Political Correctness

  • Thread starter lbsf1
  • 2,919 comments
  • 170,494 views
Come On Reaction GIF by MOODMAN


That's all it takes for me to be considered racist?
 
What I don't get is what is the desired outcome here (besides clickbait income)? Non-POC's essentially pretending black people don't exist?

I'm sure there is a discussion to be had about stuff like this, but going about it this way seems to just guarantee that will never happen. It kind of reminds me of the whole "Fathers Day is sexist" thing people were trying a few years ago, a topic with legitimate aspects approached from all the wrong angles.

TB
Come On Reaction GIF by MOODMAN


That's all it takes for me to be considered racist?
Click to expand...
Yes, Reported!
 
Last edited:
Scaff
How to wind up someone whos autistic in two easy steps.

1. Suggest everyone/the majority are 'on the spectrum'. It's not accurate or true, and the 20% is pretty much the hard cap for diagnosis, and that's for all ND diagnosis, not just ASD.
www.bma.org.uk

Autism spectrum disorder

One in 100 children in the UK have a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We have raised concerns about the time it takes for diagnosis, as well as the support offered in England.
www.bma.org.uk www.bma.org.uk

2. Describe it as something we 'have'. I don't 'have' autism, I am autistic, in the same way, people don't 'have' blindness, they are blind.
Click to expand...
No offence intended, i'm somewhat of a neurodivergent myself as someone diagnosed with dyslexia.

Perhaps it's something i no longer really give much thought to, as i was diagnosed probably getting on for 40 years ago now. I'm equally 'happy' to say 'i'm dyslexic' or 'i have dyslexia'. It may well be considered not PC to say 'i have dyslexia' any more, but it was fine back then so its never bothered me either way.

My point about ND being typical or not wasn't about any figures for diagnosed cases, it was for all those people who have some form of ND but have never been diagnosed. It's better picked up on now, but there must be so many more especially adults of 40+ who have some form to some degree who've flown under the radar all their lives.
 
Sabine gets it pretty straight on the discussion of Autism Spectrum Disorder as a different normal.



I suspect, and this is pure conjecture, that if we investigated a lot of mental disorders that we'd find that many of them present as a spectrum. Certainly not all of them. A condition like narcissitic personality disorder for example tends to present with just about every symptom being expressed. It's a disorder where the various symptoms complete the loop and feed and reinforce each other, so it doesn't work well if you're missing some of them. Missing some of them might just be the way out of that particular disorder. But there are other disorders, such as depression, which almost certainly exist in both degrees and expressions like Autism. I imagine we could call depression a Depression Spectrum Disorder with particular Types corresponding to the degree of independence a particular individual can achieve. I wouldn't be shocked to learn of Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder or even Bi-Polar Spectrum Disorder. Though that last one might be ridiculous, I'm not an expert on the subject.

The point is that there are many mental conditions which can have different kinds of expression and require different levels of care ranging from independent to debilitating, just like Autism. Being able to function independently may still require active management of the condition.

As a personal example, one of my kids has hearing loss. It's easy to forget, she has bone conduction hearing aids, and she functions independently and largely successfully (except when she removes her aids and forgets to put them on). It would be easy to think of her situation as perfectly "normal". If everyone could interact with her with an understanding that without her aids they need to speak up, and aware of the basic physical requirements for managing her aids (like taking them off to put on a helmet or something), then her life would be hard to distinguish (especially without doing a comparative assessment) from any other living condition. But she does have a real impediment. And even if she is successful at managing it, she is managing it - and that is a key distinction. Taken in the extreme, her condition could be quite severe in terms of the management it requires. Luckily she has a more mild expression of hearing loss, but she is still managing her hearing loss.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Sabine gets it pretty straight on the discussion of Autism Spectrum Disorder as a different normal.



I suspect, and this is pure conjecture, that if we investigated a lot of mental disorders that we'd find that many of them present as a spectrum. Certainly not all of them. A condition like narcissitic personality disorder for example tends to present with just about every symptom being expressed. It's a disorder where the various symptoms complete the loop and feed and reinforce each other, so it doesn't work well if you're missing some of them. Missing some of them might just be the way out of that particular disorder. But there are other disorders, such as depression, which almost certainly exist in both degrees and expressions like Autism. I imagine we could call depression a Depression Spectrum Disorder with particular Types corresponding to the degree of independence a particular individual can achieve. I wouldn't be shocked to learn of Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder or even Bi-Polar Spectrum Disorder. Though that last one might be ridiculous, I'm not an expert on the subject.

