Has Political Correctness Gone too Far?

[Quokkastan]

If the complaint is that Political Correctness attempts to unfairly control and constrain dialog, and is used to dismiss what may be reasonable criticism, then surely crying "PC gone mad!"* is guilty of exactly the same.

How about, instead of mentioning Political Correctness at all, you point out why - in this specific instance - the other person is being unreasonable? Instead of both just whining that the other guy won't let you talk?




*Unless, by "PC gone mad!" you mean that Skynet is locking on to targets in Russia, in which case feel free to make a big deal out of it.

[Ifreann]

Calling someone racist is just censoring and suppressing them, especially if they've been spouting blatantly racist remarks. Remember that!

It's censorship when you say things I don't like. It's free speech when I say things you don't like.

[The New Dawn Commune]

I say, it's gone fucking mad. The aim of political correctness was to allow constructive political debate, within the confines of a safe and orderly place. However, these places are far from safe and also far from constructive and free.

Rather than encourage safe dialogue, it has forced people to avoid touchy feely topics such as race, religion, and politics altogether. In our new age, we were taught that words do hurt, however has one even thought to consider the personal reputation and damage that words like racist, bigot, or sexist can do to someone? Without them even being true? That person is forever painted in the public limelight as that type of character, whose opinions are forever subject to either ridicule or shame, despite any evidence of him'her actually encompassing those "political beliefs". So in many ways, political correctness is backwards, favoring one political ideology over another and using a broad brush to paint all those who disagree with this prevailing trend as either a racist or bigot with no real evidence.

The problem is escalated even further on college campuses.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/politic ... l-problem/

Alrighty, so I'm going to delete the far fetched examples because honestly that's not the side of the coin I want to display. In all honesty these cases are far and few in between and they are very extreme examples.

However, the much more common occurrence as well as the much more annoying occurrence is one that happens all the time. A TV set doesn't hire enough female writers, or there aren't enough Hispanics, or some other ridiculous claim.

The claims that say because a field isn't diverse enough, or a company doesn't hire enough of blank, it is therefore racist and should come under fire. Or a TV show is too violent to be shown on television, or controversy is bad and should be discouraged. These are the issues that come up ALL the time, and are the ones that in my honest opinion are condemnable.

Examples:

Accusation of rick and morty, a show that deals with and openly discourages sexism, as being sexist. - http://www.themarysue.com/rick-and-mort ... e-writers/

Gamergate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

Bernie Sanders being boo'd for tackling the root causes of unjust poverty rather than just hoping on the BLM train

These are the issues that rarely make national headlines, but occur in our day to day lives and in our businesses and localities. They stem from an overarching need in society these days, for everyone to be appeased. And extremists from all angles will not stop to let you know when you hurt their feelings, and equality means that their views and interpretations of what happened are raised over yours.

And lastly, the term "political correctness" is a dynamic and ever evolving term in our political and civic landscape that is not contained to what it originally meant many years ago.

Lenin, in his treatise What Is To Be Done, said:

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is – either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a “third” ideology).

Political correctness requires us to think through it in order to make sense of it. Political correctness must be viewed dialectically and, when done so, reveals its contradictory and bourgeois nature. Political correctness contains two aspects:

1. Create a safe space for dialogue and debate
2. Discourage insensitive or hateful speech

The creation of a safe space for dialogue or debate necessitates the discouragement of insensitive or hateful speech and the same is true vice versa. The problem is that these two aspects are in conflict with each other. Creation of a safe space means the destruction of unsafe spaces which includes things that upset popular sensitivities. This allows the appearance of discussion of controversial topics while those topics are essentially unchanged. A discussion about LGBTQ rights, for example, can be politically correct without being politically subversive. A discussion about class inequality may be politically correct (much attention since the election of Obama has been focused on this issue) while capital continues to conglomerate into a few hands. A trend predicted by Marx:

Competition among capitalists increases the accumulation of capital. Accumulation, where private property prevails, is the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, it is in general an inevitable consequence if capital is left to follow its natural course, and it is precisely through competition that the way is cleared for this natural disposition of capital. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 Section 4. The Accumulation of Capitals and the Competition among the Capitalists

As a Marxist-Leninist, I view political correctness to be bourgeois precisely because it disguises (making it ideological) the true nature, consisting of conflict, of post-industrial capitalist society.

