- Position‹2 of 2
- No, political correctness doesn't harm society
Political correctness prevents people from sharing and promoting hate speech. This works in the best interest of vulnerable people such as minorities, those with disabilities, etc.
The argument
Our culture's politically correct standards protect disadvantaged people, and they do so precisely at the point where those people are least able to protect themselves. In our society, statements deemed politically incorrect often involve offensive terminology and ideas that threaten society's vulnerable members. The unspoken rules of political correctness prevent such harmful rhetoric from being shared without criticism, and prevent public figures from disparaging the vulnerable with racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic sentiments. The mechanism is accountability rather than prohibition. Nothing about political correctness removes anyone's capacity to speak; what it removes is the expectation that degrading speech will pass unremarked. If we did not hold public figures accountable for their words about marginalized groups, respect for the vulnerable would not be present in public discourse at all, because there would be no cost attached to withholding it. Put simply, political correctness is an unconscious agreement not to spew hate speech — a norm, arrived at collectively, of the same kind as the countless other conventions that make shared public life possible. In this way it actually benefits society, ensuring that vulnerable people do not face blatant disrespect from elected officials and public figures whose words carry the authority of their office. The everyday form of this is far smaller and less dramatic than its critics suggest. Being politically correct means asking a person about their "partner" instead of using gendered terms such as girlfriend or boyfriend, husband or wife. This avoids assuming a person's sexual orientation, gender, or marital status. Making assumptions about someone's identity can be rude and offensive, especially to minority groups already disadvantaged within society by stereotypes and cultural perceptions. The cost of the convention falls entirely on the speaker, and it is the cost of one substituted word; the benefit falls on people for whom that assumption is a daily reminder that they are treated as an exception. A standard with that ratio of cost to benefit does not harm society.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Although hate speech is never acceptable, much of what is classified as "politically incorrect" does not qualify as hate speech. Hate speech is "a legally actionable attack on a particular group provoking hatred." Politically incorrect statements aren't necessarily intended to be an attack to provoke a certain response. Instead, it is often based on ignorance of "correct labels." Further, people are often characterized as "politically incorrect" for sharing opinions that are not offensive to vulnerable people groups, they are simply unpopular. We cannot defend political correctness through saying that it prevents hate speech, because much of what is classified as politically incorrect is not pervaded by racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic sentiments. Rather, politically incorrect statements are merely unpopular, not hateful, ways of speaking.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Much of what is considered "politically incorrect" does not qualify as hate speech. [Rejecting P2] Because "politically incorrect" often does not qualify as hate speech, it is unlikely that politically correct standards prevent disrespect towards the vulnerable by public figures. [Rejecting P3] Politically incorrect statements are merely unpopular; standards of political correctness don't necessarily benefit society.