Originally used in debate between the Communist Party and American Socialists of the early-to-mid 20th century, as a way to describe the “correct” positions on political matters, the word ‘political correctness’ (PC) was later adopted by conservatives as a way to attack people preserving the social taboo of language and attitudes perceived as bigoted and backward. At first seen nothing more than an empty label to discredit, it has recently gained popularity among more non-conservative types in usage against individuals and groups that appear to overreact against the seemingly smallest slights. As a response of late, a political incorrectness (PI) movement of sorts has come into existence, supposedly to fight against censorship and over-sensitivity.
Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot about how politically correctness or political incorrectness is “ruining everything” from their polar opposite side. And you know what? In a way, they are ABSOLUTELY correct!
This isn’t some half-assed attempt at splitting the difference, like I’ve heard some do before with many other things in a poor attempt to make themselves sound fair and balanced. To begin with, there are admittedly notable differences between the two, other than their main causes:
- PC is often associated with the Left while PI is often associated with the Right, despite neither belonging specifically to any wing.
- The PC side harbors more of the overly-coddling types, while those yearning to be a-holes without consequence are more on the PI side.
- The PI crowd is the more vocal out of the two sides and they’re incredibly obnoxious. For every one vapid politically correct comment I’ve found around the internet, I’ve come across at least fifty more PI comments.
- When PI intellectual cowards get in trouble or feel that they will be for saying something demeaning or abhorrent with the aim of being taken seriously — whether on face value or through the excuse satire — they backpedal by giving some gutless response like, “It’s a joke!” or, “I’m being taken out of context!” Intellectual cowards within the PC crowd on the other hand, hide their disdain behind sanitized language and behavior, which political correctness already provides. The self-identified PI also have a tendency to employ the language too but not as much.
- The PC types are more than willing to let others know how offended they are or how offensive something is. Those who identify themselves as PI get offended too but they generally act as if they never are, attempting to portray themselves as realist toughs trying to “keep it real.”
Other than that, every comment I read in the comment sections that rally against the PC/PI, every article and editorial I’ve read about something that “outrages” the PC/PI, every video that rants about how overly PC/PI the world is becoming, I began to notice something. Strip away their causes and the labels they refer to themselves and others, and you’ll find that both opposing sides have the same awful people. Though each individual isn’t necessarily guilty of doing all of the following, they tend to do more than one. This is going to be a long one but stick with me on this, okay? It will be worth the time. Here we go…
- They are overly concerned about a supposed unprecedented scourge of a way of thinking sweeping the nation (or world) and talk about it as an impending doom that must be stopped at all costs.
Never mind that R rated movies are the second highest grossing films in the market, never mind that the US has been rated as one of the highest in overall social progress as of 2015. The whole world is going down the tubes because a bunch of college students or some rednecks have a tantrum; life isn’t more complex apparently. In fact, they HAVE to talk about this “assault” at even the slightest possibility. Speaking of any social issue apolitically, or maybe not even having a social issue in mind but just saying a word or phrase often associated with one, will still have someone finding a way to wedge in some complaint or rant about how the world is somehow becoming too PI/PC. No need to stop and consider what is being said before opening that big mouth or banging on the keyboard. It all comes off like an unhealthy obsession.
- The ulterior motive of political correctness/political incorrectness is in nearly everything.
“Did that person reviewing the song, that just happens to have a performer of a different ethnicity from theirs, not like it? The reviewer is a racist with microaggressions! That reviewer is appropriating another’s culture by listening to almost nothing but songs of that particular genre of music! Sure, they appear to be a sincere fan of that genre and isn’t just paying attention to it because they feel it’s trendy, but it’s all a ruse! Because they’re of a different ethnicity, treating the genre, its history, and the people credited for its development with respect, will never be enough to be considered acceptable! They are literally Hitler!”
“Does that person not like that comedian’s film, which has a male lead character and just so happens to show bare boobies? That person is a misandrist feminazi! Though not long ago they said that movie trailer with the all-female cast looks terrible, it’s so obvious they hate anything that has to do with men! Clearly, it’s not that they think the movie is badly written or the comedian is pass their prime and struggling to find relevance, (if the comedian ever was,) it’s that they want to castrate mankind! The creator of this totally edgy beacon of political incorrectness had never set out to make a deeper statement beyond poop and farts, but we decided to turn it into a flagship for our cause! The bell tolls for thee, SJWs!”
