HOME | DD

Description
Political correctness. IS BULLSHIT.

I know there's a lot of debate going on there (most of it away from me), and just as there are ardent defenders of the concept, there is also a lot of outcry against it.
However, while barking at each other is rife, presenting arguments in favour in one's position is not quite something that many people do. I'll try to do it from my stand point now.

So there are several different reasons for me to think that political correctness is bullshit. Read the walls of text below....

Reason №1. Changing the word doesn't change the problem in any way.
The idea of political correctness is to substitude the word / phrase by which people refer to something in a negative way with another word or phrase, usually some kind of euphemism, in order to avoid offence against a certain usually vulnerable group of people who are otherwise subjected to that negative reference. This can concern a state, disease or disorder, a personality trait, sexuality or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, or any other way a group of individuals are referred to by society that is perceived by them as an insult or some form of discrimination. As an idea, that sounds good; after all, it should be an endeavour to elimintate discrimination and prejudice, which I strongly support. However, substituting the word by which people refer to something does not result in eliminating discrimination or prejudice at all. In fact, it doesn't help the problem in any way. To be clear, many of these, like race, ethnicity or sexuality, are not a problem to begin with. However, if there is a perceived need for a "political correctness", then there is a group of people being offended in some way by something - and therefore, there is a problem and that problem is discrimination itself, prejudice and the negative attitude of society towards said group, whatever the reason for it. Only, substituting the negative name of whatever characterizes such people does not solve that problem, it only sweeps it under the proverbial carpet for a little while, where it can further deepen and fester undisturbed. Whatever way the individuals in the group in question are referred to, the attitude does not essentially change just because the word for it has been changed artificially. Furthermore, not only said term substitution does not change or help the problem - often times it actually enhances it.

Reason №2. Changing the word actually alienates society from the problem.
More often than not political correctness uses an euphemism to describe the problematic characteristic, to substitute the expression that is perceived as offensive. Simply spoken, a euphemism is a word or phrase which names a given subject in an indirect and/or figurative way. For example, to say that someone engages in non-consensual sex would be a euphemism for "rapist". Euphemisms are generally evasive and that is the core of the problem here. Euphemisms don't refer to things directly, they are used to deliberately soften matters, often times sugar-coating an unpleasant reality and putting the probem in a box of mildness instead of presenting it openly. This is a problem for the very people they are supposed to protect because no problem is ever solved by avoidance. Problems need to be faced, in their full harshness and reality, if they stand any chance to be properly fixed. Some of the euphemisms used for political correctness regard people with actual serious problems - problems of health, disabilities, traumas. To sugar-coat these problems in the eyes of society is nothing short of cynical because while it may be intended as a form of protection for those people, in reality the only effect of all that is that it makes it easier for society to discard and ignore their problems instead of make some effort to solve them.

Reason №3. The problem is never in the word itself.
When talking about substituting terms to avoid offending people it is important to understand why said people feel as though there is a need for such a thing at all - in other words, why do they feel offended by the way others refer to them. Naturally, most of the time the reason is in the negative attitude that these undesirable words seem to express. Why do they do so - because society has been using those words with that negative nuance, even as insults, for a long time and this has modified their original, neutral meaning, into an offensive form of itself. I say the original meaning is neutral because that is the case with any term that simply describes a trait or state, or else a belonging to a certain group. E.g. to name someone blind is not innately an insult - it is merely the observation that said person cannot see; however for a long time the word "blind" has also been used by people figuratively, as an insult. This illustrates the way words become insults over time, although the mechanism can be a lot more direct too, when the word used to describe a certain minority is perceived as an insult to begin with because of society's prejudice against that minority (that is the case with many words regarding race/ethnicity and sexuality, for example). However, in all those cases, the word is only a carrier of the already existing prejudice and negative attitude demonstrated by society - it does not generate that attitude, it only expresses it. What happens when you change the word with another, non-insulting one? Nothing, you simply initiate the generation of a new insult. The reason is that if society's attitude remains the same, it will quickly paint the new word in a negative way all the same. You could point out that changing the name for something may change the attitude of society, but I would argue that this isn't how society really works. Unless something is done to remove the prejudice creating the negativity, the attitude remains the same regardless of how you will call someone. And while I agree insulting someone without a reason is not nice, focusing on the word while ignoring the attitude just doesn't stand to reason.
In any case, the word itself, no matter how negative, is never really the problem. The problem is always in the meant insult and the reasons behind it. A word itself is not an insult - only the way it is meant can be. The word itself is not the problem, but only a symptom and indication of that problem. What political correctness does is focus attention on the word instead of on the real problem, merely removing said indication while the core of the problem often times remains untouched.

