Background: The inspiration for this take was actually a question on GaG by @Waffles731 https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/q2064259-what-does-the-term-politically-correct-mean , I gave the following opinion
It is a good question. It is like using a term like "Justified" if a Neo Nazi and a ISIS fighter talked who is using correct term for "Justified". Usually in terms like "Politically Correct" I go back to its purest form which is "Not Causing Offence".
Okay to the point of your question make a statement "All men have penises therefore must be treated as potential rapists" that is over the top and ruins it for many who stand by the reasonable definition of "Politically Correct". The next case "I stand up for freedom of expression" (fair enough) so " I want put up KKK posters in a majority non white neighbourhood". We have to say "No that is Politically Incorrect and spreads hatred".
I find with any term or phrase, you can find instances for and against it that is why I dislike blanket terms. I like to study things on a case by case basis and will often disagree with a white rural person or a black urban person in one case after the other.
In this context, I want to look at the political term populism and its perception in society plus study labels that group rather than individualise. This is part of #BATTLEROYALE contest.
Notes: Thanks to @Waffles731 for his thoughtful question.
Introduction: It might be the modern age where we have social media and instant global communication but we now seem to be living in a world of the soundbite. In politics, you have "Brexit", "Make America Great Again", "Stronger Together" instantly recognisable for what movement they are associated with rather than any of the movements' detailed policies. I recall a Remain campaigner in the British EU Exit debate lamenting that the fact "Brexit" had caught on instead of "Bremain". It got me to think about populism as a political idealogy, for reference I Googled a definition:
Populism is a political ideology which holds that the virtuous citizens are being mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. The elites are depicted as trampling in illegitimate fashion upon the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people
That is a perfectly fine definition and I am sure it has been around for thousands of years but I feel there has been a trend by opponents of the populist candidates to portray the policies of said candidates as naïve, divisive and playing to the lowest common denominator of the electorates' fears to garner votes thus muddying the water. They will say that these candidates are just playing a role to get elected or their idea passed and will not follow through on their promises.
Example: Pre Brexit Vote
The Day After Britain Voted To Leave EU
My own opinion of economic populism is to watch for the words "IF" and "SHOULD" appearing in policies. My analogy is 10 people have 10 dollars, "IF" pizza and ice cream is 1 dollar in the restaurant then they "SHOULD" have a meal each. They get to the restaurant where pizza and ice cream is 12 dollars ...... "Er, guys we have to rethink our order".
Looking at the idea that the candidate is divisive and preying on the fears of their supporters I feel is unfair. There are bad eggs in every movement but in parts of western Europe and the US, people with racist tendencies have found their way into the support base of populist candidates thus tarring the whole movement with the same brush like the way Islam is being brought into the mire by ISIS terrorists. The majority of the bases of populist candidates/ideas are decent people who have legitimate concerns whose issues ought to be looked at regardless of whether they win or lose.
(1) Populism And Political Correctness: As I stated earlier maybe it is the current era of social media that creates a toxic atmosphere. Social media ought be a opportunity for healthy discussion, a place to share knowledge, learn new things to make all our lives better but instead it
becomes a seething pit of lava with loud vocal minorities lashing out at each other.
The above is a beautiful image but sometimes not so nice to experience. Where am I going with this? - I am looking at the evolving perception of populism and political correctness in social media. I feel it is becoming a singular conflict where there are many factors rather than just two sides. I don't know if it helps either side. On GaG , you can often see it almost polarising into a seemingly repetitive argument.
Freedom Of Speech Vs Politically Correct
Things Too Liberal Vs Not Liberal Enough
Butthurt Vs Offended
One side shown Vs Blocking
Blunt Vs Crossed A Line
There is a long list of divides but they do tend to fall into particular camps on GaG. It has almost become a battle of wills between the vocal minorities of Populism and Political Correctness.
(2) Why Is There A Tendency To Group Things: I don't know if it is a modern phenomenon but it seems that there is a mania to want to group everything. "People will think I am saying this because I am a White/Irish/Middle Aged/Male", you get my point, why can't I just say this because I am an individual and these are my thoughts on the situation. Why must we label everything and make stereotypical assumptions about that group. It is okay to have a loose coalition of like minded people who may support an idea or a candidate but they are all individuals with free will, they do not all think the same way for example every pro lifer is not extremely religious and opposed to same sex weddings. In my own case I favour extreme gun control but support the death penalty, bit of a political paradox there.
(3) My Support For A Case By Case Study: As I alluded to in my background paragraph when any "Hot" issue comes up on GaG, both sides can provide many examples to support their stance. If you went through the list, you would find yourself going one way or the other so why not take that point of view on everything instead of having a preconditioned view, say "Present me with the evidence then I will decide". You allow your conscience to decide on the matter at hand, one thing at a time. It is more than likely that your views will follow your outlook quite closely but it will be fairer than saying that I must decide X all of the time even though you haven't seen all the Y's.
Conclusion: So I think it is up to each person to have their own interpretation of Freedom Of Speech. I want to leave an open ended conclusion because I have no fixed solution just a thought process. I can sum it up in my Freedom Of Speech conundrum, I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the Freedom Of Speech
That said, I do not agree with giving people free reign to abuse other people. It may be "Butthurt" to some but it is just fairness to me.
So I favour as much freedom of speech as possible but not the right to abuse people. Therefore the next question who decides what is offensive. To that I have no magic answer.
Thanks for reading my Take.
Most Helpful Opinions