[Liriena]

So, normalising abusive and discriminatory discourse in youth is your idea of "preparation" for adulthood? Wouldn't it be better to try and make the next generations better, so that they may improve this apparently horrid "real world" you speak of, rather than teach them to perpetuate the same problems of previous generations, devoid of any criticism?

Political correctness is not about combating abusive or discriminatory discourse or words or anything.

Uh, yeah, it is. That's the whole point. Anything else would fall outside the definition of political correctness.

It takes ordinary, everyday speech and tries to change it.

If said ordinary, everyday speech includes discriminatory language, trying to encourage a change would fall within the definition of political correctness. And, really, ordinary, everyday speech is in a state of constant flux already. At most, those who advocate for what you call "political correctness" are merely trying to steer the change towards a more inclusive form of speech.

It tries to make you afraid of speaking because you might offend someone.

Translation: It socially and culturally discourages, but doesn't actually ban, people from using discriminatory language, or expressing discriminatory sentiments.

It punishes those who do not go along with what is politically correct.

Punish them how? With social condemnation? Criticism?

[Neues Nationalsozialistiches Reich]

Although PC is a very laughable concept, it serves a purpose- exposing how soft, petty and childish our society is.

When someone sane says something that could potential be interpreted as racist/sexist, SJWs will sound the alarm bells of "CIS scum" "racist" "sexist" and "patriarchy" and will run crying for a safe space. When someone says something actually offensive and a sane person calls them out, they will cry and say "how dare you call me racist you SJW! PC gone mad!".

PC and anti-PC is like a war of two gangs of lunatics fighting against each other, with sane persons caught in the crossfire.

How is fighting against political correctness being a lunatic?

Political correctness is just a form of censorship and an attempt to control language.

I think what I said came out wrong. I am against PC, what I am against is how anti-PC has been hijacked by people actually aiming to offend.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Although PC is a very laughable concept, it serves a purpose- exposing how soft, petty and childish our society is.

When someone sane says something that could potential be interpreted as racist/sexist, SJWs will sound the alarm bells of "CIS scum" "racist" "sexist" and "patriarchy" and will run crying for a safe space. When someone says something actually offensive and a sane person calls them out, they will cry and say "how dare you call me racist you SJW! PC gone mad!".

PC and anti-PC is like a war of two gangs of lunatics fighting against each other, with sane persons caught in the crossfire.

How is fighting against political correctness being a lunatic?

Political correctness is just a form of censorship and an attempt to control language.

Sort of like how vaccines are government mind control I guess. But whatever gets your victimized ass to sleep at night.

[Greater Mackonia]

Political Correctness began as an "ironic" statement among New Left students in the 1970s parodying the Marxist-Leninist old guard, it was taken up by British newspapers in the 1990s to hurl at various things that would enrage the Daily Mail readership. The term always has been a humorous one to lampoon strawmen, that people on the Left or the Right are beginning to actually take it to be a serious doctrine in need of condemnation/enforcement is ludicrous.

The very idea that something can be 'Politically Correct' is nonsensical, politics is the ultimate in subjective arts with consensus literally only occurring by force, there cannot be an objective standard of political "correctness". By all means beliefs such as homophobia can be dismissed as fallacious in themselves to which the judgement can be extended to parties espousing such views, but to dismiss them in relation to the political process alone is pure ideological zealotry.

[Morr]

Political Correctness began as an "ironic" statement among New Left students in the 1970s parodying the Marxist-Leninist old guard, it was taken up by British newspapers in the 1990s to hurl at various things that would enrage the Daily Mail readership. The term always has been a humorous one to lampoon strawmen, that people on the Left or the Right are beginning to actually take it to be a serious doctrine in need of condemnation/enforcement is ludicrous.

The very idea that something can be 'Politically Correct' is nonsensical, politics is the ultimate in subjective arts with consensus literally only occurring by force, there cannot be an objective standard of political "correctness".

