News & Politics

Rant

Political 'Correctness'

Posted 29 months ago|25 comments|837 views
Written by
I hate political correctness. Okay, maybe not HATE it, but I strongly dislike it. I think it's one of the DUMBEST concepts society has made up in recent years.

I know there are people out there who might be shocked, but I don't care. Since I do not like political correctness, I will just be blunt about everything.

First of all, I think political correctness is HIGHLY INcorrect. That's one reason why I think it's stupid. People have taken the concept TOO far and let oversensitivity and emotions cloud their judgment and have used it as a way to avoid dealing with the REAL issues of society. Crybabies and people who deflect have turned it into pseudo-mind control, and it doesn't allow people to REALLY think.

Some people like to think, "Anyone who doesn't like political correctness is a bigot and is just defending being an A-hole". This is not true, at least not for me.

Of course, mistreating others is wrong. Everyone knows that (though not everyone practices what they know). Calling people names is just as bad. But what people are ignoring is THOUGHT. Actions and words are the result of thinking. A person THOUGHT badly of someone else long before speaking or acting.

Speaking of words, this is another part of political correctness I don't understand. Why are some words offensive/wrong and not others that are just as bad? Why is it okay to say bad things about one group of people, but wrong if it's another group?

For example, racism (which I will post about at another time). It's politically incorrect to call black people the N-word, but okay to discriminate against them, stereotype them, ignore them, purposely exclude them, make hateful/hurtful jokes about them, and brainwash them and everyone else into believing everything about them is wrong and disgusting and inferior? I know I'm not the only one who noticed this. The N-word is horrible, but it's not the ONLY thing that needs to be stopped. The PC people just LOVE to focus on the N-word, but ignore the way black people are portrayed and perceived by the world's medias. Why is it also ignored when SOME black people use the N-word? Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.

Here's another example. Women. Why is it politically incorrect to use the C-word against women, but not the B-word? Why is violence against women so wrong, but not the exploitation and oversexualization of women? Females being told from a young age that their looks are all that matter about them, that they should be 'sexy' and flirty at all times, that guys will only like them if they keep their legs open, is JUST AS BAD. PC people and pretend feminists enjoy complaining about women not being as respected as men, but completely ignore how society pressures females to always wear make up and heels and form-fitting clothing (which is reenforcing the false belief that women are only as good as their looks, which is a form of exploitation). Why are women encouraged to be hateful to each other? The PC people missed that.

Another example. Homosexuals. It's politically incorrect to be against gay marriage (which I am, but not WHY you think - I'll post about marriage and relationships at a later time), but homosexuals are expected to be 'sluts' and have no morals. It's wrong to use the F-word, but not other terms (and just like black people, it's ignored when homosexual people use the F-word, themselves). Homosexual men are often ridiculed, but homosexual women are considered 'sexy' (and only if they look a certain way).

One more example. Religion. Why is it politically incorrect to say "Merry Christmas" but not other religious greetings? Why is it politically incorrect to display Christian things but not others? If one religion is 'offensive' it makes sense to consider ALL religions the same way. Also, why is it seemingly politically incorrect to be an atheist, but not politically incorrect to go around imposing beliefs on others?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Political correctness seems to be all about censoring words, but not addressing thoughts and actions. That and I also feel it's a very hypocritical concept. When someone says something that is un-PC, instead of just silencing the person, the time needs to be taken to fully examine WHY the person feels that way about whatever. Examine WHY society is the way it is. In order to change society and the world for the better, first the THOUGHTS need to be changed. Change the thoughts and the actions and words will change, too. Simple idea, but not done in most cases. If I say something bad, I don't shame myself into silence. I think about what I said, and why, and I examine my deepest feelings on the subject. Since I already felt what I said and did was wrong, I take steps to change my thinking so I can change my behavior for the better (which I'm constantly trying to do, as I'm a work in progress).

I mentioned hypocrisy, and how I feel political correctness is hypocritical. Think to all the times a dominant/more powerful group gets in trouble for putting down another group. Why is the other group then allowed to be just as negative to the first group? The behavior goes unchecked, which results in the first group doing something else wrong, and it's an endless cycle of stupidity.

