That’s because “PC culture” is a snarl word. If you ask them, “is it OK to call black people the n-word?” They’ll say no. “Can you call all Asians “Chinese”?” No again. “Should you call gay people the f word?” No, once more. “Should you call women who carry mail “mailmen”?” No. Etc.
It’s like Obamacare. “Do you like Obamacare?” “No!” How about the Affordable Care Act, which allowed people with existing conditions to get covered, allowed you to cover your children until they were 26, and so on? “Yeah! Sign me up!”
I don’t know how many people might say in a poll “I am concerned about political correctness”, but I suspect that many fewer people actually worry in their daily lives that someone will call them out for the language they actually use.
In one case, you’re making someone uncomfortable because of who they are (a minority, LGBTQ, a woman, whatever), and the other case, you’re making someone uncomfortable because of their word usage.
I don’t know, “helped popularize” is such a wishy-washy statement, it would of course be true.
They didn’t invent the modern usage, and American Blacks certainly did their part in pushing for it in the 80s and 90s.
If you were meaning to imply African-Americans weren’t involved, and just Whites led the charge, you would be mistaken, yes.
Which, if I may circle back, is often what well meaning but not cultur- or group-associated individuals (like the PARC students) who promote certain ideas or ideologies do on behalf of some fraction of society and try to drive change without having a full and complete understanding of that culture or group, or its wants and priorities.
And it behooves us to think critically, rather than follow blindly, their proposals, no matter how well meaning they may seem at first flush.
On that note, I do remember that the ACA numbers were a bit on the side of people opposing ACA. What many pundits from the right ignored is that a good chunk of that opposition was from the left that saw the ACA as not being good enough. In retrospective, that did not mean that all people supported the right wing’s effort to demolish the ACA, but when right wing politicians then attempted to destroy the good that was left, most of the left’s opposition to the ACA melted away. With many polls nowadays showing that most people support the ACA.
???
Well that’s obviously a discussion that we would have if and when such a proposal came up.
I’m not really sure what your suggestion is…that anyone thinks that whatever Brandeis comes up with must be gospel?
Or is it just the typical slippery slope fallacy?
The mentally ill, the differently-abled, and Asians and Native Americans, among others (others including, you know, just plain old empathetic people).
Let’s not pretend that making fun of the way Asians and other groups speak, e.g. long time no see, is not a thing, that would be heading for disingenuousness .
And no-one said you had to accept their representativeness - but you’re doing far more than that, with your line of argument. You’re actively denying any possibility of representation at all.
I actually thought this was proposed by the visually impaired. It never occurred to me that it’s making fun of Asians or Native Americans or whatever. Interesting. Thanks!
I know several people who are actually mentally ill who are actually offended by calling bad thing “crazy”. That one isn’t even slightly hypothetical.
I feel like “lame” is used rarely enough to describe the physically disabled that it’s less likely to cause offense. (And my lamest friend – in the literal sense – has joked about it, and doesn’t find it offensive). But it doesn’t seem like a nice way to say what is intended anyway, so I tend not to use the word. I’m actually more likely to use “crazy”, but I’m working on that, as I have offended people with it.
I wonder how many Asians or Native Americans are aware and object to its use. How many use it as part of their common daily language without so much as a thought to offense.
We’ve established clear examples in which “representativeness” is often misleading, even in comparatively large populations. I’m not denying it outright. I’m expressing skepticism that a couple dozen well meaning undergrads have it all figured out.
I was curious about this claim, so I did a bit of research. Pretty sure the author is referring to this:
What did the law actually do?
So, “force of law” is kind of misleading there. It’s not like anyone’s getting arrested for using the word “oriental.” It’s not even making some sort of declaration about the appropriateness of the word, it’s just updating old laws to use contemporary terminology. Terminology which the author of the piece you posted acknowledges has been falling out of usage since the 1950s.
I also can’t help but note that the author’s profession is in “Oriental Medicine.” Googling her name, I see that she is, specifically, an acupuncturist - a pseudoscience which has repeatedly failed to demonstrate useful effects in rigorous medical trials. It’s not surprising that she’s supportive of the term “Oriental.” They exoticization that people like Jeff Yang and Erika Lee find problematic with the term is the basis of her entire career. She relies on folks (largely white, I’m willing to bet) who prize “ancient Chinese secrets” over replicable results in a clinical setting.