Do you agree support political correctness?
Yes
14.9% (21)
14.9% (21)
No
44% (62)
44% (62)
Sometimes
36.2% (51)
36.2% (51)
Other
5% (7)
5% (7)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Political Correctness

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Katatori-kun:

Assassin Xaero:
Pretty simple question - do you agree with political correctness or do you think it is stupid (or something else)?

Political correctness doesn't exist. While the actual term predates its popular usage, its popular form is an invention of right wing sources to silence groups they disagree with without actually facing the message being espoused by those groups. In other words, "Your objection to my bigotry isn't legitimate, you're just being politically correct."

Merry Christmas.

How you think political correctness is exclusively a "right-wing" invention is utter lunacy. Tribalistic, blind bias at its worst. Unless you were joking or trying to be ironic.

harmonic:

Polarity27:

If the basic idea is respecting what people want to call themselves, why are you so interested in coming up with case examples to try to go out of your way to be rude to people? That's what it amounts to.

I swear, 99.9999999% of all threads anywhere on political correctness boil down to "but it's my RIGHT to be an asshole if I want to be!"

No one, including me, likes it when people are assholes for the hell of it. However, taking away someone's right to say something offensive is not the answer. If you're talking about "rights", a free society allows people to both be assholes and suffer the consequences of said assholery. Individual responsibility, freedom, not nanny state, not silence by force.

Oh, for the holy love of fuck. Nobody, anywhere, is trying to take away your "right" to be a dick. Be a dick. Glory in your dickitude. Just don't come whining when it hurts somebody.

The whole original idea behind ANY of this is "if you'd like to not be a dick, here are some things to consider". And the response? OMG how dare anyone take away my RIGHT to be a dick! FREEDOM!!!!

Abomination:

A white person being offended that someone else said the word "nigger" (for whatever reason) is ridiculous. Certainly you can consider that person rude, gauche, bigoted or a simpleton but being -offended- by it is just stupid.

The other issue is that people who belong to the same effective group are oftentimes offended by something that other members of the group are not. Dwarf, midget, little-people, vertically challenged or any other variation thereof is both offensive and inoffensive to many of the demographic they all associate with. I've met some who are offended when hearing the more politically correct terms "I'm small, I'm not a child - you don't have to coddle me. I have a beard - call me a dwarf!". Needless to say the guy was awesome.

You mean, people who belong to an oppressed group are actually not a hive mind? Well, that's an amazing discovery.

And WTF to that first paragraph of yours. Let me put it simply: is empathy actually THAT HARD for all y'all?

Is it actually that astonishingly difficult to walk a few feet in the shoes of someone without your luck at the genetic lottery and understand how it would feel to hear that thing said to you? To say "wow, what a shit thing to say"? Not to mention the simple reality that you have no idea of the experiences of the person you just spoke in front of-- would you really deny the right of a pale-looking child of a pale mother and a dark father to be offended at that awful word?

Social shame isn't about "rights". The government will not imprison or persecute you if you say the n-word. But a business has a right to say they don't want to hear it in their offices, a sports team has the right to say they don't want to hear their players saying it on the field, and I sure as hell have the right to say that if I hear you say that, I don't want you in my house.

Polarity27:

Oh, for the holy love of fuck. Nobody, anywhere, is trying to take away your "right" to be a dick. Be a dick. Glory in your dickitude. Just don't come whining when it hurts somebody.

The whole original idea behind ANY of this is "if you'd like to not be a dick, here are some things to consider". And the response? OMG how dare anyone take away my RIGHT to be a dick! FREEDOM!!!!

Settle down, Don Quixote. You're oversimplifying the issue to an extreme. I know why, because it sort of vindicates you for believing that political correctness is necessary and good. If the opposite of political correctness means "being a dick" then why argue against it? Sadly, it is not that simple.

Political correctness doesn't exist! (In the sense that people are talking about) There's no official political philosophy or government policy which endorses political correctness. I think it's a term that was invented by conservatives to describe changing attitudes towards races, people with disabilities and other disadvantaged minorities in the mid-late 20th century, which many conservatives opposed.

By using the term "political correctness" they created a sort of myth that this was an official public policy endorsed by the liberal elites with the intention of de-legitimising these changing societal attitudes. In particular, right wing newspapers have been especially apt at creating stories of "political correctness gone mad" to further de-legitimise the notion of political correctness. The thing is they took mocking their invented notion of political correctness too far, and i don't think anyone actually made the connection between respecting minorities and political correctness- and instead took on the idea on as a sort of separate entity.

