Ok, this one is likely to be contentious, so let’s just start with the terms of discussion:
- Political Correctness IS A EUPHEMISM for censorship;
- I am the enemy of bigotry and fascism ( it’s personal );
- I am the enemy of censorship and conformity ( predictably );
- I am the staunch ally of of reason and critical thinking;
THEREFORE: I would prefer bigots to deal with the consequences of voicing their bigotry, than to censor and thus conceal them.
THEREFORE: I expect people to vocally and violently attack bigotry, and to kill and dismember it, when it raises its ugly head.
Now … whether you kill it metaphorically or literally is your own decision, and I make no judgment of either action, except in so far as to thank the actor for having the courage and commitment to preventing this crap taking over the world without resistance.
Alternatively: if you choose to be more covert in your attacks on it … fine, that works for me too.
BUT … if you’re one of the people who think no one should ever say anything that isn’t “nice” no matter the circumstances, then as far as I’m concerned you may as well be on the side of bigotry and fascism … because if you think they care for one second that you’re trying to influence them with love, you are sorely mistaken … and I am quite sure that UNLESS this is a ruse to get close to them and undermine their actions in some way, all you’re otherwise doing is enabling them. Which is not by any definition wise.
So political correctness is effectively this:
- You’re either trying to get everyone to “calm down and be nice” when there are diametrically opposed forces in the heat of battle … the victims of which battle are typically the poor, other species, and the environment … and because of the nature of bigotry and fascism, they are the victims whether we fight or not … therefore not fighting in some way, is a betrayal of all those beings and things who (or that) suffer … OR;
- You’re trying to get people to conform to your moral code for the selfish reason that it makes you feel more comfortable, yet has little other (if any) practical advantage … OR;
- You’re trying to silence dissent to your agenda.
NOW IF YOUR AGENDA falls under 3 (or C – depending on how your browser formatted that list) … AND … this agenda is in support of the welfare of innocents etc. … THEN AND ONLY THEN might you have a case for censorship of sorts … because on the one hand it may still be free for dissent to occur, you have all cause and right to attack the dissent IF it can save suffering of an innocent.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY that I’m suggesting it is always a good strategy, I’m not … BUT … it is SOMETIMES a great strategy, therefore it should be used where the circumstances warrant.