World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
How correct is political correctness?
It is an effort to show respect and civility in public discourse. What it means to each individual varies according to a long list of personal attributes.
Tara wrote: "It is an effort to show respect and civility in public discourse. What it means to each individual varies according to a long list of personal attributes."+1
Too easy ^_^
Wow, Nik, this is a deep and complex question. Here's my 2 cents, and I'll try to keep it brief-ish :)I think it's a well-meaning attempt to ensure tolerance, but I think the approach is fundamentally flawed and ends up doing as much harm as good. It makes proponents feel good and morally superior while actually addressing superficial symptoms rather than the underlying problem. It also ends up promoting some seriously ridiculous ideas like waging war on perfectly good words in the English language.
Example: If I were to say "I was approached by a woman with the purest black skin" I'd have the PC brigade down on me like a ton of bricks. How dare you characterize someone just by the color of their skin - you racist bastard!
But if I said "I was approached by a woman with the most piercing blue eyes" nobody accuses me of "eye-ism".
The trouble with PC is that it's demonized perfectly objective uses of ordinary descriptive terms, and in the process (and this is the real evil) has got everyone twisted into nervous knots terrified of provoking the PC bullies with what they thought was an innocent pronouncement.
The underlying problems is that words like "black" and "white" and "man" and "woman" over the centuries have acquired unwanted baggage. We need to ditch that baggage, not the words themselves.
Very well explained, Ian, and pretty briefly -:)Liked the example.
I understand that racial and gender issues are sensistive and extra delicacy might indeed be required, but does PC apply to those only or may have a broader clout and may prevent criticism or addressing unrelated issues?
Ian, in the example you gave it would be over reaching to criticize your word choice because you were describing a physical feature. But if you referred to her entire person in a way that she found problematic then, yes, you should simply call her what she wishes to be called. There are indeed many words in usage that no longer serve their purpose in civil discourse that deserve to be examined and if necessary, replaced. Language and social mores are fluid, dynamic and should reflect more informed, more intelligent social awareness and development.As for addressing superficialities as opposed to addressing real, underlying problems, that is not the point. Words are not supposed to affect substantive change. That is done through policy. But our words are supposed to reflect the fact that our intention is to show respect and recognize the autonomy and humanity of those we share the planet with. That's the least we can do while we each decide how much we are willing to grow and change. As for invoking the wrath of the PC brigade I say do what you know is right. If that is not enough then be humble enough to evolve as a person and accept that you don't have the final say when it comes to the rights and desires of others. If anyone is rude while making this point then they should reexamine how they choose to communicate. But just because things have always been done a certain way doesn't mean they should always be done that way. Change can be uncomfortable and having our norms challenged doesn't always bring out the best in us. But sometimes a challenge is the catalyst we need to improve as a society.
Tara, I think that you missed a major point about PC: that, if pushed beyond simple common sense, as happens too often these days, it stifles expression and results in people being afraid to take action or to say what needs to be said, on pain of being painted negatively by the PC crowd. Don't assume that the PC crowd is always right and that we should defer to it no matter what.
I don't assume anything. I said if the PC brigade is rude then they need to correct the manner in which they express themselves. But the PC brigade does not automatically equate to the people who wish to be addressed or referred to in a certain maner. Those individuals are the ones to whom I refer when i say all rights are important and deserve respect. In addition, there is no such thing as 'simple common sense' when we are talking about things that are considered sensitive. What seems simple to you may impinge upon the sensibilities of another. What is acceptable to youmay be intolerable to me. Better then to respect the wishes of others, even if it means curbing one's natural tendencies to express oneself in a particular way. For example, it is common sense for someone my grandfather's age to refer to anyone with a certain physical phenotype as an 'Oriental'. This is clearly erroneous and could offend many. Should he not change with the times?I am certainly not referring to you or Ian but the majority of people I see complaining about having to be PC are the ones who miss the good old days when they could get away with saying almost anything to anyone. They don't like being called out on their insensitivity and poor manners and they do not like being told how to conduct themselves. To them I say that it would be inappropriate for anyone to impose their idea of right or wrong on them - but the exception is public discourse. There are different rules at play in how we interract with one another in a civil, public setting and that should be acknowledged.
