I think that many people do not understand well what freedom of expression is exactly in the Dutch (and European) context (and in those of most democratic countries).It means nothing more than we, as citizens, have the fundamental right to say what we want without the state being able to prohibit or prevent us. It is therefore part of the (implicit) contract between state and citizen. However, this freedom is not absolute: we must not insult and defaming others within certain legal boundaries.
Political correctness is a restriction that people impose on themselves and each other: we find — our ‘ leitkultur ‘ — that we cannot find certain things better, and if we find them that we cannot say them better.Political correctness does play a role in the public and political debate, but has little to do with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. We may not listen to a particular view or opinion that we oppose — or come against it in the gun, which also falls under the freedom of expression — but with it the fundamental right of that other to say things that we are opposed to Limited. Also the crying in the wilderness still has a free voice.
The boundaries of what is considered by certain groups of people — can be said and heard — have been greatly shifted over the past 15 years.That is why people who have a different opinion are pushing back. With hard debate and polarizing discussions. This is perceived by the first group as political correctness, but it is simply a difference in views. In that respect, the other accusing of political correctness is a frame, an easy way to wipe anyone who does not agree on a lot.
Personally, I think that fake news poses a greater threat to freedom of expression than alleged political correctness.Indeed, facts are often accompanied by opinions, and where opinions are based on ‘ alternative facts ‘ (untruths) and those opinions put pressure on the stability of a society, the State may feel compelled to intervene. A nice example of this is the emergence of anti-vaccination. The notion that non-vaccinating is better or healthier is almost 100% fed by false information. Nevertheless, a rather draconian — but perhaps necessary — measure, such as a limited vaccination obligation, would still not have the freedom to express expression.
Here in the United States there are indeed problems at that point.Of course it is wonderful to ask people to express themselves respectfully, but that can also be abused by telling people that they should not have a certain opinion at all or-even worse-that they should not tell their experiences because it Story does not fit into the political correctness.
I worked for three years for an NGO in South Africa in a former Bantoestan (Ciskei) and have been treated with all due respect by the vast majority of black people.But not by anyone. There was also someone who threatened me with death because I am white. Here in the US, I have to be careful when I tell that story, even if it is just the truth. I am soon a racist and apartheid supporter and are treated as such. It just doesn’t fit in the thinking – or should I say prejudices? – those people have about South Africa.
Yes, there are also black racists walking around there.The funny thing is that in South Africa I could talk about it myself with black people. The reaction was then: “Oh yes of course we have that, but Mandela has put them out of the ANC”.
On the English version of Quora this week a piece of me is banned, because I explained why Islam and a Western secular society are not combinable.I simply explained that equality for the Court of all people is not an Islamic principle. For example, the testimony of a woman officially has only 50 percent of a man’s weight.
Freedom of religion is also not an Islamic concept, there is only one belief and the rest must be kept under the thumb.Even the death penalty is left on the faith.
Freedom of expression also has sharp boundaries.The Koran states what is and what cannot be said. Decide yourself with whom you marry? For women, it must be a Muslim. So there is much more to it.
Such rules are not to be applied in a Western legal system, in which self-determination of the individual is a guiding principle.
After the ban I have appealed.I asked if I had a ban if I had explained why Communism and a free market economy do not go together? That had no effect. Apparently, my answer for Quora was too politically incorrect. Quora is a pariculiere organization and is therefore allowed to moderate. But it is a sign on the wall.
No, political correctness ensures freedom of expression.I can also explain why, but D’r does not come up with some philosophy.
‘ Freedom of expression ‘ is not a given, but part of a political system.Several cultures have had variants of freedom of expression, but our variant is formed within a certain political-philosophical framework: Liberalism. Liberalism originated in the 17th century, with thinkers such as John Locke and Adam Smith. The core idea is that free markets generate prosperity. This applies not only to material prosperity, but also to intellectual prosperity. A free market of ideas creates a richer world and ensures progress. Within this framework, our freedom of expression is born. Tolerance and freedom of expression are two hands on one belly. It is this ideology that one used when the Dutch and American constitution were written.
Obviously, not everyone agrees with the freedoms that liberalism prescribes.Opponents of liberalism often have an authoritarian tendency. We see both extreme-left dictators (Stalin) and extreme right-wing dictators (Hitler). Both Stalin and Hitler followed an ideology that did not identify with liberalism. In the current political climate too, we see extremism that in principle cannot cooperate with liberalism. In fact, if you’re talking about extremism, we usually talk about currents that are not to be identified with our liberal society.
A trick from the trukenbox of extremism is what Karl Popper calls ‘ the paradox of tolerance ‘. [1 It was first described by Karl Schmitt, in His Work politic theology (1922).[2Karl Schmitt was an influential political philosopher and critic of liberalism.He described a tactic to destroy liberalism; A route within the liberal system to bring it to an end. Schmitt argued that, because liberalism has freedom of expression as a fundamental right, a sovereign (his word choice for authoritarian leader) can demand that his message be heard. One can mask an anti-liberal message as one of the valid political orientations within the liberal system under freedom of expression. This message automatically creates conflict within society. This drives escalation, and works in favor of the anti-liberal message; It is a demonstration that liberalism is not sustainable. When the anti-liberal sovereign then eventually comes to power via a liberal-democratic way, this way of politics will be abolished. Freedom of expression.
Karl Schmitt joined the NSDAP in 1933, and worked until 1936 for the party until he fell into disgrace and lost his functions.Schmitts strategy is an undeniable part of the success of the Nazis.