- Your issues don’t exist but theirs do, even if theirs are blown far out of proportion or pure fantasy.
Lately colleges, previously seen as bastions of free speech and intellectual growth, are becoming very restrictive specially in the former. This should be of great concern, however to a relative few at these campuses, banning comedians (notwithstanding not being that great to begin with probably,) and forming free speech zones might not be seen as something bad but, “Oh noes! Someone wrote ‘TRUMP 2016’ in chalk on the sidewalk and stairs! I feel so unsafe and in pain! Someone do something about this, quick!”
Just a year ago in 2015, it was reported that more than half of blacks in the US are still being treated unfairly compared to whites. Again, should be of great concern but there are people who say that this is somehow false. “It is all in the diluted minds of the negro, who’ve been brainwashed by the PC culture perpetuated by the leftists. Speaking of which, HELP! The commie Jews are legally chasing down and forcing whites to either accept diversity or face white genocide! We’re being oppressed!”
(I’d connect a link to such a ludicrous statement to show I’m not exaggerating but I think you already know I’m not.)
- They form odious swarms and attack what offends them.
Found something that could be easily proven by presenting credible research or using the most rudimentary of deduction? Maybe what you found is something that could hurt a cause you believe in? Whichever it is, what you did was a personal affront! The offended knows all and they can’t believe they’re being challenged! Now they’ll attack you mercilessly for having the gall to bring it to their attention. It could be something as childishly petty as disliking a video you made or leaving a brainless comment filled with whining and salty mocking. On the other hand, it could be something quite serious as doxing or making threats of violence against the individual in real life.
- They attempt to bully others into doing what they want them to do or think.
One way or another, people prefer to live some way that is different from another’s. When it comes to wading into religion and politics, it’s fair game to debate when someone mainly talks of it or preforms related activities. Other than that, as long as one steers clear of such things and their personal beliefs and activities are harmless, it’s their prerogative to share apolitical knowledge, help others, make humor (well written hopefully,) in good spirit or fair observation, or simply mind their own business.
The people who like defining themselves and others as PI/PC, crow about how they believe in freedom of speech and expression, and no one should ever tell them what to do or how to think. Then with a bloated sense of superiority, without a substantial foundation in truth other than the main PI/PC cause they claim to fight for, go off to chastise, ridicule and argue with others in an effort to tell them what to do and how to think. Their targets don’t have to be overtly involved in politics. Somehow, the innocuous still finds a way to get stuck in the craw of these busybody bullies so much, that they feel the strong urge to go after them too.
- If you do not agree with them or do anything they don’t like, then you must clearly be one of the following:
- For those perceived to be one of the PC:
- PC
- SWJ (Social Justice Warrior)
- Tumblrina
- Liberal
- Libertard
- Feminist
- Feminazi
- Modern Feminist
- Radical Feminist
- Leftist
- Progressive
- Regressive
- Misandrist
- Reverse Racist
- Race Traitor
- Cuck
- White Knight
- Cancer
- Triggered
- place any non-white / non-male / non-straight word here Supremacist/Militant
- Anti-place any variant of white / male / straight here
- Racist
- Communist (or any of its associated variants even if they’re wrong)
- place any bigoted slur/characterization here
- For those perceived to be one of the PI:
- Basement Dweller
- Neckbeard
- Literally Hitler
- MRA
- Cisgender
- Cis Scum
- Red Pill
- Fascist (or any of its associated variants even if they’re wrong)
- White/Male/Cis Supremacist
- place noun here-ist
- place any group here-phobe
If you haven’t noticed yet, some of these words are not necessarily insults; a few aren’t even an actual thing. However, these people think the words are insults so they use them without ironic context, (unless pretending to be on the opposite side,) no matter how inaccurate they may be. A bunch don’t even know what the words really mean — except for maybe a shallow understanding — but that still doesn’t stop them. No need to do any research yourself from credible sources, just trust the words of your chosen in-crowd. They said that it’s something bad so it MUST automatically be bad, right?
- They are quite fond of using fallacies.