Could it be a little bit of both: that if there is way least problematic to mention or refer to someone or something, it's not a big deal to use it even if it sounds artificial, but it doesn't solve the problems that may hide behind good manners?
NikExactly.Substance should follow form but they are not mutually exclusive. If one is not willing to affect real change the least that should be done is a pro forma acknowledgements of the dignity of others. Inversely, anyone aware of the rights and needs of others will at the very least make these minor concessions to their wishes. When is it excessive or outside the bounds of common sense? That is not for me to say unless it affects me personally. For example, I never feel I am up to speed on what non-heterosexuals wish to be called and I am loathe to make an error and offend anyone. But this is my problem and not theirs and it is my responsibility to educate myself. If I make a mistake and call someone gay when he wishes to be called queer I can expect to be corrected. I would hope that could be done respectfully but even that should not mitigate the lesson I am intended to learn. I don't get to say what makes another person feel equal or unequal to others in society. This doesn't mean I am required to protest on behalf of gay rights if that is not my priority but it also doesn't mean that I get to say that being politically correct is a waste of time in light of the fact tht many gay people do not always enjoy equal rights.
The issue really depends on what country you reside in. A country like Germany legally suppresses speech if it so much as bears a hint of pro-Nazi sentiment. On the other hand, the US Constitution grants a near- free license to speak our mind. You have many people who served in our military who take the view that they may disagree with what you say, take offense like any other group, and even hate you for the view you put forth; but they respect your right to speak your mind and voice that opinion/view.The problem with the PC movement is there is no respect for your right to free speech, and there is no distinction between your intent and your choice of words. Using Tara's example, if she referred to a homosexual as "gay," when they prefer "queer," than she is demonized. She is an evil monster, never mind that fact that the context might have come in defense of LGBT rights. Because she used the wrong word she is thrown into the same category as Donald Trump and her opinion is equated with some of the cringe-worthy things he has said.
Frankly, I stopped going to the Support for Indie Author's group because the mods have gone extremely PC. While I understand their wish to maintain a friendly and supportive culture for authors, I see that same thing going on over there where the messages are ignored because of a single word some mod doesn't like. I had an essay length post deleted because one mod got butt-hurt over two words. Ignoring the entire message of the post praising the very authors he thought I insulted, and ignoring the fact that the thread itself was asking for reasons why readers stop reading a book, I was censored because of a word choice.
I initially let it roll off my back until I went back and saw a different mod get butt-hurt over a different author for the use of the word "hobby." Honestly, if any of the mods over there were to offer me a small fortune to read and review their books, I would flatly refuse for the simple fact they would likely get similarly offended over a 5 star review because of one arbitrary word in the review. My opinion of those mods now is that they blame their customers and readers for any low reviews, returns, complaints, etc., because they don't want to accept one sentence in their text might not flow properly or that they misspelled a word, or the characters didn't appeal to certain people. That pretty much sums up the PC movement - they don't want to deal with issues because it would put them under the same uncomfortable spotlight they put others under, and in the end it's easier to attack the messenger than form an intelligent, counterpoint. Instead it's easier to censor speech they disagree with, and as far as the US goes, the whole PC movement is dangerous to our liberties.
No doubt there are words that are hurtful and intentionally used in a hurtful way, and when people use them, we have that same right of free speech to admonish them and call them bigots or racists or whatever, but the PC movement often goes too far and throws anyone who uses such words into the same basket, even if the individual using a word didn't mean it in a hateful way.
