Skip to content

RAMBLE ON: Freedom of (politically correct) speech

This may not have got me in with the smoking, leather jacket-clad “cool kids” in high school, but I love a good debate.
45337pentictonnewDaleBoyd-web
Dale Boyd is a reporter with the Penticton Western News.

This may not have got me in with the smoking, leather jacket-clad “cool kids” in high school, but I love a good debate.

I may be mixing up high school with the homophobic and subtly racist musical Grease — I always get the two confused.

Debate is the lifeblood of thoughtful discourse and the platform has irreversibly changed. Social media, a phrase that has been uttered infinitely more times in the last 10 years than in the rest of human history, has given each and every person a smartphone-sized and instantaneous soapbox.

If I were to sell that idea of communication to the world 50 years ago, it would be heralded as the greatest technological advancement in the world, but those bright-eyed idealists might lose some of that lustre if they saw the proverbial Pandora’s Box that would open. What seems to be forgotten is that just because everyone has a seat at the table of opinion, that doesn’t mean you have to agree. It’s become a pitfall of debate to turn the discussion to whether or not somebody has the right to hold an opinion on a matter, instead of discussing the disagreement with the opinion itself and the basis for said disagreement.

I brought up the seemingly unrelated musical Grease because it’s a good example of how something generally innocuous can be pulled apart by the dichotomy between the opposing sides of politically correct dogma and freedom of speech in the new age of “debate.”

On one hand, I’m sure many people think of Grease as a catchy, bright musical exploring the hijinx of some stereotypically 1950s high schoolers falling in love and flunking out and all that jazz, not an uncommon view of the film.

In the new age of internet-born era political correctness, Grease is a whitewashed cast of cisgendered individuals who reinforce archaic gender stereotypes and fear homosexuality, all relatively true.

At the end of the day, Grease is just a bad movie, that’s right I said it, but this discussion encapsulates the double-edged climate of debate the instant soapbox has wrought. Both sides have their point, but how many barbed words are exchanged in an unfiltered environment to prove that? And how quickly does that discussion veer off into personal and tense territory.

An article by Asam Ahmad on briarpatchmagazine.com has been noted recently for coining (or at least succinctly defining) the term “call-out culture.”

The article defines it as “a tendency among progressives, radicals, activists and community organizers to publicly name instances or patterns of oppressive behaviour and language use by others.”

The article goes on to say that sexist, racist, ableist statements and actions getting called out publicly is seen as an end in itself, promoting an “armchair and academic brand of activism.”

Call-out culture is human nature and shaming politicians, actors, musicians or anyone in the public sphere who does something we don’t like, is not a new idea. However, it no longer ends at the public sphere, anyone and everyone with a smart phone is now on the chopping block. People have ended careers with careless tweets and social media faux pas.

There have been benefits to the stringent attention to detail that has come from this culture. Politicians are watched more closely than ever before, and the opinion of the average Joe has the power to create social change in the right place and the right time.

However, the medium is new and we haven’t had time to realistically look a the effects of instantaneous and callous criticism, argument and discrimination en masse.

Hard-left political correctness can go too far. I’ve had lengthy discussions with politically-correct minded friends about whether or not I’m allowed to debate certain topics.

“Wait a minute, allowed?” I would retort in shock. I can say whatever I want as long it isn’t a direct threat of harm to someone else right?

When applied through the p.c. filter I can, I’ll just come off as elitist and insensitive because of my status within the Western socioeconomic structure.

People’s ideas and opinions in this sphere of influence tend to be interwoven with their most basic identity traits. For example, to turn the p.c. pointer finger on myself: my opinion as a caucasian, cisgendered male comes from a place of entitlement and is my own bigoted ploy to be able to say what I want because I lack empathy for others.

Of course, somebody’s thoughts are going to be formed by who they are, their experience and where they come from, it should go without saying. That’s not to say background and context aren’t important, but there is a toxicity coming from both sides of the spectrum that derails any progress that can be made through intelligent and thoughtful debate.

Being offended has never been easier and it more often than not distracts from real issues, veering discussions off into sidebar debates as to whether or not people have the right to say one thing, or say something in a certain way, based on their identity.

People have the right to say what they want, and others have the right to be offended, the eternal battle rages on. I fear what is lost is the issues at the heart of any given matter and exchanges of ideas that could lead to progress.

Dale Boyd is a reporter for the Penticton Western News.