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 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

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

I'm old enough to remember what life was like before Political Correctness reared its head. There have been times that I've rolled my eyes at some things, groaned, stared in disbelief, or growled in disgust because of b.s. PC'ness!

But overall, despite the oft-rampant bullshit that PC'dom has wrought, political correctness has done far more good for this nation--far more good--than harm.

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.

Political Correctness drives folks buggy at times--including those of us who lived before it reared up--and it certainly has resulted in a stupendous number of pitfalls, pratfalls, and double standard bullshit catastrophes, but I stand by my observed and considered opinion: Political Correctness has done the US far, far, far more good than harm.

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.

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.

I agree to an extent. That is to say, I agree with how it started. I can agree to the notion that I probably should refer to a black man as "nigger" or "boy" or any other racially insensitive term on the street. Same, I shouldn't call a woman "bitch", "ho", "slut", whatever.

On the other hand, I hear people getting offended at movies like Django Unchained for being "racially insensitive" for using the word nigger when it is only either used by villainous characters, good characters posing as villainous characters, and is used by the titular character on a couple of occasions to refer to himself. This movie, of course, being set in 1858 when "nigger" was the only term by which most people referred to blacks and the plot of the movie, of course, being about a former slave and an abolitionist white killing criminals and plantation owners to help reunite the former slave with his wife. If making a revenge fantasy where a black former slave kills plantation owners is racist then the makers of Shindler's List were Nazis.

Political correctness has its place. It's why we no longer live in a world where "nigger" is the only thing a person would call a black man. Taken to its extreme it breaks down to people with nothing better to do in their lives bitching and calling for censorship of artwork from Tarantino shooters to literary classics (keep your dirty liberal hands off Mark Twain novels thank you very much).

Depends. What do you, OP, define as "political correctness"? 'Cause I have encountered many different people who have very different ideas about what PC is.

That's about it.

Too an extent. Maybe it's because I'm gay, but with people more and more shutting down other people that use the word "gay" to mean to something stupid, along with other homophobic slurs, I feel a lot more secure in general either on the internet or on the street. On the other hand, calling a blackboard something else because you think the word "black" would offend people because they just so happen to be African, makes no sense to me.

PC has always been about humanizing minorities and being considerate; it shouldn't be anything more than that.

2012 Wont Happen:
Political correctness has its place. It's why we no longer live in a world where "nigger" is the only thing a person would call a black man.

But, that assumes the word was always signifying the intent to be racist. But it wasn't always that way. At one time it was a completely neutral term that denoted someone of "black" skin. Because it comes from the Classical Latin word NIGER meaning black. Hence the book The Nigger of the Narcissus, or in modern-day parlance: The Black Man of the Narcissus.

Although, for the life of me I can't figure out what caused the change from neutral to pejorative. And, since I haven't answered it yet, PC had nothing to do with that, by the 1900's is when it's meaning got changed.

If I can teach anybody anything, it's this, words are never set in stone. What's good today is evil tomorrow and vice versa.

It has it's place provided it's very light. For example, making the standard greeting 'Happy holidays' instead of just 'Merry Christmas'. That's fine with me, because there is a lot more than just Christmas going on around the Winter Solstice.

I'm not okay with, say, calling mentally handicapped kids 'special' as opposed to 'retarded'. Retarded is a very specific word, while special is pretty general, but usually has a positive connotation. It's being improperly used, and that's bad. Like 'special Olympics'. Just call it Handicapped/Cripple Olympics and be done with it.

Political correctness does what it sets out to do. It protects minorities and/or victims. However, the problem lies with who is defined as a minority or a victim. The manifestation of political correctness in our world is basically anyone other than white, straight men qualifies for some form of protection. Though, it should be noted, that even though I am in that "privileged" group of white, straight men, I used to have FIRE red hair in my youth. I got called all sorts of weird names, and still do to this day, because of the color of my hair. There are plenty of negative stereotypes associated with being a "ginger", mostly derived from the "gingers have souls" video. I have 3 choices here. 1) Ignore, which is almost always the best course of action, or 2) react defensively and claim victim status, demanding an apology, inevitably causing resentment, or 3) fight fire with fire, use identity-based pet names for the other person and run the exact same risk they ran by calling me an identity-based pet name.