Yeah, it's when you encounter some extreme cases, like over -the -top censorship in some groups even here on GR, that you understand how an initially good idea and intent, may become ridiculous or even harmful when extrapolated as a dogma way beyond reasonable
But why is everyone conflating political correctness with a political agenda/censorship? Sure they hang out in the same circles but one should make a clear distinction between them in order to understand what is really going on. J.J. I'm sorry but I have to be honest here: the homosexual community, as a whole, is not going to rise up as one and condemn anyone for using gay instead of queer. For one reason they still use the word and two it has not been replaced by another sanctioned word, en masse, just supplemented by slices of the homosexual community. In fact, you used my queer example to make a counterpoint without noticing that i spoke of individuals within the gay community and didn't lump everyone in together. Because you know what? If I learned my lesson about queer vs gay and then the next time I used queer I got yelled at then I have to simply call *that* person gay instead of queer. Nervewracking? Yes. Pain in the foot? yes. But I don't get to decide what offends someone. And let's be real - people who want their rights recognized are intellectual enough to differentiate between malice and mistakes. It is wrong to paint them in a negative light by claiming that one little slip of the tongue will get someone run out town, so to speak, for an innocent mistake. Imo, that is dog whistle rhetoric. If someone uses a word that is racially insensitive I look at their age, background, character, the situation in which it happened and the reaction once they were called out on the offense. I am not uncommon in this approach.
There were literally hundreds of thousands of people who said they felt the PC brigade ended Paula Deen's career as America's butter queen. Perect example of people being upset about the fact that there are very real consequences when the public trust is compromised and you put yourself out there commercially.
Political correctness has done nothing to affect free speech in America. It only dictates the tone of what is acceptable in public discourse - and even then it is not a mandate. It seems inflammatory to make this claim when there are countries that truly deal with the negative ramifications of censorship. People in the US are more awarre of the fact that they will have to work a little harder and perhaps leave their communication comfort zone when it comes to public interaction.
So far on this thread the emphasis seems to be squarely on how being PC is cramping everyone's personal style and hurting their feelings because there are expectations placed on them about being civil. I see little or no attempt to have a conversation about why it is necessary in the first place. What is so difficult? It would be like a schoolteacher showing up for class on the first day of school and getting upset because she has to learn all of the new students' names. No fair, she wails, I've only just memorized last year's class names. Should Adam just be okay with the teacher because she slips up and calls him Edward? Or if he were Adam Martin for half the year and then changed to Adam Harrison because his mom got remarried. Or whatever. If Adam yells at the teacher and threatens to get her fired for a few slips he is a jerk but that is a different conversation. We're not talking about the response in this example. We are acknowledging that it is the teacher's job to call each student by his or her proper name.
Sorry for the typos - I have bread in the oven!
I don't think anyone's against PC in its original purpose, i.e. aimed at pleasant and considerate public discourse. And I don't think anyone here wants to use derogatory names or anything like that. My impression, It's only the obviously ridiculous extent, when PC prevails over the context, people feel awkward about. What sometimes makes it a little strange, that people of the same group would jokingly use derogatory names towards each other, because in that case it's clear it bears no negative intent, but would be much more sensitive in other instances, even if no ill intent was meant.
I agree with your points, Nik. My pet peeve was about PC being practiced with no use of common sense.
Tara, I am sorry, but I am not going to let someone try to shame me for some words I used (and I can guarantee you that I am no racist or sexist) with no mean/hateful intent. Being polite is one thing, but to be asked to bend over and capitulate every time someone takes some offense to an imaginary slight goes against my idea of free speech. Some people need to grow a thicker skin.
Tara, I am sorry, but I am not going to let someone try to shame me for some words I used (and I can guarantee you that I am no racist or sexist) with no mean/hateful intent. Being polite is one thing, but to be asked to bend over and capitulate every time someone takes some offense to an imaginary slight goes against my idea of free speech. Some people need to grow a thicker skin.