The point is that there are many mental conditions which can have different kinds of expression and require different levels of care ranging from independent to debilitating, just like Autism. Being able to function independently may still require active management of the condition.

As a personal example, one of my kids has hearing loss. It's easy to forget, she has bone conduction hearing aids, and she functions independently and largely successfully (except when she removes her aids and forgets to put them on). It would be easy to think of her situation as perfectly "normal". If everyone could interact with her with an understanding that without her aids they need to speak up, and aware of the basic physical requirements for managing her aids (like taking them off to put on a helmet or something), then her life would be hard to distinguish (especially without doing a comparative assessment) from any other living condition. But she does have a real impediment. And even if she is successful at managing it, she is managing it - and that is a key distinction. Taken in the extreme, her condition could be quite severe in terms of the management it requires. Luckily she has a more mild expression of hearing loss, but she is still managing her hearing loss.
Click to expand...

The DSM-5 has a category for Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders.

It doesn't list bipolar in the same way (yet), and there is disagreement on whether it would be helpful (but it is definitely a thing).

As for classing other conditions as spectrum disorders, it would be interesting to find out what the current thinking is in the psychiatric community. I don't know if the nomenclature is used solely because it covers the various subtypes of a disorder or if it reflects the broad way in which patients can present with symptoms.
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
The only person complaining about political correctness in this article about last month's report disproving the link between ethnicity and grooming gangs is our right-wing Home Secretary who didn't want to release the report for some reason until those pesky liberals demanded it in their tens of thousands. Perhaps it was because most offenders weren't of South Asian origin after all?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eview-race-religion-home-office-b1774161.html
Click to expand...
Another year, another Home Secretary promoting racist assumptions about groomers despite her own government's report offering substantial evidence to the contrary. This one is losing support on her own side because of it, though:

theguardian.com

Steve Baker withdraws support for Braverman over grooming gangs rhetoric, says ally

Influential Brexiter backed home secretary’s leadership bid but is said to object to her singling out British-Pakistani men
theguardian.com theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
Can relate to the fluid intelligence dropping more than the crystallised.

I'm not sure there'll ever be a test that measures the other forms of intelligence in any meaningful way, which is a shame.

Thinking more about those types of intelligence reminds me of on of my friends who barely scraped by in his GCSEs but now owns a Bentley and has a very successful security company.
 
Last edited:
I like how a discussion about IQ in this thread began with a bitchfit over James Watson being stripped of honorary titles for spewing unsubstantiated tripe about black people's supposed genetic inferiority with regard to intelligence and how there can't be any substantiation because studies of the topic will result in academics getting canceled. That discussion also seems to predate the "cancel culture" bitchfit, which is kind of wild to me as it wasn't really that long ago.

Anyway, I observed discussion about supposed double standards and it got me thinking about this post again and this thread seems most appropriate for discussing the topic even as "political correctness" (Boo!) is a bogeyman.
Jimlaad43
The N-Word Pass

This is not a statement about how bad the racist word is and the phrase "N-Word Pass", but the fact it exists completely.

If a white person says the word, it is career destroying. Kyle Larsen, Juri Vips and Nelson Piquet have all been vilified to using the word, regardless if context. As they are white, they did not have those privileges and therefore have been rightly called out for using it. Anybody familiar with YouTube in 2017 will be aware of the chaos that was caused when PewDiePie said the word on a live stream too.

However, if a Black person says the word, it's fine. I'm not just talking about saying it in private around friends, or being caught saying it in an outburst in a live stream or anything, but full on mainstream media releases, they can say it a million times and nobody bats an eyelid. It's honestly ridiculous how many songs in the charts currently by black or mixed-race rappers are full of the N-Word, and its fine? Kendrick Lamar can say it in his song, but Aitch would get completely cancelled if his verse included the word.