Another glaring issue, we are constantly being told that this term or that term has now been deemed offensive. One day, "african-american" is what we're supposed to say, and "black" is offensive and racist. The next day, "african-american" is racist and "black" is proper. We've gone from crippled, to handicapped, to "differently-abled." O_o

People take advantage of the opportunity to be a "special" group deserving of special protections and everyone else is expected to fall in line.

There are cases where it is not simply victims-gone-haywire, it is a matter of simple education on basic geography and sociology. For example, hispanic-americans, a huge and diverse group of people, come from a wide range of countries, some of which are only connected to each other by language. Honduras and Argentina for example - two "hispanic" countries whose differences are like night and day. Many Americans refer to any hispanic as "Mexican" which is, rightfully, quite vexing to a Dominican or a Puerto Rican for example.

On the flip side of hispanic-americans, one day we are told they are "white", the next day, that they're not white. The vast majority of the aggregate heritage of hispanic-americans are indeed white. (From Spain or Portugal, WHITE nations.) Yet, some hispanic-americans feel closer to their native heritage, e.g. Zapotec, Aztec, Maya, what have you. The vast majority of these folks are reasonable, but there is an alarmingly vocal minority of native mix-hispanics who believe Southern California and other parts of the US Southwest belong to Mexico, or "Aztlan." (google it.) Many of these people are american citizens. Their rationale is that "their people" lived on that land for thousands of years before the "white man" came and stole it, completely ignoring the fact that 1) they are mostly the white man, 2) that land has changed hands several times long before whitey, and 3) Mexico is a nation run by whitey (it's an offshoot of Spain, rememeber?) And due to political correctness, we are supposed to tolerate was basically amounts to treason, because otherwise, racism. La Raza is another horrible cancer derived from political correctness, one that drives a wedge between hispanic-americans and the rest of America, because there is some anti-whitey "cause". I.e. everything George Lopez says about racial politics.

Lastly, so many politicians, media personalities, etc are all but forced to give apology after apology. Sometimes it is appropriate, other times not, every time its genuineness is extremely easy to question because it is made under duress.

I think the big issue is that with society becoming overall more correct by default "political correctness" is becoming more and more extreme.

I have no problem with political correctness. I don't see a reason why we should not strive to, in the public room, act decent towards another as is befitting of the political climate of year 2012. The problem with political correctness is the definition, it's going to hold very different definitions depending on what you want said or whether you live in for example Europe or America. And even then it would variate depending on whether you live in Eastern Europe or western, South America, the US or Canada, etc.

The main problem I see, here in Europe, is that many seem to confuse political correctness with the ideas and machinations of the established political parties and media. It is understandable to some degree because both sides throw it around alot in different ways. The establishment are overzealouse in trying to make all the oppositions talking points taboo in order to attempt to create a scandal.
On the other side the opposition ironically takes offense to everything and always imagines their "truth" being concealed by political correctness gone mad. They want to imagine themselves fighting an opressive regime that censors and opresses but really they're just fighting plain old conservatism, just coming from a different direction this time.

And when I use establishment and opposition in this particular instance I am referring to the established ideologies and the newer more traditionalist or nationalist ones that have taken off recently. Not left and right.

I selected "sometimes"

As long as it doesnt go to the extreme PC is a good thing indeed.
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!".

Which is the point.
White people discussing the impact of word "Nigger" is silly at best.
You have no way of knowing, what kind of impact it has.

Its what i found out when i moved out of my country. Back there i saw little to none racism.
It is until you yourself become "different" that you start seeing it.

And i am white male, imagine black people or any otherwise clearly seen difference in their looks.

Of course, you will always have people who get insulted by everything.
Like for example, people who get insulted by people who get insulted by everything.