Reason №4. Political correctness is hypocritical.
As discussed already, political correctness more often than not results in problems being sweeped under the carpet, smeared over and hidden behind mild phrases instead of actually faced and dealt with. However, political correctness is intended to protect vulnerable groups of people and somehow help their situation. At least that is how it is being advocated, while in reality none of that really happens by means of political correctness. In my understanding, to claim you try to help and protect someone by avoiding to speak or even name their problem in an open and honest way is not merely ineffective - it is downright hypocritical. Furthermore, more often than not political correctness is pushed forward and even enforced by people who merely use it as means to uplift their own selves in the eyes of society by being morally elated and socially just. They use political correctness to demonstratively express sympathy towards people to whose problems often times they cannot relate in any way nor even properly understand - which is in fact often made evident by inadequate measures to help those problems like, say.... political correctness. For them, political correctness is a mere tool for political success, and that makes it bloody cynical too. I find absurd the idea that someone may actually empathize with a vulnerable group if they even refer to its status in an evasive way and refuse to face the issues said group is experiencing.

Reason №5. Political correctness only encourages victimization.
But when talking about the issues of vulnerable groups, I would like to express my conviction that political correctness is degrading and deteriorating the people subjected to it even when it's used with the most genuine good intentions possible and in a most sincere and well-meant way. Why? Because it encourages the thinking that people of certain groups are vulnerable to begin with, that they are victims of society and of their own situation and therefore need to be taken care of, protected, spared and pitied by others. Indeed, often times they are victims - if nothing else, at least of the negative attitude of society, given that they feel offended in some way, but that doesn't mean they are helpless and entirely depend on the mercy of the noble socially just citizens who defend their right to exist in a politically correct manner. In fact, people from marginalized groups are often times more resilient and tough than the majority - a consequence of their life being made difficult by prejudice and discrimination; even more so, people with actual disabilities often develop inner strength that "normal people" can't remotely imagine let alone muster. To look down on such people in any way is blatantly insulting, both towards their strength and courage and towards their fortitude to endure the hardships life has dealt to them. And while the way society sees them as victims is often unfair, the way it makes them believe it and perceive themselves as helpless and dependent, is nothing short of mutilating them on a psychological level, to make believe they are dependent and cannot deal with their own problems but need society to take care of them and shield them instead.
Furthermore, I can argue that while insulting people for how they are different or disabled is indeed wrong, political correctness is totally not the way to handle that problem. Of course no one likes to be insulted for anything they are, of course it is unfair and such insults are undeserved and ugly. However, banning words from usage and artificially changing the way things are being referred to will not change the convictions of those using the words as insults to begin with. The solution is to make a valid point, address the negative attitude and overwhelm it with arguments, dismantle the negative image and shatter the prejudice with the rational and objective truth about what people are like, what they experience and why the prejudice against them is groundless in the first place. More often than not prejudice is due to misunderstanding or complete lack of knowledge on the problem, and the way to battle that is not by avoiding it, but by actually talking about it. The people in marginalized and discriminated groups can do that themselves because they understand their own situation a lot better than anyone else, like this they know better than anyone else why being insulted is unjust and more often than not can argue in their own favour better than those who seek to shield them with political correctness. I believe often times they don't actually want any of that themselves because, albeit no one indeed likes to be insulted, they feel political correctness does not alleviate the insults, but only shifts attention away from the problem.
Nowadays, the cult to the victim is spread and amplified in modern society to the point of absurdity where victims are not only due understood and sympathized with, but all but encouraged to be and remain victims, almost like this is some kind of virtue. No, it is not. Coping with it is. It is my deep conviction that true virtue lies not in being helpless and dependent, but in the fortitude to fight against the odds and make your life better with your own strength and courage. A lot of people that society so lightly dubs vulnerable actually do precisely that and are strong enough to face prejudice and battle it and don't need to be shielded with political correctness.

