It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


PC - Political Correctness or Pure Cowardice?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:49 PM
While I understand the underlying reasoning for those in support of the out of control “political correctness” plaguing our society today; humans have a history of victimizing minority and vulnerable sectors of the population. Slavery, persecution of minorities, and infringement of basic human rights are but a few of the plethora of incomprehensible injustices various social groups have endured over the millennia.

However, I do not believe that circumventing the root cause of the issue of those in power preying on the weak, and instead forcing the general populace to moderate its language and thinking, is the solution to this dilemma. This form of Orwellian forced thinking not only hinders advancements in science and innovation, but it cannot be sustained over the long term. Society as a whole should not deny, or at the very least, suppress valid debates on various topics that have currently been deemed too controversial or taboo to explore in a public setting. We are forced to discuss them in hushed tones behind closed doors. As such, it stifles both science and innovation when certain elements of the natural world, human nature and genetics cannot be adequately studied, researched, peer-reviewed and debated. Modern political correctness is on track to set science back decades, if not further.

This issue is similar to those who deny climate change due to the fact that they do not want a carbon tax introduced. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, some deny climate change due to the fact that they fear greater governmental control over their lives in the form of carbon taxes. One should understand that it is possible to both accept the evidence in favor of climate change and simultaneously be opposed to a carbon tax. Similarly, it is possible to educate the public of not infringing on others’ personal freedoms, yet be open to exploring controversial and uncomfortable subjects. Education, not denial, is key; as it is with ATS, mainstream society should be encouraged to deny ignorance.

I will briefly explore a few topics that have been deemed too controversial and therefore, will not be investigated by the vast majority in academia:

Slave Selection (United States of America): It is the term given to natural selection of African Americans due to slavery. Natural selection in the animal kingdom occurs when those individuals most fit to survive produce a greater number of offspring, and thereby pass on more genetic information to the subsequent generation, in comparison to those less fit to survive. Keeping that in mind, in conjunction with the fact that many African slaves perished aboard slave ships on the voyage to America, it is reasonable to conclude that the largest, strongest and healthiest were statistically more likely to survive the journey than those possessing other traits. It has been argued that this is a potential explanation of the disproportionate representation of African Americans in professional North American sports such as basketball (NBA) and football (NFL). However, this is a topic that hasn’t garnered too much attention due to the fact that slave selection implies that human beings were potentially selected similar to natural selection in the animal kingdom. It is believed to be unwise to equate humans of any race (and rightly so) to animals, however, that is no reason to deny the mistakes of the past and not explore the consequences of those travesties on present day society.

Heritability of Intelligence: As with any heritable trait such as hair color, height, dimples, freckles, baldness, etc. it is logical to conclude that intelligence is also inherited from parents to offspring. It has been demonstrated that various inheritable diseases such as phenylketonuria (PKU) have an influence on one’s intelligence, leading to intellectual disability. While intelligence is a polygenetic trait (multiple genes effect it), the very nature of it being genetic allows for it to be inherited. While intelligent quotient (IQ) is not an infallible measure of intelligence, it has been demonstrated to be sufficiently accurate for scientific research. It is conceivable that similar to red hair being prevalent in certain areas of the world, Scandinavian men averaging close to six feet in height and curly hair being predominant in other parts of the globe, who is to say that certain races of people do not possess genes that make them on average more intelligent than those of other races (an idea first proposed by James Watson, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA)? I understand that this notion brings about horrendous memories of Adolph Hitler, atrocities of World War II and the notion of the superiority of one race over others, but it is a topic worth exploring in our quest to better understand human heritability of genes, and diseases plaguing our species as an extension.

Genetics of Homosexuality: From the minimal number of twin concordance studies conducted on the subject, there is some evidence to suggest that genes on the X-chromosome are responsible for homosexuality in males. Research into this issue brings about debate on whether human sexuality is a choice or not. Controversies such as these and a potential for career suicide results in scientists refraining from pursuing research in this field. This too is a polygenetic trait, and other factors such as environment have also been correlated to sexuality. It is a complex topic worth discussing and not shoving under the rug due to our reluctance to confront it.

