How I Define Political Correctness

It’s about inane people who’ve convinced themselves they’re the most mature ones in the room

The notion of “political correctness” is complicated. Anybody who uses this term — including me — obviously has a rationale for their usage. But it has also become a very malleable and subjective term.

It’s getting to the point where “political correctness” is at risk of turning into an utterly meaningless linguistic choice, due to how open-ended or misappropriated it can be. Similar blurred lines can increasingly be created by words such as “snowflake,” “mansplaining,” “butthurt,” “grudge,” “adulting,” “guesstimate,” “viral,” “stellar,” “respect,” and “interesting”…to name a handful.

Given how we each have our own definitions for what exactly constitutes “political correctness,” I’ve decided to share mine.

But before we talk about my perspective on what it actually is, let’s review what “political correctness” ISN’T.

When a lot of people who have conservative or libertarian leanings complain about something being too “politically correct,” they are often bashing attempts to acknowledge multiculturalism. They are threatened by celebrating diversity through efforts that strive to represent people from all demographic groups. Whether intentionally or subconsciously, they’re seeking to perpetuate white supremacy, misogyny, heteronormativity, and an array of additional forms of “othering.”

Although they write off this type of progressivism as “political correctness,” I don’t subscribe to their viewpoint at all. I believe that multiculturalism and diversity are what can make the learning process so compelling.

Then, leftist reactionaries will proceed to catastrophize this right-wing steamrolling by defensively responding with some iteration of:

“Political correctness is just common courtesy.”

Um…no. Common courtesy is blotting your face with a napkin after you eat. It’s holding the door open for another person, regardless of their genitalia. It’s wiping your sweat off the treadmill before a fellow gym patron uses it. It’s returning your shopping cart to a proper drop-off point so it doesn’t get abandoned and knocked aside to the point where it dents somebody’s vehicle.

But I don’t understand in what alternate universe treating complete strangers like chess pieces is suddenly considered to be “common courtesy.”

In a nutshell: I view “political correctness” as a shameless embrace of double standards and hypocrisy from those who insist on viewing everything (and everyone) through the lens of a black-and-white Majority/Minority binary. Those who reject nuance or critical thought in favor of a “trendy” prewritten narrative.

Before I expand further, I’m going to take this opportunity to spotlight some Medium writers whom I feel have confronted the “political correctness” dynamic with compassion, intelligence, and common sense. I invite you to check out the following eight pieces if you haven’t already:

Felicia Falconer explores the dangers of too much binary thinking when delving into power dynamics and identity politics:

Jennifer Dunne distinguishes between common-humanity cultural sensitivity versus toxic political correctness:

James Jordan takes us on a journey to witness some of the most illiberal manifestations of “antiracism” within Seattle:

Monica Harris recounts times when “antiracist” White people have dismissed her rather centrist views, as a Black woman, on social issues:

Haider from COSY confronts how allegations of “privilege” can be manipulated to absolve bigots and narcissists of personal responsibility for their actions:

Tamires Criscio reflects on how individuals should use their privilege to improve other people’s lives, rather than virtue-signaling in public forums:

Hermes Solenzol illustrates how toxicity oozes from the pores of many activists who claim to be “woke”:

Jimmy Misner Jr. walks us through the process where instigators from the ideological fringes will perform verbal gymnastics with the word “tolerance” in an attempt to justify their own anger and bigotry:

Okay, now, back to my commentary…

Race relations frequently take center stage when it comes to discussions about privilege and oppression. These are valuable conversations that need to be had. Yet, privilege and oppression — in various forms, carried to different magnitudes — can be found in countless attributes alongside race or ethnicity.

There is usually a commonly-accepted Majority/Minority binary. Keep in mind that a “minority,” such as it is, may not necessarily be a numerical minority. “Minority” status can also relate to systemic power imbalances or lack of social capital.

