In defence of some political correctness

I want you to do a very simple thing. I promise it won't take much of your time. I want you to search for "political correctness" on Google Image. By doing so, you will be immediately bombarded with an endless series of images proudly lashing it out. You'll be bombarded with satirical cartoons presenting political correctness as a villain, and unflattering quotations like "political correctness is tyranny with manners" by Charton Heston, "to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise" by Voltaire, or "political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organises hatred" by Jacques Barzun... whoever he was. I don't think even Michael Bay gets this much hate. The word is out: political correctness is the enemy. Kill it with fire.

While indeed the quest to fight discrimination, inequality and bigotry has fallen into complete insanity from some people's part (people nowadays are getting angry with everything, from a front cover for The Economist to a Pixar short), I think folks need to think about what they are slamming so vigorously without so much so a second thought.

In this millennium, political correctness has become something vastly different from its original meaning, going from something with good intentions to the spawn of the devil. And by the way, you shouldn't say "devil" because that offends people who don't believe in it. You have to check yourself on whatever you say, making sure you're not offending anyone. You have to be as unbiased as possible: you can't say terms like "man up", because they diminish what it means to be a woman. You can't say someone is "fat", and now, you can't even say someone is "obese". It gets to the point we see something very close to newspeak: words being banned by the minute, and people receiving restrictions to their free speech.

South Park dedicated this season almost entirely on the subject of the new PC culture. Figures like John Cleese have been battling this movement for years now, but it's like the Hydra: you cut one head and two pop up in its place. It just doesn't stop growing, and it's coming for us all - people who perpetuate this political correctness surely like to double down on it, usually with pedestrian explanations... if any: they can always just pretend they're not hearing what others are saying.

Last year, Sean Penn had to endure all sorts of criticism over a joke on director Alejandro G. Iñárritu during the Academy Awards, as the Mexican director and his team won Best Picture for Birdman. It felt to me that Americans were more outraged with the joke than the director himself. But you see, the joke represents a silent problem: it was a small moment that speaks much about a cruel, bigoted society. It wasn't, you know, just a joke, from one friend to the other. There was something else to it: it exposes a racial issue deeply ingrained and institutionalised in American society. And for that, the one who made it must be destroyed. Wow, just wow. I wish I had been the one "horrifically humiliated" at Oscar night while winning Best Picture.

In movies, portraying Muslim terrorists is almost like a hate crime, and Hollywood has to find other groups that are more "acceptable" to be such bad guys, such as North Koreans, Russians, aliens (that is, aliens from outer space) or even Americans themselves. In 1998, The Siege was savaged for its portrayal of Muslim terrorists, even when the film went out of its way to show how Muslims themselves were being perhaps the most affected by terrorism, with Islamophobia peaking. Two years later, Rules of Engagement was also torn apart, for once again daring to show middle eastern people as the antagonists.

And it gets worst: such massive politically correct movements end up bringing the appearance of people who want to piss off this crowd by being as politically incorrect as they can possibly be. They do it as a way to trigger them, but by doing that, they are giving these ultra-PCs even more ammo not to shut up, generating a circle. One group tries to be more extreme than the other. We are living in a time of absolutes, with no room for nuance or critical thinking.

We have to understand that the problem doesn't lie in the idea, but in the execution. We're living in times of progression, when people are realising just how insane things were a few decades from now. In the 50's, social and even racial segregation was the rule in some places: Jim Crow laws and Selma come to our minds. And don't get me started on the treatment of homosexuals last century alone, as Alan Turing helped the Allies to break the German codes, and what he got for it was a chemical castration and a Benedict Cumberbatch movie. So what happens is that some people want to make up for that. Today, we see a generation intended not to repeat the mistakes of the past. They want people to be equal... or else. They started adopting a tactic that being nice about what is right won't lead you anywhere, and if you want your way to spread and flourish, you have to impose it. You have to be something of a fascist about this, to fight for justice by all means necessary.

It's clear that the problem is in the exaggeration of the ideal, and not in the ideal itself: the last I checked, I'm pretty sure making for a better society without segregation is a sound idea. Political correctness itself is not the villain here, but the people who came to identify themselves with it, distorting its meaning like it has happened to terms like "libertarian" and "humanist". To work for a better, more equal society is not supposed to have anything to do with seeing dramatic issues everywhere.

This kind of PC is not only repressive, but it also taps at actually segregate notions: Cleese once pointed out that he has always made jokes about all nationalities, but joking about Mexicans would raise all kids of eyebrows (Sean Penn will attest for that). For you see, the intent of this movement is not truly about bringing equality, but to make sure particular groups will not be diminished in any way. Here in DeviantArt, I talked about how the media has a free card to portray males in sitcoms and ads as bumbling idiots, but should this start to happen with female characters, accusations of misogyny would rain all over. Minorities or other historically repressed groups can't be mocked because of history, but by that logic, what such "progressive thinkers" are doing is to increase the gap between demographics. If this is not a kind of segregation, then I must be going crazy: it's to say these people are untouchable, shielded.

Political correctness should be about justice. A man will not make more money than a woman for the very same job simply for being a man. A black person will not be restrained from getting into a bus or a school because of the colour of the skin. A woman will dress as she wants. Anyone will not suffer any impediment of practising any faith. A homosexual couple can walk on the streets without any fear of violence or vandalism. This to me is political correctness at its most correct: when you work for a society where everyone is equal. In matter fact, that is the literal meaning of "political correct": to be correct on a political viewpoint. This particular brand of political correctness is a sign of times, and as the cliché goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions (yet another offensive remark to non-believers).

Now, let me be a little controversial in here: I'm not an American. Well... I am an American. I was born in Brazil, so that makes me an American. I'm not a US citizen, there. As such, I - and many other people across the world - don't have that commitment to absolute free speech that Americans - that is, from the USA - have. They've been conditioned to think that their First Amendment is divine, and that to even contest its notion of no-holds-barred freedom to say whatever you want is an insult. But other countries like England, France, Australia and, of course, my own... we all regulate what people are allowed to say. We don't tell on people what they can promote, but what they can't: things like hate speech, incitement to violence, all that malicious jazz. And even then, it's so obvious that we don't live under tyrannical, oppressive regimes, like the ones the US government funded across Latin America during the Cold War.

What I mean by this is that, outside the US, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. Here in Brazil, as well as Germany and Canada, there's a legal line that's not supposed to be crossed... but the things that are restricted are repugnant things no civilised person would ever want to say. So no: I'm not saying that freedom of speech should be unlimited, and that the problem of these ultra-PCs is that they're avoiding people of promoting racism, homophobia and misogyny. That's not it. What I'm saying is that ultra-PCs see prejudice and hate in everything. Jokes, observations, even the very mentioning of historical moments. All of this cannot be conflated with actual issues, actual hate speech, actual hate actions. And no: the line is not blurry.

The social contract states: you open hand of some freedoms in turn for a better society for yourself and for others. In all truth, to say something incredibly racist - and that wasn't the case of Penn - is a form of freedom. But in several civilised countries, speech is perceived as under this contract.

The very idea of political correctness itself is not villainous. And conflating political correctness with its extremists is dangerous, because it legitimises attacking the very will to make the world an equal place.