Neil Joseph's 'Political Correctness'

Elaborating on Charles’ comment, political correctness is a troubling aspect of American society as is the tone of the current presidential race. Yet civil war, foreign attacks, economic turmoil, two presidential impeachments, a presidential resignation, military campaigns and political correctness has battered but not destroyed the nation. The key is the inward base found in the simplicity of a government created by the people and for the people, an outside

In this article the research I collected explains the use of political correctness at a University. The purpose of political correctness is to avoid or take extreme measures to desist any action or expression that may exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. It is clear that majority of the people in this article are not satisfied by the way issues were handled at the University. The author presented relevant information to answer the question; “Is political correctness an enemy of free speech?”. Some government officials that were brought into this situation, agreed with political correctness and what it means. While doing this research I learned that political correctness in not only this, but also is a tool used to control people's speech so that no one feels offended. I believe political correctness is barricade for anyone who wants a power of choice. Moreover, this article is useful for an analysis on limitations for societies in

Many of the predictions made by George Orwell in his book 1984 in relation to corruption of language are recognizable in the United States today. Our language is in the process of changing. The introduction of politically correct words and phrases over the past few decades is based on the principles of Orwell's Newspeak. Today, this phenomenon is a tool of liberals used to erase the opinions of the past, and to help propagate new ideas, and is rooted in the same motives as Newspeak. Although Political Correctness may not be all-encompassing as its Orwell's Newspeak, Political Correctness is equally as dangerous and oppressive to free thought. For example, terms such as "Affirmative Action" implies Action which is correct ("Affirmative" means correct, and "Action" is normally good as well) when actually what is meant is the preferential treatment for a particular minority group. The word "Peacekeepers," now refers to a soldier that occupies a foreign nation. During the cold war, when the USSR would do that type of thing,

In an article from The Washington Post, Cathy Cuthbertson, a Trump supporter, said, ““You know, I couldn’t say ‘Merry Christmas.’ And when we wrote things, we couldn’t even say ‘he’ or ‘she,’ because we had transgender. People of color. I mean, we had to watch every word that came out of our mouth, because we were afraid of offending someone,”(Tumulty and Johnson). Cuthbertson’s feelings embody much of those who oppose political correctness. Most of the oppositions to political corrections stem from the argument

Not only does political correctness limit language, it limits competition between groups. For example the competition between the upper and lower class for power would cease if we were made to be politically correct. We need the upper and lower class for our society to function correctly. Without competition society can not thrive, and the philosophy of political correctness attempts to make people equals which effectively blocks individual success thus eliminating any motive to take the risks necessary to succeed. How can a person move up in this world with out stepping on others, and every time someone steps on someone else they will use methods or words that could be taken as politically incorrect. It is the nature of capitalism and democracy to have competing groups which ultimately leads to a separation of the bourgeoisie and proletariat or the upper and lower class. This is the greatest good a capitalistic democratic society can reach because the factions are not permanent; the members of each group are free to move

Political correctness in the United States is often seen as killing the country. From the point of view of republicans, it is believed that political correctness is more like a sort of Manchurian candidate which has been unleashed by the Democrats in order to undermine the establishment of conformity and mediocrity. The political correctness also often results in the downfall of the country. There are resulting declining educational standards along with the inability to have the security of jobs and also the resultant diminished American within the current modern world. The political correctness also seems to be taking over the entire American society which is evident when 5 of the Californian students were however sent back home

Political correctness is a concept encouraged in the simplicity of technology. And perhaps, it is political correctness which tears apart and inhibits the expression of the self, leading to suppression and depression. Technology is the vector by which expression can be allowed or burned into ashes.

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

In today’s era people are being limited in their freedom of speech because people are too sensitive and it can be offensive.

everybody believes political correctness is a good thing.One standpoints that can defend this. Equally the other side, has some advantages.  Not everybody believes political correctness is in the nest interest of everyone. We all have our

However, many groups claim that political correctness in society is justified in its efforts to sanitize offensive material created though years of oppressing minorities. What was originally a noble idea, to remove blatant words of offensive meaning, has turned into an “over the top” effort to rid any words of possible controversy. We are regulating our ways of plain speaking, freedom of choice, and freedom of speech. Laws of restrictions on slander and public decency should be decided on the common law methodology and not by the interests of the liberal “mob”. If plain speaking is not allowed, clear thinking is

Within the article On Political Correctness, by William Deresiewicz, there’s a main issue that’s discussed about whether or not to allow censorship of unpopular ideas. With learning about many different philosophers and their beliefs, I am able to connect three philosophers’ ideas to Deresiewicz article and how they would answer questions about the article. These philosophers being Socrates, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Marx. Though there may be some similarities in their answers, what leads to each of their answers are different for each philosopher. Also, I choose between these philosophers and decide who I agree with the most and whose reasoning I agree with the most.

Being politically correct is being able to speak about a problem or issue in such a way without offending any groups of people whether it’s religion or a race. If you are politically correct you can speak to both sides of the problem without sounding bias or for one side more than the other and speak with facts more than just speaking from your own opinion. For example, Jesse Williams touched on the issue of police brutality against black people during his acceptance speech at the BET Awards. In his speech he says, “[n]ow, what we’ve been doing is looking at the data and we know that police somehow manage to deescalate, disarm and not kill white people every day.” Later in his speech he states “I don’t want to hear anymore about how far we’ve come when [police officers] pull a drive-by on [a] [12-year-old] playing alone in the park in broad daylight…then going home to make a sandwich.” In that part of his speech he is saying there is still a lot to be done and yes we have overcome a lot but, there are still a lot to be done and we are far from it. He also says “[t]ell Rekia Boyd how it’s so much better than it is to live in 2012 than it is to live in 1612 or 1712. Tell that to Eric Garner…Sandra Bland…Dorian Hunt.” In that quote he is comparing past and present and saying black people are still dealing similar inequality, prejudice, racist problems they had to deal with in the past and history is repeating

Political correctness is a political ideology, nothing more. I believe political correctness is a political ideology and it cannot be correct unless it is linked to genuine transformation. First, I will examine the origins of political correctness to try to get a clear understanding of what this movement is. Second, I will show you that political correctness is political and how it became a political ideology. Lastly, I shall discuss why this ideology does not work.

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through