I’ve started to write a blog about my experiences as a business owner, called Small Business Talk. To complement the business blog, I’ve decided to write a blog about political topics. This blog I have called Political Views.
Before I start to write about different topics I feel the current society is facing, I want to point out that the thoughts are my own. They should be used as a discussion point, even if they may extreme. Without a discussion, society will not change, and everything, including circumstances, policies, and assumptions, will be staying as they are. No change means going backwards.
In this first blog of the series, I want to point out that what you read is your choice to be offended by what you read. To offend someone is not physical harm; no one is threatened or humiliated. The offended person chooses to be offended in the first place.
Growing up in the East part of Germany, the GDR and living in Germany, I became used to the modern constitution. Looking through history, I have to say; it was a good thing that Germany lost World War II. It alloyed the Allied occupation to implement the latest ideas about a state and its constitution. Only after living in a different country, I realised that fact. I’m quoting my favourite article from the German Constitution
Article 2 of the German Constitution states:
(1) Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit, soweit er nicht die Rechte anderer verletzt und nicht gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder das Sittengesetz verstößt.
Everyone has the right of a free development of the individual, as far as it does not violate the rights of others and does not violate the constitutional order or the moral law.
Closing the circle following this article I have the right to express my thoughts as long I do not violate laws, the constitutional order nor moral law.
To be offended does not fall in any of those three.
As I concluded, to be offended is an issue the offended person has. Why did society start using political correctness, then? Political correctness has nothing to do with diplomacy. It is just not saying as things are with the purpose of not offending the opposite party. However, if the result is not talking about those topics or naming things as they are, how can we start a discussion about precisely those topics? Does this mean we do not talk about them? That will result in nothing, in no change whatsoever.
I propose that society overcome the current habit of using political correctness to avoid offending other parties. Topics need to be discussed and talked about, of course, following the restrictions put in place by Article 2 of the German Constitution.