Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:28 AM
lingyi lingyi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,281
Is there a place for non-politically correct speech?

I acknowledge that certain terms and stereotypes should be done away with, but I firmly believe that non-PC terms and stereotypes based on ethnic and cultural differences are what allowed the various immigrants who spoke no common language to work, play and intermarry, creating the unique local culture of Hawaii.

Those not from Hawaii would probably be shocked at one of our most beloved comedians, Frank DeLima, who pokes fun at all ethnicities, often based on stereotypical traits, both physical and verbal. Heaven forbid his comedy is banned because it's non-PC.
  #2  
Old 12-16-2018, 06:36 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,104
'Politically correct speech' is just a synonym for 'controlling behaviour'.
  #3  
Old 12-16-2018, 06:49 AM
pullin pullin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N Texas
Posts: 2,847
The only place I've found is deer camp.
  #4  
Old 12-16-2018, 07:42 AM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,318
"Politically Correct" has become a term of derision, and sometimes taken to extremes, but do we really want to go back to the days when someone could be referred to as a nigger, faggot or spastic in ordinary conversation. The problem is not so much the language as the casual racism/sexism/?ism that lies behind it.

Last edited by bob++; 12-16-2018 at 07:42 AM.
  #5  
Old 12-16-2018, 07:58 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,739
[Moderating]
This is not a factual subject. Off to IMHO.
  #6  
Old 12-16-2018, 07:59 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,739
[Not moderating]
Quote:
Quoth Quartz:

'Politically correct speech' is just a synonym for 'controlling behaviour'.
Actually, it's just a synonym for "politeness". I'm not sure why it ends up being the same people who complain about political correctness who also complain about how nobody is polite any more.
  #7  
Old 12-16-2018, 08:11 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 793
When people complain about ďpolitical correctness,Ē they invariably mean that it is no longer permissible to say racist things or sexualy harass women. I fail to comprehend how casual racism and misogyny positively contribute to anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
Those not from Hawaii would probably be shocked at one of our most beloved comedians, Frank DeLima, who pokes fun at all ethnicities, often based on stereotypical traits, both physical and verbal.
Comedians do this all the damned time. Seriously, is this post just an advertisement or something? Yawn.
  #8  
Old 12-16-2018, 09:11 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
'Politically correct speech' is just a synonym for 'controlling behaviour'.
No--it's a totally subjective phrase, with no real meaning anymore. Generally it gets trotted out when the status quo is challenged and people don't have any other way to defend it.
  #9  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:03 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
'Politically correct speech' is just a synonym for 'controlling behaviour'.
I have pointed this out before. I try again.

Accusations of 'political correctness' are a cry by those in power for a 'safe space' just as the kids in college do. They want a space where it is permissible to NOT suffer the consequences of the actions and speech.

The difference is, those calling for opposition to 'political correctness' are grown-ass adults (theoretically) and those in college asking for 'safe spaces' are kids who are still learning to be adults.

You have a right to say what you wish, willy nilly, even rude and harmful things. That doesn't mean you won't be sanctioned by society for those statements.
  #10  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:07 AM
pulykamell pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 45,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
'Politically correct speech' is just a synonym for 'controlling behaviour'.
No, more often than not, it's simply "don't be an asshole."
  #11  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:08 AM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
I acknowledge that certain terms and stereotypes should be done away with, but I firmly believe that non-PC terms and stereotypes based on ethnic and cultural differences are what allowed the various immigrants who spoke no common language to work, play and intermarry, creating the unique local culture of Hawaii.

Those not from Hawaii would probably be shocked at one of our most beloved comedians, Frank DeLima, who pokes fun at all ethnicities, often based on stereotypical traits, both physical and verbal. Heaven forbid his comedy is banned because it's non-PC.
From your own post it sounds like Frank DeLima is allowed to say whatever he wants, and when you say banned I ask: by whom?
  #12  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:08 AM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Not moderating]

Actually, it's just a synonym for "politeness". I'm not sure why it ends up being the same people who complain about political correctness who also complain about how nobody is polite any more.
It's fairly common in old books to find terms like "Jewess" or "Negress."

If you accused those authors of NOT being polite, they would have thought that you were absolutely nuts. And yet if somebody used those terms today, they would be metaphorically crucified for not being PC.

In short, PC has nothing to do with politeness.
  #13  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:15 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Not moderating]

Actually, it's just a synonym for "politeness". I'm not sure why it ends up being the same people who complain about political correctness who also complain about how nobody is polite any more.
The political left and right clash so much over "PC" because they have drastically different notions of what PC means.

The left thinks it means just being polite. Don't call people queers, N-word, retard, etc.

The right thinks it means the extreme subset of the left who get upset over ridiculous things like "Oreo cookies are racist because they are black wafers surrounding a white core" or "the restaurant floor is yellow, therefore it is racist against yellow skin."


And so when the right says it opposes PC, the left is aghast - "you WANT people to be able to use epithets freely?" And when the left says it supports PC, the right is aghast - "you WANT this societal thought police whereby Oreo cookies and yellow tiled floors are condemned as racist?"