Here are just some of the innumerable examples:

White (majority) / BIPOC (minority)

Lighter Skin Tone (majority) / Darker Skin Tone (minority)

Male (majority) / Female (minority)

Heterosexual (majority) / Homosexual or Bisexual (minority)

Cisgender (majority) / Transgender (minority)

Conforming To Gender Norms (majority) / Rejecting Gender Norms (minority)

Neurotypical (majority) / Neurodiverse (minority)

Christian or Monotheist (majority) / Atheist, Polytheist, Agnostic, & Pantheist (minority)

Married (majority) / Unmarried (minority)

Parent (majority) / Childless (minority)

Above The Poverty Line (majority) / Below The Poverty Line (minority)

Famous (majority) / Unknown “Nobody” (minority)

American Citizen (majority) / Non-Citizen (minority)

Residing In Country-of-Birth (majority) / Immigrant (minority)

Conventionally-Beautiful (majority) / “Ugly” (minority)

Tall (majority) / Short (minority)

Skinny, Athletic, & Muscular (majority) / Overweight (minority)

Visually-Proficient (majority) / Blind (minority)

Vocally-Capable (majority) / Deaf (minority)

Coordinated (majority) / Uncoordinated (minority)

No Cognitive Issues (majority) / Cognitively-Disabled (minority)

English-Speaker (majority) / Unable to Speak English (minority)

Access To Transportation (majority) / Lack Of Travel Mobility (minority)

College-Educated (majority) / High School Diploma or Less (minority)

Republican or Democrat (majority) / Independent or Third Party (minority)

There are some who’ve traditionally viewed younger people as being universally-privileged and older people as being universally-oppressed. However, as we’re exposed to more and more bullshit from the Bill Mahers and Meghan McCains of the world who endlessly bash Millennials and Zoomers, age is becoming a truly multidirectional attribute straddling the lines between privilege and oppression. Throwing generational cohorts into the mix further complicates things.

These divisions amongst Americans are perhaps most viscerally displayed through “regionalism” — i.e., prejudice or discrimination based on geography or location of one’s residence. It epitomizes any Majority/Minority binary as resembling our inane “team sports” mentality into which American politics has devolved.

Basically, just picture Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor-Greene facing each other, from afar, on opposite sides of the chamber — while holding up gigantic foam middle-fingers directed at one another.

Another failing of what I call “political correctness” is the tendency of its adherents to create a de facto hierarchy (aka “Oppression Olympics”) where so-called “immutable” characteristics (namely race and biological sex) are centered amidst the discourse.

By exclusion, so-called “mutable” characteristics (such as attributes that aren’t readily visible or apparent, upon first interacting with another person) get relegated to the lower rungs of the “Oppression Olympics” podium.

In their warped world, members of the “PC Police” have determined that only people who have minority status get to determine whether an action or situation qualifies as an “-ism.”

Unless, of course, a know-it-all from the neoliberal intelligentsia decides to swoop in and “override” a perspective of a specific member from a minority group — usually, a member of that minority group who happens to be conservative, libertarian, moderate, or centrist. Then, of course, “political correctness” shall require us peons to defer to the judgment and expertise of sociologists or other academics who toil up in their ivory towers (pun intended).

Such elitism is exhibited by celebrated “woke” minds such as those of Debby Irving, Tim Wise, and Robin DiAngelo — people who insist that “-isms” are always inherently systemic, and can never be social or cultural…that they can never adversely affect members of the designated “majority.”

If you’re confused by the way in which I’m trying to describe this dynamic: please consider checking out TaraElla’s brilliant piece, “How the Theory Left Drove People to the Reactionary Right.”

Using race as a template (but substituting any other attribute instead of race), here’s a much more realistic way to apply subcategories when we examine and consider “-isms”:

Systemic Racism: institutional or governmental policies that favor white supremacy, thereby creating racist systems. These obstacles are almost exclusively placed in front of Black, Indigenous, & People of Color, and they are rarely ever a burden that White people must face.

Social Racism: when someone’s prejudices become behavioral or actionable, in terms of how they mistreat or weaponize identity against another person. Both BIPOC and White people can be the recipients or inflictors of such racist actions.

Cultural Racism: an extrapolation of social racism, where people engage in mob mentality and groupthink to make such prejudices actionable against other large groups of people. Again, both BIPOC and White people can be the recipients or inflictors of group-based racism.

