Beneficial Or Detrimental To The Ideological Left?
This is at the top of the list of subjects I have previously avoided exfoliating, and partially for good reasons; Then I realized exactly how unlike me it was to avoid an uncomfortable topic for the sake of harmony. In fact, the nature of my procrastination drives directly to the center of how I approach the topic, quite frankly.
It is not so long ago that UC Berkeley (highly accredited university) scheduled Milo Yiannopoulos to speak one Wednesday evening, which event was forcibly canceled by the disgruntled alumni who quite physically and loudly protested that a man of such ignorance, and of such a poisonous ideology would ever be permitted to speak at an institution of higher learning. They were successful in their attempts, and I rejoiced with them. On the other hand, the effects of the victory seem to have brought about both positive and negative effects. On the one hand (and beginning with the positive note) the students seem to have awakened to the fact that they cannot be required to permit anyone to speak at their campus who might promote such societal destruction. This realization brought about new sociopolitical morale, which, unfortunately, brings me to my second point.
Where Does An Ideologically Diverse Society Draw The Line?
The political spirit of intolerance to hate motivated by the success at the Berkeley protest seems to have inspired the motivation to halt almost any form of disagreeable ideological expression. As Ann Coulter was originally intended to speak at the same university, protests have been threatened, the police (dressed for an Afghanistan deployment, no doubt) made ready, and even the pathetic likes of Ann Coulter have been disallowed from speaking at the event. In the US, it is true, of course, that we have the right to free speech. The left has made this a cornerstone of their own libertarian (small "l") thought. However, in a civilized society, it should be unmistakably understood that with great power comes great responsibility. It is, on that note, explicitly irresponsible to direct "opinions" which direct discriminatory or otherwise disrespectful to egalitarianism itself. I intentionally used the ambiguous term, as I usually do. "Egalitarianism" itself is indiscriminate of any particular brand of hate. While the 1st amendment makes it clear indeed that I may not be silenced for speaking an opinion, it follows in essence and priority to the very first words of the document from which it is derived. It is no "perfect union" to allow ethnic or cultural ignorance to be directed at an ethnically and culturally diverse society. This system, nominally (and sometimes only so) one "of the people" should be capable in a civilized fashion to engage in productive (and even heated) debate. Especially at an institution of higher learning. It is therefore my position that if Ann Coulter wishes to spew falsehoods into a room of budding education, that it might be beneficial to both herself (as her ideology is deconstructed publicly) and the students, that they may expand their own individual ability to identify and deconstruct falsehood.
What is your opinion on political correctness? Please let me know (by clicking here) or via (my twitter account)!