Reason №6. Political correctness is essentially censorship.
Last but not least, I would like to address how political correctness is a problem not only to those it pretends to protect, but also for the rest of society. This refers to the freedom of speech - the innate right of anyone to believe as they will and have an opinion of their own, and voice it openly to their heart's content. Of course that freedom comes not only with positivity, optimism, innovation and creativity - it also comes with disagreement, protest, even vulgarity and outright hate. And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that in itself. People have any right to be negative and disagree with each other in any way - some simply do it more ardently (and sometimes in a less mannered way) than others. But if you feel you are being treated unjustly with negativity, then make a point and defend your position, instead of hiding behind political correctness. Sometimes it will work, sometimes not. That's what discussion is about. Some will hate you irrationally because of their own prejudice and sometimes there is little you can do about it. Is that right? No, not really. Does it justify political correctness? No, not at all. Because political correctness is essentially a form of censorship. It is saying that certain words and expressions are not to be spoken because they are offensive and that is then enforced as a rule by means of the disgruntlement of society. At least at first. Later, it gets enforced by local rules in social situations, for example, in internet sites against the so-called "hate speech". Who knows, some more time later it may get enforced by actual laws as well and disobeying those may one day result in people being locked up. For what? For saying a bad word? History has already been through that and it's showed quite well it is a very bad idea. That is why freedom of speech has been elevated as an innate right and something of very high value, even if it inevitably comes with hate. But hate in speech does not really harm anyone.
On the subject of so-called "hate speech", there is another point often times unforeseen by most people. It is the fact that over time, it grows. Because the definition of "hate speech" is innately vague and subjective in its core, it has the potential to be expanded more and more into anything that anyone perceives as offensive or indended in a bad way in any way at all. And in time, it will be. More and more opinions, undesirable for one or another, will fall in the growing chasm of "hate speech" and not necessarily because they really are offensive or hateful in any way - sometimes they will fall down in it only because someone has made society believe so, and society is woefully easy to manipulate. That has proven a good way for certain people to discredit and eliminate political opponents - not with genuine arguments, but by making their opinion be perceived by society as offensive, when it isn't necessarily such. Often times, it is just inconvenient. And the problem with all that, unforeseen by the people who applaud the crusade against "hate speech", is that no opinion at all is immune to that effect. Yes, for now their own opinion is not in the category.... yet. But it just as easily may one day fall into it. In the end, it is just an opinion. An opinion must not ever be treated as an offense of any kind. This is a downward spiral leading to one place only: despotism.

Feel free to use the stamp, but it if you do.

DISCLAIMER: Feel free to express your position - IN A CIVIL MANNER - be it disagreement or not, but I'm far too busy lately and not likely to engage in lengthly debates. Not interested either.
DISCLAIMER 2: To anyone who is going to accuse me of being or siding with "white supremacists", "alt-rights" and other such "disagreeables" because I am white myself (though I'm blue actually), of the majority and therefore don't understand the problem of minorities at all, I have two words for you: FUCK THE HELL OFF. Alright, that's 4 words. Regardless of that, I actually belong to a minority, and in more than one way. For one thing, I am transgender, I am asexual, and in a country where the LGBTQ+ are perceived as abnormal and actually hated, and my religion is in fact so marginalized and hated that even the most dedicated SJW's don't even consider defending it, while there is actual and violent discrimination against it. So shut the fuck up about me not understanding the problems of vulnerable groups.