That's my theory anyway.

harmonic:

Polarity27:

Oh, for the holy love of fuck. Nobody, anywhere, is trying to take away your "right" to be a dick. Be a dick. Glory in your dickitude. Just don't come whining when it hurts somebody.

The whole original idea behind ANY of this is "if you'd like to not be a dick, here are some things to consider". And the response? OMG how dare anyone take away my RIGHT to be a dick! FREEDOM!!!!

Settle down, Don Quixote. You're oversimplifying the issue to an extreme. I know why, because it sort of vindicates you for believing that political correctness is necessary and good. If the opposite of political correctness means "being a dick" then why argue against it? Sadly, it is not that simple.

Read what Nickolai wrote, he's right. There is no such thing as "political correctness". There is a bogeyman invented by the right wing as a strawman to swing at, there are oft-clumsy individual policies of non-governmental organizations trying to avoid being sued, and there are some exhortations and ideas about how to treat disadvantaged people more like people.

So, which thing is it specifically that you're railing against? You put out a lot of jabber about nanny states and "silence by force", which makes me think you're talking about the rights given you by a government-- you know, a threat that doesn't actually exist. All that's left are attempts, variously successful, to get people to treat other people like people and not the shit under their shoe, which have nothing to do with states and rights.

I ask again, what *specifically* are you on about here?

Polarity27:

Abomination:

A white person being offended that someone else said the word "nigger" (for whatever reason) is ridiculous. Certainly you can consider that person rude, gauche, bigoted or a simpleton but being -offended- by it is just stupid.

The other issue is that people who belong to the same effective group are oftentimes offended by something that other members of the group are not. Dwarf, midget, little-people, vertically challenged or any other variation thereof is both offensive and inoffensive to many of the demographic they all associate with. I've met some who are offended when hearing the more politically correct terms "I'm small, I'm not a child - you don't have to coddle me. I have a beard - call me a dwarf!". Needless to say the guy was awesome.

You mean, people who belong to an oppressed group are actually not a hive mind? Well, that's an amazing discovery.

And WTF to that first paragraph of yours. Let me put it simply: is empathy actually THAT HARD for all y'all?

Is it actually that astonishingly difficult to walk a few feet in the shoes of someone without your luck at the genetic lottery and understand how it would feel to hear that thing said to you? To say "wow, what a shit thing to say"? Not to mention the simple reality that you have no idea of the experiences of the person you just spoke in front of-- would you really deny the right of a pale-looking child of a pale mother and a dark father to be offended at that awful word?

First, as to the hive mind, you've missed the point entirely - so allow me to adopt a more interactive method. What word do you use to describe someone who was born with a condition that results in them being rather stunted in growth, possessing a head disproportionate to their smaller frame? Little-person? Some are offended by that, some like it. Dwarf? Some are offended by that, some like it. Midget? Some are offended by that, some like it. There is no established "right" thing to say so you'll end up offended someone one way or another.

Don't say "Just call them a person" because clearly we're talking about a rather defining trait of someone. Imagine it coming up as a fact: "Why can't Steve just reach the can from the top shelf himself?" 'Because he's a <term here>'.

Second, empathy? To have empathy there needs to be someone to be empathetic towards. The invisible black/dark/negro/African/suitable term to describe someone who belongs to a particular ethnic and racial group person in the room? Offense by proxy is stupid.

Third, genetic lottery? I would LOVE to cash in on that, thank you. Just because I happen to be white does not mean my entire life has been rainbows and sunshine, in fact I am certain many people who "lost the genetic lottery" have far better lives than me - some BECAUSE of their "genetic lottery ticket". Being white means you have a HIGHER CHANCE of being better off, it does not make it a fucking rule. As for being offended? I have been called a racist white honkey a few times despite never mentioning race at ALL in any conversation. I am sick of my opinion of someone's behavior being unacceptable being disregarded because that individual happens to be of a different racial background to mine and mine happens to be white. Rather than my complaint being met with the merit it would deserve it's brushed off as racist.

Finally, that girl in your example wouldn't be excluded at all, she clearly belongs to the particular group and wouldn't be taking offense by proxy.

Polarity27:

Read what Nickolai wrote, he's right. There is no such thing as "political correctness". There is a bogeyman invented by the right wing as a strawman to swing at, there are oft-clumsy individual policies of non-governmental organizations trying to avoid being sued, and there are some exhortations and ideas about how to treat disadvantaged people more like people.

