Fuck Political Correctness.

[you_with_the_face]

by sleeping

First of all, the inclusion of the word spiffy changes the context. I agree with you that the most common usage of gay refers to homosexuality, but it’s also important to remember that the reason this is so is because gay liberationalists popularized it.

Even if that is the case, so what? Does that have anything to do with what ideas we associate with the word “gay” when we hear it in conversation?

What strikes me as juvenile is the constant barrage of “oh no you can’t say that” by people who clearly have nothing else to do.

I don’t care to censor anyone, so if it you makes you happy to speak in a mixture of Shakespearean English, Jamaican patois, and pig latin, go ahead. What’s stupid and unrealistic is to think you can say whatever you want, using whatever phrases or words you want, without anyone ever getting offended or misunderstanding…especially when the language is outdated and easily misinterpreted. If you want to communicate effectively, you’re going to have to compromise your anti-self-censorship principles and be sensitive to the needs of your audience. If you don’t want to do that, bravo! But don’t whine when people get offended by the stuff you say.

That’s not an analogous example. The word niggardly has one definition; it just happens to sound somewhat like a racial slur. Seeing as how as I have fairly good diction, I don’t see a problem.

It doesn’t matter if niggardly has one definition or one hundred; the point is the same. Even if if your diction is perfect, “niggardly” will sound like “nigger”. So while you may not have a problem, someone unfamiliar with the word may misunderstand you. Add to the fact that the word is just not a part of regular, everyday speech, and you greatly increase your odds of someone thinking you mean something that you don’t. Is all that potential confusion worth the pleasure of exercising a healthy vocabulary? That’s pathetic if you think it is.

How about neither? It’s a word, plain and simple. I don’t see why someone would have to be a pedant to use it.

People who go out of their way to use a fairly antiquated word to describe something that already has an adundance of synonyms (miserly, stingy, tightwaddish, cheapskate, selfish, ungenerous…to rattle off a few) may not be pedantic. But I would consider them someone who is not all that interested in communicating a straightforward message, and more interested in making some kind silly “I dare you get offended by this and if you do, you’re an IGNORANT, HYPERSENSITIVE DUMBASS” point. If that’s not juvenile, I don’t know what else is.

As for the latter case, you are again ignoring the fact that people actually have brains. If someone says “NIGGARdly” (and I assume you are also imagining a scornful tone that would likely go with it) people will know that the person is a racist. The PC movement tries to systematize something that doesn’t need to be systemized.

Sorry, you lost me with “systematize”. If you mean “stigmatize” then I see what you are saying but still disagree. I contend that you don’t have to put undue emphasis on the NIGGAR part of niggardly to garner legitimate offense. Just saying the word correctly may raise eyebrows even in a roomfull of English professors. The semblense to “nigger” shines through without you having to make it shine through.

When someone says something, you typically know what they mean. If you don’t, you ask.

Hey, maybe that’s what you do, but a lot of people don’t take the time to ask; they fill in the blank themselves. Are they wrong? Maybe. Is it natural to do? Yes. Should you expect them not to do this very natural thing? No. And furthermore, if you knowingly use words in ways that rely heavily on context and tone for the meaning to be clear, and someone misunderstands you, why blame them when all that could have been prevented had you just used a word that you knew could stand on its own?

[Lobsang]

@Trunk

What Lobsang said is just completely stupid. If a volcano belches 50 trillion tons of sulphur into the air tomorrow and kills every living thing, it doesn’t matter to the earth. It’s only POLLUTION to us.

The idea that we’re a disease to the planet is retarded. The only thing we’re a disease to is Lobsang’s impression of the pristine state of the planet.

Believe what you will.
We are a disease of the planet my friend.

[Lobsang]

@Max_Castle

Lobsang stated animals were better that humans…

Please don’t misquote me. I am sure it is in the SDMB rules. I said animals were more important than humans. And I meant it in the context of the future of the planet. Technically humans are better than animals. We are also more dangerous than them (for the planet, again)

@Trunk

1. Animals are fucking with the planet. Their shit poisons streams. They kill other animals. Their own grazing, according to some, has helped enlarge deserts. Their farts contribute to greenhouse gases. They strip plants of their vegetation. Animals fuck with the planet.

Yeah, and a match can blow up a city. This is so fucking stupid I don’t know how to respond.

@Trunk

2. The planet can not be fucked with. The planet was once a hot ball of liquid metal and once it was just a collection of dust. People who think the planet’s optimal state is when its covered with trees and water and furry animals say that because THAT’S WHAT MAKES PEOPLE HAPPY. That is, Lobsang calls humans a disease to the planet because we can destroy that which we like. But that just makes us a disease to our own enjoyment of the planet, BUT NOT TO THE PLANET ITSELF. The planet doesn’t give a shit if every living thing were wiped out tomorrow.

