Don’t just accuse, make an actual argument.
What exactly is it about my attitude that will make me somehow willing to act violently towards certain demographics of people? What makes you think I would be violent towards anyone?
I stand up for free speech – precisely because I am so opposed to violence. Arguments solve problems, the only thing violence solves is who is better at fighting.
The reason I say you are anti-intellectual: the only thing your type does is shut off discussion. Your ideas are not fluid, you simplistically equate offensive language with bigotry. You have not achieved the ability to separate speech from its speaker, instead you make projections based not on the meaning of an opinion, but based on a shallow assessment of its presentation.
But cries of offense are just an excuse. Logically, arguments are never invalidated by the presence of an expletive, but by the presence of logical errors and false evidence. The use of expletive may indicate an agenda, but that only means processing the argument more cautiously, it doesn’t mean discussion over in any logical way.
If a neo-Nazi accuses black people of being of inferior intelligence and cites drop out rates, you don’t simply dismiss it in an emotional “that’s racist”, it is not an argument. For your rebuttal to be logical, you have to be able to explain why their conclusion doesn’t follow from their evidence, or why their evidence is false because interestingly enough, racism is not inherently wrong.
Political correctness has always been a conservative thing pushed by people who fear a deviation from the status quo. The P.C. type refuses to consider ideas you consider dangerous because they are afraid of the answer (this is an extremely similar attitude to conservatives who think the solution to crime/sex is ignorance). The problem is, if you refuse to ask the hard questions, you will never get a good argument against it, and people will keep doing it.
For example, “why is crime wrong?”. A PC liberal would say, “Crime is simply wrong and you are evil for even hinting otherwise, you crime denier.” A conservative would say, “Don’t learn and don’t talk and don’t even mention crime and everything will be A-OK.”
An intellectual however is not afraid of the answers. An intellectual will study the morality of crime and deliver an argument against it, and if it is a good argument, then it will prevent crime the next time a rational person thinks “why shouldn’t I”.
Is there a correlation between joking and bigotry? There could be. Is “bigoted speech” REALLY and indicator of bigotry? Bill Maher jokes about trannies. Violent assaulters also joke about trannies. Is Bill Maher therefore a violent assaulter? Does Bill “might be” a violent assaulter? Does a person who watch Bill Maher’s joke “The last time a man in a dress got this much attention it was Bruce Jenner” and think “therefore I should go kill a tranny”. There is no logical connection: Maher did not demand an attack on trans people. He didn’t even say it was wrong. All he did was reference a man in a dress, which, Bruce Jenner is (because “man” _can_ in fact refer to both gender and/*or* sex). Its just vernacular. Calling a transperson a tranny is like calling a centralintelligenceagency an agency. It’s used perjoratively but *there is nothing inherently perjorative about it*.
Explain to me again how does a man deserve violence for wearing a dress? Why do people called tranny deserve violence but people called “trans person” don’t? It does not compute, and if you’re able to come up with something then I’m afraid it is you who has a dangerous propensity for violence.
Being progressive is not about specific ideals. Ideals change, as human thought develops we always come to newer, (usually) better conclusions. You merely share some of the same ideals as contemporary progressiveness, but to be a true progressive, you have to be open minded to arguments. You have to be responsive to arguments in order to progress, which the political correctness attitude is inherently not.
Free Speech goes hand in hand with social justice, because it is free speech that facilitates discussion. It is true that conservatives increasingly value free speech as their archaic views are being edged out of the mainstream, but you have to remember that back in the day that wasn’t the case: First amendement rights were not enforced for a long time, and yet we had much more bigotry back then than we do now.
Culturally, LGBTQ, women, minorities etc already have the upper hand: its less about persuading people they are human beings and more about finding issues to support them on. The viewpoint of contemporary political correctness is ever changing. One day, the things you value will be on the ass end of political correctness.