Description
Political correctness. IS BULLSHIT.

I know there's a lot of debate going on there (most of it away from me), and just as there are ardent defenders of the concept, there is also a lot of outcry against it.
However, while barking at each other is rife, presenting arguments in favour in one's position is not quite something that many people do. I'll try to do it from my stand point now.

So there are several different reasons for me to think that political correctness is bullshit. Read the walls of text below....

Reason №1. Changing the word doesn't change the problem in any way.
The idea of political correctness is to substitude the word / phrase by which people refer to something in a negative way with another word or phrase, usually some kind of euphemism, in order to avoid offence against a certain usually vulnerable group of people who are otherwise subjected to that negative reference. This can concern a state, disease or disorder, a personality trait, sexuality or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, or any other way a group of individuals are referred to by society that is perceived by them as an insult or some form of discrimination. As an idea, that sounds good; after all, it should be an endeavour to elimintate discrimination and prejudice, which I strongly support. However, substituting the word by which people refer to something does not result in eliminating discrimination or prejudice at all. In fact, it doesn't help the problem in any way. To be clear, many of these, like race, ethnicity or sexuality, are not a problem to begin with. However, if there is a perceived need for a "political correctness", then there is a group of people being offended in some way by something - and therefore, there is a problem and that problem is discrimination itself, prejudice and the negative attitude of society towards said group, whatever the reason for it. Only, substituting the negative name of whatever characterizes such people does not solve that problem, it only sweeps it under the proverbial carpet for a little while, where it can further deepen and fester undisturbed. Whatever way the individuals in the group in question are referred to, the attitude does not essentially change just because the word for it has been changed artificially. Furthermore, not only said term substitution does not change or help the problem - often times it actually enhances it.

Reason №2. Changing the word actually alienates society from the problem.
More often than not political correctness uses an euphemism to describe the problematic characteristic, to substitute the expression that is perceived as offensive. Simply spoken, a euphemism is a word or phrase which names a given subject in an indirect and/or figurative way. For example, to say that someone engages in non-consensual sex would be a euphemism for "rapist". Euphemisms are generally evasive and that is the core of the problem here. Euphemisms don't refer to things directly, they are used to deliberately soften matters, often times sugar-coating an unpleasant reality and putting the probem in a box of mildness instead of presenting it openly. This is a problem for the very people they are supposed to protect because no problem is ever solved by avoidance. Problems need to be faced, in their full harshness and reality, if they stand any chance to be properly fixed. Some of the euphemisms used for political correctness regard people with actual serious problems - problems of health, disabilities, traumas. To sugar-coat these problems in the eyes of society is nothing short of cynical because while it may be intended as a form of protection for those people, in reality the only effect of all that is that it makes it easier for society to discard and ignore their problems instead of make some effort to solve them.

Reason №3. The problem is never in the word itself.
When talking about substituting terms to avoid offending people it is important to understand why said people feel as though there is a need for such a thing at all - in other words, why do they feel offended by the way others refer to them. Naturally, most of the time the reason is in the negative attitude that these undesirable words seem to express. Why do they do so - because society has been using those words with that negative nuance, even as insults, for a long time and this has modified their original, neutral meaning, into an offensive form of itself. I say the original meaning is neutral because that is the case with any term that simply describes a trait or state, or else a belonging to a certain group. E.g. to name someone blind is not innately an insult - it is merely the observation that said person cannot see; however for a long time the word "blind" has also been used by people figuratively, as an insult. This illustrates the way words become insults over time, although the mechanism can be a lot more direct too, when the word used to describe a certain minority is perceived as an insult to begin with because of society's prejudice against that minority (that is the case with many words regarding race/ethnicity and sexuality, for example). However, in all those cases, the word is only a carrier of the already existing prejudice and negative attitude demonstrated by society - it does not generate that attitude, it only expresses it. What happens when you change the word with another, non-insulting one? Nothing, you simply initiate the generation of a new insult. The reason is that if society's attitude remains the same, it will quickly paint the new word in a negative way all the same. You could point out that changing the name for something may change the attitude of society, but I would argue that this isn't how society really works. Unless something is done to remove the prejudice creating the negativity, the attitude remains the same regardless of how you will call someone. And while I agree insulting someone without a reason is not nice, focusing on the word while ignoring the attitude just doesn't stand to reason.
In any case, the word itself, no matter how negative, is never really the problem. The problem is always in the meant insult and the reasons behind it. A word itself is not an insult - only the way it is meant can be. The word itself is not the problem, but only a symptom and indication of that problem. What political correctness does is focus attention on the word instead of on the real problem, merely removing said indication while the core of the problem often times remains untouched.