To me, "political correctness" is simply equal to not being a fucking dick and not making ridiculous blanket statements towards groups in an effort to engage in a little tribal game. That crusade against the perceived evil of "political correctness" seems to me to be just a petty excuse to justify one's own preconceptions and egotism. Look at me! the adherents scream, I'm a straight, white middle-class male! I'm so OPPRESSED!!!. It is nothing but a calculated exercise in victimizing the majority to lend credit to that underlying sense of entitlement and irresponsibility that constitutes the very core of the fight against the spectre of "political correctness". From the evil muslims who want to introduce the sharia into public law and forcefully convert anybody to their misogynist views to the jews who use their money powered clout to pull the strings in the background, it is always the other that is at fault, the organized exploitative minority whose realm of terror needs to be ended by the courageous masses. It is the perfect delusion to be at ease with one's shortcomings and gives purpose through the notion of fighting a just crusade.

However, my staunch opposition should also signify one of the most important aspects about this issue: politicization. It wouldn't be such a hot topic if people wouldn't exploit that innate desire towards tribal conflict and positive self-perception. There is always a justified case to be made against organized attempts to shame and define words by minority groups and their spokesmen. There is also always justified criticism towards special entitlements that minority groups might get and whose aim towards equality has long been achieved, effectively turning them into privileging certain groups. In my country, however, the debate about such is never done by emphasizing or using what is commonly understood by "political correctness" and the people who actually talk about it are always the one's violently opposed to it, who usually hail from the extreme right-wing populist side of things. Hence, the usual case against "political correctness" might be more justified in other countries where this "battle" isn't so much mired in a feeling of self-righteous entitlement and brown right-wing muck. As it stands, however, in my country, it is the fight against a straw-man designed to cheaply gather votes by fueling tribal conflict and appealing to a sweet illusion.

- ignore: accidental double post -

in one sense "Political Correctness" could be the cutting edge of morality on the other its often a bit like societys collective consciousness is a village within which some folks have set up a self appointed "community committee" and everyone else is bit "wtf..."

i dislike it intently when ideas are vicariously enforced in its name which simply deny reality.
"the human sexes are actually asexual drones" being one such general strand of thought.

What do you mean?

Because it's important to bear in mind that there is no political philosophy called "political correctness". Noone is advocating it. Noone is actually self-consciously promoting the idea that we should live in a more "politically correct" society. It's a term which is imposed on a whole range of positions which it seems that the right wing media does not like.

But since this thread seems to be mostly about terminology..

At one point, it was acceptable to use the word "negro" as a term for black people. That doesn't mean it was "politically neutral". The term "negro" comes directly from scientific racial theory. The "negroid" races were considered one of the main racial categorizations, specifically encompassing those races seen as the most inferior.

The reason people stopped using it is not because someone arbitrarily decided to change the word, it's because by the mid-20th century that theory was defunct. I'm sure some people still felt that black people were "negroes" and would always be "negroes", either because they had forgotten what the world actually meant or (more likely) because they simply accepted all of its implicit assumptions and meanings as true and thus believed it to be "politically neutral". Perhaps they felt that in continuing to use the world they were describing some genuine truth which was being suppressed or denied. They weren't. The word was tied to a particular defunct theory and way of thinking which, in retrospect, was completely politically motivated.

The word which replaced "negro" was "coloured". Again, the term reflects the prevailing view of a time in which most "white" societies were still run by and for a "white" majority, with everyone else as peripheral. It reflects a world in which you are either white (and thus a fully-fledged part of society) or not white (and thus marginal to society), and again, this is why people stopped using it. Again, I'm sure some people continued to argue that it was simply a "politically neutral" term which described how things really were, but in retrospect do you think they were right? Do you view the world as simply divided into "whites" and "coloured"?

Terminology changes because the world changes, and because society changes (generally for the better). If you're going to insist on using archaic words, it's only reasonable to assume that you support the archaic sources from which those words derive their meaning.

