‘Political Correctness’ and ‘Tolerance’

‘Political correctness’ and ‘tolerance’ are catchwords of our age. “As with catchwords, the term[s] usually [go] undefined,” (Waltz 139). Very little thought is put into defining such terms when employed in public speech or writing on a case by case basis; due to the grand misperception that their inherent meaning is implied per se; which is falsely believed to be a quasi-assurance against any possible ambiguity, hence misinterpretation—and, eo ipso, any misunderstanding. Ironically, this is one of the rarities where I take no issue with neither misinterpretation nor misunderstanding, but my strife is with the grotesquely abhorrent decaloguous [i.e. relating to the decalogue (the Ten Commandments)] authority pretentiously ascribed to

‘political correctness’ and ‘tolerance’. Nevertheless, I shall furnish the proper definition of each term momentarily, as per their respective genuine [emphasis added] connotation, philosophice [philosophically], in refutation of their universally-applied, that happens to be overgeneralized, definitions.

‘Political correctness,’ or, ‘politically correct,’ is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as, “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated,” (“Definition of POLITICALLY CORRECT”). Simply put, it is a maxim that aims to invoke an imperative moral empathy for fellow humans, especially those who have had endured oppression or discrimination, in recognition of their suffering in one’s manner of speech or writing. Which is intellectually, ethically, and morally, irrefutably sound.

But when it is perversely manipulated to suggest that any idea entertained by a person—who happens to, due to natural hereditary forces, belong to any of such groups, communities, societies, or race; one may furthermore sensibly add here, besides natural hereditary forces, ideological affiliation [emphasis added]—notwithstanding how irrational, unscientific, or insular; however naïve, imbecile, or impracticable that idea may be; so much so that it may subvert human reason; in conjuncture with it coercively prohibiting any person from merely questioning—much less doubting—the logical premises thereof; ‘political correctness’ becomes a means for oppressing the intellectually conscious individual. In spite of the astoundingly poetic articulation, in which it is normally served whenever it is overgeneralized (i.e. applied out of context and beyond its innate connotation), the clout of the term, ‘political correctness’, cannot be neither philosophice [philosophically], nor ethically,—not in any way whatsoever—, maintained beyond uprooting ad hominem offense from public rhetoric and narrative. That it is to say, ‘political correctness’ is no Temple Veil for anyone’s idiotic beliefs, ideas, or actions [emphasis added].

Nevertheless, overgeneralized ‘political correctness’ is mildly agitating in comparison to the likewise employed ‘tolerance’. ‘Tolerance’, politically speaking, comprises a set of attitudes drawn in line with active social or political practices of ‘toleration’, as political scientist Andrew R. Murphy puts it (“Toleration”). The question is: what sort of attitudes ‘tolerance’ ought to entail?

Well, the classical (i.e. apolitical per se, yet applicable thereto) definition of the term, again, as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary, lists such attitudes in the first section (a) of the second denotation, “noun. 1: capacity to endure pain or hardship: endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2: (a) sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own; (b) the act of allowing something: toleration. 3: the allowable deviation from a standard, especially: the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specific dimension in machining a piece. […]” (“Definition of TOLERANCE”).

Thence, how do these attitudes relate to the practices (i.e. toleration) in the political sphere?

They relate thereto by virtue of the concept of alterity, or otherness; given that, “Toleration is the allowing, permitting, or acceptance of an action, idea, object, or person which one dislikes or disagrees with,” (“Toleration”).

Now, the offense of overgeneralized ‘tolerance’ against human reason—hence, its repugnant quality—is of dual nature.

First, it fails to uphold the third denotation presented in the classical definition. Initially, a standard (more so, a benchmark) must needs be identified, in order for the allowable deviation therefrom to be determined; so that adherence to rationality and morality may be preserved. Alas! the identification of such a standard is all too often obscured, if not altogether discarded, from nowadays narrative on ‘tolerance’.

Second, it is outrageously devised to extend further beyond what ‘one dislikes or disagrees with’ to demolish the bounds of human logic, instead of one’s personal disposition towards something [emphasis added], and blow them asunder—that is to say, overgeneralized ‘tolerance’ invalidates the principles for rightly conducting the human reason*—not in one person [emphasis added]; but, universally—by means of infinitude.

*Inspired from René Descartes’ (1637) autobiographical treatise title,“Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences”.

The dual blow to human reason is thus served at the hand of abrasive absolutism.

Therefore, in response to this insular notion of ‘tolerance’ the celebrated Dostoyevsky observed, “Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.”

In conclusion, the imbecile’s strategy to overcome the man of reason is remarkably precise and laughably simple: overgeneralize the employment of the vocabulary of ‘political correctness’ and ‘tolerance’; and, the rational would have no other choice but to capitulate; lest they are falsely accused of immorality and condemned to silence; which by necessity translates into a death sentence for the human intellect.

Reference

“Definition of POLITICALLY CORRECT.” Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s Most-trusted Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.

“Definition of TOLERANCE.” Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s Most-trusted Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.