That's true, it's basically on par with "cultural Marxism".

By all means beliefs such as homophobia can be dismissed as fallacious in themselves to which the judgement can be extended to parties espousing such views, but to dismiss them in relation to the political process alone is pure ideological zealotry.

What exactly defines homophobia, and how is homophobia (which strikes me as a sentiment, not a belief) any more fallacious than any other sentiment?

[Greater Mackonia]

Political Correctness began as an "ironic" statement among New Left students in the 1970s parodying the Marxist-Leninist old guard, it was taken up by British newspapers in the 1990s to hurl at various things that would enrage the Daily Mail readership. The term always has been a humorous one to lampoon strawmen, that people on the Left or the Right are beginning to actually take it to be a serious doctrine in need of condemnation/enforcement is ludicrous.

The very idea that something can be 'Politically Correct' is nonsensical, politics is the ultimate in subjective arts with consensus literally only occurring by force, there cannot be an objective standard of political "correctness".

That's true, it's basically on par with "cultural Marxism".

By all means beliefs such as homophobia can be dismissed as fallacious in themselves to which the judgement can be extended to parties espousing such views, but to dismiss them in relation to the political process alone is pure ideological zealotry.

What exactly defines homophobia, and how is homophobia (which strikes me as a sentiment, not a belief) any more fallacious than any other sentiment?

I was just using homophobia as an example here, racism or misogyny would have equally worked. I suppose the typical argument against it is that homosexual activity is no different from heterosexual activity and there is no threat to the human population yet so its lack of procreation is not an issue (and even if it were, outlawing homosexuality would not change its non-procreative status and would hence be useless) and thus there is no reason to legally discriminate against it. But this is probably not the place to start a debate about homosexuality.

[Morr]

That's true, it's basically on par with "cultural Marxism".



What exactly defines homophobia, and how is homophobia (which strikes me as a sentiment, not a belief) any more fallacious than any other sentiment?

I was just using homophobia as an example here, racism or misogyny would have equally worked. I suppose the typical argument against it is that homosexual activity is no different from heterosexual activity and there is no threat to the human population yet so its lack of procreation is not an issue (and even if it were, outlawing homosexuality would not change its non-procreative status and would hence be useless) and thus there is no reason to legally discriminate against it. But this is probably not the place to start a debate about homosexuality.

Homosexual activity is different from heterosexual activity. Whether or not you see its lack of procreation as any sort of problem, really doesn't change the fact that there is a world of difference between sexual relations that can culminate in the creation of brand new human being and a renewal of the entire human race over its entire existence, and sexual relations which have no such capability or association.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I was just using homophobia as an example here, racism or misogyny would have equally worked. I suppose the typical argument against it is that homosexual activity is no different from heterosexual activity and there is no threat to the human population yet so its lack of procreation is not an issue (and even if it were, outlawing homosexuality would not change its non-procreative status and would hence be useless) and thus there is no reason to legally discriminate against it. But this is probably not the place to start a debate about homosexuality.

Homosexual activity is different from heterosexual activity. Whether or not you see its lack of procreation as any sort of problem, really doesn't change the fact that there is a world of difference between sexual relations that can culminate in the creation of brand new human being and a renewal of the entire human race over its entire existence, and sexual relations which have no such capability or association.

Since you seem stuck on this point despite the fact that it's been stated that it was just one of many possible examples, are you saying that there is a difference between sex with contraception and sex without contraception? Or sex involving a woman of childbearing age and one not of childbearing age? Or sex with any person who cannot procreate as a result of the act and sex with someone who can?

[Brickistan]

I was just using homophobia as an example here, racism or misogyny would have equally worked. I suppose the typical argument against it is that homosexual activity is no different from heterosexual activity and there is no threat to the human population yet so its lack of procreation is not an issue (and even if it were, outlawing homosexuality would not change its non-procreative status and would hence be useless) and thus there is no reason to legally discriminate against it. But this is probably not the place to start a debate about homosexuality.