Both sides are utterly talking past each other.
  #14  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:17 AM
pulykamell pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 45,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
If you accused those authors of NOT being polite, they would have thought that you were absolutely nuts. And yet if somebody used those terms today, they would be metaphorically crucified for not being PC.
Because words change meanings over time. It's simple: if somebody asks you not to call them a name even though it was acceptable in a time past, it's the polite thing not to call them that. I grew up with a friend named Caroline. We called her Carrie growing up. It was not impolite. But, in her 20s, she decided that she preferred to be called Caroline, and told her friends. Since I'm polite and not an asshole, I go by her wishes and call her Caroline. If somebody tells you "I don't like to be called that" why would anyone go on calling them that except to be an asshole?

How is this so difficult to understand?

Last edited by pulykamell; 12-16-2018 at 10:19 AM.
  #15  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:19 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,032
As a side note, it's strangely inconsistent that society considers "black" or "white" to be an inoffensive reference to skin color but "red" "brown" or "yellow" skin is an offensive reference. They're all direct references to skin color.

Last edited by Velocity; 12-16-2018 at 10:21 AM.
  #16  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:22 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,778
No. There is no such place, becuase every possible group of people has rules - spoken and unspoken - regarding what can and cannot be said. Take me to the freest, least resticted forum in the world, and sooner or later Iíll think of something to say thatíll piss everyone off.
  #17  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:22 AM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The political left and right clash so much over "PC" because they have drastically different notions of what PC means.

The left thinks it means just being polite. Don't call people queers, N-word, retard, etc.

The right thinks it means the extreme subset of the left who get upset over ridiculous things like "Oreo cookies are racist because they are black wafers surrounding a white core" or "the restaurant floor is yellow, therefore it is racist against yellow skin."


And so when the right says it opposes PC, the left is aghast - "you WANT people to be able to use epithets freely?" And when the left says it supports PC, the right is aghast - "you WANT this societal thought police whereby Oreo cookies and yellow tiled floors are condemned as racist?"

Both sides are utterly talking past each other.
And a lot of people on the left think the "oreo cookies are racist" crowd is a bunch of utter loons. I suspect a lot of people on the right think that the people who want to call their coworkers a "nice piece of ass" without consequences are sexist assholes.
  #18  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:15 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
As a side note, it's strangely inconsistent that society considers "black" or "white" to be an inoffensive reference to skin color but "red" "brown" or "yellow" skin is an offensive reference. They're all direct references to skin color.
Do you really think you can understand language on the purely denotative level, completely dehistoricized, de-contextualized, and without any regard for who has used it and for what purposes? Do you think language exists purely in a sterile, hermetically sealed bubble, disconnected from any past, disconnected from previous political motives and power relationships? I think you're smarter than that.
  #19  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:46 AM
skyr skyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 50
People who complain that "politically correct" just refers to not using racial slurs are clearly not paying attention to what the youngest and craziest left wingers out there are trying to do.

For example, go look at some of the topics that some people think need "Trigger warnings" on Tumblr.
For example, as this article notes:
Quote:
Trigger warnings, and their cousin the "content note", are now included for a whole slew of potentially offensive or upsetting content, including but not limited to: misogyny, the death penalty, calories in a food item, terrorism, drunk driving, how much a person weighs, racism, gun violence, Stand Your Ground laws, drones, homophobia, PTSD, slavery, victim-blaming, abuse, swearing, child abuse, self-injury, suicide, talk of drug use, descriptions of medical procedures, corpses, skulls, skeletons, needles, discussion of "isms," neuroatypical shaming, slurs (including "stupid" or "dumb"), kidnapping, dental trauma, discussions of sex (even consensual), death or dying, spiders, insects, snakes, vomit, pregnancy, childbirth, blood, scarification, Nazi paraphernalia, slimy things, holes and "anything that might inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD".
I have also seen people say that the phrase "Trigger warnings" itself shouldn't be used because the word trigger could remind people of guns.
Someone I am acquainted with on Facebook recently posted a memo from their workplace saying that they shouldn't say "have a nice day" to people anymore because it could upset people who are going through something tragic and can't have a nice day because of that.

When you set the precedent that the words people say are dangerous and that people's speech needs to be controlled, it's just a matter of time before it gets taken further and further extreme.

I find it very scary. I also don't think it does anything to stop racism. Even if you punish people for saying certain things in public, they're still going to think about and talk about these things in private. You're just making it harder to even have a debate about why these ideas are wrong if the only time they are discussed are in racist echo chambers.
  #20  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:50 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Actually, it's just a synonym for "politeness". I'm not sure why it ends up being the same people who complain about political correctness who also complain about how nobody is polite any more.
And I also notice how the same people who say they oppose "political correctness" are the ones who complain the loudest when anyone says anything that offends their sensibilities.

