On Political Correctness

After the terrorist incident this past weekend, President Trump tweeted:

We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2017

Before we agree or disagree with this statement, we should first ask, "What is political correctness?"

Merriam-Webster defines "politically correct" as:

"conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated"

Political sensibilities are derived from social mores, which Wikipedia defines as:

"...social norms that are widely observed and are considered to have greater moral significance than others. Mores include an aversion for societal taboos, such as incest. The mores of a society usually predicate legislation prohibiting their taboos. Often, countries will employ specialized vice squads or vice police engaged in suppressing specific crimes offending the societal mores."

Note that mores "usually predicate" prohibitive legislation, but not always. Sometimes, we have an aversion to certain behaviors, such as eating mashed potatoes with your hands. There is no harm in it, so police involvement is unwarranted. But you will still look unfavorably upon an adult doing such a thing in public, and may even criticize them publicly for it.

Social policing is a useful tool for societies to discourage unwanted behavior. When a social violation is raised to the level of a legal matter, there are severe social implications attached to it, such as limiting people's career opportunities or even making them societal outcasts. This is why the war on drugs is so controversial: Should drug abuse be considered a social violation, or should it be a legal violation? That is just one example. Other than the war on drugs, we could apply that question to any number of legal topics.

But the point here is about social policing, and its sub-category, political correctness. The problem with modern political correctness is not what is being socially policed by it. Most people will agree that sexual and racial inequality are good things to be socially policed, with radical examples of them to be legally policed. However, the problem with modern political correctness is it tends to treat social policing on matters of inequality the same as it would social policing of legal infractions. When you limit a person's career opportunities and/or make them a social outcast for a minor infraction, there is no way out. While that is very effective for ending such unwanted behaviors, it is the social equivalent of giving the death penalty for jaywalking.

Case in point: Consider poor Bill Maher, who used the "N" word on his show. From The Wrap:

[Maher's] out-of-nowhere use of the N-word on Friday’s “Real Time” brought instant rebukes and calls for him to be fired.

The former “Politically Incorrect” host proved he’s still politically incorrect when Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse jokingly invited him to “work in the fields.”

“Senator, I’m a house n—-a,” Maher said, immediately adding: “It’s a joke.”

Under the rules of political correctness, if Maher was black and said that, nobody would have blinked. Ask yourself, if a black man had said that, would you have laughed? But because Maher is white, his joke suddenly becomes a call to the social police (or the "PC police" as they are also known).

If a law applied to only one part of the population, such as Jim Crow laws did, that circumstance should be rejected as discrimination. Yet we don't apply the same standard to our social policing?

Mind you, I am not defending Maher, so much as pointing out a contradiction within political correctness. Other such contradictions can be found in our politically correct treatment of Islam.

In countries where Islam is the dominant religion, we find sexism and racism to be common, and even legally codified. Yet we insist on treating Islam and its followers the same as any other religion? If a religion is advocating unequal treatment of people, shouldn't our social policing extend to said religion? Moreover, shouldn't our immigration policies reflect our own social values?

President Trump is right about our need to lift the politically correct prohibition against criticizing a religious belief. We need to have an honest and open discussion about Islam, and that may include some criticism of it. This doesn't mean we should close the borders or go to war. It means we need to discuss this without the social police being called.