The Political Correctness Police

It is not just derogatory words that are at issue. It is assumptions as to how the world works without taking into account other viewpoints. The idea that you might define “opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate” perhaps might be because those views are, in fact, bigoted and illegitimate.

Advertisements

Johnathan Chait recently posted an article about the oppressive nature of political correctness. He defines political correctness as “a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate.” The examples he uses of current day political correctness range from invocation of the term ‘mansplaining’, the use of ‘trigger warnings’ and the emergence of ‘micro-aggressions.’

His final conclusion is that political correctness is an ‘undemocratic creed’.

It is important to make a distinction at this point. Political correctness does not mean that certain types of speech are illegal. Yet, certain people are diverted from making certain statements for ‘fear’ that they might invoke the wrath of the political correctness police. Essentially he wants to live in a world where people can say what they want without facing criticism.

The basis of so-called politically correct speech is the idea that you have to be sensitive of other genders, races, sexualities and distinguishing characteristics. It is not surprising that these issues have emerged today given our growing awareness that society is not as binary as it once was.

When you have grown up in a world where you did not face societal boundaries, where you had more opportunities and did not have to worry about systemic discrimination you don’t need to worry so much about how things like speech can reinforce an unfair system. However, when you belong to any group of people who are treated as less than, language matters.

Continue reading “The Political Correctness Police”

Money Talks

Why do American politicians need to be dragged kicking and screaming to pass a law which allows its citizens, not free healthcare, but the right to buy insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions? Why does the US allow foods and drugs on the market which the EU has banned for being unsafe and unhealthy? Why does the US spend more on weapons and defence than the next 25 biggest spenders combined?

The answer lies in a decision made by the Supreme Court of the US in the ‘70s which struck down an attempt to limit campaign donations and ruled that spending money to influence elections is constitutionally protected. Essentially, money equals speech. Another decision in 2010 allowed unlimited donations by anyone, individual or corporate. Contributors can remain anonymous.

Continue reading “Money Talks”