Anyone who has ever complained about somebody saying "Happy Holiday" or kneeling during the National Anthem or seeing Janet Jackson's nipple has no business telling other people they need to be less sensitive.
  #21  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:51 AM
lingyi lingyi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
From your own post it sounds like Frank DeLima is allowed to say whatever he wants, and when you say banned I ask: by whom?
Banned as in not being allowed to perform live or played on the radio, or his work not being allowed to be shared or talked about amongst ethnically mixed groups.

Last edited by lingyi; 12-16-2018 at 11:52 AM.
  #22  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:04 PM
pulykamell pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 45,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
People who complain that "politically correct" just refers to not using racial slurs are clearly not paying attention to what the youngest and craziest left wingers out there are trying to do.
Yeah, there's always the looney toons extremists, but the vast majority of the time I hear some person blabbing about PC this and PC that, it's not about that kind of stuff. One example from yesterday: on a Facebook page, there was a story about a man who drowned in the pond after trying to save a dog. Everybody came in to express their condolences except one idiot who said "well, next time he won't walk his dog off-leash. Uh oh..." When called on his crap, he complained about how he's not afraid to say something "un-PC" and offend people. That's not at all about PC. That's about not being an asshole and not pissing on somebody's grave. And that is how I normally encounter the term. People bitching and complaining about PC this or not being-PC as an excuse to say and do vile and disgusting things, and being proud of it.

Last edited by pulykamell; 12-16-2018 at 12:04 PM.
  #23  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:06 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
When you set the precedent that the words people say are dangerous and that people's speech needs to be controlled, it's just a matter of time before it gets taken further and further extreme.
Racists used to take people they didn't like into the middle of a town square and hang them. Racists should be controlled. And racism should be eliminated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
I find it very scary. I also don't think it does anything to stop racism. Even if you punish people for saying certain things in public, they're still going to think about and talk about these things in private. You're just making it harder to even have a debate about why these ideas are wrong if the only time they are discussed are in racist echo chambers.
Those racists I just described felt the need to gather together in a large crowd before they killed one person. Racists are cowards and they seek safety in numbers. If you isolate them, they'll be too afraid to act up.

And nobody is born a racist. It's something they learn from other racists. And they need to say things out loud to do it. A guy who's thinking racist thoughts isn't infecting anyone else. He'll eventually die of old age and his racism will die with him.

The debate is over. It ended fifty years ago. The racists lost. Now we're applying the outcome. We've drawn a circle around racism and every day we're making it smaller.

Sucks to be a racist but nobody is forcing anyone to be a racist. If being a racist is uncomfortable, then the solution is to stop being a racist. It's not to make it easier to be a racist.
  #24  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:21 PM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
Banned as in not being allowed to perform live or played on the radio, or his work not being allowed to be shared or talked about amongst ethnically mixed groups.
By whom?
  #25  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:23 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 19,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
People who complain that "politically correct" just refers to not using racial slurs are clearly not paying attention to what the youngest and craziest left wingers out there are trying to do.

For example, go look at some of the topics that some people think need "Trigger warnings" on Tumblr.
So don't post on Tumblr.

Start you own web platform--one that doesn't do the "trigger warning" thing. Or find a platform that doesn't do this. Like Reddit.

There are plenty of "safe spaces" for edgelords and their fans. Every other post at Reddit, Yahoo, YouTube, and every online article comment section is un-PC. Usually the worst that happens to "un-PC" commenters is that they get downvotes. Big whoop.

The constant seeking of validation for any and all opinions is a million times more problematic than the imaginary "PC police", IMHO. People are looking for "thumb-ups" for every turd they drop in a bowl and then crying when people tell them to stop shitting everywhere. That's not "PC run amok". That's just people not being afraid to voice their opinions. The anti-offenderati want to silence people just as much as they believe the offenderati want to.

I've been banned from three subreddits for not following the rules or for posting something that rubbed someone the wrong way. But again, big whoop. I'm not entitled to say whatever I want wherever I want. This was true 100 years ago, and it's true today. I can't scream "FUCK YOU, JESUS!" in the middle of a church service and expect nothing but love and tolerance. But for some reason, we expect the online institutions to have different rules. That's crazy to me.
  #26  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:54 PM
Two Many Cats Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,160
The only beef I have with political correctness is when it tries to blot out the past. I'd like to watch Song of the South but I can't access it. I'd like to see the rich history of black Hollywood movies from the days of segregated theaters, but I don't see that on TCM. I'd like to judge Amos and Andy for myself, but they were only on television as a special for Black History Month once. The Lyric Opera will probably never stage Scott Joplin's Treemonisha.

It's part of history, and it's sad to see it suppressed because some people can't bear to look back.
  #27  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:06 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The political left and right clash so much over "PC" because they have drastically different notions of what PC means.

The left thinks it means just being polite. Don't call people queers, N-word, retard, etc.

The right thinks it means the extreme subset of the left who get upset over ridiculous things like "Oreo cookies are racist because they are black wafers surrounding a white core" or "the restaurant floor is yellow, therefore it is racist against yellow skin."