The double standard around this word are utterly bonkers. If it is so bad, and we are living in a world where prejudice against race is something we are trying to eradicate, why can an increasingly vocal community say something which people they have influence over will have their lives ruined if they are caught saying it? Either everybody can say it, or nobody can. What happens if I, as a white person, go and do Karaoke of a song I like? My playslist is currently playing Starboy by The Weekend, which uses the word a lot. If I get caught up in the moment and just sing the lyrics as they are written on the screen, what happens then?

I hate the word, and I hate the double standards it brings.
Click to expand...
Offense is subjective. Due to that subjectivity, there's unlikely to be a consensus when it comes to use of a particular word. Some people are offended by it such that, as seems to be the case above, they would see its use prohibited broadly. Others assert that any negative reaction to use of the word is wholly inappropriate. These are obviously extremes and the discord certainly isn't limited to these poles. I'm somewhere between the two poles in that, as I replied to that post, I'm not personally offended by use of the word but I recognize that others may be and that offense isn't necessarily inappropriate, even as it surely can be. Because offense is subjective and views on offense are so discordant, it stands to reason that which is deemed to be acceptable is also going to vary wildly.

I think this notion of a double standard is rooted in misattributed collectivism, a sort of guilt by association absent any logical association. Because those who hold discordant views are inappropriately lumped together by viewpoint, those discordant views are perceived as a double standard. The reality is that they're just different standards applied by different people.
 
Last edited:
They ought to employ a real Scot to voice Groundskeeper Willie then; Dan Castellaneta's voice, whilst funny, is terrible at actually sounding like a genuine Scottish person.

I'm really surprised the culture war brigade haven't gotten on their transphobic hobby horses about women voicing boys in the show.

/partial sarcasm
 
I guess it depends upon whether Scots people or ten-year old boys complain en masse. The days of blackface are long over and it's not like the change seems to be hurting the show any.
 
UKMikey
I guess it depends upon whether Scots people or ten-year old boys complain en masse. The days of blackface are long over and it's not like the change seems to be hurting the show any.
Click to expand...
The Scots might get angry or they might be happy about it. Unsure.
 
@MatskiMonk so what?

Screenshot-20240819-203118-Samsung-Internet.jpg


I think you're offended and you're offering up some collective as victims of a slight not directed at them to justify your offense.
 
HenrySwanson
Click to expand...


I deserve a warning that I may be converted, but that's also a daily occurrence in the Deep South, along with sudden prayer offerings at a restaurant, offers to attend church, warnings of an underworld after this life, as well as repeated tantalizing offers of delicious, aromatic, and scrumptious smoked pork products, obviously offered up by the same amazing creature standing on hind legs while donning a chef's headgear.
 
Pupik
I deserve a warning that I may be converted, but that's also a daily occurrence in the Deep South, along with sudden prayer offerings at a restaurant, offers to attend church, warnings of an underworld after this life, as well as repeated tantalizing offers of delicious, aromatic, and scrumptious smoked pork products, obviously offered up by the same amazing creature standing on hind legs while donning a chef's headgear.
Click to expand...
Very accurately described.
 
HenrySwanson
You called a disabled guy a "cripple".
Click to expand...
Oh no is that offensive? I also called them an invalid. I am absolutely racked by grief that I have caused you offense personally and/or caused you to be offended on another's behalf. I promise I will only ever refer to them as disa--

Ohh... [sucking teeth]

Huh!

[Context: The post quoted below was offered as something with which umbrage is taken. This can be observed as the post appears originally.]
ScottPuss20
It's not OK to call a fat person fat but it's OK to call a disabled person disabled.
Click to expand...
I don't know man, I got nothin'. I thought that was the word! Some are offended by "cripple," some are offended by "handicapped," some are offended by "wheelchair-bound." I remember that "differently abled" was supposed to be the word but then it was decided that that's offensive as well. I didn't think "disabled" offended anyone but there we are. By what else should those with disabilities be identified? I tend to just call them people except in situations, as discussion, where a particular condition is relevant.

Do you, @HenrySwanson, want I should say "disabled" and ignore what offends another so that you can not be offended on their behalf? That doesn't make any sense to me. I mean I'm probably not going to anyway because offense isn't harm. The ones what get all het up about "political correctness" (Boo!) say that we shouldn't change language on the basis that individuals are offended and I tend to not. I use terms like "cripple" and "queer" because they are understood descriptors and are, or have been, the accepted term insofar as terms are accepted.

