Political Correctness Has Ruined Conversation

Political Correctness Has Ruined Conversation

We've really lost our backbones haven't we America?


It seems the more time passes, the more people become soft and easily offended. While I don't believe this progression to this state happened overnight, I do believe it took a major leap during the 2016 Presidential campaign. If anyone agreed with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and was open about it, they were dragged through the mud by those who did not agree.

This kind of slander for expressing one's opinions is not limited to just the liberal left but also the conservative right and really any mindset. Liberals were called snowflakes by Republicans and Republicans were called racists, fascist, and homophobes by Liberals. Name calling doesn't get you anywhere but yet we now live in an age where no one can have a different opinion and feel safe to express it.

America is a nation that has been envied for years by other nations because they allowed freedom of speech, thought, and religion to all their citizens. It's what made it such a great nation because so many different prospectives were brought to the table when observing an issue. That way, there was no stone left unturned because everyone was able to say what they thought.

I am not saying everything they said was right, but it allowed people to think of the issue from a different point of view than their own. Nowadays, you can't have a conversation without being corrected for your opinion. It's an opinion, not a fact and I truly believe there is nothing wrong with someone having a different opinion than me. I might not agree with their opinion but I want people to be able to say what's on their mind without fear of being judged.

The fear of being judged has lead us to raise kids to think a certain way or groom generations to think that they are "insensitive" to different races, religions, viewpoints, and political beliefs. Since this is the new normal in America, no one will tell you what they really think because they don't want to be labeled as something "bad".

Not everyone is going to agree and that's okay! Different ideas and opinions can be beneficial in many ways, but we are killing that. Political correctness has become a witch hunt to take out those who think differently than the majority. It has made people weak in the sense that they can not cope with the fake someone does not agree with everything they think is right. Now you can't say basic words that describe someone or a certain thing, without it coming back in personal attacks.

If you have been paying attention to the news in recent weeks, let's take Chris Pratt being dragged by Ellen Page for example.

She acted on feelings not fact when she tweeted this. Chris Pratt was not there to discuss LGBTQ issues or his church, but rather simply explain his faith and the fast he took because of it. Since he took an unpopular stance (especially in Hollywood) to talk about his faith, it was blown up to be this huge political/personal issue when that was not it's intent at all.

Since when did every discussion supposedly have a political or hateful agenda? Another example is the backlash Katy Perry is receiving for a pair of shoes in her fashion collection. People are saying they are racist and portraying blackface because of the way the face looks on the black shoes (see below photo).

The face does not only appear on the black style of the shoe but also the numerous other colors the style comes in. This is what I mean since we now live in a world of intense political correctness, no one can do or say anything they are truly thinking in fear that it will come off "hurtful" or "insensitive" when that was not the intent in the first place. If we are getting offended at shoes now, we have really lost our backbones America.If you don't like the shoes, don't buy them. If you don't like Chris Pratt's story, don't listen to it. Just because you may not agree with it, does not mean it had an evil intent at heart. There is a difference between offensive speech/actions and being too shallow minded to accept people are different and they are entitled to their beliefs. Disagreements used to make conversations interesting because we got to learn about how other people think. Now, we will never truly know what anyone is thinking because political correctness has ruined conversation.

Popular Right Now

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

I hear you over there, Bible Bob.

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

Sociolinguistics Series: Part 50

Language is a powerful tool.


It's part 50--halfway to 100! I'm so glad to still be here writing! In this section, we will talk about Dr. Shikaki's findings on how Palestinians view the state of Israel.

25 years ago, 85% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution. 10 years ago, this number decreased to 70%. Dr. Shikaki believes this was due to an increase in the prominence of Islamism in Palestinian society during the second intifada; Islamists were opposed to the two-state solution. In the most recent survey, the December 2018 one, only 43% of Palestinians supported the two state solution.

In 2000, American President Bill Clinton met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat at the Camp David Summit to come up with a solution to the conflict. It ended without an agreement, but in December of 2000, Clinton once again proposed a resolution: the Clinton Parameters.

The content of the Parameters basically allowed Israel to annex settlements while Palestine to take 94-96% of the West Bank, as well as Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. There were other guidelines regarding territory, refugees, security, and the end of the conflict. Essentially, the West Bank would have been split up by Israeli roads and settlements--which is kind of the reality today.

Both the Israeli government and Arafat accepted the terms with reservations, and Arafat wrote to Clinton a letter asking for clarifications on the terms. Clinton and Dennis Ross, an envoy of the Parameters, publicized that Arafat had refused to accept the terms; they painted Palestinians in a negative light, saying that Israel wanted to accept the peace negotiations but Palestine did not.

American Lawyer Robert Malley was at the Camp David Summit and oversaw parts of the Clinton Parameters. In 2001, he said that three myths had come out of the failure of both negotiations, and that these three myths were dangerous to any future peace processes if people kept believing in them.

These myths are as follows: "Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions," "Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations," and "The Palestinians made no concession of their own."

He said that these three statements were not true but very heavily publicized by America and Israel after the negotiations failed; rather, there is more nuance to each of these issues, and America and Israel have just as much responsibility in the failure of the Summit and Parameters as Palestine did. Malley wrote, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality."

Anyway, what does this have to do with Dr. Shikaki? He polled Palestinians not only on the their attitudes to the two-state solution, but the Clinton Parameters as well. 25 years ago, there was 60% support for the Clinton Parameters by Palestinians, but the June 2018 poll showed that the number had gone down to 37%.

The last ten years shows a significant decrease in public support for both the two-state solution and the Clinton Parameters, and it could be a result of disagreeing with specific parts of the proposals (such as how the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock or Jerusalem is delegated).

I did some further digging when I got home, and I found this data from the UN Division for Palestinian Rights website:

"A 25 December [2000] published poll found that 48% of the 501 Israelis questioned were opposed to the proposals; 57% would object to Palestinian control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound; 72% were against even a limited return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. A 29 December published poll found that 56% of the Israelis would oppose a peace agreement reached on the basis of the Parameters."

This shows that though public media--especially Western media--may have painted the Palestinian government as the villain (and Israel and America as the "victims"), the proposals accepted by either government had varied support among its people.

The Israeli civilian population did not want to accept the Clinton Parameters because of the way certain things would be resolved; their reservations lie with the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque because the Temple Mount, which is the holiest site in the world for Jews, would have been given to Palestine, while Jews would have control of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount (which is the status quo).

In addition, there was a section in the Clinton Parameters that dealt with the right of return for Palestinians, where there would be a certain number of Palestinian refugees who settled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while other Palestinians either would become citizens of their host countries, move to a third-party country, or settle back into the land that is Israel Proper (with permission from the Israeli government, of course); many Israelis did not support this.

That was the public opinion years ago. Today, there is even less support for these proposals. Dr. Shikaki outlined three issues as reasons for a decrease in support of compromise, which we will cover in the next section. Stay tuned!

Related Content

Facebook Comments