Has our society become too politically correct?
Introduction
In today’s culture, there is a lot of discussion around the idea or fact that society has become or is becoming too politically correct. How is it contentious that being politically correct is the act of not offending people in a society based on a specific category they perceive themselves to be in (who are mostly minorities)? Political correctness is a morally acceptable argument by definition. Those who do not follow a given set of ideals that society has usually come to accept should be punished. So why has this matter grown to be so divisive? Joel and I think there is strong evidence to support the assertion that three key concepts best describe the demise of political correctness. The incapacity of the typical conservative and liberal to have a normal, thorough dialogue, the increase of media betrayal on both sides of the issue, and the mobbing of people and groups on college campuses, in the workplace, and in public.
Research
Transgenderism
A clinical psychologist from Canada named Jordan B. Peterson rose to fame on YouTube, where many of his speeches were posted and he subsequently gathered a sizable following. He is recognized for his outspoken (sometimes contentious) opinions on a variety of subjects, including political correctness, transgenderism (particularly gender identity), neo-marxism, the alt-right, feminism, and depression. He has a PhD in psychology and a degree in political science. One of the pinnacles of his career was when he gained notoriety for his divisive but still provocative opinions on the Canadian government’s Bill C-16. Introduced by Justin Trudeau’s ultraliberal government, Bill C-16 was approved by the Canadian Parliament with a vote of 248 to 40 and an approval rating of 86%. It expands the definition of protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender expression and identity. The popular belief that individuals must employ coerced speech, according to Peterson, is utterly false. Because that is precisely what is happening, Peterson refers to it as “compelled speech.” Due to several barriers that prevent individuals from using speech that is deemed PC*, people will always struggle with coerced speech. People shouldn’t feel obligated to employ speech that contradicts their beliefs, whether it be due to religion or just opinion. It demonstrates how overly sensitive we’ve actually gotten when we live in a culture where someone’s viewpoint disagrees with another person’s believe and is said to “incite hate.” To be clear, we think it is abhorrent and totally unjustifiable to discriminate against or promote violence against minorities. However, the hypersensitive reality that the American left has evolved into has prevented the truth from being heard in our news, at work, in politics, and in discussions due to concerns about “cancel culture,” job loss, disdain for or dilution of thought, harassment, etc. One such example is how individuals are reluctant to discuss transgenderism in the media because there are so many potential targets for offense. It’s a complex subject with space for a wide range of viewpoints, which is why so many people find it offensive. I firmly feel that I am not an irrational someone with whom you cannot have an open and secure discussion regarding transgenderism. Despite the fact that I have transgender issues on the left side, I do not support widespread forced speech. Does this imply that I can’t reason with someone who doesn’t agree with me? Evidently so. Many people with divergent views on transgenderism are often dismissed with labels like “bigot,” “homophobic/transphobic,” etc. This is abundantly apparent in the workplace, the media, and college campuses.
On college campuses, liberalism
A University of Oxford research revealed that conservatives have a “right to be dubious of scientists,” stating that this mistrust is wholly reasonable owing to a lengthy (and demonstrated) history of scholar activism, to further elaborate on how Universities are getting more (have been) liberal. Scholarly activism is the politicization of scientific discoveries via the use of politics (in this example, liberalism), invalidating your study owing to prejudice. Another study by The Econ Journal Watch discovered that liberal researchers and professors outnumbered conservatives in universities and colleges across the USA by a ratio of almost 12 to 1 (the numbers are even more startling depending on the department; for instance, history has a 33:1 liberal to conservative professor ratio).