Reason №4. Political correctness is hypocritical.
As discussed already, political correctness more often than not results in problems being sweeped under the carpet, smeared over and hidden behind mild phrases instead of actually faced and dealt with. However, political correctness is intended to protect vulnerable groups of people and somehow help their situation. At least that is how it is being advocated, while in reality none of that really happens by means of political correctness. In my understanding, to claim you try to help and protect someone by avoiding to speak or even name their problem in an open and honest way is not merely ineffective - it is downright hypocritical. Furthermore, more often than not political correctness is pushed forward and even enforced by people who merely use it as means to uplift their own selves in the eyes of society by being morally elated and socially just. They use political correctness to demonstratively express sympathy towards people to whose problems often times they cannot relate in any way nor even properly understand - which is in fact often made evident by inadequate measures to help those problems like, say.... political correctness. For them, political correctness is a mere tool for political success, and that makes it bloody cynical too. I find absurd the idea that someone may actually empathize with a vulnerable group if they even refer to its status in an evasive way and refuse to face the issues said group is experiencing.

Reason №5. Political correctness only encourages victimization.
But when talking about the issues of vulnerable groups, I would like to express my conviction that political correctness is degrading and deteriorating the people subjected to it even when it's used with the most genuine good intentions possible and in a most sincere and well-meant way. Why? Because it encourages the thinking that people of certain groups are vulnerable to begin with, that they are victims of society and of their own situation and therefore need to be taken care of, protected, spared and pitied by others. Indeed, often times they are victims - if nothing else, at least of the negative attitude of society, given that they feel offended in some way, but that doesn't mean they are helpless and entirely depend on the mercy of the noble socially just citizens who defend their right to exist in a politically correct manner. In fact, people from marginalized groups are often times more resilient and tough than the majority - a consequence of their life being made difficult by prejudice and discrimination; even more so, people with actual disabilities often develop inner strength that "normal people" can't remotely imagine let alone muster. To look down on such people in any way is blatantly insulting, both towards their strength and courage and towards their fortitude to endure the hardships life has dealt to them. And while the way society sees them as victims is often unfair, the way it makes them believe it and perceive themselves as helpless and dependent, is nothing short of mutilating them on a psychological level, to make believe they are dependent and cannot deal with their own problems but need society to take care of them and shield them instead.
Furthermore, I can argue that while insulting people for how they are different or disabled is indeed wrong, political correctness is totally not the way to handle that problem. Of course no one likes to be insulted for anything they are, of course it is unfair and such insults are undeserved and ugly. However, banning words from usage and artificially changing the way things are being referred to will not change the convictions of those using the words as insults to begin with. The solution is to make a valid point, address the negative attitude and overwhelm it with arguments, dismantle the negative image and shatter the prejudice with the rational and objective truth about what people are like, what they experience and why the prejudice against them is groundless in the first place. More often than not prejudice is due to misunderstanding or complete lack of knowledge on the problem, and the way to battle that is not by avoiding it, but by actually talking about it. The people in marginalized and discriminated groups can do that themselves because they understand their own situation a lot better than anyone else, like this they know better than anyone else why being insulted is unjust and more often than not can argue in their own favour better than those who seek to shield them with political correctness. I believe often times they don't actually want any of that themselves because, albeit no one indeed likes to be insulted, they feel political correctness does not alleviate the insults, but only shifts attention away from the problem.
Nowadays, the cult to the victim is spread and amplified in modern society to the point of absurdity where victims are not only due understood and sympathized with, but all but encouraged to be and remain victims, almost like this is some kind of virtue. No, it is not. Coping with it is. It is my deep conviction that true virtue lies not in being helpless and dependent, but in the fortitude to fight against the odds and make your life better with your own strength and courage. A lot of people that society so lightly dubs vulnerable actually do precisely that and are strong enough to face prejudice and battle it and don't need to be shielded with political correctness.

