How correct is political correctness?

[Nik]

Does the above example originates from PC? The situ sounds indeed a bit absurd, but as described it looks like 'Black Lives Matter' movement might've assumed that their slogan was being 'borrowed' and focus diverted from the point they were trying to make. Hardly they are against the essence that all lives matter and it's politically incorrect to say that... How it all developed indeed makes a strange impression

[J.J.]

The argument over the actual slogan itself has become complicated. Those who chant it say they're not diminishing the lives of others in any way, rather they're only trying to draw attention to the reality that in many ways, black lives are treated as less in this country than white lives. Some in the white community and most of the law enforcement community get hung up on the message and think it does diminish anyone who isn't black. There have been a few incidents of black men targeting and killing white police officers they argue backs their opinion, and they see it as hypocritical to say lives matter when they don't want to address the gang violence and black-on-black violence in poor communities.

One of the biggest problems the BLM movement has struggle with is that the messaging ends up taking over from the issues they're trying to raise. When the Michael Brown situation exploded, the slogan "hands up, don't shoot," was the rallying cry, but it became difficult to keep attention on the problem when the Justice Department confirmed that Brown fought with the cop and wasn't walking away peaceably. Maybe Michael Brown wasn't the poster child to properly show the issue of inequality when it comes to law enforcement, but it was that flaw in the messaging that derailed the conversation.

I think that's the general problem with PC in general. When we try to create this social censorship where certain words are offensive and they should vanish, we take the conversation away from the actual issues and focus it purely on language. That's not to say there aren't offensive words out there, there needs to be a balance where we're focusing on the issues underlying those words at least as much if not more than the words themselves.

[Graeme]

Hi J.J.

Insightful comment.

[Nik]

Some debates in the past, maybe some new arguments in the present?

[Scout]

Matthew, what you said spoke to me:

The important thing to note here is that the rule regarding freedom of speech have not changed. People are free to say whatever they want (at least in this country). For others to try and shame you into silence is by no means tolerant in itself. But at the same time, if you are going to say something incredibly ugly that insults an entire race or community of people, you can expect to be called "racist" or any other number of ists. Freedom of speech cuts both ways, as does sensitivity to what others say.

You've put into words what I've felt for a while about the PC movement, and that's the use of shaming in order to suppress freedom of expression, which is intolerant in itself.

[Matthew]

Scout wrote: "Matthew, what you said spoke to me:

The important thing to note here is that the rule regarding freedom of speech have not changed. People are free to say whatever they want (at least in this coun..."

So... good for me? :)

[J.J.]

Scout wrote: "Matthew, what you said spoke to me:

The important thing to note here is that the rule regarding freedom of speech have not changed. People are free to say whatever they want (at least in this coun..."

That is why we have the leeway we do when it comes to free speech. Our Founding Fathers wanted us to freely debate these things. When someone says something blatantly racist, it should serve as a sounding board for the other side. Instead of simply calling someone "racist" or "bigot," the offending party is supposed to explain what makes something so, what the history is, and so on. Free speech was meant to educate and enlighten, not serve as a means for name calling.

Moving to the South, I've encountered words and phrases I've never heard up north, but are supposedly racist. Until hearing what makes them racist, they sound innocuous...sometimes just silly and ridiculous. Sometimes people aren't aware what they're saying might be hurtful, and sometimes you might encounter one from a generation when such words were commonplace and acceptable, and it doesn't help when people are insulted for lack of knowledge. Of course that doesn't guarantee the other party will listen, but then again, "free speech" does not guarantee anyone an audience.

[Ian]

The outflow of stupidity and bigotry is the price we pay for free speech. The price we pay for not having free speech is tyranny, and that is far worse.

[Kat]

I think it is also important what we're taught to be correct or wrong, or to be polite or impolite.

To give you an example:

I grew up in Germany, which has of course a very troubled past in regards to racism. As a small child, I knew nothing of this. Back then, a certain chocolate-covered desert was called "Nigger's Kiss". When I was just a little kid, to me the word "nigger" meant something great with sugar inside. I was vaguely aware that it also could refer to a black person, but I never associated it with any negativity.

When I was a little older, all the companies selling this stuff changed the name for the sake of PC, and from an adult's point of view I wholly agree with that. But as a child I had no understanding why a "nigger's kiss" was suddenly a "marshmallow kiss", although it made not much of a difference to me at the time.

Only when I grew up and came into contact with Americans did I get a notion of how bad this word was actually percieved and that you could not use it, ever. ESPECIALLY if you were German!

I simply wasn't taught that black people were bad or inferior, so to me the word, and black people were associated with something I liked. The word only became negative later on when I learned how it had been used in a negative way in the past.

[Nik]

One need to know nuances, I guess. If one hears American rap and hip-hop, s/he can easily have an impression that it's a pretty popular word on par with 'man', 'mate', 'dude' and others -:)
It's only recently I became aware that basically 'Indians' that I read about in Cooper's and other books, as well as those in Indians vs cowboys games should be called 'Native Americans'...

[Kat]

Yes. And in the UK, Indians from India are referred to as "South Asians" if you're not 100% sure they're actually from India.

[Nik]

With politics always always being arguable, is there such thing as 'politically correct'?

[Ian]

Nik wrote: "With politics always always being arguable, is there such thing as 'politically correct'?"

Probably. Pity that gene seems to have eluded me, so I can't be sure :-)

[Scout]

Politically correct is fine with me until it becomes ridiculous. Biologically, men and women are different. To ignore that seems ridiculous. Culturally, Chinese Americans, Native Americans, African Americans, Southerners, Northerners, Mid-Westerners, etc. are different. To ignore that seems ridiculous. Each group acknowledges its own inherent qualities, yet if someone outside the group references them, it's suddenly politically incorrect.

[Holly]

There is a Native American reservation twenty miles north of where I live. Interestingly, the tribe chose to use the word "Indian" in their official tribal title: the are the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. My friend, who is a tribal member, refers to herself as a Chippewa rather than using the more non-specific term of Native American.

[Scout]

I've noticed that Native American authors like Sherman Alexie refer to themselves as Indians.

[[deleted user]]

In Canada, tribal chieftains and spokespersons seem to prefer the use of the word 'Aborigin' or, less frequently, 'Amerindian'.

[Scout]

How correct is political correctness? Equal treatment of people of different sexes, races, religions, cultures, etc., is all good. I guess my question is why it's wrong to attribute certain characteristics to a group based on empirical evidence and the group's own self-identification. Each group values its uniqueness, yet it seems that there's outside media pressure to make society homogeneous. When is the last time you saw a group celebrating its uniqueness?

[[deleted user]]

The last LGBT pride parade.

[Nik]

Yeah, in rap songs too an expression 'African American' is not exactly frequent, but I guess belonging to a certain group comes with the presumption that one doesn't intend to insult his/her kind, while it's the opposite presumption for the outsiders.

[Scout]

I'm having a difficult time addressing this topic. It seems to me that political correctness requires us to ignore the differences between races, sexes, religions. Yet there are obvious differences that are acknowledged and celebrated by each group. Catholics have certain characteristics, as do Muslims, Asians, gays, transsexuals, Blacks, women, men, Whites, Christians, Jews. We're not all the same, and we don't want to be. Within a group, it's fine to acknowledge differences, but if someone outside the group does so, it's politically incorrect. I'm so tired of this.

[Ian]

To illustrate the differences, apparently in Germany now there are serious "no-go" zones where all the young male Muslim refugee immigrants have gone, and they are terrorising the local inhabitants. Tolerance for others is a two-way matter.