In a pedantic way, you are right. But in a more sensible way, you are wrong. Should I burn all your skin off and say you have not been fucked with so to speak?

@Trunk

3. 1 & 2 don’t actually go hand in hand, so pick which ever one you think makes what Lobsang said stupider.

I think it is clear who has made themselves look stupid here.

@Trunk

The idea that we’re a disease to the planet is retarded. The only thing we’re a disease to is Lobsang’s impression of the pristine state of the planet.

The idea that we are a disease to the planet is hard for some egotistical humans to cope with, (as is clear by the reaction to my comment of some people) It is also true. The planet as a home of life, if it were without humans, would be in a state of equilibrium, it would be stable. With humans it is unstable, it’s future is in doubt, it is ill at ease, it is dis-eased.

Don’t take me for some anti-human tree hugger. I am simply stating facts. That my comments touched so many nerves is unbelievable and worrying. Some humans are sadly deluded.

[Denis]

Mommy, Mommy! Lobsang’s ego-tripping again!

[Chotii]

@skutir

You want to shrug off the complaints of people who’ve been oppressed for centuries, then have a little hissy fit because you can’t get peanuts on airplane or because some woman on TV tells you your(sic) a bastard.

I think a better question is: Are these people STILL oppressed, and if so, how much of their oppression is self-inflicted? How much could be overcome by the application of adequate effort?

Why can’t native-born American kids born in rough circumstances do what immigrants from Mexico and/or Central or South America do, or immigrants from Asia - who are born, no doubt, in less than opulant circumstances themselves? Why can’t they live 5 or 6 to an apartment, work, get some education, and try to get ahead? What does the oppression of their grandparents have to do with anything? My grandparents were picking cotton in the fields of Arkansas during the depression - anything to make a few pennies to put food on the table. That doesn’t define my life for me in the least.

I’ve never understood this. I dare say, most of our ancestors were oppressed, overrun, killed, pillaged, looted, raped, and lost their cultures at some point or another. That’s the history of the world. It’s just that some people groups were oppressed and lost their cultures more recently than others.

I have no sympathy for person X who says, “My great-great-grandparents suffered, so I am owed something today.” If they can show how they are suffering today through no fault of their own, I try to be generous with my own possessions, to help them.

Oh, and I’m not a white male.

[Mutsugoro]

Hey, DeaganTheWolf , do short people next, ummmkay?

[UselessGit]

@you with the face

It doesn’t matter if niggardly has one definition or one hundred; the point is the same. Even if if your diction is perfect, “niggardly” will sound like “nigger”. So while you may not have a problem, someone unfamiliar with the word may misunderstand you.

OK, I’ve read this over a few times and I can only come to one conclusion: You want to stop using words that have any chance of being misunderstood to the point of hurting people’s feelings.

Seeing as more and more words are becoming “bad”, how long do you think we have before we run out of words?

If someone doesn’t understand what you mean it’s his problem, not yours - if you kill words off just because they might offend someone, the terrorists will have won. Sorry, I mean the PC-crowd will have won.

Despite myself, and for what it’s worth, I aggree with you regarding “niggardly” - it does seem like a word someone would use just to stir things up (loaded?). But that is neither “niggardly”'s fault nor the languages so I can’t see why they should suffer.

…I almost forgot to roll my eyes at Lobsang, so here goes: :rolleyes:

[you_with_the_face]

UselessGit

OK, I’ve read this over a few times and I can only come to one conclusion: You want to stop using words that have any chance of being misunderstood to the point of hurting people’s feelings.

Wrong. I’m saying that it is perfectly fine to use whatever words you want to use. Just don’t be offended by other people taking offense. If you use “niggardly” (or any other word) conversationally–with the knowledge beforehand that other people might not be familiar with it and therefore will misunderstand your intended message–then your complaints about how unfair it is that people get offended do not garner much sympathy from me. How hard is it just to use a different word? If your vocabularly is advanced enough to know what “niggardly” means, surely this will be sweatless feat. I mean, it’s like I swear some people just want to find something to be gripe about.

If someone doesn’t understand what you mean it’s his problem, not yours…

Well apparently not. If that was case, we wouldn’t have so many dudes whining about words that they “can’t” use. Seems like they’re the ones with the problem. All they want is to be able to say whatever they want and get only the response they want. If whatever comes out of their mouths triggers a response that falls outside of their expectations of acceptabilty, then they start feeling oppressed by the so-called PC Police and the foam starts to flow out of their mouths. That particular behavior is no better than those of the people they complain about, is all I’m sayin’.

[sleeping]

@you with the face

Even if that is the case, so what? Does that have anything to do with what ideas we associate with the word “gay” when we hear it in conversation?