Wishing to be referred to as "African American" says absolutely nothing about your commitment to a non-existent position called "political correctness", no more so than referring to yourself as "Irish American" or "German American". It's based on the political situation amongst black people in America today, and a world in which they are increasingly seen, or wish to be seen, as a "legitimate" part of American society. The point is that rather than being a skin colour (which isn't really true anyway, very few "black" people actually have black skin, indeed in Africa there are groups who refer to each other as "white" and "black" who would all be "black" by our definition) they just want to be Americans who originated in a particular part of the world, you know, like all other non-native Americans.

If someone wants to be called African American and finds the implications of being called "black" insulting, then it's only polite to refer to them as such as if they have genuine reasons to want that. The only reason not to do so would be if you actively wanted to insult that person or imply that their self-conception is unimportant because at the end of the day they're just "black". If someone doesn't mind or prefers to be called "black", then it's fine to call them that. I'm not seeing the ambiguity, I'm not seeing how this is confusing or complicated. In fact, you do this kind of thing every day and probably don't even notice it.

Political Correctness was the tool that should have been used like a scalpel...but ended up being used like a battleaxe.

And to be honest, the "Politically Incorrect" mindset has gotten equally insufferable. Now it seems that any immature, sophmoric, or flat out bigoted adn ignorant statement get's excused because "oh, he/she's just being politically incorrect, you're just too sensitive."

In other words, defying Political Correctness is one thing, but flat out ignoring basic civility has no excuse.

It depends on what we mean by "political correctness." It's become a bit of a political buzz word, so it gets thrown around simply for the impact the word itself now has culturally and is often not used for what it really means.

Do I support political correctness? Yes. I support the use of inclusive, non-discriminatory terminology.

People go on and on about how political correctness is bludgeoning our culture, but there aren't any real consequences for political incorrectness. No one is forcing anyone to be politically correct. For instance: Daniel Tosh did a rape joke that everyone thought was politically incorrect, but it's not like it's stopped him, its not like his shows were canceled, and it's not like he lost that many fans.

People can say and do whatever they like. However, if you don't want to insult people, then don't be politically incorrect. It's not a very complicated issue. In the public arena, political incorrectness generally causes corporations to lose money because they insult their own demographics, or candidates to lose political power for the same reason.

Also, because people can say and do whatever they like, then other people can certainly be down on your for not being politically correct. Yay freedom of speech.

Copper Zen:
snip

Agreed wholeheartedly. I also find the times that PC goes wrong is also times you can just tell someone to fuck off.

Mostly no. I have no issue corrective my language to suit a specific context, but that's the reason based in the request others make of me. Usually, at least in my personal experience (which will no doubt differ from others), is that people want me to be "politically correct" because either they find what I said offensive, or they think other people will find it offensive.

On the later, if someone has a problem with something I said; they can come talk to me about it. I don't need the thought police running around insuring that I don't step on anyone's toes because I used what they consider to be an inappropriate term.

On the former, if it doesn't change the reality of the situation, then there isn't a point in changing terms simply to suit the emotionally sensibility of complete strangers. You can only ask so much of others, and often times it's quite ridiculous to me.

If it's a matter of courtesy, politeness, or professionalism, I'll probably not even consider using terms outside accepted academic use; in which the issue probably won't even come up. And should someone make a deal out of it, I'd probably walk away from the conversation, as I have better things to do with my time then be educated by some thin skinned douche on proper social etiquette.

But really, if I'm not intentionally being offensive; I can't apologize for you taking exception to something I didn't actually do. And if I am intentionally being offensive; I have no intentions of apologizing for it. So my suggestion would be to apologize to me for assuming you knew the intent of my words and projecting inaccurate meanings to them.

I'll let George Carlin take it from here...

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

Going to have to ask for a more detailed definition. What is 'political correctness'?

I quite like political correctness. I like that people today are more likely to say "every person" as opposed to "every man" when they want to refer to everyone. It makes me feel less like some sort of incidental anomaly.

Most of what gets branded as political correctness isn't. For example, censoring the word "nigger" out of Huckleberry Finn isn't "politically correct", it's an insidious form of historical revisionism.