A disabled person isn't necessary a cripple. A friend of mine is severely arthritic in the right hand such that his fingers can barely be moved when external force is applied, much less be moved on their own. I think it's exaggeration as he's prone to such, but he's described it as requiring the skin of his hand to be peeled off like a glove and so he's not in a huge rush to have surgery. Had dinner with him and other friends last night as is usually a weekly occurrence, and we've collectively decided that he won't talk about that during these meals. Anyway he's disabled but he's not a cripple. A cripple is one with extreme hindrance to leg function. I think it's a linguistic derivation of "creep" as in to creep along the ground because of one's condition. I gather that individual's leg function is hindered as such and "cripple" refers to that condition. "Invalid" is less specific but may refer to one who is bound to a wheelchair or a bed. An invalid isn't necessarily disabled in the way that we usually think of the latter and one who is disabled isn't necessarily an invalid.

If my aim was to offend, I could maybe see calling someone who is so disabled "defective" but honestly I can't actually see doing so because that's a bridge too far. Is that "political correctness" (Boo!)? I don't think it's a matter of changing language so as to not offend because "defective" isn't a useful descriptor and I don't think it's ever been an accepted term insofar as terms are accepted.

Since you've apparently decided that "cripple" can't be used, I suppose you'll have to cancel Charles Dickens for how he described Tiny Tim in A Christmas Carol.

Anyway I responded to the post from the other individual that I quoted above.
TexRex
Is it okay to substitute fat with "curvy"? How about "husky", "tubby" or "chunky"? Is "crippled" an acceptable alternative to the latter? Why/not?

I've got the answer, but I'm interested to see if you arrive at it yourself.
Click to expand...
The answer is that offense is subjective. That a word for a thing may cause offense doesn't mean that it's not okay. It just means that it offends. That isn't substantive. Throw enough words at the wall and most everyone is going to be offended by something. People have the right to be offended. It would be nice if it was reasonable but that offense is reasonable isn't a condition of the right. I don't think offense at "cripple" is reasonable and I think offense at "defective" when used to describe a cripple is. Judgement of offense is every bit as subjective as offense itself, and that's precisely why that offense is reasonable isn't a condition of the right.
HenrySwanson
Remind me why I should engage with you again.
Click to expand...
lol. "Again." Like you ever have. I can't recall you having ever engaged something with which you disagree in a manner other than quoting part of an individual's post and flinging bad faith arguments in its general direction.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
Oh no is that offensive? I also called them an invalid. I am absolutely racked by grief that I have caused you offense personally and/or caused you to be offended on another's behalf. I promise I will only ever refer to them as disa--

Ohh... [sucking teeth]

Huh!

[Context: The post quoted below was offered as something with which umbrage is taken. This can be observed as the post appears originally.]

I don't know man, I got nothin'. I thought that was the word! Some are offended by "cripple," some are offended by "handicapped," some are offended by "wheelchair-bound." I remember that "differently abled" was supposed to be the word but then it was decided that that's offensive as well. I didn't think "disabled" offended anyone but there we are. By what else should those with disabilities be identified? I tend to just call them people except in situations, as discussion, where a particular condition is relevant.

Do you, @HenrySwanson, want I should say "disabled" and ignore what offends another so that you can not be offended on their behalf? That doesn't make any sense to me. I mean I'm probably not going to anyway because offense isn't harm. The ones what get all het up about "political correctness" (Boo!) say that we shouldn't change language on the basis that individuals are offended and I tend to not. I use terms like "cripple" and "queer" because they are understood descriptors and are, or have been, the accepted term insofar as terms are accepted.

A disabled person isn't necessary a cripple. A friend of mine is severely arthritic in the right hand such that his fingers can barely be moved when external force is applied, much less be moved on their own. I think it's exaggeration as he's prone to such, but he's described it as requiring the skin of his hand to be peeled off like a glove and so he's not in a huge rush to have surgery. Had dinner with him and other friends last night as is usually a weekly occurrence, and we've collectively decided that he won't talk about that during these meals. Anyway he's disabled but he's not a cripple. A cripple is one with extreme hindrance to leg function. I think it's a linguistic derivation of "creep" as in to creep along the ground because of one's condition. I gather that individual's leg function is hindered as such and "cripple" refers to that condition. "Invalid" is less specific but may refer to one who is bound to a wheelchair or a bed. An invalid isn't necessarily disabled in the way that we usually think of the latter and one who is disabled isn't necessarily an invalid.

