This is a difficult question because there is a rather different opinion about what political correctness exactly is. Some believe that political correctness implies a language that is not hurtful when one speaks of a particular subject.The problem is that hurtful is a rather elastic concept. What is hurtful for one is not for the other. However, some are also very quickly hurt, making it almost impossible to discuss certain subjects. Bv
Speak not hurtful about the negative influences of Islam.Consider whether homosexuality is now or is not a disorder. In public, discuss the accuracy and timeliness of the UN refugee convention days. Or imagine the global problem of overcrowding, including the environmental impact and possible solutions. Try to openly discuss the futility of certain climate measures.
You cannot speak/discuss these topics in the Netherlands, without hurting people.Political correctness ensures that there is a kind of taboo on discussing topics of this kind. If you do this, you will soon be put away as a fascist, Islamophobic, religious fundamentalist, climate-disexpert ed. without actually discussing the subject in question. This is in so far undesirable because it is therefore also less thought about possible solutions. Which may exacerbate problems. Also, you often mistakenly disqualify people who hold another, than the generally accepted conception.
Moreover, there are also extremoils in the political correctness, who feel that you are not allowed to ventilate or have a certain view at all.They try to silence these people through the courts. Or do report because of Slanter/(group) insult. Especially with that last group I personally have many problems because they really make life impossible for others.
Without friction no gloss.Without debate no enrichment. It all always want to be with one another is spiritual suicide. Choosing to be a plant.
I am very much in favour of having the always changing LBTxxx abbreviation Ditchen and the weather about the gay community.That is all-encompassing, a hierarchy is not necessary.
Hate speech.. is not in the Constitution.If we include hate speech in criminal law, a monster is born. The boundaries of hate speech are elastic, and it is the delusion of the day that determines what you can say yesterday, no more.
His and hers.That’s it. Nothing zer and her or whatever it may be. Genderfluidity is a means of power. Now look at me special. To be involved in the Dutch language goes too far.
I do not play this game.Kindness and respect for the person, like and much. Play along with a fairy tale that I’m not going to do.
As Freek de Jonge has ever said in the hope of the country: “Dude, you have a cunt, we don’t have dicks anymore”
Political correctness is an aspect of identity politics and the idea is that large groups are suppressed and pathetic.One must gently round those groups and treat them with velvet gloves, you can hurt them very easily and that is super pathetic.
This way you make it very interesting for all sorts of groups to be labelled as pathetic and suppressed.They will also compete for that status.
Ultimately, only the successful white man is not officially pathetic.The rest is suppressed and deserves protection and deep revival in their fate. What have we been doing now? Women, gays, non-whites, fat people, transgenders and Muslims. Oh Yes, also Indians, also that noble, oppressed people should be treated with velvet gloves.
‘ Pitiful ‘ people should, in my opinion, simply be judged on an individual basis by other individuals.I am not opposed to normal politeness, but to enforce that for whole groups via taboos is absurd. Life is also a mess and opponents will always look for weaknesses to hit you. Learn to deal with it. Moreover, you can possibly demand that someone does not say something, but his way of trading is determined by what he thinks.
Is about how to define political correctness.But given enough defenders of ‘ freedom of expression regardless of the consequences ‘ present, I will expose the other side:
Political correctness is the glue that maintains our society.If political correctness disappears the whole system will collapse, and the alternative that comes to the place is considerably worse for most of the people. If you’re still reading, thank you for not trusting. I’m going to explain now why I believe this.
Firstly , we live in a democracy.It is important that we can shoot with each other. I’m sitting on the left side of the spectrum. So left that I sometimes have a bit of trouble with the center. But I assume that Rutte is the best with the country, and when he makes arguments, he gets the benefit of the doubts that the arguments have been made sincerely. I’m not likely to agree with him, and I am also not quite naive about how open and honest politicians are, but it is important that we can listen to each other.
What does that have to do with PC culture?Everything. When you are allowed to put all the rhetoric in order to make your opponent black, you are actually trying to cut off the dialogue by demonising the opponent. The ‘ hard truths ‘ that I hear from the PVV and FvD, the parties who call the hardest that PC culture is a liberal agenda, are often meant to convince the listener that the subject of ‘ The harsh truth ‘ is an enemy of the people.
A photo of Rutte that says ‘ the lying Hollander ‘ is a meme that went around on FB. It Is not neat, but perhaps still falls under parody.Fine. To call the government a cartel, that goes too far. You’re busy throwing mud in the hopes of radicalising your voters with a conspiracy theory about ‘ n Elite ‘ that the population is prejudging. The same goes for Wilders who photoshopped Pechtold in a sha茂ra protest. I do not want to say that everything is as it should be in The Hague, but these are, with lack of better choice of words, lies with a clear intent.
