The Role Of Political Correctness In My Writing

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

Political correctness according to the merriam webster dictionary is: agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people. Being politically correct is something that is encouraged by many in order to avoid offensive terms that may result in violence, protest, etc. So if the chalk writings only said “Vote Trump” or “Trump 2016” there would be fewer issues surrounding the messages if

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

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,

Political correctness has become increasingly obvious in our daily lives. For example, the other day I attended the first meeting of the Frisbee Club here on the State University campus. During the meeting, we were discussing the fact we wanted shirts for this year, but we did not know what slogan to use.

For one thing, in the op-ed “Can We Start Taking Political Correctness Seriously Now?” the author Chait summarizes that the protesters in the student demonstration at the University of Missouri besieged a photographer. Most supporters on the left think that young people want to keep themselves from any offense, and they believe that political correctness only occurs on campus; however, the truth is that political correctness will spread beyond the campuses. Next, Chait compares the Columbia event to the New Haven scene. Both of them express doubt in the “political democracy.” Finally, the author claims that the political correctness is excessive on campus, and leftists cannot escape the problem of political correctness. On the other hand, in the op-ed “The Delicate Little Flowers on Today’s College Campuses,” the author Goldberg explains that the Yale riot is due to the reply of a caution to stop wearing Halloween costumes. Also, as the scientist analyzes, current college students are so delicate that they always think they are offended. Then, Goldberg gives us the conclusion that it is the problem of education rather than political correctness itself. At last, he visualizes that these students flow into the society with “emotional cocoon” in the future. Although Chait’s Op-ed shows effective self-presentation in his claim about the leftist ideology of the political correctness, Goldberg does a better job by providing concrete evidence in logos and pathos in

Jenkins, M. (2007, July). How Political Correctness Protects the Bad Guys. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from https://www.thetrumpet.com/3808-how-political-correctness-protects-the-bad-guys

At college and universities across America, students are being constrained to an increased sense of political correctness. This is because students are demanding protection from microaggressions. Microaggressions are words and ideas that seem to have no malicious intent from the outside, but are viewed as a kind of violence nonetheless. Furthermore, professors now need to be concerned about trigger warnings and avoid course content if they believe it may cause a strong emotional response. For instance, some professors avoid teaching about rape law because the subject may cause students distress. However, as demonstrated by an article published by The Atlantic, this new level censorship is bad. This essay will explore how Greg Lukianoff and

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being present with us today. Me and my fellow group members are on the opposition team and strongly believe that Political Correctness has NOT gone too far and that in fact it is much needed in today 's society.  Political Correctness is defined in the dictionary as “the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” However, we believe it is much more than that. It is the protection, appreciation, and acknowledgement of different race, ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, culture, and tradition of the

Political correctness proposes that we should treat each other with unbiased views. Although this is a great idea, many people tend to take it too far causing a whirlwind of problems. The effects of political correctness and the impact on the majority of the population who follow this idea are controversial. In “Don’t Rewrite the Bible”, Michael Golden emphasizes the role that political correctness plays in our society today. He believes that society has taken the idea of impartialness too far, however, in some instances it is needed.

That’s where we are today, Henley (1999) states “in the current climate of political correctness, it is expected that the dominant culture collectively accepts the blame for minority misfortunes.” Just because a topic may be unpleasant, that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. We can’t ignore important issues we face as a society just on the basis they might offend someone, ignoring it doesn’t make it go away and certainly doesn’t make it better. It’s not only hindering us when we approach current and past issues, it’s gotten to point where college professors are not using certain literature because they don’t like the author. In the view of Curtler (2009) “Born of genuine humanitarian impulses, it now threatens to devour much of what is greatest in our literature and forever separate the children of our culture from what is essential to their humanity.” We can address issues with the sensitivity needed, however when we limit the conversation for fear of offense we actually do a disservice to the argument

Racist language within literature is largely controversial, but there are benefits and drawbacks of using such language within literature. Using racially charged language depicts the historical time and mindset of people living within a certain time period. Furthermore, it allows readers a chance to learn about their own culture from the use of racially insensitive language. Though there are benefits to using such language, there are consequently some drawbacks to allowing the use of such language. One of the primary drawbacks of allowing the use of racially insensitive language within literature is that it normalizes the use of such language within the current culture.

In George Orwell's book, nineteen eighty-four, Orwell writes of a fictional totalitarian government in which all residents must speak a language called “newspeak”. Newspeak is a language created by the government in order to limit free will, self expression and freedom of thought. Unlike the citizens in Orwell's book, Americans have the right to express their opinions however they'd like without being ostracised by the majority, or do they? Over the last couple decades the term “politically correct” has garnered major attention and been used to describe a type of speech in which vocabulary, policies and actions that are intended to avoid offense to members

“Terms such as politically correct thus have a hidden history, uncovering which is dependent both on the accurate recollection of those who were there,” (Cameron, 1995,78).

In the essay, “Niggger: The Meaning of a Word,” Gloria Naylor demonstrates how a word can have a different meaning to different people depending on one’s environment. In another article, “The Word Police,” Michiko Kakutani claims that the language that the people use is unreasonable because of understatement. Both articles illustrate language complexity. However, Naylor uses her personal examples to argue against a suppression of politically incorrect language in a calm and conversational tones while Kakutani uses reliable resources to criticize a politically correct movement in a sarcastic tone. Although both authors deal with the similar subject in their own unique way, Naylor’s essay is better than Kakutani’s because Naylor explains her views more clearly.