Political Correctness

[Dapper]

Kinda my point exactly. It doesn't promote equality when only one side has to be politically correct.

But white people call black people black all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_atVBYMW0AY
And he is African-American!

 

[Submerged]

Dapper, to be brutally honest, for everyone who has to repeat themselves a lot, saying "African-American" is a bit longer and a bit trickier than simply saying "Black". Additionally, I'm sure that the black people would call white people white all the time as well. Same for other racial groups as well.

This is the annoying thing sometimes I have with PC is as people have already said, to make things have no differences and no individuality. Individuality is important for society to function in its own way. Its how they grow in their own ways that are interesting and forever changing. Once you try to control it, it never goes so well and you start getting violent changes that just makes things difficult, pointless and hopeless.

Its almost like we are trying to be back in Victorian times with the upper and middle classes desires to be innocent all the time.

 

[niky]

I am so glad that all the dark-skinned people living downstairs are actually from Africa. So we call them... Africans.

 

[Dotini]

I am so glad that all the dark-skinned people living downstairs are actually from Africa. So we call them... Africans.

Speaking of skin, has anybody on either side of the pond seen the "Skins" TV shows?

 

[mirial]

Political Correctness acts as an artificial lubricant to further assist capatalism.

As English speaking nations become more and more diverse in order to keep wages down, it will become more prevalent through this changing process for the benefit of big business.

 

[Famine]

Political Correctness acts as an artificial lubricant to further assist capatalism.

Despite being a term created, in its modern context, by the left (socialists) and used almost always perjoratively by the right (capitalists)?

 

[Dotini]

Despite being a term created, in its modern context, by the left (socialists) and used almost always perjoratively by the right (capitalists)?

The apparent paradox may be resolved by considering that both right and left are authoritarian, and that PC crutches this trend.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Sure, they can be but not in any obligatory fashion. Most of the right-leaning contributors to this particular forum are quite strongly anti-authoritarian (or, you know, libertarian), as it happens.

The homogenous goal of PC - to make people incapable of discriminating against others through differences by removing all differences - is much more ideologically aligned with socialist tendencies (which does the same, but with money) than capitalist ones.


Vive, as they say, la difference.

 

[niky]

You know how much money would be saved if we didn't have to print manuals and correspondences with cumbersome gender walkarounds like "spokesperson", "layperson", etc... and PC terms like "physically-challenged" and "persons-with-disabilities*?" Lots. We would save most on the extra labor required to clean up all communicae to ensure they're fit for public consumption.

*A ridiculously roundabout way of saying a person is handicapped...because apparently a disability is not a handicap, never mind that the words basically mean the same thing...

 

[mirial]

Despite being a term created, in its modern context, by the left (socialists) and used almost always perjoratively by the right (capitalists)?

Quite true! But money is everything, and the inevitable problems that will occur by creating more diverse work environments to keep wages down will be smoothed over with political correctness, because companies don't like being sued.

It's a similar thing with Health & Safety.

 

[Famine]

And yet "PC" is much more of a concern in the public sector than the private sector...

 

[Anes]

I am so glad that all the dark-skinned people living downstairs are actually from Africa. So we call them... Africans.

Not going to lie, when I first read that I thought you were talking about slaves you keep 'downstairs'

 

[Pupik]

You know how much money would be saved if we didn't have to print manuals and correspondences with cumbersome gender walkarounds like "spokesperson", "layperson", etc...

Well, there's probably quite a few women that care about that, once they are in that role. So they are the "difference". But on the other hand, having talked to lots of women in the various workplaces I've been at, many (if not most) women actually don't care. 20-30 years of equal rights changes things.

Customer: "Hey, call down the mechanic...I want to give him a tip/ask a question."
Me: "Okay."

Imagine the surprise on thier face when they find out the mechanic is a woman! (Yes, been there...set up the trick a dozen times.) But in some cases, it helps to destroy the "assumption"...the assumption is the dangerous trap to fall into, because it reinforces a stereotype without proof of it.

...and PC terms like "physically-challenged" and "persons-with-disabilities*?" Lots. We would save most on the extra labor required to clean up all communicate to ensure they're fit for public consumption.

*A ridiculously roundabout way of saying a person is handicapped...because apparently a disability is not a handicap, never mind that the words basically mean the same thing...

I think the problem is that people want to fit into certain categories; but it is generally too troublesome to add everyone from war veterans, old people, people in scooters, people with physical disorders, people with mental disorders, those with phobias...lump them into one convienent category.

