“Gosh I hate being politicaly correct!!! Im not AFRAID to SAY what’s on my MIND because I’m proud of my right to free speech!! People who try to be politically correct are just giving in 2 public shaming!!!” – freed0mf1ght3r69, Youtube comments section
The issue of political correctness has been the topic of heated discussion in the last couple of years. As a movement originally meant to make public discourse less exclusionary towards traditionally marginalized social groups, it seems to have evolved into an excuse to silence the opinions of those who do not agree with the radical left. Or at least, that is what its critics would have you believe; alternatively, it seems to have become a way for the conservative right to lash out at those who would call them out on their lies. Much of the controversy that surrounds political correctness comes from its "attack" on freedom of speech. What does it mean to be politically correct in 2016? Why do so many people react so negatively when told what they say is not politically correct?
Recommended for you
The main criticism of political correctness stems from its primary goal, which is to remove problematic forms of discourse which poison discussions on social justice issues. I think we can agree that in a discussion about solutions to structural racism in the American government, the rhetoric of the KKK is entirely unnecessary and probably does more harm than good. But does that mean this rhetoric should be outright rejected? From one perspective, such an action would be considered a censorship. That is to say, it outright rejects an opinion if that opinion is deemed racist, or sexist, or otherwise exclusionary. It seems like it violates our fundamental right to free speech. But what does the right to free speech entail?
Freedom of speech is an important foundation of our democracy. But freedom of speech is never an excuse to spread hate. It is not an excuse to make derogatory comments about marginalized groups. The Supreme Court has made decisions regarding when freedom of speech does or not does apply, e.g. Shenck v. United States. The full protection of freedom of speech does not apply when that speech is slanderous or otherwise damaging to a person or group of persons. The consequences of bigoted speech are exactly that: it causes not only emotional damage to the affected group, but also potentially real and physical harm in the form of bad policymaking. Just look at the effect of Donald Trump on the discourse of this election: his attacks on the Muslim population has given credibility to his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Even though this proposal is clearly unconstitutional and morally reprehensible, his supporters favor this idea because his islamophobic rhetoric has created this illusion that the ban is justified to “stop terrorism.”
But perhaps freedom of speech is not even the heart of the issue that people take with political correctness. In fact, the responses to criticism of a flawed belief, like the accusation of Islam as a violent religion, condemn "pc culture" even when that criticism is justified and legitimate. Yes, it is politically correct to refrain from labeling an entire religion as violent because of the actions of a minority; it is not a violation of the freedom of speech if someone criticizes the racist underpinnings of claiming the opposite. Freedom of speech is not freedom from being called out. Political correctness is fundamentally about calling out this abuse when it happens.
To be politically correct is not to hide behind obfuscations of reality. To be politically correct is to be just correct in describing a typically marginalized group or person, for example, to call a person of trans or non-binary experience by their preferred pronouns. To be politically correct is to recognize that certain words like “retard,” or “chink” contain a history, similar to the n-word, which is not just “offensive” but full of pain and oppression. To be politically correct is to recognize that saying "you're such a pussy" is to reinforce gender norms of toxic masculinity which are dangerous to both men and women. To be politically correct is to recognize that, despite what the media tells you, black people are not inherently lazier than other races, and to say so is to perpetuate a lie that white supremacy uses as an excuse to ignore black suffering. To be politically correct is to ignore the dark voices in your subconscious that tell you to judge a woman’s worth based on how much sex she has.
Language is a dangerous and powerful weapon that can easily be used to inspire or reverse progress. That old expression “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” is more accurately “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words justify racial profiling because Islam is a violent religion.” It is somewhat ironic to see how a movement against mischaracterizations has itself been mischaracterized so severely. It makes me sad to see liberals I am friends with make this mistake because of the minority of loud voices who would abuse its ideas. Perhaps it would be best to do away with this word “political” in the front, which seems to be causing so much more trouble than it is worth. Let’s just try to be correct, in every sense of the word.