I get annoyed when it involves itself in historical revisionisim or the arts.

If something is a drama piece it should not have any political corectness about it. If the character called or would have called an individual a nigger/spic/chink/raghead/bitch/slut/faggot/retard (etc. damn there are a lot of them) then they should be able to call them just that in the drama/historical recreation. Pretending it didn't happen is just asking for it to repeat itself.

There are times where it can go overboard, such as when a term of phrase becomes supposedly politically offensive because of someone else's minority association (I guess the literal term is "white heterosexual male"). I can't call a woman a cunt when she is being a cunt (let's say throwing a complete tantrum in a store because the cashier won't accept her month-ago expired coupon, holding up a line of 10 people) because the word "cunt" is supposedly sexist when used against women. I like calling people cunts, I don't do it because of someone's gender but because of their actions. It's a good strong word, really cuts to how cuntish someone is being. Evokes a good strong sense of someone behaving in a manner that is annoying and/or undeservedly selfish.

It is a bit strange that in order to be a minority you likely belong to a group that has a higher population than the supposed 'majority' which is white heterosexual males. I guess it's because they're a minority when compared to the rest of society as a whole... but aren't white heterosexual males therefore a minority too?

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.

I expected, and got, a lot of silliness with a thread of this title, but this is especially silly. You're basically telling me that black Americans can't use a hyphenated form to indicate heritage like EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA CAN? Unless you actually believe every Irish-American marching in a St. Patty's Day parade or every German-American at an Oktoberfest or every Polish-American at the local Polish heritage hall was actually born in Ireland, Germany, or Poland, in which case, I've got a bridge to sell you.

We make a big deal about heritage in the US. It's a Thing We Do. It annoys the hell out of Europeans, from all I can tell, but still, we like to remember where our kinfolk are from. I'd imagine that would be all the more salient if your kin were brought here against their will and you're still getting screwed for it today.

2012 Wont Happen:

On the other hand, I hear people getting offended at movies like Django Unchained for being "racially insensitive" for using the word nigger when it is only either used by villainous characters, good characters posing as villainous characters, and is used by the titular character on a couple of occasions to refer to himself.

You ever see a kid get hold of a bad word? They'll run around the room saying it over and over again because they get a thrill off provoking the adults? It's kind of like that. From what I understand (I don't like Tarantino's films) that movie used the n-word *over 120 times*. That goes beyond making a point and into "wheee!!! I can say N N N N over and over and it's art and it's a period piece, so it's okay!" territory. It's not just a word. For a lot of black people, it's like being slapped in the face, to hear that. And yes, it certainly has its place in fiction for realism's sake. It has an impact, on an audience. But I can't come up with any good reason to subject an audience to 120+ iterations of "here's a word that has been used throughout history to degrade, defile, destroy, and abuse you".

harmonic:

Another glaring issue, we are constantly being told that this term or that term has now been deemed offensive. One day, "african-american" is what we're supposed to say, and "black" is offensive and racist. The next day, "african-american" is racist and "black" is proper. We've gone from crippled, to handicapped, to "differently-abled." O_o

Something of note, a distinction I don't see very many of you making-- there's a difference between a group saying "we'd like you to please call us this instead of this" about *themselves* and a group saying "oh, that's such a harsh word, please call group x this instead of that" about *someone else*.

Look, the whole original idea behind this concept-- that the right wing has surely won the propaganda war on, because "political correctness" has become a very convenient bogeyman-- is respect. Call people what *they* want you to call them. Yes, sometimes it changes, because society changes and people's identity-concepts shift. Yes, that means that you can get it wrong, and sometimes the other person will be annoyed about it. Let it go; these hurts are ancient, and they're not about you. As an example, everything I've read about terminology for Native Americans/American Indians is that it's pretty evenly split as to which terms indigenous Americans prefer. Some of them feel pretty strongly against one or the other, too. If you said "George, as a Native American, how do you feel about (issue)?" and he irritably corrected you that he should be called an Indian, call him an Indian. It's not about roadblocks to maneuver around-- both terms have a lot of supporters. Use one, and if someone tells you they prefer another, use that for them. You wouldn't tell Bob, whom you just met, that it's ridiculous that he should expect you to call him Bob when your co-worker Robert prefers Robert, would you? From everything I can see, b/Black and African-American are a similar grey area, they both have supporters, and either is fine unless you know a specific person's preference.