Heard of a fallacy before now? If you haven’t yet, you will be well familiarized with them after encountering someone who does any of what I mention on this list. They love to play the greatest hits, like…
Faulty Generalization:
“This feminist is angry, harasses people, wants many things to be censored and is possibly a man hater. Some others are like her too so every feminist is like that!”
No True Scotsman:
“This feminist director made a female superhero infertile! No real feminist would ever do that!”
Slippery Slope:
“Stopping pregnant women from smoking is discriminatory and will lead to the acceptance of more unfair discriminatory practices!”
Appeal to Accomplishment:
"If you think women are underrepresented in the video game industry, make one yourself!"
Where did I hear such similar logic from before? Oh yeah…
So much more where those came from. Here’s a list from Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org/…] and a longer (more humorous) one from RationalWiki. [rationalwiki.org/...]
- The smarter ones hide behind a facade of reason.
Taking advantage of the negative attention the more in-your-face crowds gather, these individuals are far sneakier. These people dwell in acts of psychological manipulation to pass themselves off as more tolerant and understanding. In reality however, they aren’t when you listen to their overall message.
For example, there are certain things they do if they want to demonize an entire group but don’t want to sound as if they’re automatically being unfair:
- They disingenuously throw in words like “almost,” “often,” or “mostly”, or some noun modifier, to simultaneously consolidate different schools of thought/cultures into one big monolith and imply that there are “a few good ones” within the whole. This is to give the illusion that they believe all of what makes the group BAD is overwhelming the GOOD special snowflakes. That way they can say, “If there was more of you and less of them I’d accept your kind but alas...”
- To become classified as one of “the good ones,” the requirements to be excluded from this “bad” majority are either, vague at best or made so specific that the target audience has to — in a sense — hate themselves. You’ve likely seen the latter before: minorities who work to disenfranchise other minorities; individuals self-described as being politically aligned one way, yet nearly diametrically opposed against everything that description stands for; shills who cuddle up to the sworn uncompromising enemies of their supposed cause.
- As a way to block certain accusations to further support their fallacious arguments, the previously mentioned are often used as meat shields by the party doing the demonizing.
e.g. “If I hate Group A so much, then why am I friends/family with someone from Group A, who agrees that [most of] Group A is bad?”
Sometimes they don’t use people but cut out the middleman and use associated objects instead.
e.g. “How can I possibly hate Group B if I love eating Group B’s cuisine? That would be absurd!”
4. If they want to try extra hard to hide their disdain towards a group of people, they can give to charities; specially, if said charity is associated with their targets. That way they can publicly pat themselves on the back to show how much of a good person they actually are, while continuously taking a dump on those same people. Not like reprehensible people ever were charitable before.
- They act as if one side holds a monopoly over everything I mentioned in this list.
When boiled down, the individual committed to this type of thinking is following an overly-simplified thought process:
— Person A (includes aforementioned individual) = True/Not at fault/Deserves reward
— Person B = False (unless convenient to Person A)/At fault/Deserves no reward
Only these two types exist and only within these rigid stereotypes. Doesn’t matter what they say or do, these stereotypes always predetermine the outcomes. (Even if the reasons don’t make a lick of sense to any other sane human being.) Good luck convincing them of anything if you’re seen as a Person B. What is spoken to them can be as clear as clean air, but if they don’t accept the speaker as a Person A, unless they can use said speaker to cement (not expand or correct,) their own views, they will let it fly right over their heads or try their hardest to misconstrue it. For example, here’s a slightly paraphrased snippet from an argument I read:
Commenter 1: “Why would you ally yourself with a bunch of neo-Nazis and pedophiles? They’re bringing the group down and they’re not helping its reputation.”
Commenter 2: “So I’m a neo-Nazi and a pedophile? Got it! SCREW YOU!”
In the rigid worldview of A and B persons, there is no such thing as NOT fitting within a stereotype. On the off chance someone initially considered a Person A, suddenly happens to change their views so that they differ from another Person A, the former will be perceived as a Person B from then on.
Unless something truly profound changes them, the people holding such with-us-or-against-us attitudes see themselves admitting to being proven wrong and expanding narrow views as forbidden.
(I’m NOT saying every modern ideology is right in their own way and should be accepted; or tolerated for that matter. There are a relative few that seem to have been made for the sole purpose of attracting the worst of humanity, by having main principles that intentionally encourage our worst qualities. However, even THEY stray into the gray area at least a tiny bit — granting that they’re there to exploit legitimate issues — and should be listened to for the purpose of both refining and partially solidifying your personal views.)
