Political Correctness

Politically correct language has become huge movement in modern society. There are words that have gone through numerous changes such as “shellshock” going through many changes finally being to what it is known as today as “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” as best described the late George Carlin. Today there are large groups that urge political correctness to the masses in an attempt to end discrimination against gender, race, and sexuality. In “The Word Police” by Michiko Kakutani, the author writes about how political correct language is more focused on the words itself rather than the content behind. As progressive as it may seem, political correctness threatens a free society.

Political Correctness should always be the main consideration in the mainstream media (msm) reports, as well as the academic world. In the book Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, the author, Bernard Goldberg, expressed his view on how did the liberal bias and political correctness work in the CBS and other msm. In “I Thought Our Job Was to Telling the Truth,” Goldberg was telling us how the political correctness effect on reporting racial issues. In 1995, Larry Doyle, a reporter, and his team were sent to Alabama to report the chain gang prisoners by the Evening News of the CBS. According to the interview with the chain gang, Doyle finished his report factually and honestly, and sent them back. However, Doyle was asked

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

<br>As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim's race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal's freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one's

Hate speech is defined as “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his or her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” There has been a controversial issue regarding hate speech and the laws that prohibit it. The right to freedom of expression reassures each person the right to express themselves in ideas and opinions without the government's interference. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment and should not be expressed towards others because it causes harm. In this essay I will talk about the effects harmful hate speech caused to others and to the groups treated as insignificant. I will also discuss how hate speech cannot

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

agree with the use of political correctness. It can be  beneficial and have some disadvantages.

Hate speech is a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

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

Jeremy Waldron argues in favor of hate speech restrictions in his book “The Harm in Hate Speech”. He presents the central argument that vulnerable minorities are in need of hate speech regulation to protect them from harm. Another argument he presents is that such regulation must be a content-based regulation, as opposed to a time, place, and manner restriction that is usually employed to prevent certain kinds of speech. A final argument he uses is that speech is the harmful action, rather than speech simply causing harmful actions. I do not find his arguments to be compelling enough reasons to support restricting free speech with hate speech laws.

The legislation is needed to protect groups of victims commonly affected by hate crimes. Also, the legislation is also a public awareness effort to show that there is something being done about this issue. However, public awareness is also shed on the vulnerable groups that these crimes often affect. Some opponents of hate crime legislation argue that it violates the freedom of speech. Congress has decided that hate crime legislations would in no way limit freedom of speech. Unfortunately, preaching hatred against a particular group have always been protected forms of

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.

One solution to combat the use of hate speech without denying First Amendment rights is to engage in dialogue in order to understand where the attitude is coming from and educate about the fallacies of one's prejudices. Politicians should be called out on their prejudice speech and members of the GOP should not condone or support such

There are too many tangled webs attached to it as a theoretical construct, as a category for discerning personal feelings about someone. When Political Correctness comes into the mix, there are even worse negative effects, take away the idea that it stops “unnecessary offence,” and what is left? Political correctness creates a disruption in debate and blocks the first amendment right of freedom of speech. It inhibits personal feelings, accentuating unnecessary feelings of guilt, that force the speaker into believing that they are guilty of some high treason speaking about a subject as if it were a leper. Political Correctness’ negative consequences far outweigh the good, and lead it to have negative impacts on society, through over compensation in things like racial quotas, and reverse racism. As long as people feel the need to put others into categories, fat, skinny, white, black, etc., there will be a racial discussion, and it is furthered by Political correctness pointing out that people need to sidestep certain topics, by sidestepping it, there is a spotlight on it, and it is brought into focus, and forces race to be a part of popular

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.