As political correctness is pushed harder on society and people are being silenced and censored more, the question arises, is censoring people’s thought and words out of worry for offending people better or worse for society? Many people argue for both sides of the argument, with some saying that is wrong or even ridiculous to have people complaining about simple rhetoric being offensive, while others think it is a way to have a more inclusive society. This has become a very popular press topic, as people who lean very strongly on the side of the argument that this nature is bad even going so far as to call 2016 “The year everyone was offended by everything”. This is an extreme exaggeration of the situation, but there have been times recently where some controversial things have happened because of this new PC movement. Many colleges are now starting to incorporate “safe spaces” where students can go to not worry about having their feelings hurt or ideas challenged. Some colleges have even begun to ban words from their campuses. Some campuses like UConn, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, and Cal State LA have even begun to offer segregated dorms specifically for black students (Sputnik). All of these things do the opposite of what the real college experience is supposed to do. College is a time when people are supposed to have their ideas opposed and find out who they really are, not just have their hand held and be walked through. Beyond college is the real world, which is nothing like that. When you go out into the real world, not everyone will agree with you and not everyone will like you (Harris). This is just the first example of a plethora of problems that this ideology creates. These problems are created by something which is meant to help people, but is presented very wrongly and does the opposite. There is a new movement that thinks that any “mean” language is critically damaging to people, and that it has no place in society. Nothing happens when you get offended, and you wake up the same person the next day. It is these reasons why censoring people’s thought and language is detrimental to society, as not allowing people to hear conflicting ideas is unhealthy for them. 

There is another major problem with political correctness and censorship in that, by removing acceptable words from society and replacing them with alternatives, the alternatives become the same thing to those who look to use them in the wrong way (Bezanson). This has been apparent in many situations. A good example is the word “retarded”. Not long ago this was the preferred word choice from people who happened to suffer from a mental disability. The word however became a word used often in negative connotation, so it was deemed offensive and an alternative term was coined in “mentally challenged”. People however begun using mentally challenged in the same way they used retarded, to bring people down. It is now the same with “mentally handicapped”, as that is used to degrade people who might do something deemed stupid by others. There is no end to this however, as whatever new term is used to describe someone who has a mental illness is going to be used in an offensive way, just as retarded once was. It is very silly to think that by changing the word you can change people’s intentions, as it will be just as easy to use the term to hurt people’s feelings. As a result of all this turmoil now if a person uses the term retarded in a non-offensive way like it was originally used, they are ridiculed and treated like they’re a bad person for doing so. This is unfair as people can be hurt by being labeled as a bad person. This is a big hole in the PC thought process which has lead to much discussion over whether or not it is actually helping anyone. 

Being politically correct can also lead to people feeling as though that by acting morally they have almost a “pass” to act immorally every so often (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LHdYTngNxk&t=265s). Because they have done some “good” in the past they are entitled to not be viewed as a bad person when they act in a “bad” way. It’s like a philosophy that by acting inclusively to a certain group of people, the person can act in a mean-spirited way to people who even slightly oppose the idea. This kind of mean behavior is hypothetically “canceled out” by the kindness showed to a specific group of people. This has often been shown recently as many individuals that support Donald Trump have been physically assaulted for no reason. The attackers have this idea that they’re acting for the good of people less represented in society by hitting these innocent bystanders simply for supporting the President, when in reality they’re breaking the law and causing many more problems than they’re solving, all while looking like terrible, violent people. This is also apparent when people like Bernie Sanders talk about giving back to the people and having the rich pay more taxes when he barely paid any of his taxes and owns a huge lake house. He lives with the idea that if he just says what everyone wants to hear, even if it won’t work, he is free from doing anything hypocritical. People like this are held above other people in society even though behind the scenes they are no better than anyone else. The hypocrisy of this ideology leads to blind agreement by people that just believe everything they’re told that leads to serious disagreements. It’s this kind of “moral self-licensing” that has lead to another idea that in today’s society “good people” can only do good things, while “bad people” can only do bad things. This idea and the idea of moral self-licensing go hand in hand to create a very closed-minded society where people who disagree with anything polite are shamed. When people don’t even allow opposing ideas to be heard, it hinders critical thinking ability and only allows for a certain ideology to be accepted. This has led to so much conflict and so much discord in the country. People want to be nice but don’t want to be told what they can and can’t say, as they especially don’t want their vocabularies changed. 