I think that most of American society wants to be simultaneously inclusive (fit into a in-group and have a label), and exclusive (nobody in the world like me / everyone thinks they're unique). So political-correctness is kind of our just desserts for that attitude: Nobody likes being offended nor having their feelings hurt, it's kind of the way we get our Golden Rule desires for society, by finding the nicest way to fulfill our desires.

Not going to lie, when I first read that I thought you were talking about slaves you keep 'downstairs'

No offence, but you sound like exactly the reason P.C. language is never going to go away.

 

[Dotini]

Sure, they can be but not in any obligatory fashion. Most of the right-leaning contributors to this particular forum are quite strongly anti-authoritarian (or, you know, libertarian), as it happens.

The homogenous goal of PC - to make people incapable of discriminating against others through differences by removing all differences - is much more ideologically aligned with socialist tendencies (which does the same, but with money) than capitalist ones.


Vive, as they say, la difference.

I've worked in a giant corporation (Boeing) off and on since the 60's. I believe they have been in the vanguard of the PC movement for literally decades. Even today, their TV commercials are notable for this quality. The Board of Directors of the Boeing Company has always read like a list of the top capitalists, military figures and former government officials America has to offer.

 

[niky]

Well, there's probably quite a few women that care about that, once in that role. So they are the "difference". But on the other hand, having talked to lots of women in the various workplaces I've been at, many (if not most) women actually don't care. 20-30 years of equal rights changes things.

Customer: "Hey, call down the mechanic...I want to give him a tip/ask a question."
Me: "Okay."

Imagine the surprise on thier face when they find out the mechanic is a woman! (Yes, been there...set up the trick a dozen times.) But in some cases, it helps to destroy the "assumption"...the assumption is the dangerous trap to fall into, because it reinforces a stereotype without proof of it.



I think the problem is that people want to fit into certain categories; but it is generally too troublesome to add everyone from war veterans, old people, people in scooters, people with physical disorders, people with mental disorders, those with phobias...lump them into one convienent category.

I think that American society wants to be simultaneously inclusive (fit into a in-group and have a label), and exclusive (nobody in the world like me / everyone thinks they're unique). So political-correctness is kind of our just desserts for that attitude: Nobody likes being offended nor having their feelings hurt, it's kind of the way we get our Golden Rule desires for society, by finding the nicest way to fulfill our desires.

Actually... I was mentioning this only in response to the claim that businesses love this because it saves on cost... It doesn't. We've had to reprint tons of manuals and workbooks thanks to this.

I actually agree that "person" works better in some cases... But using it when referring to a person of known gender is kind of silly.

The PWD thing is funny. They wanted to tell the world that having a disability doesn't make you less capable... Thus, the dropping of the word "handicapped," but "disabled" still carries the exact same connotations for lay-people... So, all that work just to maintain the status quo...

 

[Famine]

I've worked in a giant corporation (Boeing) off and on since the 60's. I believe they have been in the vanguard of the PC movement for literally decades. Even today, their TV commercials are notable for this quality.

How so?

I've had numerous public sector training courses in "equal opportunities awareness", where we've been taught why not to use terms like "brainstorm" (offensive to epileptics, apparently, though not according to an epileptic colleague), "disabled" (the term is denigrating - it implies inability) or anything that would imply a person - in this case a child - is less bright than their peers. I'd suggest what you describe implies a marketing push to demonstrate social sensitivity rather than the homogenisation of language and culture behind PC.

Of course PC - and, since Mirial brings it up, Health & Safety - isn't as necessarily all-pervasive or ridiculous as certain fish-wrappings might have you believe, but the goal remains - that no-one is ever offended by anything anyone else ever says or does.

 

[Dotini]

How so?

I've had numerous public sector training courses in "equal opportunities awareness", where we've been taught why not to use terms like "brainstorm" (offensive to epileptics, apparently, though not according to an epileptic colleague), "disabled" (the term is denigrating - it implies inability) or anything that would imply a person - in this case a child - is less bright than their peers. I'd suggest what you describe implies a marketing push to demonstrate social sensitivity rather than the homogenisation of language and culture behind PC.

Of course PC - and, since Mirial brings it up, Health & Safety - isn't as necessarily all-pervasive or ridiculous as certain fish-wrappings might have you believe, but the goal remains - that no-one is ever offended by anything anyone else ever says or does.

Perhaps you are right. But one more question, please. Assuming the goal of PC is to ensure " that no-one is ever offended by anything anyone else ever says or does", is this goal written down and documented anywhere, or is it more of an assumed, implicit or inchoate goal? Or perhaps it is merely an unintended consequence?