But how do we decide who should grow it thicker skin and why as opposed to respecting peoples autonomy? If someone demands simple respect why is this so difficult concept to adopt? We can be the arbiter of what we feel is right or wrong but we cannot determine what is offensive to someone else. This is my personal opinion but when I treat someone with the respect that they demand and deserve I feel I have become a better person and I do not feel that I am bending over backwards. If you are from New York and I think you are from California you have the right to correct me if I keep referring to you as a Californian as opposed to a New Yorker. What is the problem? I think we can all agree that people who are rude or take things too far spoil the soup but the question in the original thread was dealing with the necessity of political correctness at all. As for people using offensive terms among themselves that is the right in their business and it really has nothing to do with other people It is not uncommon for people to take a derogatory term and nullify it's power by using it among themselves and rendering it harmless. A different story when it's coming from the outside.
Goodmorning,I found this topic very interesting and I really want to provide my 2 cents (or pennies, to PC)
Very simply: (a) I think PC implies the presence of a group, to which I belong up to a certain degree; (b) I (and most of the others in the group) recognize that there are high values in the group that are mostly important and must be guarded against almost everything; (c) I agree on being PC because of point (b), hence I pay more attention on how I say things and on what I say. To conclude, being PC is also in my interest.
A rather different topic is being rude or offending people. On this point, I agree with what you have all already said. There are some basic common sense rules that a well-educated person has learnt over his lifetime and that, if broken, lead one to consider his words offensive. But there are many other situations in which there is no clear cut. It is always individuals feeling offended, never a group. The fact that most people who also recognize themselves as part of a group feel offended lead us to associate the offense at group level. Then, there are also cases in which someone offends without knowing it (for lack of education in general or in a specific language). But all of this is, in my opinion, far from the topic of being PC and what that means.
In short, being PC is something I do because I also recognize it is in my own interest.
Sorry ... I had meant to write more but my 3 years old just woke up ... have to go and help super mommy by being super daddy ...
I lovely day to all of you
Tara wrote: " If someone demands simple respect why is this so difficult concept to adopt?..."Sure, I think this is the aim and PC, like punctuation in writing, sets a standard of what words to choose to deliver that due respect. Clumsy, uncomfortable, whatever? I think the respect of the addressee is worth a little inconvenience, if it exists. It's only an etiquette. Not sure though that people making bona fide mistakes are to be immediately tagged as racists. We can usually perceive when the insult is meant and when - not, and the intent may be more important than just phrasing.
I'm not from the States and until recently I myself was pretty sure that Native Americans are called 'Indians', remembering Fenimore Cooper books -:)
Tara wrote: " It is not uncommon for people to take a derogatory term and nullify it's power by using it among themselves and rendering it harmless...."
That's probably because 'among themselves' - insulting connotation is clearly not implied
I grew up in the 1970s when sexist, racist and homophobic comments were made openly and without challenge, and I'm glad that society has changed in the way that society reacts to discriminatory comments . No-one should make insulting comments about others who are different to themselves.However, in Britain we have seen some movements that have gone totally overboard on what is broadly termed political correctness. One example is cultural appropriation, such as one example I saw of trying to ban a yoga class - how far should that go, do we remove all international food from supermarket shelves? Britain has seen some instances of trying to censor the academic discourse, because we don't have the right to freedom of speech that exists in America. One example is the recent attempt to remove the Rhodes statue in Oxford (by a Rhodes scholar, would you believe), which has had a very heated and divided consensus of opinion. I think that to impose the standards of the present on the past is anachronistic - yes, we should study the truly awful events of the past and learn from them, but not airbrush the past. History is one of my favourite subjects and I haven't yet come across one country that didn't have skeletons in its closet.
It seems to me that some people believe these days that they have the right not to be upset EVER, but that is life. You shouldn't be subject to discriminatory comments, but we all get upset by other's comments at some point in our lives and I'm sure we've all made a tactless comment that has upset someone else - that's life. One other thing I've noticed is a movement that tries to brand as many people as possible as victims. Romanies/Travellers in Britain are now classed as 'vulnerable', I'm sure that some of them are but I know several people who always talk about their 'gypsy' families ('gypsy' being a very non-PC word in Britain now) and laugh about being classed as vulnerable.
