The Political Correctness Aspects
Political correctness had a decent intention when it was first coined. The fundamental tenet was to assist people who were disadvantaged in some manner and to not treat anybody differently according to the color of their skin or any other outward physical characteristics. But from the beginning of the 1990s, things have been out of hand. The passage of time has subsequently corrupted what was once a good principle to live by. Today’s absurd applications of political correctness have done the opposite of what they were intended to do: they have significantly set the country back. Political correctness nowadays aims to treat “victimized” individuals differently, to influence popular opinion, and to place a higher weight on emotions than on facts and reasoning. What previously looked like plain sense has evolved into an ideology that demands everyone participate, and anybody who does not gets torn to pieces. The individuals who live in this world may evolve and grow, however, and not cloak themselves in the twisted image of something that was once wonderful, if they return to the original way of thinking we previously had. We must address the many potential negative effects of the political correctness movement in order to improve upon what people are now like.
The endeavor to be politically correct has a tendency to detract from the original purpose of the message, which is one of the political correctness movement’s most significant drawbacks. People will realize the final product is troublesome at best as a consequence of people always trying to choose words or phrases meticulously. “It has become a dictatorship of the guy who has insulted the most people in the room” (Karlson). PC concerns now vary from the magnificent to the absurd, and they are preventing an open discussion and honest evaluation of the problems in our lives. Due to self censoring, the language used in formal writing or oral presentations could be seen as dumb instead. Once again, most people think that a person who is deaf is also deaf. When a deaf individual is described as “auditorily challenged,” the audience may laugh at the choice of words rather than understanding the intended meaning. Consequently, the person goes to great lengths to avoid offending anybody, which is evident to everyone seeing the person at work. Granted, the impact could prevent offending, but a different consequence might also result in laughing. If one’s acts didn’t cause someone to chuckle, they would be considered unsuccessful. Going to excessive lengths to be politically correct at the cost of utilizing “excellent” language often results in the distortion of purpose. “America has always provided a haven for smart, imaginative, aspirational, and independent thinkers from other nations. Only in the “country of the free and the home of the brave” will their ambitions be fulfilled (Adams). The author’s work should be the major emphasis, not the people who are touched by the literature.
The restrictions or “speech rules” that schools impose on the speech of those who live there are a bigger issue than “offensive” speech ever was. Speech rules are established because the “speech police” think that students’ emotions are more significant than their ability to study. There are several issues with emphasizing emotions over information. The obvious one is that shielding pupils from reality’s harshness breeds a narrow-minded, unrealistic worldview that will harm them rather than benefit them in the long run. Unfortunately, the “closure of the American mind” is a trend in education that has been mostly pushed by people who pretend to value variety but get horrified when they come across real differences in viewpoints (Johanson). Because of the resulting narrow-mindedness, schools wind up catering primarily to student choices rather than providing access to all options.
For example, several schools only allow guest lecturers who adhere to the ideological standards established by their pupils. This strategy sometimes includes refusing to allow certain speakers to speak on campus. As a result, speech limitations are put in place for both outside speakers and members of the school community whose manner of expression could be considered rude or annoying (Johanson).
Eliminating other means of educating the young people who attend schools simply has the unintended consequence of making them more narrow-minded when the opposite impact should be sought.
Comedy was meant to lighten the mood on gloomy days and to highlight important, contemporary problems with our world and the way we live in it. serving as a more welcoming environment for talking about the issues that the majority of society finds uncomfortable. “Most comedy is grounded in reality. That is what makes it humorous and relevant to individuals. The finest stand-up comedians and humorists use commonplace events that the majority of their audience has encountered while including compelling narration and a few exaggerated consequences (Hoffman). Political correctness’s flaws make it harder to accept these facts, which makes it harder to find comedy in daily life. This is due to political correctness activists trying to control how people say and behave as if there is only one right way to do it, while in fact there are a lot more things to consider.
“While posing as fairness, it actually seeks to limit and regulate speech through strict codes and strict rules. I’m not certain how to combat bigotry in that manner. I’m not sure whether the greatest approach to dealing with issues that go far deeper than speech is to silence individuals or force them to change how they speak (Carlin).
Politicians who support political correctness believe that limiting comedy would somehow reduce racism and intolerance. People acknowledge that these things are genuine and that there is no need for them to be held back by the grief or hurt caused by these significant incidents or statements by making light of sensitive subjects.
The political correctness movement seeks to eliminate individuality, the very thing that makes us individuals. The movement aims to eliminate any opinions and ideas that don’t fit the mold and replace them with a hivemind that lacks freedom of thought, something that can be twisted and shaped into whatever is judged proper instead of what the individuals imprisoned inside believe.
