Political Correctness is hypocritical in the sense that it justifies bullying and hatred in the name of equality. It’s hypocritical in the fact that it only protects perceived marginalized groups, which means certain groups that don’t fall under their labels that are also victims will not benefits.
Firstly it’s important to know that Political Correctness protects people based on: gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, gender identity, and probably a few other. It treats white people as if they are all part of the problem, the concept of White privilege comes to mind and also Male Privilege these two concepts assume that all men and all white will have benefits that comes due to their gender or race. How is treating white people worse than marginalized groups any better than vice versa, it’s simply hypocrisy there is no reason why treating someone better should be alright for the basis of their skin. It’s also insulting for people to have to treat “marginalized” groups as if they are incapable of acting
…show more content…
This could have some grounds, except, it’s extremely hypocritical to say when it revolves around treating certain groups better than others, while it may allow racist insults to White people, it will inevitably respond to racism towards black people, these double standards show that it’s not about treating people with respect, it’s about treating some better than others. Some high profile examples of being disrespectful in the name of political correctness are the protestor at Mizzou where a teacher asked for muscle towards a student reporter, as well as when a student of Yale yelled at a teacher for having the wrong opinion, where is the respect here for these two people (Mark Schierbecker, 7:12; TheFIREorg, 0:00). Another thing to note, is that to some people respect isn’t something that anyone can have it is something that is earned otherwise it takes away from what that respect
White privilege refers to unearned advantages meaning the people of lighter skin receive all kinds of perks because of their skin privileged. Whereas people of color do not have perks or advantages based on their skin meaning people of that color have to actually earned it by working. For example, in the movie Crash Jean Cabot’s judgment of the locksmith and the film maker who demands Cameron to reshoot the scene because the actor needs to be “more black”. It is in these unobtrusive demonstrations of prejudice in conjunction with the power hole between these characters that shows how bigotry is innately interlaced into individuals’ attitudes. At the point when these same individuals are in places of power they are not able to comprehend the consequences that their modest, biased action can
Hughes overemphasizes America’s infatuation with political correctness, but fails to understand the real issue. It is undeniably true that “no sifting of words is going to reduce the amount of bigotry in this or any other society” (21). However, racist labels are prevalent in American society which remind minority groups of their inferior status. The professional football team in our nation’s capital is called the ‘Redskins.’ This moniker is the result of a politically incorrect past that has not been rectified. Political correctness intends to change the way we label things so that minority groups are not excluded or demeaned. Certainly Hughes would object to calling a rugby team in Australia the ‘Sydney Blackies.’ Hughes was right in understanding that political correctness will not cause dramatic changes, but racism in any form, no matter how small, is bad for society. Regardless, he spends too much time discussing this issue. Political correctness warranted more attention for Hughes than it does in the national media today. It is quite telling that only five years after its publication this material is already outdated.
How would you like it if someone walked up to you and berated you based on the color of your skin? A characteristic like that isn’t even something you can control, so an insult of that nature can leave one furious and oppressed. Discrimination is inevitable in any culture, throughout history, in modern times, and even in ancient times. For example, the oppression and murder of 6 million Jewish people during the Holocaust, the African Slave Trade which occurred for multiple centuries, and more recently, the “ethnic cleansing” of Rohingya people in Myanmar, brought on by the government of the Asian nation, all of which are tragedies doomed to happen when history repeats itself and people do not learn
In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians, and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States. Among the settings of these expressions of intolerance are college and university campuses, where bias incidents have occurred sporadically since the mid-1980's. Outrage, indignation and demands for change are the responses to these incidents - understandably, given the lack of racial and social diversity among students, faculty and administrators on most campuses. Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or olicies prhibiting speech that offends any group based on race gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.
Political correctness may be a coined term that the general population does not necessarily know the definition of, but is relevant in every single person’s life. In today’s society one must be very careful when verbalizing opinions in order to prevent offending others around, or from disturbing the Politically Correct Puritans: those who strongly support censorship of politically incorrect labels (Suedfeld et al 1994). There are many different theories as to what makes political correctness important and why college campuses seem to be so heavily surrounded by political correcting activists, but oddly enough there has not been an extensive amount of research done on the topic.
