Political correctness is a social mechanism by which individuals are forced to self-censor to avoid offending the “socially disadvantaged”. This is a very clear distinction to those who are legally or politically disadvantaged, a state of affairs that is instituted by the government. This is why the traditional definition of the right to freedom of speech is a direct attack against the ability of the government to infringe on an individual’s rights based on politicised expression – in a normal society, only the governmental institutions of that society are interested in or capable of enacting retribution or censure for politicised speech because normally the only speech that is politicised is against the government.

However, we are not dealing with political oppression by the authorities, we are dealing with “social” issues, which is usually considered to be non-political interpersonal interactions, and this is the loophole in definitions that intersectional feminists attempt to use to oppress speech of which they do not approve.

The phrase “the personal is political”, an old feminist aphorism by which they politicise non-political issues and they introduce power dynamics to interpersonal interactions by collectivising them – which is why Francesca here has redefined political correctness to include “calling out oppressive power structures”.

To normal, rational people, social interactions are individual and interpersonal events, not oppressive power structures. However if you view the world through the intersectional lens of social justice, you cannot help but unnecessarily introduce power dynamics into every situation because you no longer view people as individuals, you view them as a component in a group and must determine whether the group as a whole is “disadvantaged” or “discriminated” against, even if no such thing happened in the individual case they observed.

Put simply, social justice warriors have politicised social interactions and so it is only natural that you should invoke your right to speak without political censure.

Freedom of speech is the right to political speech without suffering political consequences. It does not matter where those consequences originate from and it is low to attempt to weasel out of responsibility for infringing on someone’s rights to free political expression under the guise of “well, it’s only censorship when the government does it!”

Censorship is wrong regardless of the source because nobody has the right to determine what you can and cannot say. Just because social justice warriors have managed to weaponise social pressure to political effect does not mean you do not have the right to your freedom of expression.

The worst part about the intellectual deciet on display here is that social justice warriors are actively relying on your good will and cooperation in the suppression of your own speech. They need you to respond to their false accusations of racism, sexism or any other ism they can throw at you with shame.

Do not cooperate with them. You have the right to freedom of expression however you want to do it and if they don’t like it, that is their problem, not yours. Don’t let them make it your problem.




Original video

Dictionary definitions