One side may be smugly pointing at the other side saying, “Hey, this is all about you!” not noticing they’re the pot calling the kettle black. Ever heard of the religious fundamentalists, who describe themselves as politically incorrect but got upset because a coffee cup said ‘Happy Holidays’? How about the politically correct activists who think “words can rape” but leave epithets and threats on tweets and answering machines? Maybe you happened to read a commenter’s question about why their feelings aren’t being taken in consideration, yet that same commenter made fun of how others felt triggered a while back? Each time, the PI/PC cliques distance themselves from those in question and say, “They’re not one of us! We’re not like them! They’re part of the other side!”
I know this is self-referential but if you’re guilty of doing more than one of what was mentioned on this list — not as honest slip-ups, but more akin to habitual offenses — then it doesn’t matter what you say who is more aligned with what, YOU AND THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. Which I guess leads to what I’ve been trying to say this whole time:
As with almost every other ideology, the problem isn’t political correctness or political incorrectness themselves, but it’s the ne'er-do-wells, cowards, jackanapes and shysters who raise their banners under such causes.
So, how did we get here?
Though the blame of today’s pointless craziness is often placed on the latest generation, all of this isn’t new. It’s just another chapter in the supposed “culture wars” saga.
Before the internet, there were people rallying against movies, TV and D&D.
Before that, there was the "evils" of rock-n-roll, jazz, and "provocative" dancing.
Even before that, there was dancing itself, books, showing your ankles, being too mouthy, and marrying outside your own “race”. Of course, I’m not just talking about time periods but age groups as well. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a mid-aged or elderly individual do the exact same thing one would accuse millennials of only doing. (Younger generations also get blamed for not solving issues that existed before they were born, but that will be saved for some possible future article.)
It was always quite easy to upset somebody somewhere for whatever reason, yet it seems to happen far more often for even less today. Why is that? This is most likely related to something revealed in a study performed by an international team of researchers from Penn State, the University of Gothenburg, Edinburgh Napier University and the University of Georgia:
...S. Shyam Sundar, Distinguished Professor of Communications and co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory at Penn State.
Sundar contends that people with lower self-esteem are more concerned with what other people post about them on Facebook. In contrast, users with higher self-esteem sp[e]nd more effort adding personal information about their family, education and their work. Low self–esteem users continuously monitor their Facebook wall and delete unwanted posts from other users.
…
A study conducted by The University of Gothenburg in Sweden surveyed 335 men and 676 women (average age 32) to help determine the link between self-esteem and Facebook usage. A significant negative relationship between the two was uncovered (as Facebook interaction increased, self-esteem decreased), though the main difference was between genders. Women who used Facebook were apt to feel less happy and content with their lives.
One previous study from the University of Georgia finds that social networks play on our self-esteem and to some extent on more narcissistic tendencies. “Despite the name ‘social networks,’ much user activity on networking sites is self-focused,” said Brittany Gentile, a UGA doctoral candidate who looked at the effects of social networks on self-esteem and narcissism. The study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, suggests that most people who log on to Facebook every day may be boosting their self-esteem in the process.
...people with low self-esteem seem to behave counterproductively, bombarding their friends with negative tidbits about their lives and making themselves less likeable, according to a study published in Psychological Science.
...People with low self-esteem are often uncomfortable sharing face-to-face, but Facebook makes it possible to share remotely.
…
In another study, Christopher Carpenter, an assistant professor of communication at Western Illinois University, posits that Facebook has a dark side. Narcissism is defined in this study as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and an exaggerated sense of self-importance,” Carpenter said. He believes Facebook provides an ideal forum for the average narcissist. Study results confirmed Carpenter’s hypothesis that grandiose exhibitionism is associated with self-promotion and that entitlement/exploitativeness correlates with anti-social behaviors on Facebook.