And so when the right says it opposes PC, the left is aghast - "you WANT people to be able to use epithets freely?" And when the left says it supports PC, the right is aghast - "you WANT this societal thought police whereby Oreo cookies and yellow tiled floors are condemned as racist?"

Both sides are utterly talking past each other.
The argument against PC, and it's a real thing, not imagined, not a synonym for politeness, also does include the control factor. Just tactically speaking it's an advantage in a debate to challenge an opponent on what particular terms they are using, and accuse them of moral inferiority because they don't use the right terms.

Which goes along with raising the issues of differences between groups (racial, ethnic, religious etc) and how they are dealt to to an all dominating moral issue. Not just whether people are physically harmed or insulted, but every possible implication of 'race' (the dominant word because nowadays ethnic, national and religious group interaction is often characterized as 'racism', it's the short hand) gets elevated to a deep moral issue, and most political issues get reduced to really being 'race' issues, so it tends toward being everything put in over-moralizing terms. But in that case it's a powerful advantage if you can wrong foot an opponent by pointing out that his or her terms are 'morally' flawed.

So it is a power thing or that's the really negative element of it IMO. Some aspects of mild PC encompass politeness by reasonable definition so no problem there. Some aspects of extreme PC are just ridiculous like your examples and if they *remain broadly viewed* as ridiculous that's not a big problem either. The real problem as I see it is over moralizing of issues of human relations and a constant rapid evolution of acceptable terminology to gain advantage in debate by implying moral inferiority on the part of those who don't use the dictated terms.

The recent 'Hidden Tribes' study found upwards of 80% of Americans think PC has become a problem, and some of the highest %'s were among non-white groups. So if it's an imaginary problem, a lot of people are imagining it. And if it's a triumph of the 'right wing lie machine' in misrepresenting a simple call for politeness, it's a triumph over a lot of people who don't seem to believe the 'lie machine' about much else.
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...s_report-2.pdf
  #28  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:10 PM
lingyi lingyi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
By whom?
By those who are (IMHO, unjustifiably offended) and call for a boycott of his performances, live or recorded. Or by a workplace policy that prohibits discussion or reference to his work because it contains politically verbiage. Ala co-workers being offended by discussions about the "Mulva" Seinfeld episode or those that feature the "Soup Nazi".

A current ongoing example are the complaints about the playing of "Baby it's Cold Outside" on radio, because some are (IMHO) reading too much into the lyrics.

Last edited by lingyi; 12-16-2018 at 01:13 PM.
  #29  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:20 PM
gogogophers gogogophers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
...I firmly believe that non-PC terms and stereotypes based on ethnic and cultural differences are what allowed the various immigrants who spoke no common language to work, play and intermarry...
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.
  #30  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:23 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Actually, it's just a synonym for "politeness".
I disagree. It is forcing the speaker to use language with which he or she may not agree. Look at when Lenny Henry went to America and was corrected when he described himself as black. He isn't African American - the PC term - but British. And he just happens to be black.
  #31  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:24 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 4,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Many Cats View Post
The only beef I have with political correctness is when it tries to blot out the past. I'd like to watch Song of the South but I can't access it.
Knock yourself out.

Disney doesn't make it readily available because it IS pretty fucking racist and offensive. It's not part of "history," it's part of a bullshit re-imagining and whitewashing of the starkly vicious realities of slavery. It's about as historically relevant as Bambi, especially if Disney had decided to take out the bit where Bambi's mom gets slaughtered by hunters.
  #32  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:28 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 19,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Many Cats View Post
The only beef I have with political correctness is when it tries to blot out the past. I'd like to watch Song of the South but I can't access it. I'd like to see the rich history of black Hollywood movies from the days of segregated theaters, but I don't see that on TCM. I'd like to judge Amos and Andy for myself, but they were only on television as a special for Black History Month once. The Lyric Opera will probably never stage Scott Joplin's Treemonisha.

It's part of history, and it's sad to see it suppressed because some people can't bear to look back.
All of those things are available for purchase on Amazon. Along with all the uncensored Loony Tunes cartoons.

Last edited by monstro; 12-16-2018 at 01:28 PM.
  #33  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:10 PM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
By those who are (IMHO, unjustifiably offended) and call for a boycott of his performances, live or recorded. Or by a workplace policy that prohibits discussion or reference to his work because it contains politically verbiage. Ala co-workers being offended by discussions about the "Mulva" Seinfeld episode or those that feature the "Soup Nazi".

A current ongoing example are the complaints about the playing of "Baby it's Cold Outside" on radio, because some are (IMHO) reading too much into the lyrics.
So itís not so much a banning as people having different opinions than you?
  #34  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:24 PM
lingyi lingyi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by gogogophers View Post
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.
Part of it is based on what I learned in a Plantation history course and another part is my knowledge of our local (ethnically mixed) culture and pidgin English language which is is mix of all the different languages of the immigrants, allowing them to communicate with each other.

