Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political correctness and freedom of speech
Conclusion of political culture
Essays on political correctness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political correctness and freedom of speech
Political correctness – the act of speaking with caution and consideration of groups’ interpretations. In a time of growing change and raised awareness of minority groups, this word has become widely used. With political correctness, one is essentially using language and politics in a careful way, making sure that a group is not offended. This can include gender, sex, ethnic groups, and sexual orientation, along with a variety of other groups. Moreover, it can be seen through the usage of correct pronouns, as well as being respectful towards someone’s culture. However, this doesn’t only manifest in daily conversation; it can also be observed in politics. With political figures analyzed and criticized often by citizens and media, it is important …show more content…
Through being aware and considerate of other groups, one would come off as friendly and accepting; it helps to prevent conflicts and builds a bridge of trust between the two groups. For example, by referring to a transgender by their preferred pronoun, one would help make the other feel comfortable and less anxious. It doesn’t hurt to keep their preferences in mind; it’s a simple act that can result in kindness. Another example is saying African American rather than a derogatory term. In both examples, one is utilizing political correctness by making sure that they are not offending the group they are addressing. Moreover, both are acts that are not difficult to execute, yet bears positive results. Yet, on the other hand, there are those who disagree with political …show more content…
Due to the fact that it requires attention to detail, some have viewed it as a tool of silence, requiring people to stay shut on their viewpoint. As the Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey has found, “71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs” (Ekins). In this sense, they believe that it impedes upon one’s right to free speech. Examples include viewpoints on racist speech, as well as the acceptance of terms that can be derogatory and harmful, insisting that they can be used freely. Furthermore, the word has been spread by a variety of media, in both on television and social apps. As a result, some of its meaning began to wear away, the word used loosely and incorrectly. It can sometimes be used in mockery as well, the user calling out anything that may remotely relate to political correctness. Because of this, the word began to develop a negative connotation, despite its original
Buying media slots for candidates, which used to be a small business just over half a century ago, has grown so that these companies manage “more than $170 billion of their clients’ campaign funds” (Turow 230). This fact about the growth of such an industry should at a minimum raise an eyebrow, as it characterizes the shift and importance this data analysis has become. It also serves as an important point because it fuels the common fear of corruption in politics, as this data essentially offers a window to the responses and how people think to what politicians say. This could lead to the next phase of the “polished politician” where candidates will say statements that statistically receive favorable responses from the population. This strong pathos is a central pillar of the argument Turow is trying to make, effectively playing the emotion of pity from the hypothetical family situation, and building it into a fear of the system and establishment. Such emotions are strong motivators, and this combination encourages the reader to take action, or at the very least inform someone they know about such issues they weren’t even aware were
In theory, political campaigns are the most important culmination of the democratic debate in American politics. In practice, however, the media shrouds society’s ability to engage in a democratic debate with unenlightening campaign coverage. Because of this, it is difficult—if not impossible—to have educated political discourse in which the whole, factual truth is on display. After years of only seeing the drama of presidential campaigns, the American public has become a misinformed people.
As easy as actors put on clothes and become a different person to film a movie, successful politicians appear much more heartfelt and honest as they are in real life. This is backed by the idea posed by Chris Hedges that “political leaders…..no longer need to be competent, sincere, or honest. They need only to appear to have these qualities.” If a politician were able to appear honest and heartfelt in a campaign event, they would much more likely to appeal to the audience and be able to win their trust and vote in some cases and succeed in winning an election to the benefit of the politician and not the audience. . Similar, posed propaganda and social medias of today are often used to exploit the audience and give them poorly supported feelings of support and trust for these political leaders.
Political discourse has suffered because of this change. We no longer focus on the issues in politics but rather the relatability of a politician or on certain aspects of their personal lives. Even though the internet has subsumed television in today’s society there are still instances where we see this in both mediums. On the television politicians are still using their personal appeal to persuade their audience and on the internet the lives of these political figures are readily available, also influencing our choices. A possible course of action to navigating this world of false advertisement and excessive insight would be to educate people of these unconscious influences on their decision making and reinforce that it is the quality of one’s beliefs that should matter upmost and foremost. In the end, it would be entirely up to the people to decide how easily subjective they will
Another controlling method that is diffused through television, radio and written publications; is any reported information about world politics and news. Powerful political groups narrow people’s views of what is going on around them by tainting and twisting information to their own device. They decide what to say and when to say it, revealing as much or little information as desired, in ‘befitting’ instances; thus enabling them to hide information they consider deleterious to themselves, from the public. It also permits them to depict opponents in overly negative terms.