changes to the growing divide between the Left and the Right
The distance between the left and the right has never been wider, as many have said. There don’t appear to be any problems nowadays where both parties can come to an agreement on a solution. Millions of relationships every day are impacted by politics and irrational, highly passionate debates. Every part of life appears to be being infiltrated by it, driving many people into
Debate / Development
To think, we must take the risk of offending someone. No matter what views we expose to the public, there will always be someone or some group who will take offense to them. The Holocaust, to go to extremes (but on which most people agree). Most people would agree that this was a terrible incident that occurred as a result of radical groups squeezing themselves into power. But if you make enough people aware of this viewpoint, someone will unavoidably object and probably feel hurt. Because evidently offense is sparked by disagreement in today’s society. The present political spectrum in America is one instance where disagreement allegedly often provokes offense (as a result of postmodern leftism). Obviously, all sides of the aisle experience this. Radical leftists are protesting in the streets to promote their nonsensical agendas and views, and they claim conservatism is fascism. However, their whole “protest” is built on the use of violence and disruption to advance a certain point of view. On the other side, many on the right are verbally and physically tormenting liberals in an effort to devalue their viewpoints. Older conservatives are quick to dismiss everything that they stand for on the basis that they are ignorant, lacking in experience, and purportedly a part of a Marxist movement because of the increase of youthful leftism in the US (and the UK) (as claimed by many of those on the right).
However, this conversation raises a deeper issue that has to be addressed. the pervasive prejudice present in US media, which daily widens the gap between the left and the right. In the UK, most people would agree that the majority of serious broadcasting services are reasonably objective. In reality, the UK has several regulations against media bias and discrimination. For instance, the BBC, which broadcasts the most viewed news show in the UK, is required by law to have fair correspondents and to respond swiftly and succinctly to any allegations of bias. This is significant because the media regularly shapes the perceptions of millions of people. perspectives that external stimuli may quickly change. I think the US media’s bias is the main factor contributing to the growing divide between the left and the right and, in turn, to a general decline in the caliber of political discourse.
Changes in vocabulary used to distinguish between genders may have made inequality in our society more pronounced. For instance, many female performers prefer to identify themselves as “actors” when speaking about their work. I suspect you mean “actress,” people are “correcting” more and more female performers. Some claim that the word “actress” is outmoded in many aspects and that it is now politically right to refer to “female actors” and “men actors.” Many people think the latter is more expert. The term “actress” is seen by some as seeming less serious and professional; many female actresses think that using the same word to describe all performers, male and female, increases equality. The neofeminist perspective that greater equality but also more difference is necessary has radicalized feminism and obscured what true, rational feminism is. Feminism is the idea that people of the feminine gender should have equal opportunities, which is an argument that everyone should agree with. I really believed in the original feminism and even went so far as to identify as one. Those who want equality must be able to agree with actor in this situation, right? An individual who acts in the entertainment and arts industries is referred to as an actor, which is a wide phrase. Neo-feminists have acted as though this has always been for the exclusive purpose of male authoritarianism despite the fact that it has only lately been given a gender (by the same individuals who oppose using it as a general phrase). Should we designate a certain gender to each job? Not all performers are men, just as not all accountants, attorneys, builders, or soldiers are men. Furthermore, despite the fact that we acknowledge that men predominated in these occupations, the titles of these careers were never gender-specific. Why then, according to neofeminists, do these labels suddenly exist simply to devalue other genders throughout history and maintain a patriarchal system in all spheres of life?
Indoctrination of liberals on college campuses is another issue. This is perhaps the biggest and most harmful instance of political correctness in contemporary culture. Considering that there are 11 to 1 more leftist academics than conservative professors, how can one claim that colleges are producing a diverse range of individual thinkers? Furthermore, this figure is merely the average across all departments. According to a survey by The Econ Journal Watch, there is one conservative history professor for every 33 liberal history professors. How can this not be a shocking illustration of liberal brainwashing on college campuses. I’m not claiming that each and every one of these instructors indoctrinates their pupils with radical ideologies and practices heavy prejudice. To believe so would be radical. But how can anybody assert that students are open to a broad range of viewpoints when the majority of them will never interact with a conservative history professor during their time in college, or for that matter, any conservative professor?