Despite being separated into camps (Japanese/Okinawan, Filipino, Korean, etc), they worked together in the fields and picked up on terms used by the the other groups during their daily conversations, often changed for easier pronunciation. The ability to communicate (somewhat) effectively broke down cultural barriers and opened the door for inter-racial, inter-cultural (though still frowned upon back then) relationships.

Japanee = Japanese
Nanchu = Okinawan (from Uchinanchu, the name for the people of Okinawan descent)
Bukbuk = Filipino (Tagalog for hole, as in a tooth cavity. Filipino immigrants would point to someone with a cavity and call out "bukbuk!")
Yobo = Korean (From Yobo sayo, an informal form of hello, usually used when answering the phone, not in person. Also, yobo is an affectionate term for a husband, like darling).
  #35  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:24 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The debate is over. It ended fifty years ago. The racists lost. Now we're applying the outcome. We've drawn a circle around racism and every day we're making it smaller.

Sucks to be a racist but nobody is forcing anyone to be a racist. If being a racist is uncomfortable, then the solution is to stop being a racist. It's not to make it easier to be a racist.
The thing is, it's a moving target, and people get sick of having to keep abreast of what the "acceptable" term is.

I mean, growing up in late 80s/early 90s SW Houston, I had a bunch of Vietnamese/Chinese friends because the area has a lot of Vietnamese/Chinese immigrants.

At the time, the term THEY used for each other and preferred was "oriental". It wasn't derogatory, it wasn't some kind of thing like black people calling themselves "niggas" or anything like that. It was the term.

Fast forward another 6-7 years to the late 90s/early 2000s, and I got my ass chewed for saying someone was oriental instead of "asian". I hadn't kept up with the asian guys, so I didn't know the term had changed.

I was perplexed to say the least. And I didn't, and don't think it was fair- how the hell was I supposed to know? And it's not like whatever I had said was derogatory, etc...- it was something innocuous along the lines of "Those oriental guys who work at <somewhere> wear funny t-shirts."

That's what a lot of people get frustrated about- it's a moving target, and the get awfully tired of being told they're wrong when there was no malicious or derogatory intent in the first place. They're not wanting to offend anyone, but it's not something that they're willing to put a lot of effort into keeping up on.

It also seems like a way to manufacture outrage. If you keep changing the terms, you generate new and different ways to confuse people and keep them saying the wrong terms.

Overall the issue I have is the moving target aspect- someone could be considered non-sexist, non-racist and generally PC in say... 2008, and now be considered all of those things because they haven't kept up. And it's unreasonable to expect that everyone actually give a shit about it to that degree; cut people some slack unless they're being malicious about it. Assume the best of people. Don't get your panties in a twist unless it's egregious and intentional.
  #36  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:35 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree. It is forcing the speaker to use language with which he or she may not agree. Look at when Lenny Henry went to America and was corrected when he described himself as black. He isn't African American - the PC term - but British. And he just happens to be black.
There's also the people who felt they had to call Nelson Mandela "African-American," even though he's not American at all.
  #37  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:45 PM
lingyi lingyi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
So it’s not so much a banning as people having different opinions than you?
I'll stand up for anyone's right to an opinion whether I agree with it or not. But I disagree with boycotts or outcries that inhibit my ability to enjoy something that in my opinion is fine given the spirit and context it's presented in.

As a Japanese/Okinawan, I am in no way offended by and enjoy the "banned" Looney Tunes cartoons featuring stereotypical Japanese soldiers, because I understand and appreciate the mindset during the era they were created in. I'm sure there are Gilligan's Island reruns somewhere. Do they include the episode with the episodes with the Japanese solder and the "polynesian" natives.

Some radio stations have self-policed themselves and "banned" Baby it's Cold Outside because of real and potential complaints. Fortunately in some cases, these "bans" were reversed due to public support of the song. These got the headlines because of the reversal, but what about the other stations that have quietly stopped playing the song (as well as others that may draw complaints).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...ar/2213458002/

Last edited by lingyi; 12-16-2018 at 02:50 PM.
  #38  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:51 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,739
Flyer, would you be offended if I said that your mother was a "whitess"? Why or why not? Is it just because nobody's ever used that term? In that case, why didn't they?

White people used to refer to "negresses" and "jewesses" because they didn't want to put them in the same category as "women", a word they used specifically for white Christian women, even though it actually encompasses women of other races and religions. And that's a problem.
  #39  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:01 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 19,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi
I'll stand up for anyone's right of an opinion whether I agree with it or not. But I disagree with boycotts or outcries that inhibit by ability to enjoy something that in my opinion is fine given the spirit and context it's presented in.

As a Japanese/Okinawan, I am in no way offended by and enjoy the "banned" Looney Tunes cartoons featuring stereotypical Japanese soldiers, because I understand and appreciate the mindset during the era they were created in. I'm sure there are Gilligan's Island reruns somewhere. Do they include the episode with the episodes with the Japanese solder and the "polynesian" natives.
As as I said upthread, no one is stopping anyone from purchasing those cartoons and watching them as much as they want. You may not be able to catch them on TV, but there are a shitload of cartoons that I grew up watching that are no longer being broadcast. Because they are corny and old and children today would prefer watching something that speaks to their generation more than my generation. Looney Tunes would be on the backshelf even if they didn't contain racist imagery. They are more than 60 years old. This isn't a travesty. It's just how media works.

