Friday, August 16, 2019
Drawing the Line on Political Correctness Essay
Introduction            It is funny how over the years, humor had changed tremendously. Television networks do not intend to offend anybody, except for the ego-driven celebrities and politicians as well as constant draws which satirize church people and family driven values.            It is not because some things are now regarded revered. The viewers have also changed. They cannot express amusement at themselves to any further extent. One concrete example is the old sitcom, titled Murphy Brown, which over ten years ago, has been the center of contention on the subject of political correctness. The show on October 11, 1993 was aired and was regarding a series of comments made on-air made by Murphy and Peter which all got gashed up, and had the entire staff production required to attend a session on political correctness (Tucker 1).            That particular episode exposed much of the irrationality of how people can get easily offended by the least thing said, such as: â€Å"I’m not black, I’m African-American†as one character protested. Another beamed up â€Å"I’m not African†¦I’m black†. â€Å"I’m not black†¦I’m brown!†Networks have determined that it is impossible to say anything without getting anyone offended by someone, so they have principally decided not to pronounce anything (Tucker 1). Political Correctness            In 1980’s, political correctness or PC emerged as a communal tyranny. It was an impulsive or unprompted statement of specific expressions, behavior and ideas considered legal but must be outlawed and those who disobey will be imposed with punishment. It began with little influence and later on had grown to such popularity till it then started written and unwritten law in the community. By way of those declared in the public as not being politically correct fitting the subject of state or mob prosecution (Atkinson 1).            In the effort of pointing out the detestable background of political correctness is to reiterate the vital significance of freedom of speech, freedom of voice and plain speaking; such are the safeguards of the community against the nuisance of tyranny, the absence of these factors indicates having no tyranny. For that reason, any form of expression prohibition or those summoned by the slander, libel and public decency laws, are considered matters of severity subject by methodology of common law and not by mob dictations (Atkinson 1).            The affirmed coherent of this oppression is to avert people from getting offended; to coerce each one to stop the use of behaviors or words which can displease women, non-whites, homosexuals, the fat, the stupid, the ugly or the crippled. This exposes not only its irrationality but its stimulation. The set of values which are not accepted are those apprehended by the earlier generation, for such reasons, the terms dagos, wogs, niggers, coon, sheilas, poofs, spastics and have turned out to be profanation, because, in an action of infantile rebellion, their issue have develop as well-regarded by the latest generation (Atkinson 1). Political correctness is simply the antipathy of spoilt children bound for against their values of the parents (Blazquez 1).            A decline in the community takes place at the time the greater part of its people turned out to be self-centered, and beneath this power it gradually takes apart all the manacles in the lead of decadence brought about by customs, law, manners, tradition and beliefs. As each succeeding generation of self-centered people accede to be in command of the community, it grabs its chance to desert further of the exasperating fetters that wisdom and genius had instilled. The social annihilation and its proponents attain their unfounded principle by openly taking on irrationality by means of slogans at the same time as defaming those who do not sustain their standpoint (Atkinson 3) .As part of the social decline due to political correctness it makes each generation by another one crafts public behavior less rational and less restrained.            In the present day we face up to a problem of political correctness which is the direct opposite of the liberal tradition. Wherein liberalism promotes challenging political ideas, political correctness, by language, conduct or law, tries to find how to hold back the expression of the ideas. The fundamental nature of social equality is the preference of opinions and ideas, and the liberty to convey the ideas. However democracy is not all about choice, it is moreover about majorities. The values and ideas of the greater part are capable to succeed over to other choices. The politically correct pay no attention to the autonomous ideal in terms of both the majoritarism and choice. It is their objective to have the institutions of the state captured and mould them to reveal their outlooks. The reality that their thoughts may not mirror the thoughts of the majority, or certainly are particularly conflicting to views of the majority, is of no importance. It is the views’ imposition that matters. Hence this is the deep-seated predicament with political correctness (Hanan 1).            