“Political correctness aims to eradicate independence, identity, and confidence—three qualities essential to the grandeur of the United States of America. Europe is the only place to look if you want to see the outcome. A once-great continent that now aspires to mediocrity has been feminized and crippled by the intellectual despotism, self-loathing, and suffocating conformity of this ideology (Adams).
According to the political correctness movement, the idea of uniqueness is meaningless; what counts is who people are. Only considering characteristics like ethnicity and social position rather than considering a person’s character. The trend just gives someone a fleeting glance and assumes that by looking at their skin tone or gender identity, they can learn all there is to know about them. Individuals are reduced to and drowned inside the social categories that are created and enforced by theorists who have their own utopian visions of a world that is socially manufactured to reflect a new race- and ethnic-conscious society (Ebeling). People are seen by the political correctness movement as nothing more than a label to further a goal.
Herein lies the fundamental issue at the center of political correctness. “The concept of political correctness is based on the belief that speech or behavior that is offensive to various groups’ sensibilities should be eliminated, by means of regulations or penalties if necessary.” The movement does not change what people think; the only thing changing is what can be said (Reynolds). People internalize what is believed when a movement restricts what may be spoken. Resentment develops when something is internalized. When resentment develops, the intensity of the sentiments intensifies and grows, making the individual feel even more strongly about the problem. Political correctness “shuts us up, not changes us” (Beck). Political correctness worsens the same emotions it aims to stifle. One may argue that because speech can be harmful, control is necessary. Although there are many instances when the movement may perhaps link speech to violence, violence is seldom immediate. The speech must be heard, understood, and then someone must respond negatively in response. Good speech, which advances a discourse that must take place in order for society to achieve meaningful progress, is the best answer to poor speech. Making some words and concepts prohibited only stifles discourse and is ineffective.
With racism, the political correctness movement has completed a circle. vilifying white people only on the basis of their skin color and the deeds of their ancestors, as opposed to assessing the person for their choices or behaviors. The movement often calls for the appreciation of other races’ cultures, yet white people are continually accused of having “white privilege” if they even bring up the subject. Racist actions are being committed when one race is denigrated in order to elevate another. “Not only does this demean those who, by chance of birth, are the offspring of Caucasian parents, but it also does the same to people who could be black or Hispanic. You are a “person of color” who is a “victim” (Ebeling). The movement’s racial shaming approach is detrimental to the races it seeks to empower. Making people of other races the victims just makes it more difficult for them to escape that position and achieve their own aspirations. If the campaign is successful, those who have been put in the victim character will be unable to shed that name. Political correctness “has produced hate and violence, as individuals blame one another for their unhappiness and groups battle each other for superior claims to victimhood, instead of furthering peace and understanding, as intended” (Kalman). The idea that a person’s qualities and abilities are determined by their skin tone is simply false and discriminatory.
The issue with PC culture is that many individuals take offense at what is stated because they have never been intellectually challenged. Many people are used to living in an echo chamber where they continuously stroke their egos and only digest ideas in a way that is familiar to their minds. “And although I acknowledge the significant advancements made by humans in this area, I think our current fixation with sensitivity is problematic. The act of continuously residing in these “safe spaces” just gives people an inaccurate perception of life, giving them a life where as soon as something negative happens it can be erased by pretending it does not exist. (Navarro) This obsession has made our skins too soft and has allowed our feelings and emotions to bleed out of ourselves too easily. The goal of portraying that this perfect existence does exist is tormenting those who still hold onto their idealistic ideals. “PC is based on frailty. Because of its hypersensitivity and tendency to drive people apart rather than bring them together, it is weak (Howse). It’s important to embrace things that make us uncomfortable and learn to live with that discomfort if we want to develop as humans. Finding shortcuts or utterly disregarding what is disliked simply stunts people’s development.
The political correctness movement has undoubtedly had an influence on the world today, but that impact has not been particularly positive. With every phrase and message corrupted, the movement’s effort to seem serious simply leads to confusion and stupidity. When that fails, the aim will be to eradicate everything that is in opposition to their objective by labeling unproductive ideas as hate speech or “white privilege.” resulting in the development of limited mindsets and irrational expectations that cannot be realized and should not be met since this way of thinking only dumbs down individuals, seizes on originality, and forces them to conform if they want to live in a victim society. Even then, the social justice warriors want to limit or eliminate strategies for dealing with the negative impacts, such humor or anything else they find objectionable. Attempting to dehumanize others by making racial judgments and believing that a person’s whole identity can be determined by the color of their skin. Disagreeing with the majority of these people will only result in a string of epithets and a bruised ego that will need to be soothed in a “safe place” until it is safe to return to the outside world. The society that the political correctness movement aspires to build is one that is merely an illusion, one that was constructed to provide protection from the harsh realities of the outside world. The movement attempts to contaminate the world with lies and hypocrisies until the fictitious safe haven, which it can never be, becomes reality rather than embracing the world and developing as individuals.