So, which thing is it specifically that you're railing against? You put out a lot of jabber about nanny states and "silence by force", which makes me think you're talking about the rights given you by a government-- you know, a threat that doesn't actually exist. All that's left are attempts, variously successful, to get people to treat other people like people and not the shit under their shoe, which have nothing to do with states and rights.

I ask again, what *specifically* are you on about here?

Putting restrictions on the language is not a "bogeyman invented by the right wing." If calling such restrictions out is what you are considering political correctness, then yes, I would love to claim that. Bullshit should be called out.

I take issue with your language, by the way. You use dramatic terms like "railing against" and "put out a lot of jabber" when anyone can plainly see that between the two of us, you are not under control.

You said the word "rights" which strongly suggested coercion, regardless of the source. Indeed, the strongest coercion that exists today is societal pressure, which does have far-reaching consequences. Career, socialization, and reputation are vital to one's life. Without getting into a complex philosophical debate about how societies "decide" what is offensive or not, needless to say there are insidious forces and factors other than simply respecting an individual's right to be called what they wish to be called.

Again, this is not about pushing the boundaries of dickery. It is about removing needless restrictions on the language. More transparency, directness, and honesty.

harmonic:

Polarity27:

Read what Nickolai wrote, he's right. There is no such thing as "political correctness". There is a bogeyman invented by the right wing as a strawman to swing at, there are oft-clumsy individual policies of non-governmental organizations trying to avoid being sued, and there are some exhortations and ideas about how to treat disadvantaged people more like people.

So, which thing is it specifically that you're railing against? You put out a lot of jabber about nanny states and "silence by force", which makes me think you're talking about the rights given you by a government-- you know, a threat that doesn't actually exist. All that's left are attempts, variously successful, to get people to treat other people like people and not the shit under their shoe, which have nothing to do with states and rights.

I ask again, what *specifically* are you on about here?

Putting restrictions on the language is not a "bogeyman invented by the right wing." If calling such restrictions out is what you are considering political correctness, then yes, I would love to claim that. Bullshit should be called out.

What restrictions? Put there by whom? Be specific, please.

I take issue with your language, by the way. You use dramatic terms like "railing against" and "put out a lot of jabber" when anyone can plainly see that between the two of us, you are not under control.

Dude, you're the one who went on a tear about silence, force, and nanny states when I saw nothing discussed about government control. You sounded like the guy from "Braveheart". What *exactly* are you upset about?

You said the word "rights" which strongly suggested coercion, regardless of the source. Indeed, the strongest coercion that exists today is societal pressure, which does have far-reaching consequences.

So, let me get this straight. Everyone is expected to put up with demeaning language aimed at people who've done nothing but be there, because saying "I don't want people who act like this around me" is coercion. *The government* isn't restricting your language, but people around you don't have to put up with it; just like "freedom of speech" does not, in fact, mean "freedom from criticism". We're back to the objecting to being considered a dick, here, again, it seems.

Polarity27:

What restrictions? Put there by whom? Be specific, please.

I take issue with your language, by the way. You use dramatic terms like "railing against" and "put out a lot of jabber" when anyone can plainly see that between the two of us, you are not under control.

Dude, you're the one who went on a tear about silence, force, and nanny states when I saw nothing discussed about government control. You sounded like the guy from "Braveheart". What *exactly* are you upset about?

You said the word "rights" which strongly suggested coercion, regardless of the source. Indeed, the strongest coercion that exists today is societal pressure, which does have far-reaching consequences.

So, let me get this straight. Everyone is expected to put up with demeaning language aimed at people who've done nothing but be there, because saying "I don't want people who act like this around me" is coercion. *The government* isn't restricting your language, but people around you don't have to put up with it; just like "freedom of speech" does not, in fact, mean "freedom from criticism". We're back to the objecting to being considered a dick, here, again, it seems.

I already was specific. Repeating myself would be a waste of time.

Also, your attempts to pull the "u mad?" bit is tiresome. No one's "upset" here. Get off it.

Lastly, your last paragraph is brimming with hyperbole, wild assumptions, strawmen, and silliness. So it seems the most we can agree on is, being a dick is bad.