It has everything to do with it. When they set out to appropriate (or “take back”) the word as something positive, do you think they didn’t offend anyone? Sure they did. But now it has a good connotation. Why would you resist giving a previously hateful word a positive meaning? It can only serve to bring people closer together.

If you want to communicate effectively, you’re going to have to compromise your anti-self-censorship principles and be sensitive to the needs of your audience. If you don’t want to do that, bravo! But don’t whine when people get offended by the stuff you say.

You’re missing the point. Of course people will get offended. My problem with the PC movement is that it’s the reason why people still get offended. By focusing on the historical potency of the word it has succeeded in perpetuating it.

People who go out of their way to use a fairly antiquated word to describe something that already has an adundance of synonyms (miserly, stingy, tightwaddish, cheapskate, selfish, ungenerous…to rattle off a few) may not be pedantic. But I would consider them someone who is not all that interested in communicating a straightforward message, and more interested in making some kind silly “I dare you get offended by this and if you do, you’re an IGNORANT, HYPERSENSITIVE DUMBASS” point. If that’s not juvenile, I don’t know what else is.

It doesn’t matter if niggardly has one definition or one hundred; the point is the same. Even if if your diction is perfect, “niggardly” will sound like “nigger”. So while you may not have a problem, someone unfamiliar with the word may misunderstand you. Add to the fact that the word is just not a part of regular, everyday speech, and you greatly increase your odds of someone thinking you mean something that you don’t. Is all that potential confusion worth the pleasure of exercising a healthy vocabulary? That’s pathetic if you think it is.

You seem to think that I purposely throw the word around just to bug people. I don’t. When I need to use it–and that doesn’t happen often since the word isn’t a part of ordinary speech–I do so. As of now, I’ve probably used it 2 or 3 times in my written work and never in oral speech (obviously excluding discussions of the word itself). I am neither afraid of nor endeared by it. It’s just a word and I use it when I see fit.

Sorry, you lost me with “systematize”. If you mean “stigmatize” then I see what you are saying but still disagree. I contend that you don’t have to put undue emphasis on the NIGGAR part of niggardly to garner legitimate offense. Just saying the word correctly may raise eyebrows even in a roomfull of English professors. The semblense to “nigger” shines through without you having to make it shine through.

Where does it end? Should we stop using the word denigrate? After all, it not only sounds like nigger, but actually comes from the same word! So racial slurs will be deemed unacceptable in any context. Then associated words. Then, as we have just witnessed, words that just happen to sound like racial slurs. Why do you insist on robbing a language?

When people allege that Israel is engaging in Nazi tactics, for example, I get annoyed because I feel that it’s untrue. But it would be ludicrous to try to ban the word Nazi from all speech in any situation. Context matters and every word has its place.

Wrong. I’m saying that it is perfectly fine to use whatever words you want to use. Just don’t be offended by other people taking offense. If you use “niggardly” (or any other word) conversationally–with the knowledge beforehand that other people might not be familiar with it and therefore will misunderstand your intended message–then your complaints about how unfair it is that people get offended do not garner much sympathy from me. How hard is it just to use a different word? If your vocabularly is advanced enough to know what “niggardly” means, surely this will be sweatless feat. I mean, it’s like I swear some people just want to find something to be gripe about.

And I’m saying that the PC movement has trained people to take offense at things that aren’t offensive. You say that “it is perfectly fine to use whatever words you want to use.” No one is claiming that there is a law that says you can’t. I am protesting PCness as an idiotic cultural movement that has done far more harm than good.

Oh, by the way, if you are so bothered by people who set out to instigate quarrels and then pretend that they’re shocked by the response they receive you need look no further than Lobsang’s perfect example in this thread.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

@DeaganTheWolf

I’m central Asian fuckwad.

Shouldn’t that be “I’m a central Asian fuckwad”?

[Mutsugoro]

How is political correctness different from using manners?
If you care about the person with whom you are speaking then you will use polite terms if it is necessary to include race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc in the conversation.
If you want to irk or tweak someone, you will purposely use unpleasant terminology.
If you choose to be offensive, you limit your circle of friends.
People change. Society changes.
Evolve or don’t evolve- it’s a personal choice.

[Ferrous]

@sleeping

It has everything to do with it. When they set out to appropriate (or “take back”) the word as something positive, do you think they didn’t offend anyone? Sure they did. But now it has a good connotation. Why would you resist giving a previously hateful word a positive meaning? It can only serve to bring people closer together.

Wait a sec…are you saying that when I hear someone say “That is so gay!” about something, they’re using “gay” as a synonym for “cool”? That’s a whole different kettle of fish…

[you_with_the_face]

by sleeping

It has everything to do with it. When they set out to appropriate (or “take back”) the word as something positive, do you think they didn’t offend anyone? Sure they did. But now it has a good connotation.

