Recently, New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait released an article by the title of, "Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say," which dealt with the concept of "political correctness" and he's received his fair share of criticism in return. In the article, Chait criticized leftists (liberals) at length, in saying their PC-policing was slowly stripping our society of civilized debate, especially in the online world. Chait talked about a growing list of words which were off limits according to these leftists - if anyone uttered these words, they wouldn't hear the end of it. The article also made the claim that if leftists heard something from another they strongly disagreed with, they often times referred to that person as bigoted or his/her viewpoint as illegitimate. Yes, according to Jonathan Chait, "political correctness" is at the forefront of our social problems, and if we want to engage in civilized debate with a wide range of people, we must eliminate it.
In response, while I'm not going to completely dismiss the notion that "political correctness" can sometimes go a little too far, I also don't think it's nearly as big of a problem as the author of this article suggests, and in fact, ironically enough, I think many people use the term "political correctness" to dismiss arguments and to avoid discussions on an array of topics.
According to Jonathan Chait, many leftists are too sensitive about certain terms, especially when they regard women, homosexuals, minorities, and/or non-Christians. I suppose that's true to a certain extent, but doesn't this hold true for most people with a heart and a conscience? If it weren't for this "PC-police" that Chait despises, women would still be called "broads," homosexuals would still be called "fags," and let's not even go there when it comes to terms minorities used to often times hear directed at them. So, yes, let's shame the "PC-police" for that.
Also, I find it rather ironic that Chait believes liberals' "political correctness" often times prevents people from engaging in meaningful conversations, because I often times hear conservatives respond to a question or issue by just labeling it as "political correctness," and then walking away from the matter altogether. In these cases, they simply use it as a means to disregard another's opinion or to avoid a discussion about the topic at hand.
Here's an example:
Liberal: "I believe, due to the derogatory nature of the word and the history behind it, the Washington Redskins should change their nickname."
Conservative: "Oh, that's just politically correct bull-honky!"
It reminds me of the "liberally-biased" response I often times hear from these same conservatives.
Liberal: "Well, according to FactCheck.org, what Mike Huckabee said regarding climate-change simply isn't true."
Conservative: "Oh, that site is liberally-biased, just like all of those other fact-checking sites!"
That brings me to another "point" Jonathan Chait attempted to make in his piece (aptly put), where he made claim that when confronted with an opinion which differed greatly than theirs, leftists often times respond by labeling these opinions as bigoted or illegitimate. This gets at the heart of the lack of a civilized national dialogue much more so than "political correctness."
Largely due to the increasing number of biased "news" sources, entertainment and opinion being disguised as news to the point where the words "fact" and "opinion" are blurred, and the rise of billionaires attempting to influence elections through swaying people's opinions, the country is growing more divided - divided to the point where it's become increasingly difficult to engage in a civilized discussion with a person on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The two parties, especially on the extreme ends of them, are slowly dividing as the "science" and "anti-science" parties. While many Democrats identify as Christian, most of them still respect science and look more toward science than an ancient religion as a means to improve our world. On the other side of the aisle, while most Republicans also identify as Christian, a decent majority of them see science as a grand conspiracy and look more toward this ancient religion to improve the world than modern-day scientific studies. This is where the country faces a serious divide and why it's become increasingly difficult for us to engage in serious discussions with people on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's also a large contributing factor in some leftists referring to opposing viewpoints as bigoted or illegitimate.
While liberals may often times get their news from left-leaning networks and sites, they also often times frequent scientific studies and fact-checking sites. Conservatives, on the other hand, while they tend to get their news from right-wing talk radio and other right-leaning sources through television and the Internet, they also often times dismiss scientific studies and fact-checkers as being "liberally-biased" and/or conspiracy-laden. Not only that, but instead of taking these scientific studies seriously, they often times go to the Bible as the source of reason. This is a much larger factor in the country's decreasing frequency of civilized discourse between opposing viewpoints than the concept of "political correctness." Many on the far-right end of the political spectrum still see it as morally acceptable to discriminate against the LGBT community, to fight against them attaining equal rights, and actually believe this is in line with what the all-loving and all-accepting Jesus would want, according to scripture which doesn't exist. When they do this, they often times get cast as "bigots," and they're perplexed by this because they actually believe they're following in line with Jesus' teachings by not accepting homosexuals. Then when these same people hear about studies regarding climate-change (and the like), how dangerous it is presently, and how potentially damaging it could be in the future, they'll often times resort to talking points uttered by Rush Limbaugh or a column by another conservative media personality in an attempt to discredit the study. This is when liberals will chime in that the conservatives' rebuttals are illegitimate.
Political correctness may be an issue at times when attempting to engage in meaningful conversations, but these occasions are very few and far between. The much bigger issue is the growing divide between the science and anti-science communities. How can liberals engage in civilized discussions with conservatives when these conservatives immediately discredit fact-checkers as liberally-biased and scientific studies as conspiratorial? How can liberals engage in civilized discussions with conservatives when these conservatives stand by an ancient book which has been altered a number of times throughout the course of history and has had more varying interpretations than a Jackson Pollock painting by a group of stoners? How can liberals engage in civilized discussions with conservatives when these conservatives believe the opinions of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others, are facts? What's the bigger problem - a liberal calling a conservative's opinion illegitimate because he/she attempted to discredit a scientific study with a Rush Limbaugh opinion or that this conservative attempted to discredit a scientific study with a Rush Limbaugh opinion?