Before you worry that I am not neutral, THINK also belongs in this list at home.Only they are not the ones who whine about PC culture, as far as I know, and this is a post about PC culture, so I’ll call them now afterwards.
This way of communicating is so indecent that it becomes anti-democratic.And I would say that democracy is a core value of our society. So this is part of the justification why I dare to make such a proposition that political correctness is necessary for the preservation of our society. It would mean the end of the polder model and do harm to democracy.
But this kind of political incorrectness is not yet the worst.Because we know what it is about when it comes to the importance of political correctness, and that is not the VVD. Thus my second point; When it comes to marginalised or vulnerable groups. Yes, that’s what we’re really talking about. Buckle up.
Secondly , welive in an open society.We have all sorts of beliefs, cultures and skin tones that together with and next to each other have to share the public space. You have all sorts of sexual orientations, subcultures like the Goths (yes, I’m getting old) and people who don’t want much to do with the hassle. These are not all vulnerable people, but some groups have a relatively hard pick.
At the moment the Muslim community is hard to endure.D’r is given little confidence, and that is also quite tricky if it is regularly about Muslim extremism in the news. The same for asylum seekers. It is quickly assumed that the differences in culture should be problematic, if one does not outright assume that it is criminals.
Other vulnerable groups are the people with psychological complaints, the mentally restrains, the paupers and the gays.All these groups are regularly subject to mistrust or bad jokes.
But why is it so bad to express this mistrust?Does the confrontation not sometimes give the opportunity to solve the tensions? Perhaps, sometimes, but the speaker doesn’t always have to be willing to solve tensions. Sometimes it’s also about simply ventilating. And sometimes it’s even with the intent to form ‘ N in-group ‘. We oppose them. “The real men against the gays”, to mention just one example you may have ever heard. I’m not saying that any footballer or gamer who has ever said that has been a racist or a homophobic. I have had friends as a man, and have ‘ ironically ‘ made these kind of statements. Not the moments I’m most proud of, but it’s so fair to admit that.
Enough introduction, time for some sociology.Don’t scare, cute drawing that’s explaining included.
Source: Violence Pyramid, Ashley Fairbanks
Sociologists use this pyramid, the Pyramid of violence, to explain that comments and sharp jokes do not exist in a vacuum, but can function as a first step in a funnel that eventually leads to violence.
And just for clarity, before one sees the advent of Orwell’s 1984; I’m not saying you can’t joke among themselves about cultural differences. As far as I am concerned, some humor may even be very dark. But make sure that people are laughed at and not. Make sure that you are not growing a climate in which certain people are being hurt and feel fundamentally undesirable. It’s not fun or hip to hurt people intentionally.
I wanted to explain this by means of an example: imagine a work floor that consists exclusively of white men.D’r go a lot of jokes over and over again, about foreigners and about women. Stop there a woman in between. Or a Moroccan. There is a culture in which a lot of comments can be made. If there are comments like “bassy” or “lazy”, you can imagine that the atmosphere becomes icy rather quickly. This is the first transition on the pyramid, from jokes and remarks to microaggression.
Microaggression is a word what right-wing media likes not to understand, but it’s ‘ N accepted term in sociology, so I’m just using it.It describes behaviour that reconfirms stereotypes, such as “You speak very good Dutch”, or “cool, a woman who can stick a band”, or “you do not look like a gay”. In principle, these types of statements may not be so badly intended, but if you think well, you can imagine that it’s a little less like fun. Just think of an expat who says “you are still so stingy not as a Dutchman”.
Well, if this is done within a society on a large scale, we have a very uninviting atmosphere to tackle.We have created a climate in which one group gets a bit of a dislike of the other group. Next step is that one is going to blame each other for things. It Over and Over again. You get stronger in-groups that the other will point out as toothpicks and saboteurs. Eventually you get the groups that are going to see themselves as existentially threatened and feel called to defend themselves with extreme means.