On the note of respect, like I said, pay attention to who's asking for the change, because this "differently abled" horseshit did *not* come from disabled people. From everything I've ever seen, you might find one person in a hundred who doesn't find that term completely ridiculous. I'm disabled. I'm not differently abled, I'm not special, I didn't grow superpowers because I have a malfunctioning brain and musculoskeletal system. There's shit I can't do-- and because that fact creeps some people out very badly, they come up with cutesy terms to make it more palatable to *them*. (You think "differently abled" is silly? Try the one that came out in the early '90s, "handicapable". Makes me want to beat them upside the head with my cane.) Call me disabled, because it's the truth.

Polarity27:

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.

I expected, and got, a lot of silliness with a thread of this title, but this is especially silly. You're basically telling me that black Americans can't use a hyphenated form to indicate heritage like EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA CAN? Unless you actually believe every Irish-American marching in a St. Patty's Day parade or every German-American at an Oktoberfest or every Polish-American at the local Polish heritage hall was actually born in Ireland, Germany, or Poland, in which case, I've got a bridge to sell you.

We make a big deal about heritage in the US. It's a Thing We Do. It annoys the hell out of Europeans, from all I can tell, but still, we like to remember where our kinfolk are from. I'd imagine that would be all the more salient if your kin were brought here against their will and you're still getting screwed for it today.

2012 Wont Happen:

On the other hand, I hear people getting offended at movies like Django Unchained for being "racially insensitive" for using the word nigger when it is only either used by villainous characters, good characters posing as villainous characters, and is used by the titular character on a couple of occasions to refer to himself.

You ever see a kid get hold of a bad word? They'll run around the room saying it over and over again because they get a thrill off provoking the adults? It's kind of like that. From what I understand (I don't like Tarantino's films) that movie used the n-word *over 120 times*. That goes beyond making a point and into "wheee!!! I can say N N N N over and over and it's art and it's a period piece, so it's okay!" territory. It's not just a word. For a lot of black people, it's like being slapped in the face, to hear that. And yes, it certainly has its place in fiction for realism's sake. It has an impact, on an audience. But I can't come up with any good reason to subject an audience to 120+ iterations of "here's a word that has been used throughout history to degrade, defile, destroy, and abuse you".

harmonic:

Another glaring issue, we are constantly being told that this term or that term has now been deemed offensive. One day, "african-american" is what we're supposed to say, and "black" is offensive and racist. The next day, "african-american" is racist and "black" is proper. We've gone from crippled, to handicapped, to "differently-abled." O_o

Something of note, a distinction I don't see very many of you making-- there's a difference between a group saying "we'd like you to please call us this instead of this" about *themselves* and a group saying "oh, that's such a harsh word, please call group x this instead of that" about *someone else*.

Look, the whole original idea behind this concept-- that the right wing has surely won the propaganda war on, because "political correctness" has become a very convenient bogeyman-- is respect. Call people what *they* want you to call them. Yes, sometimes it changes, because society changes and people's identity-concepts shift. Yes, that means that you can get it wrong, and sometimes the other person will be annoyed about it. Let it go; these hurts are ancient, and they're not about you. As an example, everything I've read about terminology for Native Americans/American Indians is that it's pretty evenly split as to which terms indigenous Americans prefer. Some of them feel pretty strongly against one or the other, too. If you said "George, as a Native American, how do you feel about (issue)?" and he irritably corrected you that he should be called an Indian, call him an Indian. It's not about roadblocks to maneuver around-- both terms have a lot of supporters. Use one, and if someone tells you they prefer another, use that for them. You wouldn't tell Bob, whom you just met, that it's ridiculous that he should expect you to call him Bob when your co-worker Robert prefers Robert, would you? From everything I can see, b/Black and African-American are a similar grey area, they both have supporters, and either is fine unless you know a specific person's preference.