The defense rests, your honor...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist
In response, while I'm not going to completely dismiss the notion that "political correctness" can sometimes go a little too far, I also don't think it's nearly as big of a problem as the author of this article suggests, and in fact, ironically enough, I think many people use the term "political correctness" to dismiss arguments and to avoid discussions on an array of topics.
According to Jonathan Chait, many leftists are too sensitive about certain terms, especially when they regard women, homosexuals, minorities, and/or non-Christians. I suppose that's true to a certain extent, but doesn't this hold true for most people with a heart and a conscience? If it weren't for this "PC-police" that Chait despises, women would still be called "broads," homosexuals would still be called "fags," and let's not even go there when it comes to terms minorities used to often times hear directed at them. So, yes, let's shame the "PC-police" for that.
Also, I find it rather ironic that Chait believes liberals' "political correctness" often times prevents people from engaging in meaningful conversations, because I often times hear conservatives respond to a question or issue by just labeling it as "political correctness," and then walking away from the matter altogether. In these cases, they simply use it as a means to disregard another's opinion or to avoid a discussion about the topic at hand.
Here's an example:
Liberal: "I believe, due to the derogatory nature of the word and the history behind it, the Washington Redskins should change their nickname."
Conservative: "Oh, that's just politically correct bull-honky!"
It reminds me of the "liberally-biased" response I often times hear from these same conservatives.
Liberal: "Well, according to FactCheck.org, what Mike Huckabee said regarding climate-change simply isn't true."
Conservative: "Oh, that site is liberally-biased, just like all of those other fact-checking sites!"
That brings me to another "point" Jonathan Chait attempted to make in his piece (aptly put), where he made claim that when confronted with an opinion which differed greatly than theirs, leftists often times respond by labeling these opinions as bigoted or illegitimate. This gets at the heart of the lack of a civilized national dialogue much more so than "political correctness."
Largely due to the increasing number of biased "news" sources, entertainment and opinion being disguised as news to the point where the words "fact" and "opinion" are blurred, and the rise of billionaires attempting to influence elections through swaying people's opinions, the country is growing more divided - divided to the point where it's become increasingly difficult to engage in a civilized discussion with a person on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The two parties, especially on the extreme ends of them, are slowly dividing as the "science" and "anti-science" parties. While many Democrats identify as Christian, most of them still respect science and look more toward science than an ancient religion as a means to improve our world. On the other side of the aisle, while most Republicans also identify as Christian, a decent majority of them see science as a grand conspiracy and look more toward this ancient religion to improve the world than modern-day scientific studies. This is where the country faces a serious divide and why it's become increasingly difficult for us to engage in serious discussions with people on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's also a large contributing factor in some leftists referring to opposing viewpoints as bigoted or illegitimate.
While liberals may often times get their news from left-leaning networks and sites, they also often times frequent scientific studies and fact-checking sites. Conservatives, on the other hand, while they tend to get their news from right-wing talk radio and other right-leaning sources through television and the Internet, they also often times dismiss scientific studies and fact-checkers as being "liberally-biased" and/or conspiracy-laden. Not only that, but instead of taking these scientific studies seriously, they often times go to the Bible as the source of reason. This is a much larger factor in the country's decreasing frequency of civilized discourse between opposing viewpoints than the concept of "political correctness." Many on the far-right end of the political spectrum still see it as morally acceptable to discriminate against the LGBT community, to fight against them attaining equal rights, and actually believe this is in line with what the all-loving and all-accepting Jesus would want, according to scripture which doesn't exist. When they do this, they often times get cast as "bigots," and they're perplexed by this because they actually believe they're following in line with Jesus' teachings by not accepting homosexuals. Then when these same people hear about studies regarding climate-change (and the like), how dangerous it is presently, and how potentially damaging it could be in the future, they'll often times resort to talking points uttered by Rush Limbaugh or a column by another conservative media personality in an attempt to discredit the study. This is when liberals will chime in that the conservatives' rebuttals are illegitimate.
Political correctness may be an issue at times when attempting to engage in meaningful conversations, but these occasions are very few and far between. The much bigger issue is the growing divide between the science and anti-science communities. How can liberals engage in civilized discussions with conservatives when these conservatives immediately discredit fact-checkers as liberally-biased and scientific studies as conspiratorial? How can liberals engage in civilized discussions with conservatives when these conservatives stand by an ancient book which has been altered a number of times throughout the course of history and has had more varying interpretations than a Jackson Pollock painting by a group of stoners? How can liberals engage in civilized discussions with conservatives when these conservatives believe the opinions of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others, are facts? What's the bigger problem - a liberal calling a conservative's opinion illegitimate because he/she attempted to discredit a scientific study with a Rush Limbaugh opinion or that this conservative attempted to discredit a scientific study with a Rush Limbaugh opinion?
The defense rests, your honor...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist
Comments
Post a Comment