There are three features in political correctness. The first is that, political correctness is a set of beliefs and attitudes which are separated from conventional values. Next, the person being politically correct has a narrow outlook on how people ought to sense and what they are allowed to talk about. Third and mainly significant, political correctness is rooted in institutions of the public, which comprise a lawmaking support, and which have compelling powers. It is this third feature that provides political correctness its influence. The absence of this confine of power the outlooks of the politically correct will merely be an additional view in the arena of ideas (Hanan 2). An institution, government is or a person is politically correct when they stop to correspond to the welfare of the preponderance, and become concentrated on the concerns and cares of sector groups of minority.            Political correctness and its origin does breed confusion. This is for the reason that political correctness has its beginning in equality campaigns, specifically the racial equality campaign, which has regularly been motivated by politics and its liberal side. The existing result is that the more raucous adversaries of political correctness plunge into the corner of involving, for instance, that racism is acceptable, basically since it is not politically correct. Doing the contrary to what is politically correct is not the base to be in opposition to political correctness (Hanan 3). This ensnares, on the other hand, point out why it is imperative to evaluate the predicaments emerging from political correctness.            Retorts about Vice Presidents are a revered custom on TV. But the issues of Dan Quayle in an Emmy Awards ceremony bear a resemblance to a Rodney King thrashing by the elites of Hollywood. Quayle is television’s superior beating guy ever in view of the fact that he made campaign issue on Murphy Brown; it was a ram of what appeared like every onstage joke. Diane English, the creator of Murphy Brown, topped the evening with an argument of single mothers that traversed the line into adherent nastiness. â€Å"As what Murphy has said to herself, ‘I couldn’t possibly do a worse job raising my kid alone than the Reagans did with theirs.’ â€Å" The viewers applauded and laughed on lines such as these. However the reaction was extra troubled and concerned. At a campaign rally Quayle used the Emmy volley to stress his point that â€Å"Hollywood doesn’t like our values.†Numerous parties in the industry of television approved that the entire flaunt was, at the semantically criticism like values of religious faith, marital fidelity and patriotism. Quayle writes that â€Å"Tens of millions of Americans now see the entertainment industry as an all-powerful enemy, an alien force that assaults our most cherished values and corrupts our children†(Zoglin 1). The Republican-political episode in which Murphy reacted to the Vice President, while hurriedly nursing to her new born; she heeds his remarks on television and responds with disbelief: â€Å"I’m glamorizing single motherhood? What planet is he on? I agonized over that decision.†Afterward, she emerges on her television show to respond to the charges of Quayle: â€Å"Perhaps it is time for the Vice President to expand his definition and recognize that whether by choice or circumstance families come in all shapes and sizes. And ultimately, what really defines a family is commitment, caring and love.†(Zoglin 1) Conclusion            What can be done to deal with political correctness and its problems is to eliminate the encouragement role of such seen on televisions. They should be apprehensive with the arbitration of rights, not disseminating the politically correct ideologies. Their backing character roots from their lawmaking permission. It is the point to eradicate this permission which does slight more than allow misinformation (Hanan 4).            In these modern times, many people are amused with how funny lines are thrown in television shows, especially when the icons make fun of prominent people using politically correct terms which are perceived to be satirical and insulting. Political correctness does not happen only in the industry of television, each individual may encounter such lines which can cause annoyance and getting offended. For instance when one is told that â€Å"she does not wear too much makeup, she is cosmetically oversaturated†or when one is told to be â€Å"afraid of commitment then he is monogamously challenged†. It can be very much insulting indeed. Political correctness is something that should be eradicated in the society. There should be lines drawn as to when joking or entertaining goes, it should not go beyond the point of insulting and degrading someone’s character, because no person has the right to insult nor hurt their sensible beings. The television industry is such a great means of influence; hence they should realize the sensitivity with which their messages affect their audiences. Works Cited Atkinson, Phillip. Political Correctness. 2000. A Theory of Civilization. 3 February 2008            . Blazquez, Augustin.April 8, 2002. Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times. Newsmax. 3 February 2008 . Path: Archives; Articles; 2002. Hanan, Ralph. The Problem with Political Correctness. June 22, 2005. National. 3 February 2008 . Tucker, Jamey. Politically Incorrect Humor. April 11, 2005. Jamey Tucker’s Blogsquat. 3            February 2008 . Zoglin, Richard. Sitcom Politics. Sep. 21, 1992. Time Magazine in parnership with CNN. 3 February 2008 . Path: Time; Magazine; Article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.