Crime Rate among Races (United States of America): On multiple occasions and through countless studies, it has been shown that African Americans perpetrate more crime as a percentage in comparison to the percent represented by the group in the population as a whole. Many socioeconomic factors such as poverty, cycle of violence, unstable homes and other causes complicate this matter. Nevertheless, it is a widespread issue for the American populace, yet politicians are unwilling to discuss it and very few in the mainstream media even acknowledge it as a problem. Education of both, those in impoverished communities and others in the general population is vital, rather than denying a problem exists. On a similar note, the issue of the benefits and detrimental effects of drugs has been considered too controversial to be sufficiently studied for many decades. Not only does the War on Drugs disproportionately affect those of lower socioeconomic standing, but it prevents legitimate research on the benefits of these substances for the treatment and alleviation of countless diseases.

In conclusion, I understand that the examples I have mentioned aren’t black and white, and that a myriad of factors also come into play, what I am merely stating is that these, and countless similar concepts are worthy (and in some sense, crucial) of being explored and discussed; however, that is not possible with an unnecessary imposition of political correctness on the public. This is not political correctness, it is pure cowardice; we know the troubles of the past and are terrified of our potential for evil. However, fear should never impede the potential for greatness.

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:03 PM
Some words used in a certain context become hateful, the way people use words becomes a can weapons of propaganda.

Everyone of this earth should have free speech, also the backlash that can come from it.
edit on 28-9-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:07 PM
I posted this in another topic, but my main point was my problem with this Political correctness argument is those that use it as a Shield for Hate Speech, and wanting to be able to use slurs and hateful words, and yell "PC Liberal Agenda" when someone gets offended and calls you out on it. i am not rally into word policing... but having some kind of humanity

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:28 PM
a reply to: Pistoche
I think you have conveniently swept money and power out of the agenda to concentrate on genes. It has a slight whiff of eugenics, when you bring problems down to genes you bring the solution"well if we let these breed we will get better people.
Firstly,climate change. The normal populace has very little control overmore use or less use of carbons. This is a government problem to solve with the heavy industries and most people recognise this fact and say"why should we pay for their inaction to clean up their act".
Slave selection? From the time the slaves were captured there was nothing natural about their existence. They were not transported naturally but in horrendous conditions and strewngth has nothing to do with survivability. Yes,some weak ones died but some weak ones survived. Then there was the slave blocks. Nothing natural there either. Slaves were bought for their attributes to do certain jobs ie, strong ones to do heavy jobs. The successful ones were selected by their buyers, not naturally. Once bought they were sometimes selectively bred for these attributes. Not natural selection.
I think the main reason (not genetics) that African Americans are prevalent in US sport is because they have been and still are being ground underfoot by the authorities and some are more hungry than white people to escape this cycle of poverty.
I do not believe that inteligence is hereditary. Yes there are hereditary factors for low inteligence but the main factor is progressive education. That for one costs money and two the governments (though it's sad to say) do not want an inteligent population. Keep em thick and control them easier. I will give you one instance (though there are many) if your parents are rich you go to a better school. From a young age (please remember at that age a poor child is just as inteligent as a rich child) the rich child is taught very different lessons than your average school child and this is the governing factor not genes.
Homosexuality could be put down to genes but not by natural selection and that is the factor why no scientist or government will touch it. Because it's down to unnatural physical alterations like prescription drugs and genetically altered foods. Too dangerous to touch with the billions of dollars involved.
Crime rate. Come on this has completely nothing to do with genetics and everything to do will controlling people. Keep people ignorant, they have no idea how the tax system works let alone being inteligent enough to run for senator. Keep them poor, they can't even buy their way out of the ghetto. But most of all keep them downtrodden and vilified so they'll always have a scapegoat to blame.
The war on drugs has not the slightest thing to do with the lower socioeconomic classes (yes they probably use more to escape their plight temporarily) this is all down to the government and in consequence big businesses not wanting to let go of their very lucrative agenda.
And yes, the majority of black Americans are the ones suffering.

new topics

top topics

log in