The idea of today’s PC society being a “non-Oedipal society” has grown frequently, as people are being pressured more and more to stop using everyday language out of fear of offending someone. Oedipal society refers to one that has a strong social order in which people can discuss the moral codes and laws and not simply slap new rules on people that disagree with the rules (Schwartz). These are exactly the people that think that good people can only do good and can only do bad things when forced to by bad people. This of course makes it difficult to be viewed differently than a group you belong to. This is the idea that brings out the theory that because of the actions of a few white people that all white people are evil and racist (Zurcher). White privilege is real and absolutely exists but the idea that all white people are racist is ludicrous. Racism involves hatred and a real belief that you are better because of your skin color, and a very slim minority of white people feel this way. It goes the same way with men and sexism. It’s not a fair statement to align everyone in a group with the actions of few. This is also apparent in the idea that minorities can’t be racist. By the people that argue for political correctness, the phrase “I hate white people” is viewed as not racist. Hating another group of people, even ones that have done nothing to anyone, is toxic and racist. There is such great hypocrisy in the PC movement. It is so quick and easy to designate an entire group of people as one characteristic without getting to know the individuals in the group. If there are few bad people in the specific group, the people associated with them are mean and evil as well since good people can’t associate with bad people. Non-Oedipal society can’t understand that people can be indifferent. If you don’t hate the major “evil” you are indeed evil as well. People think that by being perfectly kind to everyone and not hurting anyone’s feeling by disagreeing with them will create this perfect society. This is not realistic however and cannot be achieved as there always needs to be some balance and disagreement, otherwise there would be no discussion and growth. By living strictly in an idealistic world, people will receive a false sense of everything. You cannot have people hold your hand all the way through life, because that’s not how the real world works. Not believing in civil disagreement is a part of this problem, and people on the “wrong” side of this argument are viewed as terrible people and are thus shunned by the “good” part of society. 

There is another important part of this new PC movement that is startling and can be damaging to its opponents. The side of the argument that argues for it often throws out labels at whoever they feel like. People using “offensive” words are labeled as things such as racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc. These words are just as offensive to unjustly call someone, as no one wants to be seen as a horrible, bigoted person. Any disagreement on an issue with the “good” people can result in the “bad” person being called one of these things. It is quite silly to think that if someone disagrees with a major point that they hate a certain group of people. Hate is important because it fuels the real definition of racist and sexist and words like them. Racism and sexism are hateful qualities, and by calling someone of these words, especially between two major public figures can severely damage a career. People can be called one of these things, and others can just hear that unjust usage of the word and agree with the labeler even with no context shown. People can lose jobs, partnerships, and credibility among other things all through being unfairly labeled as a hateful person just by doing something that a part of society has deemed unacceptable. This is a huge reason why people are afraid to express their opinions, because there isn’t a much worse title to have than “racist” or “sexist”. These words have been thrown around like they’re nothing in recent times however, and their value has significantly decreased. As words are used more and more throughout a daily basis, they begin to lose meaning (Flanagan). Racist is such a widely-used word now that in some few cases it can almost be shrugged off as the person being called one can understand that the person calling them that is overreacting. This happens with other words that people use as well, and often negative words. My own example involved me calling something “the worst”. This phrase I use when describing virtually everything, and at this point has just evolved to where I use it for almost any minor inconvenience I come across. It means nothing to me now however, and there will be no telling what actually is the worst song or movie or something because I call everything bad the worst. This is also how people use the terms racist and sexist. Anything remotely controversial or not what the progressive people want to hear is racist or sexist, and there it’s more difficult to tell who is really racist versus who is labeled racist unfairly. It is unsettling to be called something you’re not, especially when it’s something as possibly career-ruining as being looked at as a bigot. 

Inclusion of course is a vital part of America and no one should be excluded from the success of the population. By saying there shouldn’t be words like “crazy” be banned from college campuses, that doesn’t mean that more violent hate speech doesn’t exist. Hate speech is a crime in this country as it should be, as it can be mentally damaging. The context surrounding a word is huge though (Noorani). Someone walking down the street shouting obscenities at people should be viewed as a bad person, as their intent is to hurt people’s feelings. Someone that uses a word in non-hurtful context however like a comedian for example should not be viewed as a mean-spirited person for using a word in a joking manner. Obviously there are people who have suffered greatly in this country and deserve to be treated with all the respect of everyone around them, and often people don’t show them this respect. I’m not saying people should just walk around using whatever words they want in any context. It’s the idea that there is no way to say some “taboo” words in any context that is baffling. There is discussion that needs to be had it is impossible with certain blocked. The true original goal of political correctness was to create a more inclusive society for everyone, but now it is presented wrongly and is used in a negative way, affecting people’s free speech. The people behind the movement are not bad people. They would like everyone to feel loved. The way they want to present this idea is counterintuitive though because it creates an idea that disagreement with any of their ideas makes you a bad person. This is unfair to everyone. It makes people unhappy that they have to change their vocabularies because they will be viewed as bad people if they don’t. In today’s society things are so often taken out of context and it hurts people’s images. This can lead to so many problems and people overreacting in retaliation. So many disagreements in society have arisen because of this and a lot of people are unhappy with each other. This time in our country is an extremely divided one and the way people are proposing to fix it through political correctness and censorship is the incorrect way. Political correctness is detrimental to society because offers an unrealistic, idealistic fantasy that tries to cater to people all while creating more problems and turmoil. 
