The problem of political correctness-10/01/2015
Some argue that the correct politically creates people unable to withstand criticism and restricts freedom of expression other than being politically correct is the only way to create a decent society.
First of all, what is politically correct?
Politically correct language is a rule that seeks to avoid becoming neutral and free from prejudices human communication, especially public or that somehow is open to many people.
Thus, in simplistic terms, it is difficult to imagine who would oppose the view that if everyone used a respectful language would be better for everyone.
However, many of its critics say it is a mild form of censorship and it is used to defend groups that need to be criticized for the good of our civilization, such as religious radicals, criminals, corrupt politicians and other individuals or groups .
They also say that to avoid criticism, we create a society of people who do not know how to deal with contrary ideas, causing greater social turmoil than leaving with the politically incorrect to do desensitization of controversial issues.
But I can not help but bring some questions. Who says the wrong politically creates people unable to receive criticism also do not accept the criticism that are making hate speech and suffering caused to certain target groups of "humiliation critical" fruits of their freedom of expression and fail to realize that freedom expression is not without responsibility.
Others, clearly only defend politically incorrect to maintain the "right" to offend, insult, humiliate minority groups, them there is no argument that it is enough, as only want to vent hatred and ignorance "in peace", still demand respect to their opinions without even having knowledge of the difference between opinion and hate speech or incitement to violence. They say the politically correct left the world "boring", of course, since the only form of entertainment they know is the insult to the distant similar (group of people who have no contact and so do not have empathy).
On the other hand, extreme advocates of political correctness blame the victim when an individual who goes beyond his right free speech suffers some sort of violent retaliation and criminal.
In the middle of the battlefield, the true quality of political correctness is lost, or being wrongly taxed by ignorance, now being used as an excuse to be just the opposite (who is not politically correct is just who is the victim of politically incorrect). So how much could really be worthy?
Political correctness is worthy, is ethical, it is necessary for society to advance in respect and discussions that can reach consensus beneficial to all mankind. However, you have to be smart to use these rules. It is difficult to criticism of what we consider wrong in society without doing harm, but not impossible! It is an exercise that we all we really want to create a more just society should do. Nor will we ever get to be politically correct all the time, we are human, flawed, temperamental, but recognize the error and try to improve is the most noble of human attitudes.
Only criticize the politically correct, thinking that freedom of expression will make room for discussion will come to a consensus is at least innocent. In this orgy of insults, which is only encourage the champion "tiradinhas" where the opinion that amuses as many people is the "truth." This is the reward of such freedom of expression without the guidance of ethics, the law of the strongest of the jungle, in this case, the law of the best in trespasses.
It would not surprise me, if we take the politically incorrect, that in a few decades, the courts, terms meters of laughs or cries of hatred, the lawyer who incite more hatred or amuses more madly the jury would win the cause ...
Political correctness is difficult, much intelligence it takes to follow and yet defend their ideas with the same hard, so people prefer the easy way. See what I called the people who use the politically incorrect of stupid and ignorant, but I did not need to quote these words, only now to clarify. But I could have said that they are idiots who seem eating poop and that sort of thing. But what kind of response I would have these insults? It will be the target of my criticism would just think "wow, she called me an idiot, I will not be wrong to people, hallelujah," certainly not.
Being correct is correct with your communication is complicated, but we live in a time when almost everything we say can become public, especially on the internet. We can give up the offense and train dignity, it will cost us much intellectual work, but if we really wish to cooperate for our causes (whether there are), we need to reevaluate our priorities urgently and maybe realize that having the immediate reward of not insult is so advantageous in the long run as it may suggest our brain pleasure system.
Finally, we believe that human beings are fundamentally good, fundamentally evil or be revolutionary as to believe the nonsense that you can choose what the human being "fundamentally" will be. The problem has always been the difficulty of choice and not of choice, so many believe we are evil by nature. Which way is willing to follow?
http://filosofar.me/clultblog/0_problema_do_politicamente_correto/764