On the note of respect, like I said, pay attention to who's asking for the change, because this "differently abled" horseshit did *not* come from disabled people. From everything I've ever seen, you might find one person in a hundred who doesn't find that term completely ridiculous. I'm disabled. I'm not differently abled, I'm not special, I didn't grow superpowers because I have a malfunctioning brain and musculoskeletal system. There's shit I can't do-- and because that fact creeps some people out very badly, they come up with cutesy terms to make it more palatable to *them*. (You think "differently abled" is silly? Try the one that came out in the early '90s, "handicapable". Makes me want to beat them upside the head with my cane.) Call me disabled, because it's the truth.

I never said everyone else can, it's just that that's the most common one that people try to correct others for. When I see someone I see a person, if they have american citizenship then they're an American. That's as far as my sorting of people goes. I don't see a reason to care about where someone's ancestors came from since in the end didn't humanity come from east africa? In that case isn't every American an african american?

Xan Krieger:
I never said everyone else can, it's just that that's the most common one that people try to correct others for. When I see someone I see a person, if they have american citizenship then they're an American. That's as far as my sorting of people goes. I don't see a reason to care about where someone's ancestors came from since in the end didn't humanity come from east africa? In that case isn't every American an african american?

Okay, shorter form: If you don't see the point of heritage-hyphens, that's fine, you don't have to. But if someone *who is black* is specifically asking you to call them African-American, you should.

Polarity27:

Xan Krieger:
I never said everyone else can, it's just that that's the most common one that people try to correct others for. When I see someone I see a person, if they have american citizenship then they're an American. That's as far as my sorting of people goes. I don't see a reason to care about where someone's ancestors came from since in the end didn't humanity come from east africa? In that case isn't every American an african american?

Okay, shorter form: If you don't see the point of heritage-hyphens, that's fine, you don't have to. But if someone *who is black* is specifically asking you to call them African-American, you should.

So on the flip side, if a white person tells me what I'm supposed to call black people, or if I accidentally say "midget" instead of "little people" and get corrected by a normal-sized person, do you feel that I can kindly tell them to fuck off?

For that matter, what if a half-white, half-black person (like the current US president) tells me what to call them? Do they only have half the victim/protection status?

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.

harmonic:

Polarity27:

Xan Krieger:
I never said everyone else can, it's just that that's the most common one that people try to correct others for. When I see someone I see a person, if they have american citizenship then they're an American. That's as far as my sorting of people goes. I don't see a reason to care about where someone's ancestors came from since in the end didn't humanity come from east africa? In that case isn't every American an african american?

Okay, shorter form: If you don't see the point of heritage-hyphens, that's fine, you don't have to. But if someone *who is black* is specifically asking you to call them African-American, you should.

So on the flip side, if a white person tells me what I'm supposed to call black people, or if I accidentally say "midget" instead of "little people" and get corrected by a normal-sized person, do you feel that I can kindly tell them to fuck off?

For that matter, what if a half-white, half-black person (like the current US president) tells me what to call them? Do they only have half the victim/protection status?

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!"

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.

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!"

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.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but who here is saying anything even remotely like this?

Meaning of Karma:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but who here is saying anything even remotely like this?

You are indeed mistaken. Polarity said the word "rights." My argument that people have the "right" to be an asshole, as well as suffer the consequences, is not unusual.

Polarity27:

harmonic:
So on the flip side, if a white person tells me what I'm supposed to call black people, or if I accidentally say "midget" instead of "little people" and get corrected by a normal-sized person, do you feel that I can kindly tell them to fuck off?

For that matter, what if a half-white, half-black person (like the current US president) tells me what to call them? Do they only have half the victim/protection status?

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!"

I think what Harmonic is suggesting is "If you're going to be offended by something at least be the actual potential offended party".

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.

 Pages 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