Tara, I only used your example of gay vs. queer because you had brought it up and figured it was safe to use as an analogy because I know there is none (if any) backlash against using the two terms. My use was only because I didn't want to make distinctions that might inflame someone.I do agree with PC to an extent. When words and terms are used intentionally and exclusively in derogatory manners, then society has every right to point it out and discourage the use. But, if we want to truly enjoy our freedom of speech, then we have to accept the right of a racist redneck to use the N-word (no matter how despicable we find it) just as you and I have the right to refer to them as a redneck in the derogatory sense for using that word.
Was watching part of a program on PBS the other night about Neo Nazis trying to march in the largely Jewish community of Skokie, Ill in the late 70s. The ACLU jumped into the fight on the side of the Nazis, trying to make it clear that they opposed the message, but supported the right to speech and the threat to the 1st Amendment that opposition represented.
Or look at this church that was traveling the country protesting at the funerals of foreign service members. I don't think there was anyone outside that group who didn't find it disgusting, but end of the day, they had the right to protest. That doesn't mean others don't have the same right to counter protest.
And that's sort of my view on PC. These idiots have the right to spout whatever racist, hateful, BS they want until it crosses the line of violence; and we have the same right to call them out, not vote for them, not do business with them.
The excess of the PC movement seems to be coming from the younger generations and the colleges. Came across an article where a law professor mentioned the female students got upset and took offense to the word "violation" in his lectures, and asked him to stop using it, even though the word was used in the sense of a legal violation and not in any way as a sexual violation. And these are the supposedly intelligent people you think understand the difference.
Lately, in the South there is a renewed debate on symbols of racism. No doubt, the Confederate flag has no place in government. Even trying to deny the racist intent, it's a symbol of a defeated "country," and has no place of honor in the United States for that reason alone. But there have been movements on campuses here in the Triangle around the naming of dorms and lecture halls after former politicians with ties and links to racism. I honestly can't form an opinion on the individuals since I don't know enough about them, but the general argument focuses on the question of does that racism negate whatever positive influence they may have had. Maybe some of these people don't deserved to be honored and should have their names removed, but if we take the stance these students today have that any act of racism negates the entirety of their legacy, then they will have us removing Washington and Jefferson from our currency and have our schools stop teaching them.
As writers, we are trying to sell products to a large and diverse base, and as such we do need to be more sensitive on these matters. My current book had my head spinning because as much as I wanted to avoid it, I had to make "race" an issue. I set it in an alternate world dominated by Native Americans under the rule of a foreign power, but because of the nature of the alternate world, the terms "Native American" and "Indian" don't exist for this population. When it comes to how the people in the society refer to themselves, I get stuck using the terms "red skin" "white skin" and "pale skin." I myself was uncomfortable using them, but it was logical given the society presented. Since I wasn't trying to use it in an offensive manner, I gave a nod to the fact that it was offensive in our world, but not in theirs; and I made sure the characters visiting from our world weren't using the term.
On the other hand, one of the Natives joins them when they leave that world and the book ends, hence becoming a "cast member." If I expand it into a series, I do imagine a story down the road where they run into characters who will speak to her offensively. The question in regards to the PC discussion is, do I whitewash (no pun intended) a character's true nature or the nature the world the main cast finds themselves in so as not to offend readers who might be overly sensitive and complain about the use of the term "redskin" even if I turn it into a commentary on the racism we once exhibited toward the Natives, or do I ignore the concerns for the sake of accuracy and use it as a teachable moment? This is unfortunately what the PC movement has become - even if I try to make a point or shine a light on an issue, I have to tip-toe on eggshells at the risk of offending groups I'm trying to support, promote, whatever.