The concept is in the form of a pyramid, which also more or less indicates the size of the group by segment.D’r is but a very small group that sits in the Snoei hard extreme right and finally commits a murder. But they are there. And that is what this pyramid also wants to give. That one remark that seems so innocent is on a spectrum, and is not entirely uncoupling from hate spreading and violence. You (Strooiman-reader, who I just invent to create the illusion that this is not a monologue) are quite right when you say that one is not the other, and that one is also as much jellyfish as the other, but it is related to each other. If you have no environment that promote that this kind of behavior is acceptable, prevent further radicalisation. The jokes can function as an experiment with new thoughts. As (relatively) famous YouTuber and transgender contrapoints said: “Before I dared to give myself that I was transgender, I sometimes dressed myself as a woman, only then ‘ ironically ‘.” An alt-Righter makes an edgy meme in an ‘ ironic ‘ way, and the neo-Nazi can hide behind the ‘ irony ‘.This is where it really gets dark: far-right groups also know that society works so, and know that if you stimulate microaggression that this works in their favor. There is a small but active group that is driving policy on the normalization of extremism with the aim of getting society at a higher stage on the pyramid. But that might be something for another time.
So to come to my conclusion for this second point.I can assume that we do not agree that hate groups are a threat to society, and D’r would be nothing better for such groups as the disappearance of political correctness.
To summarize (because Kudo’s if you’re still reading): Political correctness protects democracy and vulnerable groups in society.It is an important part of our society, not a threat.
I just have to be honest with you, reader, that I have a certain bias.Actually, deep inside, I find it important to be polite, because you hear to be decent to each other. I find that normal and pleasant. So maybe I’m not the person to assume all of the above. Thanks for the read.
P.S. I have replied to the question do you think that political correctness harms our society? Have typed long enough, and am honestly quite proud of the result, so I’ve just got it-Ctrl + C’d.And I think we immediately found the new word of the year. 🙂 Thanks again for the read.
The term ‘ politically correct ‘ was initially used primarily by left-wing people to blame comrades for a lack of integrity.If people who are otherwise pronounced feministic, for example, refuse to criticize the sexism of Islam, they probably hide the real motives for their political activism. Twisting your political message to save the feelings of -apparently emotionally immature -of minorities is still a textbook example of political correctness.
In the left, political correctness for some, however, has become a geuzen name.It stands for people who go to the hole to reach left-wing goals. If integrity stands in the way of the destruction of capitalism, the Patriarchate, the hegemony of the West and systematic racism, then integrity must only depart.
The term was later hijacked by the right, with links being thrown on one heap and no distinction being made between sincere attempts to denounce societal problems and left populism.
Is political correctness not opposed to free speech?
Civil rights as freedom of expression are important for minorities.Through parades, demonstrations, free press and free speech they can reach each other and join hands. It is therefore ironic that left-wing attempts to gain minorities for themselves are seen as being directed against civil rights. The danger to freedom of expression is precisely in the established order, which has no need for the opposition to be organised and a challenge for the further exercise of their power.
In Europe, after the Second World War, it has long been customary for fascists to miscontract their civil rights.There were therefore good reasons to make an exception for the fascist minority. Left-wing rulers -especially the unhonest politically correct -have attempted to use that exception to silence anyone who is more right. However, it is important to remember that fascists have always been very politically correct in their own way and used the same tactics when they were in power -in addition to Ergere.
What does free speech mean for people who blatantly obscure their opinions?What is wrong with political correctness is that people lie about their opinion under cover of freedom of expression.
Political correctness is a restriction on freedom of expression.In political correctness, one is already limited in what one can say. As a human being, I have the right to be criticized and hurt. I also have the right to criticize others, with the risk of hurting them. It is not necessary to impose restrictions in advance, but to be condemned in retrospect.
Political correctness is also a sign that society is terrorizing itself by small groups in that same society.In writing the preceding sentence I had, instead of small groups, first minorities. Because this word in this context, however, can pose piles of commentary and mountains hate male, of which I do not feel like responding to them all, I have failed to do so, under pressure from the terror of political correctness.
By acting in a non-politically correct manner, everyone today runs the risk that what you say is considered discrimination or sexism, with all the consequences.The tendency of political correctness at Quora already led to the question of whether the word ignore could not be avoided better. According to the questioner, the word ‘ has a questionable origin ‘.
Political correctness and dictatorship are the greatest enemies of freedom of expression.Political correctness damped outwardly, while inner frustration persists or even grows. It is not for nothing that politicians who deliberately break the political correctness barrier can look forward to a multitude of frustrated followers.
In A previous question about political correctness, I have already indicated that with self-discipline, on what one is going to say, nothing is wrong. On the contrary.Itself imposed political correctness is called civilization, from outside imposed political correctness is called censorship.
Not having or wanting to be politically correct is for a number of politicians and not politicians the defense to set up a coarse beak and deliberately be offensive to others.
That you cannot declare your own opinion.You may have your own opinion, but you can only make it a world if the opinion is approved by the correct opinion anarchists.