Respectfully submitted, eager for correction,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

In fact the current form of the term - the original merely meaning "that which is in line with the majority political view" - is defined as the elimination of offensive language and behaviour, as adopted by radical leftists in the swingin' Sixties. It's pretty much a hallmark of Neo-Marxism and you can't get much more left than that.


On the face of it, it actually sounds quite a nice idea. No-one should say anything to you or behave in a manner which causes you offence. I mean, let's throw away the First Amendment at this point - since it doesn't actually apply to me (sadly) - and agree that being offensive to other people is, you know, a bit rude.

The problem is that the smallest minimum is 0 and that there really isn't a limit to what people can take offence at. Someone might be a radical environmentalist and take offence at the fact you helped put billions of tons of greenhouse gases right up there at 36,000 feet where they can do more damage. Or they might have been raped by The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince* and take offence at me writing in purple hues.

A corollary issue is that often the individuals who decide that offence can be caused are not the individual to whom the offence would be caused if it were. Thus leaving us with the above situation where public sector employees can't say "brainstorm" in case it offends epileptics (who aren't offended by it anyway - though to be frank, anyone who'd actually use the word "brainstorm" and mean it needs beating to death with hammers) and where Tiger Woods can't say he played golf like someone whose muscles where in a state of uncontrolled contraction and relaxation in case he offends spastics. Or something.

So we have people who are offended by everything deciding that, in order not to cause offence, various previously banal terms are offensive to people who wouldn't have been offended by them if you hadn't told them they needed to be. And that's political correctness.


It's a pity really, because people are generally smart and they know how to, as you mentioned earlier, use tact. Not always, but hey, people are allowed to be dicks.

I'd recommend the South Park episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance" to everyone still reading at this point.


*Who, I might add, has never been implicated in any sexual offences. Just putting that down for you, Mr Nelson.

 

[MonsterMunch]

I honestly think you are making straw man arguments against political correctness to make it seem like some ridiculous authoritarian conspiracy.

I would argue that political correctness is one of the main reasons why it is no longer socially acceptable to use dehumanising labels like cripple, retard or negro etc. And for that reason I think it is a positive thing.

 

[Famine]

I honestly think you are making straw man arguments against political correctness

Which isn't possible - unless anything I've said is untrue and political correctness has turned up for me to argue against?

to make it seem like some ridiculous authoritarian conspiracy.

I honestly think you're not reading a thing I'm typing.

I would argue that political correctness is one of the main reasons why it is no longer socially acceptable to use dehumanising labels like cripple, retard or negro etc.

No.

The point of the PC movement is not to prevent the use of the terms "cripple", "retard" or "negro" against people, but to prevent their use at all so that the people who might have them used against them don't ever have to hear them. Remember "brainstorm"? I've never heard this used to describe a person, yet PC demands a public servant doesn't say it at all in case it offends an epileptic person.

Well tough. "Cripple" means to damage to the point of inoperability, "Retard" means to slow and "Negro" is a Latin prefix for "black" and is commonly used in Spanish-speaking countries in the same way British people might say "mate". These words are all in my vocabulary. I don't use them to describe people not because of political correctness but because I'm not a dick.

And for that reason I think it is a positive thing.

It's a positive thing that people choose not to be dicks. It's a positive thing that the choice is on the table. It's not a positive thing to tell people what they can and can't say in case those words offend other people whether or not the context of the words can offend other people.


Let's remind ourselves of Agatha Christie at this point in time. This book was originally published in 1939 under the title "Ten Little N*****s", based on an old nursery rhyme, which was changed quite soon after publication to "And Then There Were None" (also based on that rhyme) and published elsewhere as that or "Ten Little Indians". Proponents of PC like to use this as an example of how progressive PC is, sweeping away that awful racial slur. That corner of England that is forever the Daily Mail like to use it as an example of "PC gone mad!!!1111!", brushing our culture under the carpet to save offending people!

The reality is that the PC movement didn't even exist in 1940 - it was the brainchild of the neo-Marxist new left movement of the 1960s. The title wasn't changed - for better or for worse - by PC, but by people recognising that, you know, heritage is great and all but "N*****s is a bit rude and there's no need to be a dick about it. We didn't need PC telling us that "N****r" is a "dehumanising label" - we worked it out by ourselves and, more to the point, PC wouldn't allow its use in any context.

Which does rather beg the question... Whither Chris Rock (language warning)?

 

[atsinged]

I would argue that political correctness is one of the main reasons why it is no longer socially acceptable to use dehumanising labels like cripple, retard or negro etc. And for that reason I think it is a positive thing.