Some theories suggest that political correctness is strictly a political belief argument. Research has shown that when asked who is the cause of the politically incorrect bandwagon, conservatives and liberals both accuse each other
Many people have no interest in current events in the world or even their own country, and are more concerned about matters that are more trivial, and even if they were to pay a deal of attention, common news sources are often biased and don’t release information that would hurt a certain cause. It is in this way that the citizens are kept igno...
Unlike many other countries America has freedom of speech. Even in other countries in Europe people are not allowed to use “hate speech” and they can be sent to prison for it. Fortunately, the American constitution defends people’s freedom of speech, no matter how controversial it is. Political correctness diminishes people’s free speech. It may not be direct but even indirectly the knowledge that someone might have adverse consequences; such as losing a job as a result of their speech is unacceptable. People have the right to state their opinions without others infringing on them, it was the principle in which America was founded. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States declares that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (US Const. amend. I, sec. i). While the first amendment only affects congress’s control over free speech, it indicates that free speech is a right that people must have. Some people are of the opinion that if something can be found offensive
Chris Matthews’ ultimate observation about government reveals that politics is often superficial. Matthews explains that a power figure in government may essentially have the same expertise as a senator’s intern, but it is his or her appearance that determines his or her powers and abilities. This is a powerful message to the audience as it explains that the way they present themselves, whether it be confident or timid, will significantly affect their power and status in society. Those who act as though they are confident, focused, and forceful, will be able to earn that distinction. This is what allows politicians to craft their political identities which they can use to their advantage when drafting bills, finding votes, and creating alliances, according to Matthews. In a sense, the audience is able to understand that the American voter is persuaded by the character of the politician they support, as that is who they believe will be representing them in
...n the January 1993 Library Journal, makes a similar suggestion: "Ultimately, however, we hope we use language that is more sensitive without enforcing strident political correctness or orthodoxy." We, as a society, are so concerned about avoiding confrontations that we are going overboard changing non-offensive names. The attempt to avoid possible protests of sensitive pressure groups by sanitizing our language is, in my opinion, censorship.
their employers, termination or possibly a lawsuit for discrimination. Political correctness has gone way too far in the minds of some people. Almost any phrase or word can be taken the wrong way by people nowadays. Political correctness is almost going against the first amendment of freedom of speech. Why would someone look to someone else and ask if it’s OK to say what you want to say? We are a free people. Nobody decides what is proper to say. The European socialist may control language but here we have a Constitution with the Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech, but we have no right not to be offended. One should not be afraid to offend someone with their speech because of what others will say (Brady, National World). What may offend one may compliment another.
According to a 2017 article by Davinson it explains that public opinion can be swayed and latent ideas can be made active by the power of social media and news headlines, these headlines rehashed old occurrences and. In light of the recent election it is obvious the headlines took to a new form of campaigning, “Before television, national elections were seen largely as contests between a number of candidates or parties for parliamentary seats. As the electronic media grew more sophisticated technologically, elections increasingly assumed the appearance of a personal struggle between the leaders of the principal parties concerned.” Along with that many “Government officials...have noted that communications to them from the public tend to “follow the headlines,’” further proving the point that the public demands reform when the news and popular topics “uncovers corruption”, however this corruption is only what the biased news sources sees fit to include, forming the public opinion without all of the facts and with an agenda. This is evident in how news presents facts, “news may appear as a sometimes chaotic flow of information and debate but it is also underpinned by key assumptions about social relationships and how they are to be understood.
In today’s age, all forms of communication surround people, whether it be phones, televisions, or computers, humans are in perpetual communication with each other. Humans are known as a social species and for the most part rely on interaction between others, but we live in a world where people will take advantage of communication. Currently our culture is experience a phenomenon referred to as political correctness or PC. Political correctness, as taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated”. Political correctness seems like a good idea at first but there are problems with it. Political correctness is affecting entertainment,
The purpose of this essay is to develop a further understanding of the impacts of social media in regards to the political debate. By looking at the topic of social media and the use rhetoric in response to politics in the 21st century, a deeper understanding of the issue can be established. Social media has become a primary source for the discussion of politics by the average citizen; whether through the sharing of articles, “memes”, advertisements or personal expository statements. As a result, large sums of information and ideas are spread rapidly to a wide variety of subjects. However, much of this information may not be accurate and could be misinterpreted. Consequently potentially misinformed citizens may not be able to make a properly
has come to have an adversarial press—the tendency of the national media to be suspicious of officials and eager to reveal unflattering stories about them. This cynicism and distrust of government and elected officials have led to an era of attack journalism—seizing upon any bit of information or rumor that might cast a shadow on the qualifications or character of a public official. Media coverage of gaffes—misspoken words, misstated ideas, clumsy moves—has become a staple of political journalism (WDB 294).