Everyone, on all sides of the political spectrum, can agree that our institutions and colleges are getting more liberal by the day. When well-known conservatives visit college campuses, it is clear that these universities are eager to utterly reject conervative and opposing viewpoints. Ben Shapiro’s speeches, for which he has drawn harsh condemnation at almost every institution of higher learning he has visited, are a well-known illustration of this. Many institutions invited him to visit and talk, but following student outcry, they withdrew their invitation. Even though Ben Shapiro is a proud Jew, a startlingly high percentage of these students have gone as far as making death threats, attempting to physically attack him, and labeling him a “neo-Nazi.” In his book, “Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth,” Shapiro discusses youth brainwashing in greater detail. To be clear, I think people’s opinions should be addressed, not avoided. We as a society would not advance if viewpoints were not challenged. Shapiro is, however, quite open to the concept of a dialogue with someone who disagrees with him, as he has often claimed (and shown). He has faced several challenges throughout his Q&As. More of this is what we need. Two persons debating their differing beliefs in a logical manner. not only the outright rejection of all other viewpoints and the abuse of those who do. Additionally, anybody who identifies as conservative and attends these discussions is likely to hear the customary vulgar, generalized accusations like “fascist,” “racist,” “bigot,” and “homophobe.” However, there is a noticeable presence of extreme right beliefs on the opposite side of the aisle. both online and off that respond with insults, but since neither side invests the time to analyze and debate claims and points of view, neither side can ever learn from the other or themselves.
Both political parties stereotype one another. For instance, it is simple for someone on the left to criticize someone on the right for making a slight homophobic, racist, or antisemitic remark, and it is equally simple for someone on the right to criticize someone on the left for being offended by a straightforward remark. In spite of the fact that the idea of political correctness is fundamentally advantageous to society, it leads both sides to quickly establish unfavorable preconceptions about one another in an effort to reinforce their sense of moral and intellectual superiority. Political correctness has not harmed society; rather, political correctness has been destroyed by society.
Political correctness was created to walk a narrow line between preventing hate speech and preserving the right to free expression in public settings. If not for these factors, it may have succeeded.
Every American citizen has the right to the First Amendment. It gives everyone the freedom to express themselves, regardless of their colour, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, political views, or social status. The court has ruled that their expression is protected. As a result, not only may you say anything you want, but anybody can also disagree with what you said. Political correctness was created to provide minorities who are susceptible to discrimination a way out of being ostracized for behavior they had no control over.
Political correctness aims to eradicate hate speech, and a new Cato Institute study reveals that 79% of Americans share this idea. However, just 40% of Americans agree that the government should take legal action to eliminate hate speech.
Conclusion
After much investigation, discussion, and labor. Joel and I have come to the opinion that Political Correctness is not an endeavor by the left (with noble values) to build a society that is more welcoming and appreciative of minorities, rather it is a terrible incarnation of illogical leftism. The fact that the majority of both the left and the right fail to have regular, in-depth conversations about how to repair political correctness (and many other problems) and what political correctness truly attempts to achieve is where both sides of the political spectrum have gone wrong. It all comes down to a lack of examination and conversation, in general. Right-wingers will argue that political correctness diminishes everyone’s ability to use their free speech. We will find it difficult to advance as a society since this makes it possible for fewer thoughts to be heard. Leftists would argue that political correctness makes society more open-minded so that everyone’s thoughts may be heard and that we can advance as a society by preventing minority who are easily offended from being insulted and outraged. The actual problem is that neither side is prepared to engage in a true conversation or argument without it devolving into two individuals shouting and abusing one other without reason.
Therefore, by the concept of Political Correctness, we have regressed in terms of getting more politically correct, therefore no, we have not become too politically correct. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that since we’ve normalized mobbing ideas against those who have opposing political views, society as a whole has become less politically correct than it once was. Instead, we’ve created a situation where the right can accuse the left of being too “soft,” easily offended, and radical Marxists, while the left can accuse the right of being bigoted, racist, and homophobic. Both political parties have legitimate goals; the right wants to safeguard free speech, while the left wants to build a more welcoming society where the distinction between free speech and hate speech is made plain. Both preserve an adequate amount of morality and pragmatism, but what both have done wrong is misread the values of the other. Political correctness is ultimately flawed because of the culture it was born within.
