Donald Trump, Comedy, And The True Meaning Of Being 'Politically Correct'

Donald Trump, Comedy, And The True Meaning Of Being 'Politically Correct'

Donald Trump has said several times that he is not "politically correct", but what being PC really mean?
44
views

If you watch a debate, read the news, or just live in America and are an active member of society, you probably will hear something polarizing that businessman and Republican nominee Donald Trump has said. He does not speak like a politician. If you hear his informality, his lax attitude on the stage, as well as his tone and heavy dependence on adjectives, you could see that he sounds like any other person with good speaking skills would sound, as opposed to Bernie Sanders' jerky, staccato voice or Hillary Clinton's calculated, smug approach. However, the media isn't up in arms about Trump's way of speaking; it's what he's saying that's doing the real damage.

Donald Trump has insulted women, Hispanics and Muslims, and that's just in the past year, and that's in public. Despite being the front-runner for a party that does the same thing, things like this haven't been said before so out in the open. The best way to describe it is what Jason Sudeikis said, impersonating Mitt Romney on Saturday Night Live: "We at the GOP, the party of the great Ronald Reagan, we do not say racist or sexist things. We imply them subtly over decades and decades of policy, so I felt that I had to take matters into my own tanned, well-manicured hands.”

In a Republican debate, Trump had said "I think the big problem with this country has is being politically correct." Wait. Sorry. I have to analyze one thing before I get back on topic: it's the "big" problem? So many problems this country has, and the thing that plagues us worse than all else is our political correctness? Is that going to be the thing you say you're going to do in your first 100 days in office, is stopping political correctness? I can see it already: "The War on Political Correctness." Yeah, you could call it "The War on PC," but I don't think the company PC would be too happy about it, and God knows you are looking for the interest of businesses first.

Sorry. Had to get that out of my system. As I was saying, Trump has made being PC a big problem, and one could only connect his rejection of this to be synonymous to his susceptibility to very honest language, even if it's not true. In turn, you can make the claim that Trump considers political correctness to be curbing language to be soft and general, while still not making any generalizations. For example, the phrase "they're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're bringing rapists," Donald Trump's PC converter would make it "illegal immigration can lead to many instances of trouble for our country." Words like "trouble" are soft, and words like "can" makes illegal immigration seem more like a risky endeavor that is only seen through in certain scenarios, being general without generalizing.

However, I don't consider this to be what Political Correctness is about, and while the nation is starting to discuss political correctness from now (and, with South Park doing an episode about it, you know it's definitely in the national discussion), I think it's time to really dig deep and find what being politically correct really means. What's the place to look? Comedy.

Last year, Jerry Seinfeld said he stopped performing on college campuses because they are politically correct and are quick to equip jokes with the words "racist" or "sexist." This is Jerry Seinfeld we're talking about, here. He isn't clean in terms of the Brian Regan's of the world, but he sure is no Anthony Jeselnik. What Jerry Seinfeld does make jokes about, along with 99 percent of other comedians, white males or otherwise, are about minority groups.

There are a few different kind of jokes, however, and, to make it clear, I created a graph for this:

In a world where white people have been talking about minorities just to put them down forever, watching Louis C.K. doing stand-up might make you squirm at first, but when you finish watching him and re-watching him, you realize that there really is nothing offensive. You could see a the title of Louis C.K.'s clip of "I Enjoy Being White," and things are not looking good, but you watch the clip and you actually realize that it's a criticism against white privilege. Intelligence like this is why Louis C.K. is one of the most critically loved comedians of the century, but it's also why he is one of the most controversial.

Then you take people who put down minority groups. Some people do it genuinely (see above), but the Stephen Colbert's of the world do it as satire of people who actually are genuinely racist. In this way, they actually poke holes in the same arguments that they're satirically supporting, giving us a better understanding of the prejudice we actually deal with in the real world.

I'll give you an actual example, this time from Bo Burnham and his song "Klan Cookout." The song from Bo's self-titled debut is from the perspective of a modern day Klu Klux Klan member and speaks about his beliefs and practices. There are some outright — albeit funny — put downs like "And if you're black/Don't want to see your face/They're like a high school track/Just a stupid race." However, there are also some subtle put downs to his own kind, like references to incest and nazism. Again, this seems alarmingly racist, but there are no legitimate claims for prejudice that exceeds what we've already heard, and in the end, we're actually just laughing at the speaker.