Popper describes the paradox of tolerance in his book the Open Society and its Enemies (1945).Popper argues that if the open society, liberalism, and freedom of expression are to continue to exist, then one has to arm themselves against the Schmitts strategy by embracing the following paradox:
- A Tolerant society should be tolerant by default,
- With One exception: it should not tolerate intolerance itself.
I would say that the second rule, that one cannot tolerate intolerance, corresponds to political correctness.We See politicians whining about censorship by political correctness, but what they actually say is that they want to be intolerant. Not only intolerant towards refugees and Islam, but intolerant of any reword. One becomes anti-media, anti-elite, and even anti-intellectual. One speaks of moralizing fingers and played indignation. The extreme right is only too happy to use the censorship card, which is not for nothing.
The tactic is old, but turns out to be no less topical.The Economist speaks of ‘Illiberal liberalism‘ when Wilders can pose as a martyr if one uses restrictions on freedom of expression.[3The Economist is critical of the Dutch state because it invites martyrdom, but it is Wilders who should actually receive the criticism for hiding behind liberal values to send ‘ n anti-liberal message.The reason we no longer appeal to Wilders is because no one wants to keep him accountable for his actions. After all, he turned to liberalism and made it clear that he did not want to abide by the rules of the liberal game. But he does demand that other people approach him with those liberal rules.
I would now like to speak directly to the Liberals (read: The Not right-extreme people) who reiterate that freedom of expression is at risk by PC culture:
The restrictions on freedom of expression are ‘ r not for nothing.If you repeat theses as ‘ PC culture is censorship ‘, or ‘ PC culture threatened freedom of expression ‘, support your unsuspected ‘ n anti-liberal extreme right-wing agenda. I understand that it is not intentional when you as a liberal cannot live in a far-right authoritarian perspective. I’m not angry, but it gets frustrating to find the slogans of extreme right-wing websites in the normal liberal-conservative media. It is time to get away from naive faith that carriers of intolerant messages are sincere in their assertion “that they find freedom of expression really important, honestly”. It Is absurd nonsense, and dangerous to the liberal values in our society. D’r cannot negotiate with these types of strategies. The English have d’r even a word for; appeasement.
To conclude: You may wonder who is a greater threat to freedom in general, including freedom of expression specifically.Aren’t the people who insist that they don’t drive apart with hateful language, the liberal PC culture? Or are the people who in their language insist that others should be displaced, extreme right? So I myself would say that PC culture is very important if we want to continue to guarantee each other’s freedoms.
Jules Stoop has placed a good explanation.
I turn the question a bit: I claim the right to be insulted.I want to be able to hear, see and read things that do NOT conform to my preferences and beliefs. Only then can I formulate a weighted opinion for myself.
What I am also heavily leaning on is the availability of data that is based on a news expression.I do a lot and often to fact-checking, and certainly when it comes to political and scientific assertions I put my atheist hats on. (Not a Propellertje, by the way..)
I would like to quote John Cleese here:
“” And that’s why I’ve been warned recently do not to go to most university campuses because the political correctness has been tasks from being a good idea, which is let’s not be mean in particular to people who are not able to look after themselves very well — that’s a good Idea — to the point where any kind of criticism or any individual or group could be labeled cruel “[1
We have become particularly sensitive to certain forms of criticism.Any form of criticism of Islam, for example, is immediately labelled as Islamophobia or even racism, while it is often also rational religion criticism, rather than irrational fear (which is a phobia), or discrimination or basis of race.
As a result, more and more statements are unacceptable.These evolutions are partly reflected in the case-law, in which you could indeed argue that freedom of expression is increasingly being restricted. However, it is much broader than that: almost every opinion that someone may find offensive is immediately relegated to the Verdom corner.
So yes, I think that ‘ political correctness ‘ is a strong limitation of freedom of expression, both in the narrow and in the broader sense.
Disappear?No, but anyone who is not in the stride risks that adepts of political correctness dismiss him in very direct language.
Undoubtedly, the soothing language does not prevent a harsh truth from spreading.A terrorist campaign becomes a conflict situation or a series of incidents.It is important to learn the Camoeflerende, disguised language correctly ‘ Hermalen ‘.
What is political correctness?In short: making unpleasant truths acceptable. Schopenhauer hit the nail on the head when he wrote: ‘ Nackt kann die Wahrheit nicht vor dem Volke erscheinen ‘
Politicians hate the word ‘ cuts ‘ and muffle the message away by talking about downward adjustments or reorientation .
Freedom of expression remains in force, but the people-Suiter is doing well to test his texts or statements thoroughly on an increasingly extensive list of taboo terms.The occasions where you can use the terms without self-censorship, which were commonplace thirty years ago without any thought and without disturbing anyone, become rarer.
About all the subjects immediately give you ill-conceived opinion, is pernicious for your social life, but the current rigidity is blowing over again.Or, I may hope so.
Because of the political correctness, you are in any case more limited in expressing your opinion.I think it is worse that the big news broadcasters can no longer bring the real news because of bizarre rules that apply according to the PC community. The fact is that it is actually being listened to. I see this as a slight form of propaganda, something that is getting the upper hand when it is not stopped. And we know I think all where that ends.
“But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility.Nor does freedom of speech obligate me to agree with your words, or to provide them with a platform. “
“Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid crap.”-John C. Hynes.
Political correctness is almost liquid.It is used by certain currents to put arguments with a death-doer away.
In order to be politically correct today, you should not be politically correct.
To paraphrase the English language above.If someone says something stupid, or racist, and I criticise it, then I am trying to get the word out, arguing that they have freedom of expression, and that I am politically correct. (In that it is an insult)
In this sense, MY political correctness ensures that MY freedom of expression disappears.And with that it is not politically correct the new political correctness has become.