they're bitching about is that we now live in a culture where minorities, women, gays and lesbians, etc., have real political and economy power — maybe not as much as rich white men do (on a per capita basis) — but still enough that they can no longer be ridiculed or marginalized with impunity. Thus the complaint: Offending "the wrong people" is no longer "cost-free". Whatever happened to the good old days, when a white man could tell a good n-gg-r joke (or a good joke about how stupid women are) and get away with it? Oh, the injustice of it all!!!

To which I say (once more): Suck it up, 'cause you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[Quintium]

Let's be honest with ourselves: Conservative carpring about political correctness is largely an effort to avoid getting called out for being racist, sexist, or homophobic.

And perhaps it's the people calling others racist, sexist or homophobic instead of responding to what they said who are the problem. If their point is really that nonsensical, why not explain that to them? Why immediately play the bigot card? That stifles public debate and creates an effect called 'polarisation' - the right moves to the right and the left moves to the left and ultimately you'll have a country that can barely be governed anymore because everyone's bickering over who's racist and who's politically correct.

It's as if Conservative America is telling the rest of us, "Look, if I want to call a black man 'nigger', a woman 'slut', and a gay man 'faggot", that's not my problem — it's yours. Grow a pair, accept my right to offend you, AND DON'T TALK BACK."

That has nothing to do with political correctness. I'll give you a better example.
Recently, many progressive politicians wanted to change a nineteenth-century royal carriage in my country because it depicted black people offering gifts to white people. That's political correctness. The changing, denying or ignoring of certain parts of reality, or history, or certain parts of the public debate in order to prevent offending people you've decided you do not want to offend. It's blatant revisionism for ideological reasons.

But don't whine when I rhetorically tear you a bloody new asshole, calling you out for your small-minded hatefulness and unsuitability as even a poor facsimile of a human being.

Well, I've never rhetorically had a new asshole torn by anyone. They've tried, but they've always failed, and you are no exception.
The best they could do were strawmen, insults, harsh language, threats and reports to moderators on an online forum.

[Madenia]

Political correctness is tearing society apart.

It's why I'm always arguing with feminists about sexism in pop culture. They think the most idiotic things are sexist. Maxims are sexist. News flash: We are appreciating your beauty not objectifying you.

We also have to make gender neutral terms according to them. That is an awful idea. Please don't tamper with the English language women: Mankind includes you too.

And can we stop calling Christmas trees holiday trees? We all know it is from Christmas.

[Liriena]

People whining about "political correctness" don't have any idea what the fuck they are talking about.

[Liriena]

Political correctness is tearing society apart.

It's why I'm always arguing with feminists about sexism in pop culture. They think the most idiotic things are sexist. Maxims are sexist. News flash: We are appreciating your beauty not objectifying you.

We also have to make gender neutral terms according to them. That is an awful idea. Please don't tamper with the English language women: Mankind includes you too.

And can we stop calling Christmas trees holiday trees? We all know it is from Christmas.

No one is forcing you to call Christmas trees "holiday trees" or use gender neutral terms. If your convictions are so feeble that someone's criticism of certain cultural issues drives you to self-censorship, that's your own damn fault. You don't get to blame political correctness for cowardice and self-censorship.

[Frisivisia]

Political correctness is tearing society apart.

It's why I'm always arguing with feminists about sexism in pop culture. They think the most idiotic things are sexist. Maxims are sexist. News flash: We are appreciating your beauty not objectifying you.

We also have to make gender neutral terms according to them. That is an awful idea. Please don't tamper with the English language women: Mankind includes you too.

And can we stop calling Christmas trees holiday trees? We all know it is from Christmas.

Yeah, stupid fuckin' women should stop bein' offended and let me keep appreciating their beauty!

Fuckin' gender-neutral terms, bein' more accurate and acting as a consciousness-raiser for equality! Fuck that!

Yeah, stupid fuckin' non-Christians, wantin' equal representation 'n shit! Fuck that!

[Astograth]

Inevitably, those arguing against "political correctness" are those not from a minority group. That you think none of this is a big deal and ugh get over it is what's offensive.

[Kumrann]

People whining about "political correctness" don't have any idea what the fuck they are talking about.

Its arrogant to suggest that because someone disagrees with something automatically means they don't understand what their talking about. Of course there's lots of anti PC nonsense with people saying "we have to call Christmas Wintermass or you cant order a black coffee". But its wrong to pretend that despite being well intended it's not flawed - it's gone beyond a sort of organised politeness to something that does limit political discourse there are a number of issues that politicians (I can only speak for the UK) are unable to have an open discussion about. Surely the sign of a mature, free and liberal society is to not have political correctness but to have one were people are allowed to say what they want so say & also one were people can rightfully defend themselves and feel offended without being told they need to grow a 'thicker skin' ?

[Thama]

Hello, I'm a Polish-born Irish Caucasian male and Nigga this shit is dank 'yo.

Political Correctness. What of it? Well, people often mistake Free Speech as the right to insult whoever they want. It's not. It's the right to express opinion. Your opinion might offend someone. That's okay, it's usually their problem, unless you're a racial supremacist or hyper-conservative. But whether your opinion is right or not doesn't matter. What matters is that you're allowed to express it. Political Correctness is complicated. And I've ran out of thought because I'm currently sick as fuck.