Homosexual activity is different from heterosexual activity. Whether or not you see its lack of procreation as any sort of problem, really doesn't change the fact that there is a world of difference between sexual relations that can culminate in the creation of brand new human being and a renewal of the entire human race over its entire existence, and sexual relations which have no such capability or association.

I don't really see it.

The vast majority of sex we humans have is for fun, not procreation (in fact, many of us are actively trying to avoid procreating). And home or hetero, the fun is still the same.

And in any case, there's already more than enough humans on this planet, so that's not really an issue to begin with.

[Morr]

Homosexual activity is different from heterosexual activity. Whether or not you see its lack of procreation as any sort of problem, really doesn't change the fact that there is a world of difference between sexual relations that can culminate in the creation of brand new human being and a renewal of the entire human race over its entire existence, and sexual relations which have no such capability or association.

Since you seem stuck on this point despite the fact that it's been stated that it was just one of many possible examples, are you saying that there is a difference between sex with contraception and sex without contraception? Or sex involving a woman of childbearing age and one not of childbearing age? Or sex with any person who cannot procreate as a result of the act and sex with someone who can?

Biologically there isn't, but culturally and socially there is a tremendous difference, because heterosexual union has a very strong association with family and procreation, even though that relationship in public consciousness has been forcefully attenuated. Gay couples just aren't a signifier for the rebirth of humanity with each generation, and never can be. It's one thing to say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it's quite another to try to say there's no real difference between it and hetrosexaulity, which is the source of all life beyond mitosis.

[Morr]

Homosexual activity is different from heterosexual activity. Whether or not you see its lack of procreation as any sort of problem, really doesn't change the fact that there is a world of difference between sexual relations that can culminate in the creation of brand new human being and a renewal of the entire human race over its entire existence, and sexual relations which have no such capability or association.

I don't really see it.

The vast majority of sex we humans have is for fun, not procreation (in fact, many of us are actively trying to avoid procreating). And home or hetero, the fun is still the same.

And in any case, there's already more than enough humans on this planet, so that's not really an issue to begin with.

It doesn't really matter whether or not most sex humans have is about procreation, since all procreation still comes from heterosexuality.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't really see it.

The vast majority of sex we humans have is for fun, not procreation (in fact, many of us are actively trying to avoid procreating). And home or hetero, the fun is still the same.

And in any case, there's already more than enough humans on this planet, so that's not really an issue to begin with.

It doesn't really matter whether or not most sex humans have is about procreation, since all procreation still comes from heterosexuality.

Technology disagrees.

[Brickistan]

I don't really see it.

The vast majority of sex we humans have is for fun, not procreation (in fact, many of us are actively trying to avoid procreating). And home or hetero, the fun is still the same.

And in any case, there's already more than enough humans on this planet, so that's not really an issue to begin with.

It doesn't really matter whether or not most sex humans have is about procreation, since all procreation still comes from heterosexuality.

Sure it does...

Your claim is that the sex is different because heterosexual sex is about procreation.

The easy counter to that is that most heterosexual sex is NOT about procreation and thus isn't really different that homosexual sex.

[Morr]

It doesn't really matter whether or not most sex humans have is about procreation, since all procreation still comes from heterosexuality.

Sure it does...

Your claim is that the sex is different because heterosexual sex is about procreation.

The easy counter to that is that most heterosexual sex is NOT about procreation and thus isn't really different that homosexual sex.

Sure, if you're completely oblivious to society and culture and signifiers as the basis of human reality.

[Brickistan]

Sure it does...

Your claim is that the sex is different because heterosexual sex is about procreation.

The easy counter to that is that most heterosexual sex is NOT about procreation and thus isn't really different that homosexual sex.

Sure, if you're completely oblivious to society and culture and signifiers as the basis of human reality.

The reality today is that most people, particularly in the western world, is actively trying to avoid pregnancy, either because they don't want children or because this is currently a bad time to have them. And as birth control becomes more readily available in other parts of the world, the pattern repeats itself.