Furthermore, just because you aren't bothered by the stereotypes in those cartoons doesn't mean someone else can't be rightfully bothered by them. (I would argue that poking fun at soldiers of a country that has declared war against your country is a different kind of offense than poking fun of the descendants of the people your ancestors enslaved and terrorized for hundreds of years. But YMMV.) And just because a grown adult can appreciate the context behind those stereotypes doesn't mean children (the intended audience of those cartoons) have the same understanding.

Last edited by monstro; 12-16-2018 at 03:03 PM.
  #40  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:19 PM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
I'll stand up for anyone's right to an opinion whether I agree with it or not. But I disagree with boycotts or outcries that inhibit my ability to enjoy something that in my opinion is fine given the spirit and context it's presented in.

As a Japanese/Okinawan, I am in no way offended by and enjoy the "banned" Looney Tunes cartoons featuring stereotypical Japanese soldiers, because I understand and appreciate the mindset during the era they were created in. I'm sure there are Gilligan's Island reruns somewhere. Do they include the episode with the episodes with the Japanese solder and the "polynesian" natives.

Some radio stations have self-policed themselves and "banned" Baby it's Cold Outside because of real and potential complaints. Fortunately in some cases, these "bans" were reversed due to public support of the song. These got the headlines because of the reversal, but what about the other stations that have quietly stopped playing the song (as well as others that may draw complaints).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...ar/2213458002/
My point is that nothing you described as banning was in fact banning. You are describing people having different opinions about a work of art than you do. You can still access everything you described, it is just not longer as widely accepted as it once was. The culture is changing and will continue to do so.

Mostly, when people complain about political correctness, what they usually mean is that they still want to engage in sexist/racist behavior and not be called out on it. They want to enjoy a work of art without someone pointing out their opinion on it. When people complain about political correctness, they're usually mourning their loss of privilege.
  #41  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:23 PM
gogogophers gogogophers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post


It also seems like a way to manufacture outrage. If you keep changing the terms, you generate new and different ways to confuse people and keep them saying the wrong terms.

Overall the issue I have is the moving target aspect- someone could be considered non-sexist, non-racist and generally PC in say... 2008, and now be considered all of those things because they haven't kept up. And it's unreasonable to expect that everyone actually give a shit about it to that degree; cut people some slack unless they're being malicious about it. Assume the best of people. Don't get your panties in a twist unless it's egregious and intentional.
Yeah and yeah, I know what you mean. However, I personally don't feel it's a conspiracy to manufacture outrage, but it is definately a situation that enables social-sycophant types to feel superior (imagine that!) as related to awareness of the latest trend... and trends change rapidly these days. Acceptable social norms are evolutionary by nature, (and they are moving targets)... all we can do is try to keep up.

Last edited by gogogophers; 12-16-2018 at 03:26 PM.
  #42  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:27 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,032
Prime example would be "colored people" vs. "people of color." The latter is in vogue whereas the former is seen as racist. But that's like "wealthy people" vs. "people of wealth." One could very reasonably argue that the grammatical effect is the same.
  #43  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:28 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Flyer, would you be offended if I said that your mother was a "whitess"? Why or why not? Is it just because nobody's ever used that term? In that case, why didn't they?
Just a nitpick but that would be the incorrect term. A white woman would be called an Englishwoman or a Frenchwoman or a paleface or a gweilo or whatever.

Anyway, political correctness has little to do with racism per se. It encompasses far more than that. It is controlling behaviour. By controlling how people can express themselves they control how people can think and debate.
  #44  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:28 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 Helena330 is offline
Mere Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I have pointed this out before. I try again.

Accusations of 'political correctness' are a cry by those in power for a 'safe space' just as the kids in college do. They want a space where it is permissible to NOT suffer the consequences of the actions and speech.

The difference is, those calling for opposition to 'political correctness' are grown-ass adults (theoretically) and those in college asking for 'safe spaces' are kids who are still learning to be adults.

You have a right to say what you wish, willy nilly, even rude and harmful things. That doesn't mean you won't be sanctioned by society for those statements.
Bolding mine. The "safe space" nonsense is also something that's been pushed by the same people who decry political correctness in an effort to discredit academia. It might exist in some places, but not to the extent some people believe and/or promote. My own university sent out an email explicitly stating there would be no designated safe spaces and gave all the resources for counseling/support.
  #45  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:39 PM
Chingon Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 385
Robots find language tough. It's not basic math so they struggle.
__________________
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
  #46  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:51 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
The argument against PC, and it's a real thing, not imagined, not a synonym for politeness, also does include the control factor. Just tactically speaking it's an advantage in a debate to challenge an opponent on what particular terms they are using, and accuse them of moral inferiority because they don't use the right terms.
No, you are thinking of gun debates. This is not about people using an incorrect technical term, this is about people using language in order to cuase harm to people. If someone is using terms that they know are harmful, then they are being jerks. If they do not know that the terms they are harmful, then they can be cured of their ignorance.