How does being politically correct fit into this? Being politically correct is putting all of these categories into the genuine downputting category. In other words, being politically correct is defending a demographic that doesn't need defending in response toward a comment toward that demographic that wasn't genuinely offensive. I think that, other than our generally accepting society, a reason that our country is quick to these labels is that we are a country that is more adept to being quick and not thinking over things too much. With Twitter, you can think of something, and it will be online in thirty seconds. Likewise, you can see a bit called "I Enjoy Being White" and label it racist without really thinking over what it really means.

And these bits aren't only okay; they're essential to the path to true equality. If we suppress any talks about race, sex, gender identity, etc., we also suppress progress. Ignorance is not a virtue when it comes to accepting of other people. If you are accepting of another type of person, you should be educated on those people because if you don't, it will lead to microaggression. And, in my experience, I have heard many more microaggressions than I have heard non-put-down jokes about minority groups gone wrong. If we suppress other people, if we prefer to stay ignorant, how much better are we than the ignorant people who decided to discriminate and start this whole thing?

So yes, Donald Trump is not politically correct, but not in the way he thinks. And when he talks about who is coming over the border, it's not just that he isn't politically correct. He isn't correct. These are people fleeing violence and poverty and want to start a new life here, in America, ironically called the greatest country on Earth over and over again by the same people who don't want other people to do so, and Trump labels them as criminals?

Political correctness, on the other hand, is something we shouldn't strive for because it's superfluous, exaggerating, thus the word "political." We should strive for a truer, more honest America, and by "honest" I don't mean bigots saying what they feel. I'm talking about the true consciousness of the sum of our beautiful, diverse country.

Cover Image Credit: http://intellectualconservative.com/americas-toxic-brew-diversity/

Popular Right Now

This Is How Your Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me As A Catholic Woman

I hear you over there, Bible Bob.
242616
views

It won't.

Wait, what?

I promise you did read that right. Not what you were expecting me to say, right? Who another person decides to marry will never in any way affect my own marriage whatsoever. Unless they try to marry the person that I want to, then we might have a few problems.

As a kid, I was raised, baptized, and confirmed into an old school Irish Catholic church in the middle of a small, midwestern town.

Not exactly a place that most people would consider to be very liberal or open-minded. Despite this I was taught to love and accept others as a child, to not cast judgment because the only person fit to judge was God. I learned this from my Grandpa, a man whose love of others was only rivaled by his love of sweets and spoiling his grandkids.

While I learned this at an early age, not everyone else in my hometown — or even within my own church — seemed to get the memo. When same-sex marriage was finally legalized country-wide, I cried tears of joy for some of my closest friends who happen to be members of the LGBTQ community.

I was happy while others I knew were disgusted and even enraged.

"That's not what it says in the bible! Marriage is between a man and a woman!"

"God made Adam and Eve for a reason! Man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman!"

"Homosexuality is a sin! It's bad enough that they're all going to hell, now we're letting them marry?"

Alright, Bible Bob, we get it, you don't agree with same-sex relationships. Honestly, that's not the issue. One of our civil liberties as United States citizens is the freedom of religion. If you believe your religion doesn't support homosexuality that's OK.

What isn't OK is thinking that your religious beliefs should dictate others lives.

What isn't OK is using your religion or your beliefs to take away rights from those who chose to live their life differently than you.

Some members of my church are still convinced that their marriage now means less because people are free to marry whoever they want to. Honestly, I wish I was kidding. Tell me again, Brenda how exactly do Steve and Jason's marriage affect yours and Tom's?

It doesn't. Really, it doesn't affect you at all.

Unless Tom suddenly starts having an affair with Steve their marriage has zero effect on you. You never know Brenda, you and Jason might become best friends by the end of the divorce. (And in that case, Brenda and Tom both need to go to church considering the bible also teaches against adultery and divorce.)

I'll say it one more time for the people in the back: same-sex marriage does not affect you even if you or your religion does not support it. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex. Really, it's a simple concept.

It amazes me that I still actually have to discuss this with some people in 2017. And it amazes me that people use God as a reason to hinder the lives of others.

As a proud young Catholic woman, I wholeheartedly support the LGBTQ community with my entire being.

My God taught me to not hold hate so close to my heart. He told me not to judge and to accept others with open arms. My God taught me to love and I hope yours teaches you the same.

Disclaimer - This article in no way is meant to be an insult to the Bible or religion or the LGBTQ community.

