The Miseducation of Political Correctness

The modern war on words

There is a concern across the right that there is censorship that is caused by liberals to undermine freedom of speech. Interestingly, it is almost exclusively labeled as an issue for liberals who care far too much about word choice and too little about differing opinions. It insinuates that there are social limitations to this censorship. A fear in which is rooted in resistance to evolving socio-cultural landscape which language also changes. It proposes that if we are judged by how we choose our words then that inhibits rights to opinion. What is so interesting about this phenomena is that the focus on how semantics outweighs the right to speech.

Political correctness surfaced as the bright and shining word that’s clear definition has been conflated over the past few years. Frustrations within political discourse have given ‘political correctness’ new life. Political correctness was about being cognizant of the marginalized and disadvantaged in both language and policy to encompass the resurface of such rhetoric that has been removed from society’s lexicon. Videos and segments about the rise of political correctness are ad nauseam, often stripping context of the term from its origins. So the debate falls into two categories: the genuine concern of the dismissal of arguments that do not affirm common opinion or the desire and freedom to say whatever you want without examination.

What has risen from the attitude of political correctness is great indifference. What the debate is supposed to be and what it has become is distanced from public interests and has unintended consequences. So the criticisms of the left of shutting down guest lecturers in universities particularly demonstrates a microcosm of liberal extremism that is going undifferentiated but also dangerous. It is mostly unchallenged which is indicative of a greater appraisal of the direction of the democratic party and liberalism collectively, and who can participate amongst it. Indeed, liberal pandering to disadvantaged socio-economic groups within the United States as a lifeline or crutch to lean on for its relevance is a problem, but also a damning insight into how conservatives identify these groups.

Conservative reluctance to engage with marginalized and disadvantaged peoples is an indictment of where their interests lie. The remarkable paradox and coercion of working-class citizens voting conservative is fascinating as much as it is worrisome. Voting against your own interests, however, has created a complacency with the Republican party. Frustrations in contempt to working class people but also the exemption of people of color is for financial and political gain. This is unsurprisingly linked with the evident intersection of race and class in American politics that has ostracized those needs for profit and buying power of the elite bourgeois. There is an incessant desire, an obsession to return the glories of the past of hierarchical social anarchism. So it has weaponized political correctness or the need to be politically incorrect from their tendency to deflect from critique or questions.

What is apparent about political correctness and ‘PC’ culture is its tendencies to false equivalencies. There is an impression that those who feel most victimized by political correctness are martyrs, defenders of free speech and democracy. Or at least, those fuming about political correctness hold themselves to the fire greater than reality. Donald Trump without fail glorifies himself as a victim of ‘the hateful left’ that seek his demise because he dares to tell the truth. First, Trump seldom tells truths and is blatantly egotistic so we can’t have expectations for a man who has presented himself as incapable (Sad). But more accurately, we can’t fall into the trap of amalgamating widely accepted terminology and objectives to humiliating and dehumanizing tropes. Calling out Trump for calling Mexicans “rapists” is not just about being politically correct, it’s about being a non-racist decent human being. Trump is free and always has been open to say whatever he wants and there is no indication that he is being hindered (and if you disagree I challenge you to find any suggestion that would indicate otherwise). Everyone is free to say what they want but what is happening is that there is an aspiration to say things that are widely understood to cause severe offense without subject to rebuttal. I know that there are people who want to call black people the N word but don’t because of political correctness. Words do mean things and deprive the humanity of vulnerable people. So to utilize ‘political correctness’ or calling people ‘snowflakes’ to promote an agenda that is belligerently hostile to the historically marginalized, is an effort to exert power and domain over specifically racial and ethnic groups. The inability to practice basic human decency is no crime in America. Rather grievances by critics of ‘PC’ culture do not want to be held accountable for their opinions, so it’s become identity politics to blame.

On television we see political commentators using choice words when considering topics that have real-life consequences. Again words mean things. If racial epithets weren’t created to have harmful psychological effects, then why was time taken out to reinforce it? Discretion IS advised when talking about the marginalized. Punching down is a merciless tactic that is a reflection of disdain towards people who aren’t seen as fully human. There IS a distinction between calling immigrants ‘illegal’ and ‘undocumented.’ One is a racialized degradation with an assumption of referring to Spanish speaking peoples from the Americas and the other is a description of their current state. It would be much easier to declare callousness to disenfranchised communities than to pretend that care and consideration are given to them.

We can call things out for what they are but shutting down arguments because disapproval of identity politics or group politics is a luxury many are not afforded. I cannot separate the political nature of the intersection of my identities as both black and a woman. If we can acknowledge that a black person today can run the risk of being called a racist epithet, then identity politics is not about narcissism. A person’s inability to understand the complexities of human interaction and the changing social implications of interaction is not in a position to disqualify identity or group politics. When there is an overwhelming sense that people of color are dissatisfied with their conditions and indicate its root cause; how can someone be sick of political correctness or identity politics if they are unwilling to assist in solving the problem? Of course, we can cannibalize identities until they are narrow and limiting, but assessing social dynamics and power imbalances is a conversation to be had. Political correctness or identity politics cannot exist without inequality.

Of course, there is the impact of capitalism and the rise of right-wing populism gaining political power. The increase of hate speech and pandering to earn fame always performs when at someone else’s expense. But there is an apprehension of the gatekeepers who’ve spent far too long writing the rules that don’t apply to them. Exempt from assuming responsibility and patronizing their constituents, they gain political capital using pseudo-emotional intelligence. When gatekeepers are overwhelmingly white, they fall into the trap of blurring, making arbitrary codes of conduct. Claiming to be in someone’s interests without knowing what their interests are is oppressive silencing that is unmeasurable. When underrepresented and the underserved too hold the helms of discourse, it mitigates the disconnect.

Political correctness possesses an element of morality. I cannot bring myself to put down someone for my personal benefit. This cannot be transactional while sustaining good conscious and morality. To some capacity, there must be limitations to how far we’re willing to go because of polarized social disparities. Anyone is capable of saying egregious things. The United States is not under a totalitarian regime. There is no fear of arrests for things we say, but we must be held responsible for what say. The choice is within the individual to examine how they seem themselves and others. If you adhere to freedom of speech than surely you accept the freedom of austerity to speech. Therein the greater choice becomes more evident when we take care and ownership of what we say no matter the price.

Related posts:

The season of cold weather, apple cider, and pumpkin carving has begun. Philadelphia holds numerous great events for the fall season! Below we will share a few MUST-go-to events: The Midtown Village…

Trump has done substantially less damage to our institutions than even his supporters expected at the time of his election, and this is a testament to the antifragilty of our (normally-dysfunctional…

Whether you are a recent graduate with a degree in marketing or communications or are looking for the right career path, digital marketing could be the right option for you. Because we are living in…