It is only when they insist that changing the words they choose to use to no longer be harmful to others is such a great imposition on them that the morality starts coming into question.
Quote:
Which goes along with raising the issues of differences between groups (racial, ethnic, religious etc) and how they are dealt to to an all dominating moral issue. Not just whether people are physically harmed or insulted, but every possible implication of 'race' (the dominant word because nowadays ethnic, national and religious group interaction is often characterized as 'racism', it's the short hand) gets elevated to a deep moral issue, and most political issues get reduced to really being 'race' issues, so it tends toward being everything put in over-moralizing terms. But in that case it's a powerful advantage if you can wrong foot an opponent by pointing out that his or her terms are 'morally' flawed.
Well, historically, opponents of not using hate speech have had advantages by being immoral and by appealing to the baser natures of their supporters. Now, they complain that their freedoms are trampled on if anyone uses *their* freedom to call them out.
Quote:
So it is a power thing or that's the really negative element of it IMO. Some aspects of mild PC encompass politeness by reasonable definition so no problem there. Some aspects of extreme PC are just ridiculous like your examples and if they *remain broadly viewed* as ridiculous that's not a big problem either. The real problem as I see it is over moralizing of issues of human relations and a constant rapid evolution of acceptable terminology to gain advantage in debate by implying moral inferiority on the part of those who don't use the dictated terms.
If you point to anything that anyone has said in asking someone else to be more considerate as an example of PC, then you will probably find some extreme examples. To then use an extreme example as a method of generalizing, and then complaining about and ultimately trying to shut up those who try to have less hate speech in the public sphere is simply an example of the hypocrisy in criticizing others for daring to criticize you.

When you read into motives like you do, you are not actually talking about reality, but instead, just making up what you think your opponents believe, based on gross generalizations and oversimplifications, and then condemning them for that.

At least the "PC-police" criticize people for what they say, not for what they think that they think.
Quote:
The recent 'Hidden Tribes' study found upwards of 80% of Americans think PC has become a problem, and some of the highest %'s were among non-white groups. So if it's an imaginary problem, a lot of people are imagining it. And if it's a triumph of the 'right wing lie machine' in misrepresenting a simple call for politeness, it's a triumph over a lot of people who don't seem to believe the 'lie machine' about much else.
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...s_report-2.pdf
The only people who us PC in a non-ironic sense are those who are attacking the notion of not using harmful language. It is no surprise that, with that sort of PR campaign, a term that is only used by the side that is against it has a negative perception of it.

You are correct that it is a triumph of the right wing lie machine. Congratulations!

Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
By those who are (IMHO, unjustifiably offended) and call for a boycott of his performances, live or recorded. Or by a workplace policy that prohibits discussion or reference to his work because it contains politically verbiage. Ala co-workers being offended by discussions about the "Mulva" Seinfeld episode or those that feature the "Soup Nazi".
So, you are saying that in order to promote freedom of expression, you would ban people from calling for boycotts or otherwise criticizing someone's performance? In order to promote better work ethics, you would prohibit companies form having policies against speaking of controversial or otherwise not safe for work subjects during work hours and on work property?

How much control over other people are you wanting to claim in your quest for personal freedom here?
Quote:
A current ongoing example are the complaints about the playing of "Baby it's Cold Outside" on radio, because some are (IMHO) reading too much into the lyrics.
Not really reading too much into the lyrics, but actually just reading the lyrics. People who actually listen to or read them find the song to be a bit, well, pushy and opportunistic.

[quote=baby it's cold outside]
Ah, you're very pushy you know?
I like to think of it as opportunistic
[quote]

Is there a govt action to ban the song? Is there a law under which people will be fined or jailed for performing, broadcasting, or listening to the song?

No, it's just private companies making decisions based on feedback from their customers? Huh, the nerve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
The thing is, it's a moving target, and people get sick of having to keep abreast of what the "acceptable" term is.

I mean, growing up in late 80s/early 90s SW Houston, I had a bunch of Vietnamese/Chinese friends because the area has a lot of Vietnamese/Chinese immigrants.

At the time, the term THEY used for each other and preferred was "oriental". It wasn't derogatory, it wasn't some kind of thing like black people calling themselves "niggas" or anything like that. It was the term.

Fast forward another 6-7 years to the late 90s/early 2000s, and I got my ass chewed for saying someone was oriental instead of "asian". I hadn't kept up with the asian guys, so I didn't know the term had changed.

I was perplexed to say the least. And I didn't, and don't think it was fair- how the hell was I supposed to know? And it's not like whatever I had said was derogatory, etc...- it was something innocuous along the lines of "Those oriental guys who work at <somewhere> wear funny t-shirts."

