As a community, we choose which values to affirm. Political correctness can promote kindness and sympathy, or intolerance and violence.

Authoritarian political correctness can only create the latter. It is the antithesis of kindness as it polices language, conflates morality with political perspectives, and enables violence. Forty percent of millennials support censorship of speech that offends minorities, yet our right to free speech and assembly necessitates allowing speech some may find hateful.

For example, the phrase undocumented worker obscures reality; they are illegal aliens under the laws of the United States. (Note: Mexico has strict border control.) Describing their circumstances unapologetically neither ascribes policy nor hurts them. Illegal immigrants who have lived here productively can and should be assimilated, but I reject the euphemism undocumented worker because acknowledging reality is important in changing it.

Students must be able to discuss todays issues without being demonized at an institution of higher learning. The term safe space is too vague. I accept the concept of reaffirmation areas, where students can go for emotional support or safety, but not homogenous thought zones, which silence dissent.

How can the validity and constructivity of a position be known without entertaining it?

Jordan Peterson, a personality psychologist at the University of Toronto, has faced intense backlash for standing up to Ontario Human Rights Code Bill C-16. It allows the government to police language with fines of up to $250,000, regarding refusal to use preferred pronouns as a human rights violation, which is alarmingly totalitarian. Identity is an integral part of the human experience, but compelled speech breeds contempt and undermines a free societys ability to resolve conflicts.

Ben Shapiro, a more credible, less inflammatory, and unapologetic conservative journalist, has also faced relentless censorship. Moderate conservatives like Condoleezza Rice, having served as provost at Stanford and Secretary of State, have had their university talks cancelled from authoritarian pushback.

In Red Square on Jan. 20, bricks were thrown at people who went to see Milo Yiannopoulos, and a full-blown riot broke out at UC Berkeley to silence him. Even if Yiannopoulos is fascist, political violence remains wrong and is fascist in itself. Some claim his words threatened and oppressed them. What I saw was the inverse.

Those who wanted to hear Yiannopoulos were ruthlessly persecuted by masked extremists in Red Square. Yiannopoulos speaking revealed a strong authoritarian presence on campus. Even if his speech truly was hateful, did that warrant punishing the thought-crime of wanting to hear Yiannopoulos with bullying and force?

I find much of what Yiannopoulos says disgusting and pointless, but authoritarianism produces violence and therefore I defend his right to speak. I applaud those who peacefully protested him. Had the protest remained peaceful, Yiannopoulos could have taken their questions.

His words sting, but bricks break bones. Authoritarianism is not progressive; it is regressive and oppressive.

In an increasingly polarized nation, it is important to both reaffirm the right to speak and organize freely, as well as to reject political violence and ad hominem attacks. I have yet to find evidence of a single neo-Nazi on campus and am tired of this witch hunt. Ironically, Yiannopoulos himself has denounced white supremacy.

I am open to proof, but have seen no damning evidence of a Mein Kampf reading, neo-Nazi march, or similar event on campus. There will be bigotry in any institution due to our tendency to congregate, but I do not operate on rumor and implore students to demand evidence before repeating lies and deceit.

As an atheist, libertarian, moderate conservative, and constitutional fundamentalist, I believe Adolf Hitler is in hell with Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Karl Marx. But I support equal rights and protection under the law for everyone, even for those whose speech disgusts me.

Humankind will never agree on ideal governance. This debate is healthy and necessary for democracy and freedom. Utopian and authoritarian philosophies enforce monocultures where ends justify means. Consequently, coercive utopianism is inherently authoritarian and dystopian.

Jakob Ross, a writer for The Daily, promoted political violence in a call for Maoist revolution: Inherently violent movements, be it the Third Reich or the pasty fascist wannabes who make up the alt-right cannot be reasoned with in a peaceful manner. The inherently violent alt-left cannot be met with concessions. The only violent movement I saw had masked communists and anarchists seeking to impose mob rule censorship by force.

Yiannopoulos did not advocate violence. Your words are truly violent, Jakob. Painting others as problems and suggesting violence as a solution is not only unethical, but is also exactly what Hitler and the Hitler Youth did. Both racial and political violence are unadulterated evil.

The term political correctness was created by Soviets and Soviet sympathizers. Its authoritarian form grants an unearned sense of moral superiority and relentlessly targets those who resist the collective.

Communist Mao Zedong killed tens of millions in China for political dissent. We move toward this extreme with each concession to authoritarianism. Any collective which ostracizes, penalizes, and harms its dissenters, must be resisted.

The peaceful protesters I spoke with denounced the violence. Many Young Democrats expressed interest in collaborating with College Republicans and vice versa. Perhaps cooperation can emerge from this mess. I hope so.

Please join me in resisting political violence.

Reach writer Samuel Bakken at development@dailyuw.com. Twitter: @BakkenSam

See the article here:

Authoritarian political correctness - Dailyuw