Xan Krieger:
I never support it. One of the biggest arguments I make is about the term "african american". To me that is someone who was born in Africa (like say for example Dave Matthews) and not someone who was born in America. If you were born in America then you are not an african american or an asian american, you are an american american. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

yep thats how i see it as well

i never liked political corectness. its just a mix of censorship and hiding the truth behind nice words. id rather have people say what they think and then sort it out than having them say same thing and then try to decypher which one meant what.

Copper Zen:

Example? Gender equality. Just 20 years ago companies made no bones about paying women less than men for the same job based on the idea that such women "might someday" require 8 weeks of maternity leave.

The current younger generation of Americans (particularly those in their 20's) not only want but EXPECT companies to pay women equally. A huge part of this is a result from Gen X and Gen Y growing up in households where both of their parents had to work to pay the bills and the realization that their Moms weren't being paid the same as men they were working with "just because they were Moms" outrages young men and women alike. The same pay facet factors into younger couples' minds with guys wanting their girlfriends/future wives to bring home as much money--not just out of greed but because [b]they grew up in a nation where sexism and misogyny weren't socially trumpeted as "God's Will" and/or "the Way Things Have Always Been and Should Always Be" etc, etc.

gender equality is not political correctness. your mixing the terms up perhaps?

Copper Zen:

Xan Krieger:
I never support it. One of the biggest arguments I make is about the term "african american". To me that is someone who was born in Africa (like say for example Dave Matthews) and not someone who was born in America. If you were born in America then you are not an african american or an asian american, you are an american american. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

That's something I totally agree with.

Africa is a continent, not a skin tone. If you go to Africa the locals say 'whites' and 'blacks'. I decided in the late 90's that I would use the term "African American" when people started calling me "Western European/Scot-Irish/Welsh/Native American Indian American".

I've never met any black who cared or gave me any looks, etc, for saying 'black' instead of African American--particularly when blacks say 'blacks' among themselves.

This is the only nation where some people will look at you cross eyed for stating the obvious.

There's a difference between political correctness and vague language that serves nothing. Calling a black person an "African American" is false political correctness because it disenfranchises and devalues people who are black that aren't American or those who are black but not from Africa. It's not the best language to use in that situation.

The purpose of political correctness should be clarity in speech, fairness in speech and empowering people's identities rather than using their identity to hurt or devalue them in some way. If it doesn't do that, it's not really doing its job properly, and so I don't really count it as proper political correctness.

harmonic:

Putting restrictions on the language is not a "bogeyman invented by the right wing." If calling such restrictions out is what you are considering political correctness, then yes, I would love to claim that. Bullshit should be called out.

This is kind of hilarious really. The entire idea behind the theory of "PC" is that it is somehow used as a tool to smother and quell discussions by "them liberals". They do this by calling out "non-PC" opinions as being racist/sexist/bigoted or whatever and in turn infringes on the freedom of speech and hurts the public debate by limiting the band of acceptable opinion available to be discussed in the mainstream.

The kicker? By calling someone out on "Political Correctness" you are effectively avoiding the original discussion entirely. You are telling someone that their opinion is not really their opinion but rather some ruse meant to smother the discussion they just engaged in. So, in the end you are setting out to do the exact same thing that you originally claimed to be opposing.

Xan Krieger:
I never support it. One of the biggest arguments I make is about the term "african american". To me that is someone who was born in Africa (like say for example Dave Matthews) and not someone who was born in America. If you were born in America then you are not an african american or an asian american, you are an american american. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

You never support it.

Okay, does that mean you'd be alright with calling them n!ggers instead? If not, why not? You don't want any social restrictions on language, after all...

Gethsemani:

This is kind of hilarious really. The entire idea behind the theory of "PC" is that it is somehow used as a tool to smother and quell discussions by "them liberals". They do this by calling out "non-PC" opinions as being racist/sexist/bigoted or whatever and in turn infringes on the freedom of speech and hurts the public debate by limiting the band of acceptable opinion available to be discussed in the mainstream.

The kicker? By calling someone out on "Political Correctness" you are effectively avoiding the original discussion entirely. You are telling someone that their opinion is not really their opinion but rather some ruse meant to smother the discussion they just engaged in. So, in the end you are setting out to do the exact same thing that you originally claimed to be opposing.

Ooh ooh, someone from Europe has an opinion about American socio-political issues. Let's all rush to hear what she has to say.