That's what a lot of people get frustrated about- it's a moving target, and the get awfully tired of being told they're wrong when there was no malicious or derogatory intent in the first place. They're not wanting to offend anyone, but it's not something that they're willing to put a lot of effort into keeping up on.

It also seems like a way to manufacture outrage. If you keep changing the terms, you generate new and different ways to confuse people and keep them saying the wrong terms.
See, here's the problem. It is not the "PC police" who keep changing the terms, it is the racists and bigots. When a racist or bigot stumbles upon a new slur that catches on with the racists and bigots, then it stops being something that non-racists and bigots should say in polite company, lest people think that they are racists or bigots.

How to solve this problem, I don't know. It is a problem that is caused by and perpetuated by racists and bigots, and to turn around and complain about the non-racists and bigots disapproving of the language used by racists and bigots is pointing the finger in the diametrically wrong direction.

If you put half the effort into telling the racists and bigots to stop being racists and bigots as you do telling non-racists and bigots to stop disapproving of racist and bigoted language, then we may actually make some progress.
Quote:


Overall the issue I have is the moving target aspect- someone could be considered non-sexist, non-racist and generally PC in say... 2008, and now be considered all of those things because they haven't kept up. And it's unreasonable to expect that everyone actually give a shit about it to that degree; cut people some slack unless they're being malicious about it. Assume the best of people. Don't get your panties in a twist unless it's egregious and intentional.
Most people do. Most people do cut quite a bit of slack towards those who may not know better. It is when they have been told better, but they refuse to accept that the language that they choose to use is harmful that it starts becoming obvious that it is intentional and becoming egregious.
  #47  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:53 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 4,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Prime example would be "colored people" vs. "people of color." The latter is in vogue whereas the former is seen as racist. But that's like "wealthy people" vs. "people of wealth." One could very reasonably argue that the grammatical effect is the same.
You don't even begin to understand the reasoning behind this language construction. What this is, is "person first" language. "Colored person" makes "color" the most important part of the description, while "person of color" says the person is the most important part, followed by another descriptive word. Like "person who uses a wheelchair," rather than "disabled person."

Using person first language is respectful because it emphasizes that being a person is the most important thing. Conversely, I use "rich people" intentionally because the defining characteristic of those people, to me, is the fact that they have way too much money and I am making it quite clear that whatever ELSE they are is of much less interest or importance than the fact that they are resource hogs.

Othering and depersonalizing are tactics assholes use to minimize and deflect the very valid concerns of groups who are marginalized. People who consistently use these types of language mark themselves as assholes, which I guess is good because you can safely discount most of what they say because who really cares what an asshole thinks? Don't want to be pegged as an asshole? Then listen when a person from a marginalized group tells you that your preferred descriptive term is offensive, apologize for your mistake and stop doing it.
  #48  
Old 12-16-2018, 04:19 PM
Tim R. Mortiss's Avatar
Tim R. Mortiss Tim R. Mortiss is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
Posts: 6,910
My opinion is that political correctness is an attempt to control the language, because when you control how people speak, you can control how they think. That strikes me as extremely scary and dangerous.
  #49  
Old 12-16-2018, 04:29 PM
MortSahlFan MortSahlFan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 149
Political Correctness is its own prejudice - an elitist idea of what is acceptable or not acceptable. It's much easier to solve the true problems. Bumper sticker guilt cathartics.
  #50  
Old 12-16-2018, 04:30 PM
gogogophers gogogophers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by lingyi View Post
Part of it is based on what I learned in a Plantation history course and another part is my knowledge of our local (ethnically mixed) culture and pidgin English language which is is mix of all the different languages of the immigrants, allowing them to communicate with each other.

Despite being separated into camps (Japanese/Okinawan, Filipino, Korean, etc), they worked together in the fields and picked up on terms used by the the other groups during their daily conversations, often changed for easier pronunciation. The ability to communicate (somewhat) effectively broke down cultural barriers and opened the door for inter-racial, inter-cultural (though still frowned upon back then) relationships.

Japanee = Japanese
Nanchu = Okinawan (from Uchinanchu, the name for the people of Okinawan descent)
Bukbuk = Filipino (Tagalog for hole, as in a tooth cavity. Filipino immigrants would point to someone with a cavity and call out "bukbuk!")
Yobo = Korean (From Yobo sayo, an informal form of hello, usually used when answering the phone, not in person. Also, yobo is an affectionate term for a husband, like darling).
You appear to be well versed in local/State history. However, your response (above) in no way addresses my question: "I'm curious how you came to this conclusion."


It goes without saying that when people establish a way of communicating, they tend to get along better.

What I fail to understand is the point you stress in the (YOUR) OP concerning the statement: "I firmly believe that non-PC terms and stereotypes based on ethnic and cultural differences are what allowed the various immigrants who spoke no common language to work, play and intermarry"


I can not understand how you feel the promulgation of racial, sexual, or nationalistic (non-PC) slurs among disparate peoples could possibly encourage harmony, much less marriage among those exposed.


This just sounds like bullshit to me.
__________________
Don't ask me to explain others' notions...
I can barely justify my own.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017