Correctness: It’s Not Political

Time and time again, when those seeking to create a less bigoted and inclusive society  speak for what they believe in, they are accused of using “political correctness” as a means of forcing silence and restricting speech. Those that lament the rise of political correctness claim that by asking to treat other members of our society with respect, their First Amendment rights are being violated in an attempt to distract from the fact that they are actively choosing not to respect others. This is simply incorrect. While there are some people out there that do wish to ban so called “hate speech,” the phenomenon of political correctness simply encourages inclusive and respectful speech, not a ban on any sort of speech. In the United States, we continue to have the legal right to spew bigotry and hatred to the general public. We also have the right to tell people who use hateful and hurtful speech that what they are saying is in fact hurtful and hateful. Whether someone is hurt by something or not is not controlled by the personal inflicting the pain. If someone says that the use of a slur is offensive to them, that slur is offensive. Those that use free speech as a reason to not be “politically correct” are choosing to ignore the fact that they are deliberately hurting other people, other members of our society and are using an invalid and pathetic excuse to validate their rudeness.Free speech is an essential tenet of democratic society. Banning some sort of speech allows any speech to be banned. Descriptors that are used to describe various forms of speech aside from purely technical terms are all relative. For example, what I consider to be “hate speech” may be different from what a neo-nazi considers to be hate speech. To allow societies to grow and change positively, speech that some people find radical must be permitted. If somehow bigoted speech is banned, that sets a precedent that can be used to ban politically correct speech. After all, it is the First Amendment rights that allow the Ku Klux Klan to spread their racist propaganda that also allow people to speak up against them. Thus, it is illogical for proponents of politically correct speech to want to legally ban any sort of speech.The notion that one gets to decide whether someone else is offended by something is ludicrous. Feelings such as happiness and hurt are personal responses that don’t respond to external rules. Just as there is no strict categorization on what is allowed to make one happy, there is nothing specific that automatically does or does not make someone offended. Thus, we don’t get to decide that something is not offensive, especially if said offended person clearly expresses their hurt.It also puzzles me why the idea of treating someone with respect, especially when it has no negative impact remains so controversial. Is it really that hard to call someone by the pronoun that they wish? Is it really that difficult to not use certain words if they make others uncomfortable? We are lucky enough to have a multitude of words on hand as part of the English language. We are lucky that those who don’t fit into the binaries mandated by society can find words that describe them correctly, and we are lucky that slurs and offensive terms are entirely replaceable and unnecessary in daily speech. There is no rational reason why someone would use a specific word with the knowledge that it makes someone upset, unless they wish to hurt said person.The argument over whether to be politically correct or not is about respect, not free speech. By bringing the First Amendment into it we are endangering the most important pillar of democratic society. Equating defending free speech to those who wish to not be politically correct propagates the erroneous idea that those who simply want to live in a respectful society wish to ban certain forms of speech. Being politically correct is simply being kind, compassionate and empathetic, and the violation of the First Amendment is irrelevant in the discussion surrounding it.