Po­lit­i­cally In­cor­rect

Try­ing to please ev­ery­one will get you ab­so­lutely nowhere

Augustman - - The Neo-luddite -

IF YOU HAVE EVER been in any sort of ar­gu­ment with friends, you will re­alise the key rule is to hang out with peo­ple who agree with you. If they think and have the same men­tal process as you do, you’re more likely to want to spend time with them as op­posed to the ones who don’t share the same opin­ion. It’s be­come the ar­gu­ment for cen­sor-lovers who be­lieve that they have the right to de­cide that it’s prej­u­diced when the rest of the world doesn’t agree with their opin­ion. It’s why I can’t seem to get any of Jim Jef­feries’ com­edy spe­cials on Net­flix

(too much swear­ing) and a bunch of other films are miss­ing. Though Or­ange is the New Black is fine.

I un­der­stand that cen­sor­ship is a nec­es­sary evil in any so­ci­ety, re­gard­less of how open or demo­cratic it is. We all cen­sor our­selves and the world around us to some ex­tent. It’s the ex­tent to which it’s de­cided by bureau­cracy that dif­fers. But when peo­ple can write in to a board to de­mand sub­jects be taken off open dis­cus­sion, it skews cen­sor­ship from a de­bate about the suit­abil­ity of con­tent for the pub­lic from fact-based to opin­ion.

We don’t seem to be able to dis­tin­guish the dif­fer­ence be­tween rules and per­sonal ethics any more. Last month an open let­ter to the pa­pers sug­gested that dress codes be im­posed on the pub­lic to pre­vent peo­ple from be­ing too ca­su­ally dressed at places of wor­ship. In case that per­son hadn’t heard, there are two re­li­gious groups in the world that steadily sup­port strict dress codes when in pub­lic (three, if you count the Amish).

The Ortho­dox Jews and Is­lam both ad­vo­cate mod­est dress­ing. Not that there’s any­thing wrong with that or its al­ter­na­tive, but for those of us liv­ing in demo­cratic so­ci­eties, we like hav­ing a free­dom of choice.

Free­dom of choice is im­por­tant be­cause it makes us con­sider pros and cons be­fore we de­cide to take a stand on ei­ther side. It’s also part of the ben­e­fit of liv­ing in a demo­cratic so­ci­ety. No one should get to de­cide how ev­ery­one else lives just be­cause they want to live in a par­tic­u­lar man­ner or don’t wish to see or recog­nise cer­tain as­pects of life. If they are con­cerned with how it may af­fect them, say their kids, feel then free to con­trol their ac­cess. But don’t try to make it a law.

In our at­tempt to be­come po­lit­i­cally cor­rect, we’ve bent our­selves back­ward try­ing to ap­pease ev­ery­one and it frus­trates the rest of us who don’t feel like we need to be gov­erned and man­aged like chil­dren. We al­low in­ter­est groups to dic­tate what is suit­able for so­ci­ety, and we bow down to the loud­est voices, not the most log­i­cal ones. That’s un­fair to the rest of the com­mu­nity that doesn’t have an in­ter­est to rep­re­sent. We need to take these athe­is­tic, un­in­ter­ested par­ties into con­sid­er­a­tion.

We al­low in­ter­est groups to dic­tate what is suit­able for so­ci­ety, and we bow down to the loud­est voices, not the most log­i­cal ones

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Singapore

© PressReader. All rights reserved.