Correct or Incorrect?
Reflecting on Political Correctness
Political correctness is a hotly debated topic in today’s world; everyone, linguist and mechanic alike, seems to have an opinion. In a chapter of his book When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?, author George Carlin addresses this phenomenon and places himself in opposition to the idea of being ‘politically correct’. Although Carlin succeeds in creating a humorous and engaging piece, I personally believe his argument to be unconvincing as it is supported by his misunderstanding of the goal of political correctness, and also the nature of language.
First, Carlin’s attitude towards language seems strange. His work When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? approaches human language as though it was something stagnant and permanent, when it is quite the opposite of that. Language has always been something alive and ever-changing, with grammar rules, tenses, vocabulary becoming almost completely new in just a few generations. Right now, we are living in a time when language appears to be in the very process of changing, and it is understandable that he should be confused or even frustrated by such an in-between era; but I find his averseness to political correctness ignorant and frankly, unmotivated. Politically correct language takes a new approach to society as a whole; its goal is not to rewrite history or the Bible, but to lay down the
…show more content…
Political correctness is, as of now, an ongoing process, and not a finished product. One might agree with the author’s criticism of newly used terms such as “minimally exceptional” and “visually impaired” being far-fetched, but one must also keep in mind that these words could easily not be here to stay. Changing and improving language is not a definite thing: some words endure, and some do not - who is to say what expressions known today will become extinct in the
They provide examples from the University of California administrators, who in 2014 gave them a list of seemingly common phrases that must be avoided to prevent offending students. The authors point out that the political correctness movement of the 1980’s and 90’s is similar but different from what we are currently experiencing; the current movement is driven by emotional well-being rather than protecting marginalized groups. Believing to have the freedom to not be offended is not a new concept, for example, people fought for the right to be offensive all the way back in the Victorian era. Starting in the 80’s, far left students on college campuses decided that women and minorities had the right to not be offended. The authors uses the term “vindictive protectiveness” to describe the brutal response by the current movement towards people who question whether or not the movement actually keeps students safe.
In American society, if American’s do not look the same as society’s ideal image, then they are not considered normal. Those non normal American’s are treated as if they have a plague and are left on the outside always looking in. The people who have something that sets them apart from the norm, such as a disability, should not be treated differently than the people who are society’s version of normal. In “Disability” by Nancy Mairs, the problem of judging a book by its cover discusses individual examples relating to people who have a disability. Mairs’ essay discusses having a disability in a world where disability is ignored, especially by the media.
Don’t everyone have different abilities and levels of proficiency? I would argue that everyone that has a disability or not has a ballpark normalcy. I appreciate Lisa Blumberg, sharing her views on her experiences of being a child with a disability. Consequently, she wrote the article solely based on her own experiences and needs as a person with a physical disability. However, Lisa's beliefs may not offer an accurate interpretation of every person that has a disability wants and needs.
Ellie Reynolds advances a rhetorically effective argument on why government should not have regulatory control over offensive Native American mascots in schools across the country. She believes this control is more of a detriment to society than a service. Her article published on the DenverPost.com, “Native Americans Have Become a Political Pawn,” offers a compelling point of view on this controversial issue because Reynolds is a member of the Oglala Sioux tribe herself (Reynolds 659). Along with her strong view against government involvement on this issue, which she considers censorship by political correctness, Reynolds uses her personal experience, historical context, and the negative effects of political correctness to convey her effective
These forms of “toilet humor” go past our social ideologies and violates the “norms of official
When we think of heroes we often think of a masked vigilanty or a cape crusader swooping down from the heavens and saving the day. Although heroes come in many shapes and sizes, they also tend to come from different backgrounds. The people of the United States pride themselves with freedom and equality. However, still to this day there is a struggle with discrimination. Matt Zoller Seitz’s article “The Offensive Movie Cliché That Won’t Die” definitely sparked some interest and was definitely right when it came to the offensive issue most people do not see.
Words are very powerful. They have enormous power to convey with a purpose of insult which may have a devastating impact. The most astonishing characteristics about words is they can mean completely different from one person to another person. In Nancy Mairs, "On Being a Cripple" she uses the words cripple to describe herself. Nancy is a powerful women who insist that this word is her choice and a way of accepting the fact of her disables.
n Nancy Mairs essay, “Disability”, she illustrates the lack of representation of people with disabilities in the media. While disability plays a major role in Mairs’ life, she points out the various ways her everyday life is ordinary and even mundane. Despite the normalcy of the lives of citizens with disabilities Mairs argues the media’s effacement of this population, is fear driven. She claims, “To depict disabled people in the ordinary activities of daily life is to admit that there is something ordinary about the disability itself, that it may enter anybody’s life” (Mairs 14). Able bodied people worry about the prospect of eventually becoming physically impaired.
In George Carlin’s Doin’ it Again (1990), Carlin argues that Americans use euphemistic language in an attempt to not face the truth. To support his thesis, Carlin gives an example of how euphemistic language got worse over time, how it makes describing a simple condition harder than it should be, and how certain people use euphemistic language on purpose. Carlin wants others to realize just how bad euphemistic language is in order to never let themselves be victims of it. Carlin’s main audience is basically anyone that will pay attention and listen to him.
Societies are defined by many of their aspects, but perhaps one of the most distinguishable characteristics of any given society is the language spoken there. This fact carries over even to the United States of America. The United States is a vastly multicultural country. That being said, English is the dominant language of the land, and should be officially declared its national language.
Language is the most powerful tool of communication in this world, with language we are able to create change. For instance Martin Luther King Jr is a man who created peace against racial oppression with he delivered his speech because of it he received a Nobel Prize. In his “I have a dream” speech, his words were inspirational when he spoke about equality. He said, “ Now is the time to make real promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice.”
This overwhelming ideal of “tolerance”, as we have taken to calling it, has lead to the spread of political correctness. Because saying something that rubs against the grain is uncomfortable for the speaker and the audience, political correctness was developed as a way to feel better about our conformity. In essence, we can neglect to speak the truth by shrouding it in a mantle that appeases the ideals established by
Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is quoted as saying, “The limits of my language means the limits of my world,” a sentiment heroically displayed in the novel 1984, written by George Orwell. Within the confines of the story of Winston, a man living in Oceania under the complete and total control of the Party, Orwell accurately displays the limited language forced upon the citizens and explains the inexplicable way the party destroyed the past in order to completely control the future of its members. Furthermore, Orwell intricately examines the devolution of language and the subsequent effects on the intellect of citizens and their personal belief systems. Upon reviewing and examining Old English and Middle English prose, it has become blatantly
Language comes naturally, and as time as passed, we have been more inclined to say whatever we want. Unfortunately, recently we have seen more offense being taken to words we say. This is because language can affect people in different ways. In other words, some
Many audiences of stand up comedy enjoy hearing their favorite comedian entertain them. But what would one think when a comedian cracks a joke about a sensitive topic, for example, a tragedy that affected hundreds of people. Some may argue that, comedians are not supposed to overstep the boundary of controversial jokes. These controversial jokes are linked with political correctness—which is used to describe language, policies, and measures that are taken to avoid offense to certain groups of people. Comedians are not compelled to restrain from controversial topics due to the topic not being sugar-coated, the higher level of contemplation that the joke can reach, and the job of the comedian—to make the current issue manageable.