For instance, in the show Freaks and Geeks, we find individuals, calling themselves freaks, because they do not belong in the ‘status quo,’ and live or desire to live alternative lifestyles. Would this be disrespectful to individuals who according to 19th and 20th century lingo, were called freaks? I think it is highly disrespectful indeed, because in the show, we find these kids who are not disabled, and are all white using a term which has caused so much pain to others,used it in such a free way, to be different and alternate. It goes back to what he was saying about how individuals who identify with the pink triangle and the term freak, need to also be a witness to the pain that other individuals suffered, like the gay POC and non-disabled POC. And it is worse because these kids in no way bear any semblance with either of the categories mentioned. It’s becoming some sort of norm, in which white people of years passed create words which are meant to relegate different individuals to the outside, and then after this relegation is done, choose to use it as freely as they want. For instance the use of the word ‘nigger’, white people want to include this word in their vocabulary so bad, because slavery happened more than 300 years ago. But they forget the pain that comes with this word, but you cannot truly forget what
Rankin, Aidan. “The repressive openness of political correctness.” Contemporary Review 282.1644 (2003): 33+. Literature resource Center. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
...2009) political correctness build an inclusive society in which people from diverse backgrounds are offered equal opportunities. Another article that defend political correctness talk about the people who are against this movement don’t want to be polite or civil to the people different from them, the important thing to this people is to do what they want when they want even though they used hurtful word they don’t care(angry black woman 2007). This article end by saying political correctness is very important to the language and we need to fight for it so let’s make sure people use it. Allan Goldstein has the same opinion as the two authors before he said that ” political correctness is a small price to pay for keeping the peace between large groups of outraged people” he means people don’t like political correctness but we need it so the people can live peacely.
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
Unlike many other countries America has freedom of speech. Even in other countries in Europe people are not allowed to use “hate speech” and they can be sent to prison for it. Fortunately, the American constitution defends people’s freedom of speech, no matter how controversial it is. Political correctness diminishes people’s free speech. It may not be direct but even indirectly the knowledge that someone might have adverse consequences; such as losing a job as a result of their speech is unacceptable. People have the right to state their opinions without others infringing on them, it was the principle in which America was founded. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States declares that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (US Const. amend. I, sec. i). While the first amendment only affects congress’s control over free speech, it indicates that free speech is a right that people must have. Some people are of the opinion that if something can be found offensive
It is even more difficult to regulate this in the classroom. If students are sheltered while in college they lack the valuable exposure to different ideas that will help them later in life to work with people they do not necessarily agree with. When teachers are forced to use trigger warning and discouraged from using material that may trigger students the academic integrity of the system is threatened. If students are never forced to face their fears or read about discrimination, learning about controversial issues is nearly impossible. In the adult world, you cannot avoid topics that make you uncomfortable, and by learning to confront this in college, students would be better prepared for the real world. Speech codes at colleges need to be reevaluated and loosed to allow teachers and fellow students the challenge beliefs and debate tough issues. While allowing more freedom, colleges also have the moral obligation to prevent hate speech and discrimination, just not in a way that focuses microaggressions and forces students to watch everything they
Changing a man’s career name from trashman to custodial engineer is an example that is justifiable and is why political correctness was brought about. It is the oversensitive effort to numb out historical content, which is neither offensive nor demeaning, which leads me to believe that political correctness has gone too far and needs to be stopped.
their employers, termination or possibly a lawsuit for discrimination. Political correctness has gone way too far in the minds of some people. Almost any phrase or word can be taken the wrong way by people nowadays. Political correctness is almost going against the first amendment of freedom of speech. Why would someone look to someone else and ask if it’s OK to say what you want to say? We are a free people. Nobody decides what is proper to say. The European socialist may control language but here we have a Constitution with the Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech, but we have no right not to be offended. One should not be afraid to offend someone with their speech because of what others will say (Brady, National World). What may offend one may compliment another.
Censorship affects our society in many different ways, it affects the music we listen to, the movies we watch, the books we read, and many other aspects of our everyday lives. Even though many might argue that censorship doesn't really have a place in a society that emphases freedom of speech and the freedom to express oneself, but censorship is an essential and needed part of our growing society, it's needed in the television industry, the Internet, and the music industry. Censorship helps to make our world a better place because it creates a better environment for us to live in.
As new technologies evolve and become a part of our daily lives, so do television shows and what people are allowed to view on a regular basis. Censorship, a word that seems to be causing quite some controversy over certain people may not be such a bad idea. As America has seen, a countless amount of people have been known to complain about censorship on television. Although this seems to be a problem to some, maybe the real question to be asked is, is there enough censorship of television? Many families agree that certain rated R movies should not be shown to young children and only certain shows