This is where it is stupid. All we did was replace the word with another word or set of words with the same meaning, for no real reason other than it sounds nicer. It is fine, but it is also completely pointless because over a little time the new, nicer word will pick up the same negative connotations as the old word and then it, of course, will need to be replaced.

Crippled became handicapped because crippled implied negative things.

Handicapped fell out of favor because it implied the person was crippled, we were told to use disabled.

Disabled is falling out of favor because it implies the person is handicapped, which of course means crippled.

Really, what is the difference between deaf, hearing impaired and hearing challenged? Between blind, visually impaired and visually challenged? Between mentally deficient, mentally retarded and mentally challenged?

Of course the reason this evolves is because the words mean the same thing in the first place and serve to define something. We have just decided that a particular word sounds bad so we decide to use another one.

 

[MonsterMunch]

The point of the PC movement is not to prevent the use of the terms "cripple", "retard" or "negro" against people, but to prevent their use at all

You can still use those words. Just watch a Tarantino movie or a south park episode and you'll hear them all. Your freedom of speech and freedom of expression have not been infringed.

I do agree with you that we need to resist the censorship of non-PC terms in books like Huckleberry Finn and so on. But that censorship is coming from the publishers themselves because they're scared of some kind of reprisal. The censorship of art is not something that modern liberal socialists like me are asking for.

We didn't need PC telling us that "N****r" is a "dehumanising label" - we worked it out by ourselves and, more to the point, PC wouldn't allow its use in any context.

They are the same thing! We worked it out for ourselves and then formalised it - thus creating political correctness. PC was created by us, as a society. It is not imposed upon you from above by some dictator.

 

[Famine]

You can still use those words.

Which is the point, really.

Without wishing to belabour the "brainstorm" point, the word was never offensive to anyone in any context. PC determined that it was offensive to epileptics and, like several phrases before it, public sector workers were educated not to use it - instead, replacing it with "Thought Tsunami". Of course, that was before Boxing Day 2004, and that phrase became offensive too and we were reeducated - and I can't tell you how much I wish I was making that up.

They are the same thing! We worked it out for ourselves and then formalised it - thus creating political correctness.

Not at all - the thing with PC is the determination to find offence where none previously existed. In fact the result of PC is not the amelioration of offence, but the generation of new playground insults - when I was in primary school, spastic was a muscular condition and a disability charity. When it was determined that "spastic" was offensive, the charity became Scope and "spastic", along with second generation versions "spazz" and "spacker", became an insult. "N****r" had been an insult - and quite a severe one at that - for the best part of half a century by the time Christie's book was published.

PC was created by us, as a society.

I disagree. It has been created by a sector of society certainly and, while I appreciate the good intentions of those behind it, it's not something I can ever agree with. Like socialism.

 

[RollingThunder]

Personally, I don't believe in being pc. I think that's half the reason why the US is so screwed up now. Nobody tells it like it is anymore...there is no personal accountability anymore...too much double speak. Don't get me wrong, some things just have no place being spoken...but...some things are just plain ridiculous.
One thing that just popped in my head, albeit, it's nothing outlandish....'mail-man', which morphed into 'mail-person', which morphed into 'mail-carrier', into 'letter-carrier', which morphed into 'postal-carrier'. Really? (PC alert!) Did 'mail-carriers' of the female persuasion, take offense to being called 'mailman' so much that they griped about it? Everything seems to have some sort of generic, new-age label to it. I agree with what Niky has stated about the "-person" suffix's. 'Layperson' as opposed to 'layman', 'spokes-person' compared to 'spokesman'? Really? Personally, I'd much rather deal with a 'spokesman' than a 'spokes-person'. As you might have guessed, I speak my mind without pause. I don't do pc. My take is, "if you don't want to get burned, get out of the kitchen". Words are just words--we, as people give power and meaning to the words.

 

[Anes]

No offence, but you sound like exactly the reason P.C. language is never going to go away.

I don't fully understand what you're getting at there but all I do is speak my mind no matter the consequences. Doesn't bother me if it's politically correct or not. If there were more people like me then there would be less PC type talk I would have thought?

if you don't want to get burned, get out of the kitchen

Say that to a woman

 

[Grand Prix]

This is where it is stupid. All we did was replace the word with another word or set of words with the same meaning, for no real reason other than it sounds nicer. It is fine, but it is also completely pointless because over a little time the new, nicer word will pick up the same negative connotations as the old word and then it, of course, will need to be replaced.

Crippled became handicapped because crippled implied negative things.

Handicapped fell out of favor because it implied the person was crippled, we were told to use disabled.

Disabled is falling out of favor because it implies the person is handicapped, which of course means crippled.