This logical framework requires us to acknowledge the reality that “prejudice” is typically a passive attitude or belief. Once those prejudicial attitudes turn into toxic speech or tangible acts — bigotry (a gateway into the “-ism”) has been blatantly initiated, and discrimination isn’t far behind.

Actions are NOT “merely prejudice”…

I believe that binary divisions may have a limited practical purpose in terms of identifying patterns of privilege and oppression that need to be rectified. But I reject the premise that privilege and oppression must be exclusively systemic. I scoff in the face of these elitist tools who deny that discrimination can alternately manifest within the social or cultural realms.

Yes, often even terrorizing, exploiting, and traumatizing members of the “majority”…

I definitely agree with the position that it’s important for members from a “majority” to educate themselves about experiences endured by a “minority.” This should be done without burdening random members of whichever minority group is being subjected to harm. However, we shouldn’t automatically trust educational materials JUST BECAUSE they happen to be disseminated by a member of the minority group…or by somebody from the majority who claims to be an “ally” to that minority.

This is why virtue-signaling and performative allyship from members of a majority is ultimately so dangerous. It only alienates and pisses off the people whom you are trying to persuade and educate. It doesn’t create active empathy…instead, it tends to reduce people to labels and caricatures.

These instances are where “political correctness” rears its ugly head, in my view.

This is why it’s harmful to resort to designating individuals as “colonizers” or members of “the oppressor class.” This is why calls for “reckoning” or “atonement” have the opposite effect of that which their proponents desire.

This is why “shutting people down” — when used without discretion — only tears open an even wider chasm between all of us. Ellen Pompeo and Jonah Hill are just two examples of celebrity entertainers who attempt to commodify this personification as part of their “brand.”

When educators or DEI gatekeepers try to bring such garbage into the classrooms — watch out!

People who reject what I’m saying will probably accuse me of harboring “hurt feelings,” being “fragile,” or trying to avoid “uncomfortable conversations.”

First, those very talking points are the essence of “political correctness” and why it’s so flawed. Why it’s so overly simplistic and intellectually insulting.

Secondly, I spend practically every moment in a perpetually “uncomfortable” state. As I wrote in my recent piece entitled “Autistic Every Day Of My Life,” I’m no stranger to discomfort.

Obviously, we should have uncomfortable conversations.

Accurate and multifaceted history needs to be taught in our schools. This is necessary so we can avoid repeating history and begin to eliminate present-day power imbalances.

It is for this reason why Critical Race Theory can have some value in K-12 education. I see nothing wrong with examining our unconscious biases (in regard to whatever blind spots any of us might have) and actively listening so we can hear a perspective that we might never have otherwise considered. But, like anything else in life, it needs to be age-appropriate and taught in ways that foster mutual understanding and historical context.

Some CRT devices geared toward “unlearning,” “re-educating,” and “unpacking” could be attempts at indoctrination. Why else would they direct them at young children? — who arguably are the least likely to push back or question authority at such an impressionable age. It’s entirely reasonable to weed those tactics out and separate them from an enriching curriculum that actually promotes healthy social justice and collaboration.

But when the “PC police” go patrolling, they position themselves with megaphones as self-anointed prefects who possess the moral upper hand. They’re the archetypes who slobber all over their matron saint Robin DiAngelo with doe eyes and “Wow, this is so eye-opening!” naivete.

This is what I mean by “political correctness.”

Women, BIPOC communities, or any other systemically-disadvantaged group aren’t innately blessed with some gift of moral superiority. No group is a monolith. Simplistic definitions of “white culture,” “male culture,” or “the ‘typical’-anybody” are plainly reductionist. Whether you want to admit it or not, these can also be a part of the endless triggers and poisons that keep twisting and weathering our society — like Danny Tanner trying to wring the last desperate drops of water out of a dried dishtowel.

Y’all know I’m right about this!

If you use and emotionally-manipulate people to further your own nefarious agenda, then perhaps it isn’t society that’s the problem? Perhaps you’re just a shitty person?

And if you try to cloak your true agenda under the guise of “allyship,” “wokeness,” or “common courtesy” — you deserve every ounce of public scorn that us “fragile” folks pile onto you.

That isn’t “politically incorrect” speech. It’s just a cold, hard, inconvenient, objective truth bomb.