What does it mean to be politically correct? Political correctness, often shortened to PC, is defined as agreeing with the idea that people should be careful not to use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people. However, through generations of usage by the American government and the nation as a whole, it is obvious that this type of censorship is only a curtain for people to hide behind their real thoughts on “offensive” matters, such as sexuality and race. Many people argue that political correctness is a destructive force, one built on the foundational belief that by avoiding certain topics, the offensiveness of them will disappear entirely. It is because we as a nation are fearful of what we say, write, think, and especially of using the wrong words that may be denounced as insensitive, racist, sexist, or homophobic, that we give political correctness an unintentional, threatening power.
This modernized form of newspeak is what we call political correctness today. (In text citation) Political correctness can be used for good to censor unnecessary dialogue; yet it can cut down on our freedom of speech and thought. It is important to recognize both sides of the spectrum and where the line between the two lies. Newspeak, a form of mental slavery is used as the main language in 1984. Newspeak is a new alteration of the English language with shortened words and phrases.
This was a necessary precaution of the prosperity and stability of the nation. The Alien Act declared that if war between the United States and another country, the President shall publicly announce the war. However, one important aspect of our Acts comprised of the nature of immigrants. We firmly believe that in a time of war, all foreign males fourteen years old and older, who are not citizens of the United States, shall be removed as “alien enemies” (Alien Acts). This is necessary for the protection of our country and the success of our
The overall social costs for gun accidents could be interpreted as individual property rights are also violated as citizens have to pay more taxes for it. Quite certainly, allowing gun possession infringes substantially many and important rights in our lives. It is unacceptable to admit the rights to bear arms with the cost being basic rights as a human being. However, the second amendment encourages this preposterous action, and concordantly, should be abolished. To conclude, it is clear that the U.S is suffering from gun rights, and the adroit solution is to abolish the second amendment.
Two of the candidates I questioned believe that yes, the United States of America has swung too far away from its heritage of liberty in its quest to up the security of our country. They believe this because with all the dangerous things happening in the world like terrorists attacks, school shootings, child abductions, hate crimes, etc. have caused this nation to focus on protecting the states and have lost its sight on our heritage of liberty. The last candidate I spoke with disagreed and said she didn’t believe our nation was swinging too far away from its heritage of liberty over our nations’
According to “Harrison Bergeron” George states that “ ‘If I tried to get away with it,’ said George, ‘then other people’d get away with it-and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?’ “ (Vonnegut 2). One can see that people in this collectivist society such as George know that breaking the law can do no good for oneself or others. In Anthem the text states that “International 4-8818 and we are friends. This is an evil to say, for it is a transgression, the great Transgression of Preference, to love any among men better than others, since we must must love all men and all men are our friends” (Rand 30).
We intentionally rob them from health care benefits leading them and their family to be unhealthy with more medical conditions. “Although America strives to portray itself as a country of opportunity that can transform citizen’s lives, it is actually no different in terms of social mobility than anywhere else.” (Clark). Also, just as Authors Tan and Anzaldúa talk about how much they were beaten down, and not able to show who they really were because how afraid they were of what Americans would say about them. Why does it really matter what color are skin is? Or where we are from to justify us as a good human being, or
Orient says that Universal healthcare is just another way of saying “uniform healthcare”, where the sick would not be optimally taken care of. Although expenses may be reduced, the reason for it is due to restricting the demographics of people who they will provide care to; focusing mainly on the healthy and disregarding those with fatal illnesses, such as cancer. Orient uses another Zutshi 5 Human Right issue to further prove how such an implementation would result in an utter failure. She provides us with the government granting its citizens to right of education. As a result, she states that “the performance of American students is nearly the worst in the industrialized world.
Government laws are necessary for our communities because if people do not agree with the government, it does not mean government decision are incorrect. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau talks about government and points out the flaws in the government system. On the other hand, in “ The Grapes of Wrath,” Steinbeck talk on the birth of civilization from physical and governmental issues. Although, many cases Thoreau and Steinbeck perspectives on government contradicts with each other however they both share similar thoughts about self-government. In contrast, Thoreau begins his essay by criticizing the government system, and he believed that government is ineffective because of the stringent and barbarous laws.
(AGG) As Daniel J. Boorstin had clarified, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” (Goodreads) This relates to the government form Fahrenheit 451 trying to hide the truth from the society, and had eventually killed them. (BS-1) The government tries to control the amount of knowledge and take advantage of the lack of knowledge. (BS-2) The effort to control this trait, while helping the society, will eventually damage the society. (BS-3) The lack of memory power will help avoid controversies while damaging many relationships, but, this can be fixed by slowing your thoughts and clearing your mind. (TS) In the book, Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury 's key message is to remind his readers about the value of knowledge and memory, and the dangers of trying to control them.
The article, “The Antifederalists Were Right”, Mises Daily, September 27, 2006 by Gary Galles examines Anti-Federalists’ predictions and if we don’t limit of the federal government it will lead to corruption of power. The Anti-Federalist believed that ratifying the U.S Constitution will create an overbearing central government. Even though the Anti-Federalist lost the debate and was overlooked, their predictions about the result of the Constitution turned out the be true. The Anti-Federalist suggested the Bill of Rights to let the people have rights, however the Constitution was too vague which leads to abuse of power. Some of the vague laws are the “general welfare” which lead to the override limits on delegated federal powers and creating
Today the government compromised on these rights in the name of security or the general welfare in various cases that deal with amendments such as the 1st and 2nd Amendments, which all seem to bring miscellaneous debate among them. Everyone who calls themselves an American citizen should know the First Amendment, as if it were child’s nursery rhyme. Pondering the power it bestows on citizen, it 's probably best if they knew it. The first amendment states citizens are presented with the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the
With a topic as polarizing as the United States’ policies on immigration and open borders, a writer would need to make consistently strong and accurate points in order to convince people to side with them in the situation. This is especially true in the case of an argument that is pro-immigration as many people consider pro-immigration arguers to be biased liberals, much like how many consider anti-immigration arguers to be biased conservatives.With this being said, Eliane does a decent job of making a logical plan for the United States to follow and refuting her original point, she should have made a more effective and less frequent usage of quoting, as well as avoiding the ad hominem fallacy usage. Eliane’s most effective paragraph, argumentatively,
In Sandel’s “The Public Philosophy of Contemporary Liberalism,” he highlights that the different forms of liberalism put forth a set a values (e.g. the freely-choosing self, toleration, and rights). Minimalist Liberalism argues that different opinions need a neutral framework for social peace. Consequently, one must bracket their controversial attitudes even though this does not seem to solve the problem. Toleration allows for diversity to flourish and equality to thrive, so long as the government be restricted in using coercion to cause citizens to act “morally,” according to their standards.
People even said I was a weak and mediocre president because I did not want America to go to war, but of course things end up diffrently than as planned. Imperialism can not be seen as a horrible thing all the time. These countries often do get protection from us, if ever threaten. My intent for American imperialism is for America to be put on the map. Some of my tactics will help America to do just that.