Reason №6. Political correctness is essentially censorship.
Last but not least, I would like to address how political correctness is a problem not only to those it pretends to protect, but also for the rest of society. This refers to the freedom of speech - the innate right of anyone to believe as they will and have an opinion of their own, and voice it openly to their heart's content. Of course that freedom comes not only with positivity, optimism, innovation and creativity - it also comes with disagreement, protest, even vulgarity and outright hate. And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that in itself. People have any right to be negative and disagree with each other in any way - some simply do it more ardently (and sometimes in a less mannered way) than others. But if you feel you are being treated unjustly with negativity, then make a point and defend your position, instead of hiding behind political correctness. Sometimes it will work, sometimes not. That's what discussion is about. Some will hate you irrationally because of their own prejudice and sometimes there is little you can do about it. Is that right? No, not really. Does it justify political correctness? No, not at all. Because political correctness is essentially a form of censorship. It is saying that certain words and expressions are not to be spoken because they are offensive and that is then enforced as a rule by means of the disgruntlement of society. At least at first. Later, it gets enforced by local rules in social situations, for example, in internet sites against the so-called "hate speech". Who knows, some more time later it may get enforced by actual laws as well and disobeying those may one day result in people being locked up. For what? For saying a bad word? History has already been through that and it's showed quite well it is a very bad idea. That is why freedom of speech has been elevated as an innate right and something of very high value, even if it inevitably comes with hate. But hate in speech does not really harm anyone.
On the subject of so-called "hate speech", there is another point often times unforeseen by most people. It is the fact that over time, it grows. Because the definition of "hate speech" is innately vague and subjective in its core, it has the potential to be expanded more and more into anything that anyone perceives as offensive or indended in a bad way in any way at all. And in time, it will be. More and more opinions, undesirable for one or another, will fall in the growing chasm of "hate speech" and not necessarily because they really are offensive or hateful in any way - sometimes they will fall down in it only because someone has made society believe so, and society is woefully easy to manipulate. That has proven a good way for certain people to discredit and eliminate political opponents - not with genuine arguments, but by making their opinion be perceived by society as offensive, when it isn't necessarily such. Often times, it is just inconvenient. And the problem with all that, unforeseen by the people who applaud the crusade against "hate speech", is that no opinion at all is immune to that effect. Yes, for now their own opinion is not in the category.... yet. But it just as easily may one day fall into it. In the end, it is just an opinion. An opinion must not ever be treated as an offense of any kind. This is a downward spiral leading to one place only: despotism.

Feel free to use the stamp, but it if you do.

DISCLAIMER: Feel free to express your position - IN A CIVIL MANNER - be it disagreement or not, but I'm far too busy lately and not likely to engage in lengthly debates. Not interested either.
DISCLAIMER 2: To anyone who is going to accuse me of being or siding with "white supremacists", "alt-rights" and other such "disagreeables" because I am white myself (though I'm blue actually), of the majority and therefore don't understand the problem of minorities at all, I have two words for you: FUCK THE HELL OFF. Alright, that's 4 words. Regardless of that, I actually belong to a minority, and in more than one way. For one thing, I am transgender, I am asexual, and in a country where the LGBTQ+ are perceived as abnormal and actually hated, and my religion is in fact so marginalized and hated that even the most dedicated SJW's don't even consider defending it, while there is actual and violent discrimination against it. So shut the fuck up about me not understanding the problems of vulnerable groups.