The Roots and Dangers of Today's "Political Correctness" Movement.
“If even one American, who has done nothing
wrong, is forced by fear to shut his mind and shut his mouth, then all
Americans are in peril.”
Harry S. Truman
“Everything that irritates us about others
can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
Carl Jung
Imagine
this scene: An obese woman walks into the doctor. He does a routine checkup and
advises her that she should lose some weight. Rather than consider the merits
of his advice, upon leaving she posts a question on a far-left forum asking if
she can report him to any authorities for “fat shaming.” Yes, real people have done this. Fortunately
we are not at the stage that giving sound medical suggestions are banned by
law, but please consider that there are people who would like this to be done.
It sounds absurd, but so are many other thigs done or advanced in the name of
“politically correctness.”
This should
alarm all citizens. We cherish the
ideals of freedom for speech but political correctness and liberty cannot
co-exist. Imagine trying to write a book
in the future if we establish a state of paranoia in author’s minds that
something, anything in the pages might offend someone – and PC dictates that
the most sensitive person’s feelings must prevail in regards to
censorship. My works are not based on senselessly
provoking the reader, but to examine issues, as I did in my last novel (link
at end of this article) that deals with where society is heading. Naturally,
especially if you are conservative, that can set someone off. And I think we know where this is heading if
we give into the, ”you should not be allowed to say that” crowd.
Look at
what is taking place in recent years in reference to Halloween. The whole point of the holiday, in modern
practice, is to take on the identity of someone or something other than who you
normally are. The vast majority of
people just see it as simple fun, and neither wish any harm in dressing up in
traditional attire of another culture, or interpret other people in the context
of nasty motives. However, now we have
people who say that costumes must conform to THEIR idea of politeness. And
often they are totally contradictory. On
the one hand, don’t dress up in non-European costumes if you are of that
ancestry, yet if you are then don’t dress up as Vikings, or princesses, or
whatever. In other words I guess we should dress up our kids as hams like in
“To Kill a Mockingbird” but I suppose someone would find that offensive as
well.
The problem
can go deeper than holidays or writing fiction, it can drive a wedge between
peoples. For instance, if you watch some
of the videos that get shared on social media you are aware of the term “micro
aggressions.” This is a term that means that if you look at a member of the
opposite sex (sorry, can I still say that?) in a way THEY interpret as
offensive in some way. And there is even a school-of-thought that says if you
DON’T look at someone then that is a micro-aggression. So in other words the
disciples of this way of thinking are in a constant state of being offended, or
looking for reasons to be offended.
There is
also something dangerous in this way of thinking that can even affect people’s
lives. You see, there are differences in
male and female physiology beyond reproductive organs. If you are developing heart-disease
medications you need to account for sex differences. To blindly say the only
difference between men and women is in the reproductive organs is both false
and dangerous in the long-run.
On a
related note, there are those who would silence professors of biology and
psychology in the name of “equality.”
What happens if a biology professor notes the difference in the typical
male and female brain? What if a
psychology professor wants to present lectures on evolutionary psychology that
generally proposes the idea that differences in male and female behavior are
based on evolutionary strategies that have enabled people’s ancestors to better
survive and reproduce? I am not saying I agree or disagree with any particular
school of thought, but that term…”thought”… that is what is important to
preserve; freedom of thought and expression.
Culture has
always stagnated when freedom of thought and expression have been curtailed; be
it in the name of any dogma. Limiting people’s ability to say, “I believe
that…” hurts both the one wishing to express themselves, as well as the person
claiming offense. And what ultimately
motivates people to wish to impose controls over others? One could say that it
is based on the idea that Jung proposed that what irritates us in others may be
something we are desperately trying to suppress within our own psyche. The sub conscious, while busy trying to keep
certain thoughts of our own locked away, becomes angry when those thoughts or
feelings are expressed by others. The individual builds a persona that sees
themselves as superior to others because they have kept these aspects of
themselves down, but if that effort is threatened, even by questioning, the
person might lash out and either attack the “offender” or ask for external forces
(law) to make sure others cannot threaten their sense of moral superiority.
This can explain the proverbial tennis match with these people involving virtue
signaling then fierce condemnation of others who do not share their way of
thinking back to virtue signaling and, well, finally wanting to keep others
from expressing opposing views.
Of course
there is no reason to employ meanness in any sort of discussion. One should be
able to advance an idea, or defend a position, without personal attacks. In
fact, in a politically mature environment people with differing points of view
should be able to remain friends and discuss ideas with each other. That is the
ideal of a democratic society. Making laws that curtail speech and expression
in the name of protecting people’s feelings can perhaps give a temporary sense
of satisfaction, but in the end it hurts all of society, even those the
supporters of PC wish to protect.
* Like this message? Share on your social media. And also follow me on twitter at: @PsychoMike777
If you enjoy science fiction with a message that dares to explore where we are at, and where we may be heading, check out:
https://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Our-Past-Michael-Cross-ebook/dp/B01MY4WASN
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
ReplyDelete― Theodore Dalrymple
No movement becomes stronger by not being challenged and of course they often begin to eat their own in a search for purity.
The best thing any academic can do is to join the Heterodox Academy, to support those like Dave Rubin, Brett Weinstein and others who are center-left and engage in dialogue. Political Correctness at its core is fascistic, intolerant and controlling, it is diametrically opposed to everything free and good, its proponents are totalitarians.
What was it Voltaire said? Those who will accept absurdities will commit atrocities. Or something like that.
Delete