J.J. wrote: "I do agree with PC to an extent...."PC is a pretty controversial issue even for Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic..., so not surprisingly we have different opinions here -:)
I know you come from the point of view of freedoms, J.J., but if anything I'd argue that libel and defamation doctrines are probably more restricting over the freedom of speech than political correctness. 'Parental advisory' labels - is a compromise of a sort between freedom of speech and exposure of minors to undesired contents. In Hulk Hogan lawsuite it was freedom of press vs privacy and the ruling favored the latter.
Maybe I missperceive, but PC is not designed to address what you say, but rather the way you do it. No? But sometimes it's taken to the extremes, like your 'violation' example?
I'm not coming, of course, to discuss American tradition or anyone's for that matter, but without any specific location context my own opinion is that rarely any freedom or value is absolute. You can talk about value of human life, but you can kill in self-defense and there is a capital punishment in some countries.
Even the right to 'curse' is restricted in some places -:)
So 'agree to an extent' sounds reasonable to me..
//Is it something aimed to ensure tolerant societies and considerate policy to sensitivities or is it a way to gloss over and conceal real problem and create a feeling of a phony harmony or both? What do you think?//Depends on who you ask. Since you asked ME - pause for happy dance! - I would answer that its run the gauntlet on these two characterizations and become pretty much whatever people want it to be.
The idea of political correctness began as a way of trying to get people to be more sensitive to each other and consider how words and depictions of a certain nature can be hurtful to others. But it didn't take long for the term "politically correct" - a term used in Stalinist Russia to denounce and intimidate people who didn't follow the Party line - to catch on.
This became a way of saying that this sort of movement could easily become oppressive to language and expression by promoting taboo-like thinking rather than tolerance. I think there's much logic behind this, and its so often used by self-righteous individuals who like to shame others into silence. It's also quite frustrating and annoying at times that people seem to have missed the point entirely and are more interested in "fighting" bigotry than preventing it.
It's also been seized upon by angry white men and bigots all across the world as a whipping post. Whenever Trump supporters or members of the Aryan nation decide to launch into a rant about how immigrants, Muslims and the "dirty people" are taking over, they usually precede it by saying "F= political correctness!", or they finish with "but you can't say that, because of the PC police!"
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.
Forgot to put specifically 'Matt' in the question, so thanks for guessing and your insight -:)
Nik wrote: "Forgot to put specifically 'Matt' in the question, so thanks for guessing and your insight -:)"Yeah, it was pretty presumptuous of me, wasn't it? I'm such a stinker!
I think I've inadvertently steered the argument toward something we all agree on in principle. I do think we should be sensitive to each but I also support the rights laid out in our Constitution, even if I don't like how you use those rights. In response to Nik's comments, yes the courts do allow exceptions to those rights if your expression infringes on someone else's rights or if their is a critical, overriding public safety issue (shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is the classic example of 1st Amendment going too far).We over here often say "freedom isn't free," and we don't like to think that freedom for all is actually painful, whether it's because of hurtful words we don't like to hear, or criminals who walk free because police and the district attorney can't build a case in a manner that ensures fairness in the legal system.
But back to the issue of PC, the movement used to be about respect and empathy, but we have entered a period in our history where our children have been coddled too much and protected from anything harmful to the point where they have very thin skins. As they become adults, that overly sensitive nature enters the greater society. If you don't think it has gone too far, then I suggest you Google "fart rape," and judge for yourself if the movement has gone too far.
The problem we have debating PC is that we always get someone like Donald Trump who turns the debate backwards and hides behind it as an excuse for basic, inflammatory rhetoric.
I just read through the thread.Tara said,
[1] It is an effort to show respect and civility in public discourse.
[2] What it means to each individual varies according to a long list of personal attributes.
[3] Ian, in the example you gave it would be over reaching to criticize your word choice because you were describing a physical feature. But if you referred to her entire person in a way that she found problematic then, yes, you should simply call her what she wishes to be called.