- Ray Williams, May 20, 2014
Psychology Today; Wired for Success; How Facebook Can Amplify Low Self-Esteem/Narcissism/Anxiety
Think about that…
All of those narcissists who had to try hard to receive attention around their own town, now have the ability to reach millions worldwide without as much effort. People with low self-esteem who would never publicly, in person, say or do half of the things they thought, now have the ability to blurt out whatever with nothing more than a few clicks. Young and old alike, with the benefits of anonymity and/or notoriety provided by the internet, need no explanation, thought, credibility and truth. The only qualification needed is a computer with internet access and a keyboard.
Of course anyone can get online and say “Look at me!” What one needs is to leech off something popular and seemingly important. It doesn’t have to be actually that important but enough that everyone wants to find out more about it; something that if you act like you’ve got the answers to it, people’s attention might turn towards you. Scandal, some big complex issue, whatever, milk it for all its worth; no sincerity, research or bravery required to get your 15 minutes of fame! What’s more, it has become another way you can make a dishonest living if you play your cards right.
Certainly, you shouldn’t only take my word for it. Look how politicians take advantage of those with victim complexes and fears of out-of-control political correctness so they can easily win offices, quash dissent, and pass unfair discriminatory laws. Look at how corporations use political correctness to perpetuate overbearing censorship, stunt the flexibility of ideas, and gloss over underlying problems — at times caused by said corporations — with illusions of diversity, gentrification, charity and various forms of inoffensiveness in general. Look at all of the talking heads on TV and around the internet promoting hate of the other, in their quest for ratings, subscriptions, financial support, and ware hocking. What better way to draw attention, what better way to take people’s money, than to assign blame and then ask for a tithe to help cast out the evil. Best part is that if anyone attempts to legitimately call out such shenanigans, the accused charlatan/s can choose to forego lashing out solo (or as the smarter ones would say, “attempt to hold a debate,”) by taking the more spineless route of siccing their supporters on their accusers. (The more hardcore supporters can do it themselves without their master’s asking, until he/she calls them off.)
I’d suggest that we’d all avoid giving such people attention, but the internet makes it nearly unavoidable to do these days. Items like news stories are much easier to find because of the internet, and because of social media they can spread around faster, farther and easier. However, this also includes junk too, like memes, fads, misinformation, lies and ineffectual flash-in-the-pan incidents and events that wouldn’t have gotten attention otherwise. At times, some of these are latched onto and it gains a life of its own, like a rowdy mob during a riot. A small misunderstanding that only involved two people in the beginning, can dramatically balloon into a nasty, undying flame war involving thousands not arguing about the original topic, all because of the vanity of a few strangers.
When it comes to political correctness and political incorrectness themselves, both sides do make great points. Words and images can be quite powerful when used by certain people, (that’s why propaganda still exists) attitudes can determine the ease of accessibility in society, (particularly if the attitude is that of individuals with power) and sensitivity and respect can help teach about others, possibly find bridgeable similarities and create beneficial progression. At the same time, you shouldn’t be afraid of upsetting somebody or getting in trouble whenever trying to openly express yourself or justly criticizing someone/something, and being overly sensitive and overly respectful can do more harm than good to yourself and/or others. That’s the thing however… these main points and the participants who support these are NOT the problem. The condescending cowards, unironic narcissists, self-serving hatemongers, and the like, on their chosen sides ARE the problem. THEY have no actual interest in finding a substantial and viable solution or adding to the conversation, but instead want to take over the conversation; divert attention from what really matters. They recklessly scramble for attention, trivializing and obscuring so many legitimate and pressing issues under their pettiness, drama, misinformation and extremism. All the messes they stir up in the process help nobody, except for those who take advantage. Worst part is, any group that gets involved in any social issue is vulnerable to being infiltrated by these folks.
(Sometimes, it feels as if all this unnecessary drama and confusion is being collectively and intentionally encouraged, but I think that’s just me.)
Am I somehow a hypocrite for writing all of this and my previous works, and hoping others read it? I don’t really care what you think of me, just don’t be a dick about it. Does my possible perceived hypocrisy mean my entire essay has been automatically rendered invalid? Look up the ‘tu quoque fallacy’ and you’ll know the answer. Is there an answer to this entire problem? I don’t know. I wrote this to help direct a spotlight onto a catalyst partially responsible for these unnecessary distractions, so we can all maybe find a way to deal with it. A couple things for sure: 1.) It certainly isn’t something only a few people can solve by themselves, and 2.) these distractions have to be drastically minimized and their damage kept under control, at the very least.