Francesca Ramsey comes off as quite arrogant and condensing in her opening line. She is presupposing the answer to the thesis. People who already disagree with her would be immediately annoyed by that (0:00). Francesca then claims that those who call out racism, sexism, etc have been labeled as ‘too PC’(0:22), then later claims that calling someone too PC is a derailment of the conversation (0:58). The problem here is the fallacy Special Pleading, since she is saying that calling someone “PC” is derailment but calling someone “sexist, racist, etc” isn’t mentioned as derailment. She isn’t applying the same standards to her language as to the people she is arguing against, it should also be noted that she stated “If you ever called out, racism, …show more content…
Some more Special Pleading is presented when she claims that her “buzzwords” “…someone speaking out against lazy, offensive language, that doesn’t usually get challenged” (1:38) you could essentially extend this to analously apply to […someone speaking out against lazy, insulting language, that doesn’t usually get challenged…] for people “calling out” people for being “too PC”. Why does her choice of language get a pass while the language she is criticizing doesn’t, this is simply bias in favor of her language choice. Another fallacy that non sequitur, “In fact, political correctness is expanding free speech. We’re adding words to the dictionary to the dictionary every year in an effort to promote more inclusive and respectful speech”(2:57), more words does not mean more free speech, if this was the case, people who knew multiple languages would have extreme amounts of free speech, but this is not the case, free speech is saying what you want, and if someone is making words for you to say, it’s not your speech it’s theirs. Another problem are the words being added, they are just “buzzwords” and “identity”