You are egregiously, hilariously wrong. It is the left, not the right, who use racist/sexist/bigot as a trump card to shut down the other side. Everyone (who matters) on Earth knows this.

harmonic:

Gethsemani:

This is kind of hilarious really. The entire idea behind the theory of "PC" is that it is somehow used as a tool to smother and quell discussions by "them liberals". They do this by calling out "non-PC" opinions as being racist/sexist/bigoted or whatever and in turn infringes on the freedom of speech and hurts the public debate by limiting the band of acceptable opinion available to be discussed in the mainstream.

The kicker? By calling someone out on "Political Correctness" you are effectively avoiding the original discussion entirely. You are telling someone that their opinion is not really their opinion but rather some ruse meant to smother the discussion they just engaged in. So, in the end you are setting out to do the exact same thing that you originally claimed to be opposing.

Ooh ooh, someone from Europe has an opinion about American socio-political issues. Let's all rush to hear what she has to say.

You are egregiously, hilariously wrong. It is the left, not the right, who use racist/sexist/bigot as a trump card to shut down the other side. Everyone (who matters) on Earth knows this.

Ooh ooh, someone fails basic reading comprehension. Next time you don't have an argument, make sure you at least have understood what the other person wrote and don't use an Ad Hominem and nothing else as the basis of your entire post.

Fun fact: "Europe" also has plenty of people calling "liberals" (though in most European countries it is the "feminists"/"socialists"/"leftists" that are called out for being "politically correct") on being "PC" whenever their opinions are challenged by a "liberal" who disagrees.

GunsmithKitten:

Xan Krieger:
I never support it. One of the biggest arguments I make is about the term "african american". To me that is someone who was born in Africa (like say for example Dave Matthews) and not someone who was born in America. If you were born in America then you are not an african american or an asian american, you are an american american. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

You never support it.

Okay, does that mean you'd be alright with calling them n!ggers instead? If not, why not? You don't want any social restrictions on language, after all...

Black people is what I call them, nigger is insulting. I'd explain more but I'm worried the mods would be watching this post like hawks given the somewhat delicate nature of the topic.

I went with "sometimes", because "sometimes" saying some things is just plain rude. I want to avoid looking like an asshole most of the time.

Whoops, Double post. Sorry mods, delete this.

Xan Krieger:

GunsmithKitten:

Xan Krieger:
I never support it. One of the biggest arguments I make is about the term "african american". To me that is someone who was born in Africa (like say for example Dave Matthews) and not someone who was born in America. If you were born in America then you are not an african american or an asian american, you are an american american. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

You never support it.

Okay, does that mean you'd be alright with calling them n!ggers instead? If not, why not? You don't want any social restrictions on language, after all...

Black people is what I call them, nigger is insulting. I'd explain more but I'm worried the mods would be watching this post like hawks given the somewhat delicate nature of the topic.

Why worry about it at all if you reject Political Correctness? After all, if you say it, people should just deal, right?

Well, in the context of where I used to hang out 'political correctness' used to mean little else than: "That minority can attack you, sexually assault women, commit racist assaults over nothing, beat people to death in cowardly gang attacks, and you're not allowed to say or do a damn thing because you're a filthy white person".

So, yeah, death to political correctness for as far as I'm concerned. If it causes you to have to fight to save your life, or someone else's, while there's a police station across the street, but they're not allowed to combat the gang threat because that's not politically correct, then it's just a dirty word.

GunsmithKitten:

Xan Krieger:

GunsmithKitten:

You never support it.

Okay, does that mean you'd be alright with calling them n!ggers instead? If not, why not? You don't want any social restrictions on language, after all...

Black people is what I call them, nigger is insulting. I'd explain more but I'm worried the mods would be watching this post like hawks given the somewhat delicate nature of the topic.

Why worry about it at all if you reject Political Correctness? After all, if you say it, people should just deal, right?

Because this forum has rules and I'd hate to be banned.

neonit:
It reminds me of a certain southpark episode, where the end reaction to the word "Nigger" by a white person was

I get it! "I dont get it!".

This is probably the defining quote of the thread so far. Exactly this, or as Socrates (may have) said, "I know that I know nothing". Political correctness is a grasping, fumbling concession to the fact that most of us have no idea of knowing what it's like to be a minority. We can engage in thought experiments, we can think about that one time being a straight white male barred us from something, we can dress up in blackface and experience a tourists' version of racism, even, but we can never truly know what it is to be a minority and have minority problems.

And that's where the "political correctness" issue arises: half of the straight white males start zealously overestimating the degree to which we should make concessions for minorities, and the other half of the straight white males zealously underestimate. Bleeding-heart leftie pinkos and right-wing bigots, respectively, from an outsiders perspective.