[4] But our words are supposed to reflect the fact that our intention is to show respect and recognize the autonomy and humanity of those we share the planet with.
Michel said,
[5] Tara, I think that you missed a major point about PC: that, if pushed beyond simple common sense, as happens too often these days, it stifles expression and results in people being afraid to take action or to say what needs to be said, on pain of being painted negatively by the PC crowd.
Nik said,
[6] I don't think anyone's against PC in its original purpose, i.e. aimed at pleasant and considerate public discourse.
J.J. said,
[7] And that's sort of my view on PC. These idiots have the right to spout whatever racist, hateful, BS they want until it crosses the line of violence; and we have the same right to call them out, not vote for them, not do business with them.
The excess of the PC movement seems to be coming from the younger generations and the colleges. Came across an article where a law professor mentioned the female students got upset and took offense to the word "violation" in his lectures, and asked him to stop using it, even though the word was used in the sense of a legal violation and not in any way as a sexual violation. And these are the supposedly intelligent people you think understand the difference.
[1] Thanks Tara, I wasn't aware that Political Correctness (PC) had the laudable aim of promoting common decency and manners in communication between people. My observation is that PC has been throughly co-opted by those who find it convenient to silence dissent and promote conformity to their own views.
What you describe as PC, I would describe as simply appropriate behaviour for establishing relationships based on mutual respect for our common humanity. (Which is where I stand)
The reason that I point this out is to establish common terms of reference for this conversation.
[2] Tara, how do you know this? Are you at risk of prejudging other's position on this topic based on a preconceived list of personal attributes as opposed to the content of their argument?
[3] Goes to point [1], establishing terms of reference that PC (re Tara's comments) is based on civility of discourse.
[4] Tara - love this - could be a quote.
[5] Michel - this is my observation that the concept of PC has been co-opted by those who seek to bludgeon those who are different from them with the blunt instrument of fear in support of their own acquisition and maintenance of dominance over others.
[6] Nik - this goes to my observation that PC has been transformed from it's original intent to the service of power seekers.
[7] J.J. - I'm with you in being a strong advocate for freedom of speech.
How can we grow as people without robust conversations. I'm not concerned by other people's differences, I want to see other people being visible - so that they can be engaged with. If difference is silenced, it only breeds a persecution complex in the silenced that entrenches belief and in the ensuing darkness breeds violence.
The co-option of "Common Decency" to promote the silencing of dissent and criticism is a tragedy of epic proportions.
Summing up - Everyone here wants civil discourse, I'm not sure that we have a common understanding of just what Political Correctness is and that clarifying the term itself will be a fruitful path to follow.
Well done on summarizing different opinions, Graeme, It's pretty obvious that there are a few different point of views. Fortunately, most agree that politeness is not a bad thing and that people deserve to be addressed in most respectful way as the addressees view it.It's more the use of seemingly good policy as a gag for suppressing critical but respectful opinions what causes disagreement... Clarifying may help..
Tara, I was very impressed by your comments in this discussion. I thought they were right on the mark.
In a politically correct world, a fat person would be called "horizontally challenged". The problem would still be there but toned down drastically like sugar coated pills. Is this a sign of politeness necessarily?
Hi Mehreen,Tone of voice matters. Imagine...
[1] (Sniggers...) You're so horizontally challenged.
[2] (Calmly...) My new diet book allows you to manage your horizontal challenges at a pace that suits you.
I agree with you - just changing the name doesn't change the meaning, or the emotional freight that can be loaded on to it.
Definently - not necessarily polite.
Maybe well-nourished? -:)I personally think politeness is a good consideration when applying to anyone, be s/he blind, fat, limp, ugly, beautiful, whatever. I don't think some physical feature should be required for characterization. That's what we have the names for -:)
We live in a beautiful world. I find everyone beautiful. Just a matter of perspective.
