One of the biggest controversies at the end of last year was the choice for Starbucks to change their signature holiday cups from the normally ornamented “Merry Christmas!” designs, to a more minimalistic one of just a red cup. Outraged at such a slight, people took to social media as their outlet, angrily writing about how ‘political correctness’ had taken ahold of their holiday joy and spoiled it. Even Donald Trump weighed in on the subject, quoting in one of his debates, “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.” The term ‘political correctness’ has been repeated often in the last few years, especially with current events and the presidential election coming up to make the term more relevant. With that said, …show more content…
Even with having ‘political’ in the name, the expression has less to do with politics and more to do with speaking in a neutral manner and being inoffensive towards others. “Think before you speak,” is a common saying that can be easily related back to the term, as the act of being politically correct is simply one being nondiscriminatory towards the people they interact with. Although, such a seemingly effortless action can have its downsides. Being politically correct can sometimes change the interpretation of what one is trying to say, like replacing one word for a synonym. The main idea stays intact, but the true meaning behind the word can become watered down or lost in translation completely. Even so, all it boils down to is it being a complex word to describe how to avoid hurting anyone’s …show more content…
On one side, some view it as more of a positive force, conveying better intentions towards certain disadvantaged groups and setting a more unbiased approach to topics when brought up in conversation. On the other hand, there are those who see political correctness in a negative light, and feel it is unnecessary. They see the term as a way of saying that they are not allowed to speak their minds, just so they can avoid offending someone. Furthermore, many see political correctness as a way to curry favor with younger individuals, from a marketing and political point of view. This is especially evident in today’s times, with such events as the Black Lives Matter movement and the legalization of gay marriage. Even so, none of the stances on the subject are wrong; they are all just different interpretations of the
Words are capable, and now and then the words we utilize affront individuals. The right to speak freely is very esteemed yet what happens when your opportunity gets to be destructive or rude to another person? There are such a large number of various types of individuals and diverse things that insult every individual. In this day where we are more disposed to say whatever we need, we see more offense being taken to the words that get said. It's difficult to comprehend why certain words can affront to somebody when it may not appear that approach to you. We need to ask ourselves, why do we mind what other individuals say and would it be advisable for us to censer everything that goes into general society just so individuals don't get annoyed?
Michiko Kakutani's essay “The Word Police” is a refreshing look at a literary world policed by the Politically Correct (P.C.). She pokes fun at the efforts of P.C. policepersons such as Rosalie Maggio, author of The Bias-Free Word Finder, a Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language . But in mocking authors like Maggio, Kakutani emphasizes that efforts of the P.C. police are often exaggerated to the point of silliness and can even become a linguistic distraction from the real issues. In fact, such filtering or censorship of words can lead to larger problems within the English language: “getting upset by phrases like ‘bullish on America' or ‘the City of Brotherly Love' tends to distract attention from the real problems of prejudice and injustice that exist in society at large” (686). According to Kakutani, over-exaggerated political correctness just serves in complicating our words and diluting the messages. But really, the problem in P.C. advice on word-choice is the exaggeration of inclusive ness. Kakutani addresses the P.C. police's righteous motive: “a vision of a more just, inclusive society in which racism, sexism, and prejudice of all sorts have been erased” (684). But where does one draw the line between writing inclusively and walking on eggshells? What is politically correct? Must writers assume the worst of their audiences when debating whether to mutate the spelling of “women” to “womyn” in order to avoid sexist language? The truth is, writing purely inclusively is an arduous task; it requires consistent and careful consideration of many exterior elements such as audience, literary content, and societal context. An examination of these elements reveals just how difficult ...
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
If this were the case, freedom of expression could not exist at all because someone is always going to be offended by what another person says. Possessing freedom of expression means being tolerant and accepting of others who have differing opinions, or even offensive ones. This might not always be easy, but is what one has to deal with in order to voice their own voice and opinions. Accepting and tolerating others does not mean that one has to agree with them. Every individual is given the liberty to exercise their right to free speech.
As Americans we need to be compassionate and understanding towards them. Political correctness is necessary in this changing and progressive world that we live in. We do have the first amendment; however, that only really affects the government’s interactions with people in regards to free speech. People’s interactions with one another are not affected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, it is better in Europe because people cannot get offended by what others say about them. America needs to be more progressive and censor ourselves so that no one is offended by our
Most people thought of speaking opinions as a good thing because if enough people spoke their opinions something good would eventually come out of it. People know this by when multiple African Americans from Montgomery protested Rosa Park’s arrest by refusing to ride the buses. The protest lasted 382 days, and ending when the city abolished the bus law (Alton 136m). Many Northerners saw speaking opinions as a good thing because when one person spoke their opinion it showed others that they needed to speak theirs. “Dubois along with other black and white leaders, established the National Association for the Advancement of colored people in 1910. By 1940 NAACP membership reached 50,000” (Sara 13). Speaking opinions was good because it showed the people who didn’t care how much it meant to other people who were involved in it and made other people change their mind. “Former slave Frederick Douglass spoke boldly and eloquently in favor of equal rights for blacks” (Sara 13). Many people had many different observations on this
However, there are many different views on this matter.
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.
Moving on, Starbucks Corporation proves that consumers can trust them because one of the main goals of the company is ethical service, their goal is to serve the customers with less than three minutes. The author said, “Starbucks’ “Just Say Yes” policy empowered partners to provide the best service possible, even if it required going beyond company rules” (Moon). Having this policy shows that the company tries to make customers satisfied. Also, it is ethical to have this policy because service is a key that makes the company successful. For example, if the customer spilled a drink, he/she can ask for another one. Additionally, if a customer does not have cash or credit and wants to pay by check, he/she will get a simple drink for
It appears in today’s society we have become more and more politically correct. We constantly see examples of people being insensitive and rude to one another. We also see more and more advocates becoming vocal and supporting the causes they believe to be correct. We see examples of these advocates expressing concern for the cause they feel is most important. We see NFL players taking a knee during the National Anthem, we see college students protesting guest speakers, we see racial groups marching in the streets to express opinions regarding immigration or the Black Lives Matter Movement.
Many people believe because places such as the U.S. have laws supporting freedom of speech they can say whatever wanted even if offensive. People reinterpret the privilege as simply speaking their mind without consequence. A person with an expressive opinion may speak very publicly using reprehensive remarks and use freedom of speech as their only reason for doing so.
their value or lessening it), and that the violence that often occurs from doing so is senseless and
As in anything in life, there are positive and negative terms that can be detrimental in how a person does and says something and may be offensive to another person. In Diversity a positive term that we should strive to do to contain order would be, Equity, which means to treat everyone equally no matter their culture or race. Equity is very important since it’s the bases of Diversity and should be acknowledged a little more often. Without Equity, there would be no structure in Diversity for anything else, and no admiration between one another. A Negative term for diversity would be Discrimination. Discrimination is the unequal treatment of someone based on their culture or ethnicity. Discriminating someone who might be different than you is very wrong. A person has no need to put down someone just because they might not be the same religion or believe in the same thing as you. We should try to totally eradicate negative terms in order to maintain a culture of diversity and inclusion.
For example, when a child and parent have disagreeing views or the child raises a controversial question. It is fairly common for the parent to simply enforce their will with a simple phrase like “because I am the parent and I said so”. Not to say that the child should not show respect and some deferment to their parents, but this way of dealing with differing opinions or disputed questions enforces the mindset of “I should always defer to authority figures and not raise questions or have discussions because they will simply overpower me with their authority”. This mindset it very harmful to having good political speech because political speech should always be questioned in order to consolidate legitimacy. Plus, even if good political