I often find myself erring on the side of social conservatism, especially in reaction to what I often see as needless prostration to a form of political correctness which exists less to assist actual minorities and more to make the majority feel bad about themselves; stuff like the assumption that we should say Inuit instead of Eskimo (despite most of us having never met an Eskimo, let along one who's voiced an opinion on which is the correct word to use), or ditto with Ayer's Rock/Uluru (relevant perhaps if you live in Australia, less so when you live halfway across the globe). The people who espouse (and do their best to enforce) this kind of political correctness are, I feel, less concerned with offering common decency, or reflecting the realities and sensibilities of pluralistic, multicultural society, and are much more in their element when they're brow-beating, tone-trolling and generally bullying their fellow person into an enforced and artificial set of social constraints in the name of "decency". You know the type of person I mean; the kind of person who scowls at your St George's Day decorations as if you had just hoisted a swastika pennant over the local synagogue. The kind of person who renames "blackboard" to "chalkboard" even though "blackboard" isn't pejorative in any way. At its very worst it's unhelpful, unproductive, white-guilt-mongering by wretched, self-hating, xenophilic, oikophobic jobsworths, and frankly they can do one.

And yeah, when people start talking in preachy absolutes about how "there's no such thing as political correctness - you're either a decent human being or you're a bigot, your choice" then I strongly suspect they're right at home in this aforementioned camp.

Why does this matter? Primarily, because it's bullshit and it irks me despite the good intentions. Also, because it's a disgustingly enabling social mechanism that actively rewards minority-status and hair-trigger hypersensitivity. You know, bullshit like this:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7475737

In the commonsense-ruled world that us "bigoted" conservatives yearn for, this kind of thing would be a non-story. If the story ran at all, it would read "silly person misinterprets harmless greetings card, perhaps intentionally" and most people would have a good chuckle before forgetting all about it. However we live in the real world where Political Correctness exists, and therefore Hallmark, the card's manufacturers, released a brief message denying the racist content before pulling the card from shelves on a nationwide basis.

Then we had

So should we throw all attempts at striking a pleasant medium out of the window? No, probably not. As long as minorities exist there's scope for hurtful insensitivity at the hands of the majority - some of it unintentional, which is unpleasant, some of it intentional, which is even more unpleasant, but possibly the most damaging is the kind of insensitivity which is justified or downplayed as "normal". Basically, this fucking shit:

Willfully insensitive bullshit, in the defence of irrelevant, nonexistent "good old days" and dressed up, poorly, as humour. At least the fat bastard gets paid for this crap, which partially excuses his peddling it, but the people I hope never to meet are the bloody audience who are lapping this shit up. As Stewart Lee eloquently put it: "unironically laughing through bared teeth, like the dogs they are". There's a lot of ignorance out there, and by fuck we need to enlighten people. I don't think enforced political correctness - contemporary taboo - addresses this effectively. People's fundamental outlook needs to be changed, not just their outward behaviour.

What a horribly messy subject. And hell, what do I know anyway. All I know is that I know nothing.

Polarity27:
Call me disabled, because it's the truth.

Gladly. What some of us are wondering is whether it's ok to call black people black, because that's the truth too.

The way I see it, there are three ways to label something: offensive, factual, and oversensitive. Offensive labels include things like nigger and kike. These are terms with a derogatory use. Factual labels include retard and disabled. These are terms that accurately describe a characteristic, without positive or negative implication. Oversensitive labels include "differently-abled" and "special." These are terms invented by people who want to be as unoffensive as possible, but end up ignoring reality. As long as political correctness strives to keep us in the middle, and not drag us towards the ridiculous extreme, I'm absolutely in favor of it.

Batou667:

Polarity27:
Call me disabled, because it's the truth.

Gladly. What some of us are wondering is whether it's ok to call black people black, because that's the truth too.

I think so, yes. I don't want to do the "well, you have this white person's opinion, for all it's worth", but yes, black is widely used and widely accepted, and I think it's fine-- unless you're talking to a black person you know prefers African-American, where it's just polite to switch for them. There isn't, from all I can see, a broad consensus in favor of either among black people, it's kind of the same situation as Native American or American Indian (I'm curious to know if it's as regional, actually!), where both have their supporters. Either black or African American (presuming you're talking about Americans-- I've known people who will call Idris Elba "African American" in all seriousness and that's *incredibly* silly) are fine.

harmonic:
-snippage of all posts-

I agree with you, you know. Being a dick really isn't something to be proud of, cause, it means, well, you're a dick and who wants to be surrounded by dicks?