To my eye, there is both aching beauty and abject horror.In equal portions.
Graeme wrote: "To my eye, there is both aching beauty and staring horror.In equal portions."
Oh dear God! Train them to see more beauty than horror. Trust me it is very relaxing.
Then I would feel that I wasn't managing risk properly.
Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "To my eye, there is both aching beauty and staring horror.
In equal portions."
Oh dear God! Train them to see more beauty than horror. Trust me it is very relaxing."
The problem is that not wanting to see the horror around us too often results in ignoring the problems and refusing to look for solutions for them. That is my main beef against PC.
In equal portions."
Oh dear God! Train them to see more beauty than horror. Trust me it is very relaxing."
The problem is that not wanting to see the horror around us too often results in ignoring the problems and refusing to look for solutions for them. That is my main beef against PC.
I'm committed to protecting those I love - I can't do that without an effective understanding of how human society actually operates.I've come to the position that the systemic (as opposed to interpersonal) operations of power within society are apolitical in ways that break the conventional belief that power and politics go hand in hand.
i.e. Genuine high-level power operators are intensely apolitical. They are not right wing, left wing, up wing, down wing, or what wing... they do not care. Politics is simply just another vehicle to manipulate others and promote their own interests.
Michel wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "To my eye, there is both aching beauty and staring horror.In equal portions."
Oh dear God! Train them to see more beauty than horror. Trust me it is very relaxing...."
Hence political correctness.
Graeme wrote: "I'm committed to protecting those I love - I can't do that without a effective understanding of how human society actually operates.I've come to the position that the systemic (as opposed to inte..."
It is not easily decipherable - how the human society works or even human nature for that reason. Cultural influence is a huge impediment.
Agreed. It's an extremely difficult problem space to work in.[1] I deliberately try to strip away cultural and ideological frameworks to approach the problem in terms of visible human action.
[2] I deliberately attempt to occupy the psychopathic headspace to comprehend motivations.
In the end, I often feel that at best I am inferring the shape of things from the shadows that they cast.
Graeme wrote: "Agreed. It's an extremely difficult problem space to work in.[1] I deliberately try to strip away cultural and ideological frameworks to approach the problem in terms of visible human action.
[2..."
Wise words.
Some interesting and sound observations, in my opinion.I guess we'll open up a thread at some stage discussing how different real reality is from the perceived one and what, if any techniques, are used to conceal, divert attention or embellish less attractive things...
Nik wrote: "Some interesting and sound observations, in my opinion.I guess we'll open up a thread at some stage discussing how different real reality is from the perceived one and what, if any techniques, are..."
I already have. Beauty is truth...
Graeme wrote: "That's a very big topic Nik."We are not in a hurry (hopefully) -:)
Small is nice, big is interesting -:)
One example of PC thought muzzling what should have been a perfectly acceptable statement: when the 'Black Lives Matter' supporters howled outrage at a politician who said that 'All Lives Matter'. Now, some will state that saying 'All Lives Matter' is meant to diminish the importance of preserving and protecting black lives. I say 'bunk' to that. The truth is that all lives really matter in this World, be they black, white, colored or whatever. To insinuate that saying 'All Lives Matter' was a way to counter 'Black Lives Matter' borders on paranoia and selfishness in my mind. One practical example of this PC thinking souring things: at the recent Toronto Pride Parade, in which Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participated to underline his commitment to respect and dignity for all groups, a group of Black Lives Matter supporters (who had been invited to participate by the organizers of the Pride Parade), decided to block the path of the parade to protest the fact that the Toronto Police Department was also participating, saying that cops represented the oppression of black people. That, in my opinion, is a good example of how self-centered, holier-than-though thinking spoiled what was meant to be a parade in celebration of tolerance. Awful!
Is it something aimed to ensure tolerant societies and considerate policy to sensitivities or is it a way to gloss over and conceal real problem and create a feeling of a phony harmony or both? What do you think?