One thing I also dislike about political correctness is that apologies are just thrown around with no sincerity. An apology is just sugar-coated BS if it's not really meant, and action doesn't follow. Think back to when you were younger and you got in trouble for doing something bad. In most cases, you weren't sorry at all (except sorry you got caught and got in trouble), and half the time you probably thought about doing it again, and next time not getting caught. Well to me that's the way all these fake apologies are.

Something else I dislike about political correctness is how so many people add multiple disclaimers: "I don't have a problem with gay people." "I'm not racist." "Fat people don't bother me." If such things were true, people would not feel the need to say them. Why do they say things they don't mean? Political correctness. It's used to disguise hatred of others, which is dangerous.

Political correctness is stupid and a waste of time. Honesty, respect, being tactful, open-mindedness, THAT is what should be encouraged. Often with political correctness, it's just empty. No substance. I think the concept of political correctness is more about having control than truly improving society, and I also think its real purpose (though well-hidden) is to defend everything that's wrong in the world.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
29 months ago: Word.
Chris D
Chris D
Seattle, WA
29 months ago: I'll just leave this right here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
29 months ago: Heh, this is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Your 'observations' are certainly unique well-reasoned, which is precisely why you're the only person to realize this terrible state of affairs.

For instance, young girls are hyper-sexualized and I think you are the first person to decry this practice. You're also the first person to point out that black people are stereotyped, and this is also bad! If only people would wake-up and notice these things happening and stop condoning them! Girls shouldn't be taught how to pole-dance in kindergarten, and it's a shame people are allowing this practice to continue!

Though your crowning comments must be about how you're against gay marriage (though not for the reasons we think). After all, being against equality and treating people with respect, while being tactful, honest, and open-minded is simply not your style (though not for the reasons you think).

If you understood how language controls thought and actions, you would understand that political correctness is something we should strive to achieve. True political correctness demands we reflect upon our words and look at how they shape our thoughts and actions. Which is precisely what you want people to do.

So congratulations on missing the point of a 'movement' which aims to accomplish the same things as you. Someone gets a gold star today.
29 months ago: Chris, ? It is a privilege to be born White?
Does that mean all others are to be considered underprivilged? You do know that there are more poor white kids in this country going hungry and without social correct caregiving than all others combined. Right?
Chris D
Chris D
Seattle, WA
29 months ago: @TCG

"...more poor white kids... than all others combined."

Not by percentage, friend. Not even close.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm
29 months ago: Oh, OK then they are less critical. Even though they are the large number in volume. Let's work percentages instead of who needs the help in mass.

Give me actual numbers not percentages....
29 months ago: BTW Chris, for you to sit up in your little state with 2, 3,4,5 percent minorities and preach is an insult.
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
29 months ago: Well, I can some it up in a few words.

Too many special interest groups and too many stupid people allowed to butt into your business.

I am the simple type, I say what I have to say, depending on the person that I meet.

If it needs be, I will call him whatever I feel like. If he pulled it in, I will give it to him.

I will treat people as good as they treat me.

Politically correct my ****.

I let people live and expect them to live and let live.

Life is too short to worry if I will be offending, the very person who offends me.

I give as good as I get.

Enjoy life and have fun.

THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


29 months ago: Dear Siempre Solo,
You're completely correct in your assertion that I expressed my true feelings on the subject- my true feelings being that while the author is entitled to his opinion, a little research into the theory behind being 'politically correct' would have changed the article to how being politically correct has been hijacked by those that don't understand its true purpose.

So to illustrate the point that being politically correct is something we should strive for, I did something very 'politically incorrect'. I used words which would demonstrate my contempt for the erroneous concepts expressed by the author while simultaneously showcasing why word choice is important because of the contextual and connotative attachments.

Also, if my post 'seems to be all about censoring words' then you have missed the point I was making. I never once asked the author to stop speaking, but I was using rhetorical tools to get him to question his article.
29 months ago: (cont.)
After all: "If I say something bad, I don't shame myself into silence. I think about what I said, and why, and I examine my deepest feelings on the subject"

The author has it incorrect when he said, "Change the thoughts and the actions and words will change too." Because as I have demonstrated with my previous post, the words I used changed the tone of my piece. What could have easily been seen as a constructive piece of criticism was turned to derision by not being mindful of the proper way to express something respectfully. A clear indication that the words are what is changing the perception, not the other way around.