Really, what is the difference between deaf, hearing impaired and hearing challenged? Between blind, visually impaired and visually challenged? Between mentally deficient, mentally retarded and mentally challenged?

Of course the reason this evolves is because the words mean the same thing in the first place and serve to define something. We have just decided that a particular word sounds bad so we decide to use another one.

Pretty sure that deaf implies a person cannot hear at all, and hearing impaired implies the person has reduced/damaged/lost/unusual hearing ability. Understandably, the term deaf offends people with hearing impairment, because they are interpreting that the person is suggesting to them that they have even worse hearing (none at all, actually) than they actually have.

Now, of course, there are millions of different forms of hearing ability in humans. Not one person is going to hear the exact same things another person does, and even if they do, they could interpret sound differently. Not to mention that everyone naturally loses their hearing ability over time. Some can even hear a wider range of frequencies than the "norm."

Likewise with vision. There are blind people, people with near-focus vision, far-focus, all the different forms of colour-blindness, etc. Not everyone sees the world the same. There are people that can see better variation of hues, people that see better at night, people that see better in intensely bright lighting conditions, etc.

We need the labels so we can understand what each person can do, hear and see. Labels are perfectly fine. The problem arises when one uses the wrong label. Labels that could be factually incorrect or insulting. At that point, it is up to the person to take offense or not. Personally, I'm not about to whine to some government workers to ban a word, just because some dummy has called me deaf. That makes you even worse than the offending person, even if they meant it intentionally.

At the end of the day, you are who you are. Some people would like to call a hearing loss a disability. I like to think of it as an ability. A different experience/perspective of the world.

 

[AClockworkGrape]

Political correctness isn't a regulatory monster, sure it's a socialist ideal. But, it's not censorship in anyway. It's the act of frowning upon improper use of language. I'm glad we have some intelligent dudes on this forum, might frequent this political section more often.

 

[kitchenboy3]

Dapper, to be brutally honest, for everyone who has to repeat themselves a lot, saying "African-American" is a bit longer and a bit trickier than simply saying "Black". Additionally, I'm sure that the black people would call white people white all the time as well. Same for other racial groups as well.

This is the annoying thing sometimes I have with PC is as people have already said, to make things have no differences and no individuality. Individuality is important for society to function in its own way. Its how they grow in their own ways that are interesting and forever changing. Once you try to control it, it never goes so well and you start getting violent changes that just makes things difficult, pointless and hopeless.

Its almost like we are trying to be back in Victorian times with the upper and middle classes desires to be innocent all the time.

The big difference here is that 'white' was always just 'white' whereas 'black' was not just a colour but also a metaphor for stuipid, lazy, uneducated, slave, criminal, less worthy, less than human etc.
I am german living in South Africa and while being called white was never discriminatory, the term black was and is almost always meant in a derogatory fashion.
you need to understand that because of past injustices and discrimination the term black is more than just a colour description.
As much as i don't agree with a lot of the PC excesses, sometimes it is prudent to think about the history behind the need to be more sensitive.

 

[OG_Wretch]

The big difference here is that 'white' was always just 'white' whereas 'black' was not just a colour but also a metaphor for stuipid, lazy, uneducated, slave, criminal, less worthy, less than human etc.
I am german living in South Africa and while being called white was never discriminatory, the term black was and is almost always meant in a derogatory fashion.
you need to understand that because of past injustices and discrimination the term black is more than just a colour description.
As much as i don't agree with a lot of the PC excesses, sometimes it is prudent to think about the history behind the need to be more sensitive.

And that is where's it's gotten lazy.

You have to listen for inflection when people talk and if you misunderstand the meaning, ask for clarification...
...I have to admit that calling caffer leaves no doubt of intent.

Black? Not so much without hearing it said.

But, using black to identify another is more laziness.
We are not black and white but moreso brown...
...all of us.

The board is white and the print black...
...at least with the settings I'm using anyway.

 

[RollingThunder]

Say that to a woman

Oh, I have. But then again, I've been fortunate enough to have woman friends that don't have issues with terms of endearment that I've always used..I'll call 'em chicks or dudes...such as"...I know this one chick who's into this and that..." or "hey dude..." when I talk to women I know. I'm not sexist, I've just been lucky to know people that are down with slang. And people that know me, know that it's just that, a term of endearment. Of course, having been part of the snowboarding, skating, 'action sport' crowd, I've had no problems making what would probably be considered 'off color' remarks about this, that, or the other thing. I don't know...I've always used slang from all periods of time from the 60's on up til present day. Chick, dude, gnarly, groovy, square, tight, fresh, going postal...I could go on and on. Like I said, I don't do pc.