If my aim was to offend, I could maybe see calling someone who is so disabled "defective" but honestly I can't actually see doing so because that's a bridge too far. Is that "political correctness" (Boo!)? I don't think it's a matter of changing language so as to not offend because "defective" isn't a useful descriptor and I don't think it's ever been an accepted term insofar as terms are accepted.

Since you've apparently decided that "cripple" can't be used, I suppose you'll have to cancel Charles Dickens for how he described Tiny Tim in A Christmas Carol.

Anyway I responded to the post from the other individual that I quoted above.

The answer is that offense is subjective. That a word for a thing may cause offense doesn't mean that it's not okay. It just means that it offends. That isn't substantive. Throw enough words at the wall and most everyone is going to be offended by something. People have the right to be offended. It would be nice if it was reasonable but that offense is reasonable isn't a condition of the right. I don't think offense at "cripple" is reasonable and I think offense at "defective" when used to describe a cripple is. Judgement of offense is every bit as subjective as offense itself, and that's precisely why that offense is reasonable isn't a condition of the right.

lol. "Again." Like you ever have. I can't recall you having ever engaged something with which you disagree in a manner other than quoting part of an individual's post and flinging bad faith arguments in its general direction.
Click to expand...
Would you call someone with Down's syndrome a "downy"? Someone with intellectual limitations "retarded"?
 
TexRex
By what else should those with disabilities be identified?
Click to expand...
Actually... that.

Of course, offense is subjective and everyone has their own red line and it may differ in terms of who can say what, but in general terms people with disabilities ought to be referred to as people with disabilities.

That terminology shifts the emphasis from the disability to the person. A "disabled person" is defined by their disability, but a "person with disability" is defined by being a person first. It's a small but important difference.

Again, this doesn't suit all, and some may be happy to have total strangers calling them cripples, handicapped, and spastics, but generally you can't go wrong if you say "people with disabilities".
 
HenrySwanson
Would you call someone with Down's syndrome a "downy"?
Click to expand...
I mean I'd never heard the term before you mentioned it and I've never had occasion to refer to anyone as such directly nor have I thought to do so indirectly. I kind of want to now.
HenrySwanson
Someone with intellectual limitations "retarded"?
Click to expand...
InTeLlEcTuAl LiMiTaTiOnS. What? I have intellectual limitations. Higher math and physics calculations which lean on it heavily make me feel like a blithering idiot.

I have used it indirectly, not with the intent to offend (though recognizing that it might) but to describe an individual, especially regarding their upbringing rather than any mental or cognitive disability. I've never had occasion to refer to anyone directly as retarded or a retard where such was relevant as when I called one a cripple.

Anyway what of those examples? Must I avoid them? Why? Do remember that you took umbrage with what you described as a majority of this forum thinking "speech should have limits to facilitate cohesion." I expect you'll say that's different because reasons except you are actually talking about limits on speech because some of it may offend, which affects cohesion.
Famine
That terminology shifts the emphasis from the disability to the person. A "disabled person" is defined by their disability, but a "person with disability" is defined by being a person first. It's a small but important difference.
Click to expand...
That's fine and frankly "people with disabilities" rolls off the tongue. It's a perfectly good collective term that I'm given to use. Collective terminology isn't at issue here as one took (or feigned) offense at my referring to another, directly, as a cripple. Is "disabled" not the appropriate term in such contexts? That they are a person would seem to be a given and referring to them directly as a "person with disabilities" just feels awkward and maybe even a little pandering.
 

Similar threads

Liquid
Honesty Corner: Are You Prejudiced?
3 4 5
Replies
140
Views
9K
Imari
Imari
XSquareStickIt
  • Poll
Have You Purchased Microtransactions in GT7?
9 10 11
Replies
325
Views
17K
engrmariano
engrmariano
Scaff
Assetto Corsa Evo Car Wishlist
Replies
7
Views
866
warp9engage
warp9engage
Sonygamer455
Who Still Plays Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Sonygamer455
Sonygamer455
NAXEHT
How clean are you? (% of clean races)
2 3
Replies
83
Views
8K
Chris30
Chris30

Latest Posts

Back