Cover Image Credit: Sushiesque / Flickr

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The Gun Control Debate Comes Down To The Power Of God

My opinion on two parts to the most, in every sense of the word, "loaded" issue.
340
views

There are a plethora of difficult issues in a Christian's life, and despite what it looks like on social media and mainstream media, gun control is high on that list. It pains me to see such a divide on this issue. Liberals are painted as children who want to give up all their rights, while conservatives are seen as idiots who value guns more than human life. And Christian conservatives are seen as hypocritical Pharisees, not unlike the Nazis.

But we all know, at least I hope we all know, that this isn’t the case for either side. We all love our families, and we all cherish life. We all prefer a world where murder doesn’t exist or at least a world where mass murders don’t exist. We all want a world where our children, siblings, friends, and parents can live safely

So, what gives? If we value the same things, why are we so divided on gun control? The answer, I believe, has more layers and more depth than I could ever hope to understand, let alone write about. But I can share my own thoughts and concerns on the issue in hopes that it is a positive, edifying contribution to the dialogue.

There are two main parts to the gun control debate that most social media posts can be divided into: Gun Control Laws, and the reason for gun control. What I mean by Gun Control Laws tends to either challenge or support certain claims like “more guns= more deaths.” The second part, the reason for gun control, asks why school shootings and general acts of terrorism are happening in an attempt to answer if gun control is even needed. I think the reason why communication on this topic is so difficult is that people are often arguing on these different parts of the same topic. So, I hope my own thoughts, or rambling at this point, can help with the general discussion, even if it’s just a Conservative Christian’s (note: not a conservative that’s also a Christian) opinion on Gun Control.

The first issue, the gun control laws, is that the gun control debate is not about gun control, and it’s not about guns. I’m talking about the debate itself, the “dialogue” surrounding gun control. I think a gun control debate would look into methods and strategies of gun control. It assumes a bipartisan agreement that gun control is actually needed, which we haven’t reached, at least, not on a mass level.

Rather, the debate is about us: the people who are gunned down, the people that witness the deaths of friends and family, the people that hear about the tragedy on the news or social media, the people that want to do something. It is also about the people that seemingly don’t want to do something. It is also about the people who shoot other people, the people who go on shooting sprees in schools and other public places. The issue is about an enormous, democratic nation that is split on almost every topic, like a Giant with feet that does not want to walk in the direction its walking, arms that does not want to hold the things its holding, and a head that plans out things it does not want to plan out.

But the solution isn’t somehow forcing half of the individual body to a restriction or code. The United States isn’t a single body, it’s a group of people divided into 50 states, each with their own restrictions, which are at least just as strict as any overarching restriction. And in each state, there are municipalities. This is good because individual people are different! And oftentimes, people in a certain area tend to think alike, or agree on the same ideas.

It feels like people forget that there are stricter gun laws on the state level than the Federal level. For example, Minnesota has gun restrictions on the mentally challenged. If one feels those restrictions aren’t sufficient, one could work on changing the local, or state laws. In fact, it might be easier to work on the local and state level rather than the federal level.

The second issue, which is the reason for gun control, isn’t about us. It’s about God. The United States might work like some form of democracy, but any leader or government was placed there by God, and even they are subject to the authority of God.

But this doesn’t mean God is okay with the murderous lashes of people. God is very much against murder. He is against any form of action that places a person in the seat of the Judge. By judge, I mean defining actions, or cases, according to one’s own prescription, for example, the judge of who lives and who dies, who steals and who’s robbed, who’s to be loved and who’s to be hated… the judge of who’s judge and who isn’t judge, the judge of who’s God and who isn’t God.

Sadly, there are people who do play Judge, like the Parkland shooter, or the Santa Fe shooter, or even myself. To think that I’ve never judged in one way or another is a lie. I do it every day. But admitting that society is filled with self righteous people doesn’t solve anything, it won’t solve mass shootings, it won’t stop sin. The lamentations of the Teacher in Ecclesiastes comes to mind, “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”

What I’m trying to say is that whether or not we have strict gun control, loose gun control, or no gun control, we won’t be any better off. The United States in 1918 wasn’t any better then than it is now in 2018. Horrors have been performed now that the people then could never imagine. And people then practiced things that were so horrible, we riot against them a century later.

I think my conclusion, then, would come from Ecclesiastes, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

But I’ll also tack on a line from Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, “...God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We can work hard to make this world a better place by pushing for stricter gun control, by lobbying for or against issues, and by protesting for what we believe in. But the most we can ever do is pray.

Cover Image Credit: Photo by Heather Mount on Unsplash

Related Content

Facebook Comments