Now, I don't know what your reality is like, but that the reality I live in. A reality where most people want to be able to enjoy a quick romp between the sheets without having to worry about getting pregnant.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Since you seem stuck on this point despite the fact that it's been stated that it was just one of many possible examples, are you saying that there is a difference between sex with contraception and sex without contraception? Or sex involving a woman of childbearing age and one not of childbearing age? Or sex with any person who cannot procreate as a result of the act and sex with someone who can?

Biologically there isn't, but culturally and socially there is a tremendous difference, because heterosexual union has a very strong association with family and procreation, even though that relationship in public consciousness has been forcefully attenuated. Gay couples just aren't a signifier for the rebirth of humanity with each generation, and never can be. It's one thing to say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it's quite another to try to say there's no real difference between it and hetrosexaulity, which is the source of all life beyond mitosis.

And cultural and social standards change over the course of time, and while gay couples cannot reproduce, they can help to ensure a future generation, whether through adoption or through artificial insemination.

[AiliailiA]

Political correctness is ultimately political. Who is right, who is wrong, the whole debate is ultimately decided by a vote and the legislation passed by the winners of that vote.

It's barely a thing. In Germany swastikas are banned. In the US, hateful motives are an aggravating circumstance, with punishment but only if some other crime was committed. Those countries and many others deny entry visas based on expected hate speech, but they deny entry visas on many other grounds as well. There is infringement on the right of free speech, but ...

The capacity for free speech has increased by orders of magnitude in just two decades. There is far more speech (by one, for many) and the option of shutting down a newspaper press or pulling a TV transmitter off-air is now meaningless. Government censors have less power than ever before, and it's reducing year by year.

The losers of the social debate no longer even blame government for the "censorship" of their loser ideas. Now they blame "the media". Who knows what they'll blame when the broadcast media have all gone broke, their business destroyed by volunteer journalists.

But the losers will always blame someone. It couldn't be that they were just incorrect in a political debate, and were defeated fair and square by a superior number of debaters who were correct. No, it couldn't possibly be that.

[Socialist Czechia]

Concept of hate speech is even more ridiculous than whole political correctness/newspeak thing.

You can call literally anything a hate speech.

[Imperializt Russia]

And don't you think department stores should have the liberty to decide what signs to put up? Do you really need to be reminded that it is Christmas to shop in that store?

Commercial interest is far from political correctitude.

This isn't about liberty to put up a sign, this is about political correctness being so extreme that we DARE not offend the minority Asians. Even though we're not offending them, since it's hardly as if we're putting up racist signs.

A store, a business entity, has made a business decision in its own self interest.

Get over yourself lad.

[SaintB]

If the complaint is that Political Correctness attempts to unfairly control and constrain dialog, and is used to dismiss what may be reasonable criticism, then surely crying "PC gone mad!"* is guilty of exactly the same.

How about, instead of mentioning Political Correctness at all, you point out why - in this specific instance - the other person is being unreasonable? Instead of both just whining that the other guy won't let you talk?

That's what I always wanted to say but never exactly got right.

[Neues Nationalsozialistiches Reich]

Concept of hate speech is even more ridiculous than whole political correctness/newspeak thing.

You can call literally anything hate speech.

What people on both sides of the PC debate do not understand is everything sensitive is offensive, and you have to deal with it rather than think about feelings. For SJWs, whe issues are discussed, they will try to find something to twist as their straw man and call it racist/sexist and the person a bigot. When they will be criticized, they will make it look like their critics are bigots. When the SJWs get lucky and find an actual racist, when he is called out, he will don the anti-PC banner and say "PC gone mad" and anti-PC people will support him, but he is actually butthurt about being called out.

People need to grow up and stop making mountains out of molehills.

[Liriena]

Concept of hate speech is even more ridiculous than whole political correctness/newspeak thing.

You can call literally anything a hate speech.

Literally, you can misuse any word however it suits you. However, there is a bit of a legal consensus on what constitutes hate speech, and there is nothing "ridiculous" about labeling speech that fits the definition of that consensus as such. What would you have me call speech encouraging hatred towards LGBT people, if not hate speech?

Also, political correctness and Orwell's newspeak are not interchangeable terms, and I'm personally a bit tired of people using newspeak as a thought-terminating cliché.