This post, providing insight into my previous post, will show that because words can change tone and perceptions we should strive to be politically correct and seek to cause the least amount of offense to our audience (within reason, of course), which demonstrates the author's flawed reasoning.
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
29 months ago: "politically correct" as a descriptive term is of Maoist origin. In the precincts of the extreme left, it was intoned with earnestness. It rightfully attracted derision when attempts were made to inject it into mainstream political discourse.

"The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party's line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it loses."

(Mao tse Tung


http://www.redsun.org/mpp_doc/mpp_0100.htm


29 months ago: Why does the author's gender matter? The convention in English is the use of a masculine pronoun when gender is unknown or isn't directly referred to.

Are you trying to tell me that the meaning of my piece would be changed if I used a 'she'? What I'm trying to get you to realize is how you're responding to my posts changes based on the language I use. Being politically correct is contextually and connotative-ly bound.

It was a linguistic concept stolen for political use.

But, since you don't seem interested in debating my points because, 'Locs4lyfe is right and I am wrong.'

Then I ask you, why is it Locs4lyfe is against marriage equality? Who is really trying to defend the inequity of a particular group? Me, by pointing out the hypocrisy of the author's comments, or the author's stance that it's acceptable to be against gay marriage while being honest, tactful, open-minded, and respectful.

Who is really trying to disguise their hatred of others? I've been forthright about my contempt for her ideas but would never attempt to silence her.
29 months ago: I appreciate your frankness, so allow me to reciprocate.

You are criticizing me for two things. Not having tact and using the grammatical convention when referencing gender. Let me stress this fact, as I've stated it once before: the choice in my words was intentional. I used harsh language when I could have been tactful and I did not use the semantically appropriate pronoun for gender (or use gender-neutral language).

I did this to prove my point. Both instances you are criticizing me for, are instances in which I was intentionally politically incorrect. I wanted to show that when you don't think carefully about the connotations and context of your words, then you can easily offend the audience. Mission accomplished.

Therefore, when you tell me to be more tactful and when you tell me to use the more culturally accepted gender pronoun, you are being politically correct. Thus, you expose your disagreements with the author and state the importance of the linguistic concept.
29 months ago: Furthermore, I wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the author. To decry the practice of being politically correct as 'stupid, dumb, and hypocritical' and then in the next breath state, “It's politically incorrect to be against gay marriage (which I am...)” is the irony of ironies.

The author says that being p.c. is pointless because it doesn't change anything. She then implies being p.c. means supporting equality for gays and lesbians. Did I miss something? Doesn't that mean being politically correct does help spread equality?

As for the 'point' you make, if I'm Unitarian and want a same-sex marriage, aren't you infringing upon my religious beliefs? How does a private contract you don't belong to infringe on what you hold sacred? Also, with regards to the Kinsey scale, I'm not sure if you're aware that research close to 60 years old is a bit out of date (especially in soft sciences).

I'm not liberal nor conservative. I simply expect people to be consistent and rational in their arguments.
29 months ago: To quote the late great George Carlin who fancied himself a jester, and philosopher, and poet..."It's all bullsh@t, and it's bad for ya!"

Amen
29 months ago: lol Siempre, that what you get for shaking it at situations....
29 months ago: I love your thought process, though I think you're incorrect on why I'm posting and my statements.

My first 'contradiction' is the difference between grammar and semantics. The grammatical convention is the use of the masculine. The semantically appropriate pronoun is used to avoid offense (defying the rules of writing to consider the audience's feelings). That's why feminists changed writing in articles from the arbitrary 'he' to a 'she'. So, I followed grammatical convention and when you made the expected fuss, I simply changed my pronoun in following posts (to avoid future offense; I was then being p.c.). What happened? You stopped focusing on those postings and kept commenting on the original politically incorrect comment.

My second 'contradiction' is apparently...I'm not quite sure as this will now be the third time I've stated I intentionally chose words to evoke a vitriolic response. How did you respond? Did you critique my word choice while leaving the points I raised untouched?
29 months ago: Oh, and there are certainly no hard feelings on my side and I'm glad you feel the same. Your responses have generated quite a bit of interest among my peers. I appreciate your warm welcome and I hope to hear your thoughts on future issues.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.