By Herman M. Lagon
There’s a peculiar art in wielding words with intention — especially words that cut deep, provoke thought or expose hypocrisy. Lately, however, the steady rise of politically correct (PC) language in satire, academia and comedy seems to make even the sharpest critique feel as if it is wrapped in bubble wrap. Ironically, this culture of delicate expression might be muting the very voices that society needs to hear. Beyond kindness, political correctness often sidesteps the heart of the message. It can strip criticism of its vigor and, in some cases, tamper with the pillars of free expression — a shift we are witnessing with growing censorship of dissent online, like the case of Reynaldo Orcullo in Butuan City, who was arrested for calling the president “crazy.” When “safe” language becomes the norm, are we really protecting each other, or are we simply lowering the bar for genuine critique?
Critics argue that political correctness, when misused, takes conversations off the stage and steers them toward appeasement rather than open critique. Ben O’Neill’s A Critique of Politically Correct Language explores this trend and the dangers it brings. O’Neill points out that PC language often replaces blunt terms with milder alternatives designed to shield people from perceived offense. While this has noble intentions, it does not always translate well in environments that thrive on open commentary — such as satire or even casual political discussions. Instead of fostering respect, these euphemisms sometimes encourage self-censorship, mainly when the stakes are high and humor, critique, or even outrage are necessary.
In politically charged spaces like comedy bars, media opinion pages and academic discussions, PC culture may undermine the authentic exchange of ideas. As O’Neill calls it, the euphemism treadmill is a cycle where new, politically correct terms are perpetually introduced to replace others that have gained negative connotations. Over time, however, these replacements often acquire the same offensive undertones. Take the shift from “disabled” to “differently abled,” for example. As these terms pile up, society’s core problems remain. Swapping words alone cannot rid our world of stigma, as prejudices still persist — whether they are cloaked in “kind” words or not.
In many ways, this substitution of terms erodes the intent of discourse. In satire, PC language might spare feelings, but it risks robbing the critique of its essential sting. Political satire is not meant to be a gentle nudge but to provoke thought, shake ideas and sometimes deliver a sharp slap to public figures or policies. Likewise, where free inquiry thrives in the academe, couching ideas in PC language can be restrictive. In spaces meant for debate, students, professors, and scholars should be allowed to express ideas freely, even if they stray into controversial or uncomfortable areas. This right to speak freely is especially crucial when discussing public figures and policies — a necessity recognized by our legal system, which only limits such expressions in cases of proven malice.
Our Constitution underscores this principle: Freedom of speech, particularly political speech, holds a high place in our democracy. Opinions about public officials, no matter how blunt, are protected unless malice can be proven. Historically, the Supreme Court has emphasized this right, as seen in cases where satire or criticism of public officials was ruled not libelous without actual malice. Public figures, by nature, should not be “too thin-skinned,” as the US Supreme Court famously ruled, when exposed to harsh or mocking commentaries on their actions. When a comedian or citizen mocks an official, they are exercising a civic right, and, within reason, that satire can challenge authority without the burden of genteel words.
Yet, the push for politically correct terms has given rise to a culture of “manufactured offense,” where people are encouraged to take offense even where none was intended. In our age of social media, where opinions spread in seconds, this hypersensitivity can discourage participation and stifle debate. Online spaces that were once a haven for open political discourse now risk becoming sterile as people self-censor, wary of using the wrong terms. It is a phenomenon seen in Facebook groups where discussions appear lively but remain surface-level due to the fear of offending or straying from the accepted narrative. Political correctness, in these cases, can transform spaces for free thought into echo chambers that reward only safe, aligned perspectives.
This restraint goes beyond social media. Political correctness stifles humor’s ability to reflect hard truths in public settings, like comedy bars and multimedia platforms that feature political parodies, mock news, social commentaries, satirical skits, and sketch comedies. Comedians, political satirists and columnists who once were free to mirror society’s faults, now walk a fine line between edgy and “offensive.” However, the real danger of this is not simply that comedians, actors and writers lose their bite. It is that society loses an essential platform for examining its own absurdities, its injustices and its hypocrisies. Satire that dares to cross boundaries often carries insights that polite discourse cannot. In these spaces, honesty — usually wrapped in sarcasm or wit — takes precedence, and this raw honesty is, ironically, the most humane part of comedy.
The same can be said for academic discourse. Imagine a political science class where students feel they can’t openly discuss pressing issues for fear of using the wrong term. In totally censoring language, we discourage students from confronting, debating and dissecting challenging ideas. Language restriction in academic settings shrinks the space for critical thinking and hinders intellectual growth. Rather than equipping students to tackle complex issues, we risk creating a generation more focused on phrasing than understanding. This points back to the very purpose of education — to foster critical thinking, not just careful language.
An obsession with political correctness in language, therefore, often distracts from the larger issues at hand. While being kind in language is valuable, genuine respect does not come from words alone but from engaging deeply with people’s experiences and addressing real inequalities, not sidestepping them. Understanding is fostered not through superficial exchanges but through encounters that allow space for both dialogue and dissent. The language that merely seeks to avoid offense becomes shallow if it does not reach the heart of the issues it seeks to protect. Genuine respect, in other words, cannot exist solely in euphemisms.
It is worth remembering that the fight for justice and accountability has always involved challenging the language of power, not bending to it. Political satire, critique and open academic debate have historically acted as mirrors reflecting society’s truths back to itself. When the world allows only “safe” words, those mirrors lose clarity. In our country, where democracy depends on active and courageous citizenship, we cannot afford to lose the power of clear and bold expression. Words are meant to hold power, not just for the authorities but for the people willing to use them to hold those authorities accountable.
While political correctness can foster sensitivity, we should question whether it truly serves our democratic ideals or merely polishes our words. The rawness of speech has a purpose in humor, academia and discourse. It allows people to engage without pretense, to discuss openly, and to hold each other and leaders accountable. As long as critique and satire are delivered with the intent to address, not merely to offend, they remain valid — and invaluable — tools of society. Let us protect this right and ensure that words, no matter how sharp, are never dulled by the fear of offending when they are spoken in the spirit of truth.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a ”student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with./WDJ