I also agree that "silencing" the dicks is the wrong way to go about it. Best way to deal with such people is to deny them audience by...well, refusing to be in their audience if you don't want to be in it. And then the douches can cry all they want about how they're being repressed, but hey, just because you can say it doesn't mean everyone else has to listen to it, right?

So, in the end, again I'll say, you're right, I think I shouldn't be pointing fingers at people I find dickish, I shouldn't call them dicks, and I most definitely shouldn't call for them to be shut down. What I should do is simply go my merry way, and when enough people go their merry way, maybe the dickheads will realize they're only talking to tumbleweed and shut up on their own.

Ah well, maybe a bit idealistic, but I know for a fact it's worked on some people around here, the moment they lost their captive audience, they kind of faded into obscurity. Not because they'd be "shut down" by anyone, people just grew bored and stopped coming to their stand-up shows. Audiences are fickle things indeed, so easily distracted...

Toodle-doo.

Well, as long as the government doesn't infringe on the freedom to accurately express any view one might have, however extreme or vile, I don't really care. Private people have as much right to use their freedom of expression to deny socialization/friendship/respect over linguistic primitivism or political/religious views as they do over skin colour. They'll be held to equally harsh standards themselves, but if that's what they choose, peace be with it.

There of course the whole thing about "soft censorship" - the easily offended affecting commercial availability of products/services for everyone - but since for every application of force there's a reaction, there'll always be other offerings, particularly in this day and age. There is ultimately no reason to concern oneself with "political correctness" if the people engaged in it doesn't wield any influence over ones life and opportunities. They and their opinions are then simply irrelevant.

Freedom of speech tells me i should less about it, and pretend it does not exist, and since its used religions, and protects only a group of people I going to take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, in general, I do follow "PC" social rules. I often find that it requires no real effort on my part, and it's just polite.

I am not saying we should criminalize anti-PC expressions or words - if you want to be crass or rude, that should be your right.

But it's also our right to think you're rude and crass. I agree that you should be free to be as anti-PC as you want to be. I also assert that it is the right of the REST of us to think you're a nasty person for being that way!

I think it has good intentions but is often misused.

For example, calling "Christmas break" "Winter break" and saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" is dumb. We all know that Christmas is the reason that we are going on break, not because its winter and if its after December 18th and you are saying "happy holidays" then the only holiday you are referring to is Christmas.

When people get mad over someone saying "Merry Christmas".

Are you kidding me?

This thread is very doubleplusungood. OP, you need a trip to Miniluv, pronto.

Edit: Remember this from 25ish years ago in the NYT?

" Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families."

Not in the tendency towards ever-encroaching euphemisms, or doublethink phrases that would make Ingsoc blush. I utterly despise the political manipulation of language.

http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language

Yet it has become so powerful in today's society - from political slogans, to government terminology, to organisational acronyms, to business names; language and propaganda have become one.

Perhaps it expresses futile resistance to the metamorphosis of English - as any language does in time- but Politics and the English Language makes some astute observations.

Statements like MARSHAL P…TAIN WAS A TRUE PATRIOT, THE SOVIET PRESS IS THE FREEST IN THE WORLD, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS OPPOSED TO PERSECUTION, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: CLASS, TOTALITARIAN, SCIENCE, PROGRESSIVE, REACTIONARY BOURGEOIS, EQUALITY.

It makes a person self-conscious of their own use of English.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like A NOT UNJUSTIFIABLE ASSUMPTION, LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED, WOULD SERVE NO GOOD PURPOSE, A CONSIDERATION WHICH WE SHOULD DO WELL TO BEAR IN MIND, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow.

I don't think that it truly exists to the extent that it is believed to exist. The only instances I've heard of seem to come from a human resource approach to politeness designed to minimise the risk of lawsuits.

I like that no-one has still provided any clear definition of what 'Political Correctness' is.
No, no, it's far more fun to engage in shouting-matches and misunderstand each-over over basics.
Keep up the good work?

Maybe I should start with a suggested definition: Political Correctness is altering ones language, behavior, ways of expression, etc, on both individual or communal level, to avoid causing perceived harm on others, but individuals and communities.
Does that definition fit you?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here