Um, it depends on who the word “gay” is being directed to. Many straight people–even if they are not homophobic, mind you–do not like to be referred to as gay. If I use the word about someone with the intent of describing their general merriness, I may offend them if they misunderstand me. And even if they don’t exactly misunderstand me, my message will take longer to be processed because when people hear “gay” they automatically think of “a man who has a sexual preference towards other men.” So they may laugh or blush or be caught off guard for just a second, which are the responses I don’t intend to spark. Point is, I am not communicating effectively by using that word instead of “happy” or some other less loaded word. It doesn’t matter if offense is involved or not.

Why would you resist giving a previously hateful word a positive meaning? It can only serve to bring people closer together.

I’m not resisting anything. I simply recognize the world I live in and adapt my language accordingly. “Gay = happy” has become passe. “Niggardly = stingy” is failling out of fashion (if such a thing is possible since it never really was in fashion). Language evolves. This is not a bad thing. Stop clinging to words as if they represent anything more than vehicles for communication.

You’re missing the point. Of course people will get offended. My problem with the PC movement is that it’s the reason why people still get offended. By focusing on the historical potency of the word it has succeeded in perpetuating it.

Can you give us an idea of some words that prior to the PC-movement were not offensive? It hasn’t been until relatively recently that minorities have had the opportunity to speak out against the labels pinned on them by the majority population and more importantly, have their objections listened to. Perhaps the PC-police is nothing more than the result of a multicultural society that doesn’t automatically give straight white men a free pass to say whatever they want without getting criticism in return.

For instance, in the past women in the workplace were routinely called girls and no one said anything about it. (Ahhh yes, the good ole days when full adults were glibly referred to as children! Doesn’t it make you just cry with nostalgia?) I’m sure that the PC police upset a lot of old fogies when they said that the “women = girl” association was generally offensive. I’m sure not all men were deliberately being derogatory when they spoke of their secretaries and assistants (as well as wives, teachers, waitresses, nurses, etc) with such a patronizing term, and so they probably took umbrage at the fact that they suddenly couldn’t throw around “girl” in the officeplace without offending someone. Afterall, they reasoned, no one had said a thing about it for tons of years and now all of a suddenl, it is wrong. So it must be the PC police that is responsible for the offense! And not the fact that they were using language held over from a sexist era!

Where does it end? Should we stop using the word denigrate? After all, it not only sounds like nigger, but actually comes from the same word! So racial slurs will be deemed unacceptable in any context. Then associated words. Then, as we have just witnessed, words that just happen to sound like racial slurs. Why do you insist on robbing a language?

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Where have I advocated the robbing of anyone’s language? I’m only advocating personal responsibility and common sense when it comes to speech. “Denigrate” is a common word and it doesn’t sound very much like “nigger”. I don’t expect to derail communication by using it. “Niggardly” is a different story. If your mama taught you anything about common sense, then you don’t have much to worry about.

And I’m saying that the PC movement has trained people to take offense at things that aren’t offensive.

Name some of these things that people get offended at that aren’t offensive.

[Lobsang]

@sleeping

Oh, by the way, if you are so bothered by people who set out to instigate quarrels and then pretend that they’re shocked by the response they receive you need look no further than Lobsang’s perfect example in this thread.

Actually I did not exect the response I got. What I said was meant to be a casual remark. I was shocked that people actually took it to heart. It never bothers me when I am told how relatively insignificant the human race is, and how, on a grand scale, it is actually a bad thing. I had no idea such a broad comment could cause individuals to be hurt by it.

And I never took it back (still don’t) because taking it back would be admitting it is wrong, which I don’t.

[Ryle_Dup]

@Lobsang

Actually I did not exect the response I got. What I said was meant to be a casual remark. I was shocked that people actually took it to heart. It never bothers me when I am told how relatively insignificant the human race is, and how, on a grand scale, it is actually a bad thing. I had no idea such a broad comment could cause individuals to be hurt by it.

And I never took it back (still don’t) because taking it back would be admitting it is wrong, which I don’t.

You’re a fool if you think that humans cause instability with the planet. We simply have the ability to do what naturally comes to us, we have adapted in a way that lets us dominate over the earth, and change the environment to suit us. Is a bird building a nest not changing his environment to better suit him?

Given the chance, wolf packs can (and do) wipe out large amounts of deer / moose / whatever populations and then starve because there is no food left, when they become repopulated the cycle begins again. This is a very chaotic method of nature, and it’s just how the world is. Humans happen to be able to adapt and make the environment more stable by keeping species alive, or getting rid of species.

If wolves could kill and eat everything on this planet, they would. Just be thankful that (some) humans are concious of our decisions.

[Lobsang]

@Ryle Dup

You’re a fool if you think that humans cause instability with the planet. We simply have the ability to do what naturally comes to us, we have adapted in a way that lets us dominate over the earth, and change the environment to suit us. Is a bird building a nest not changing his environment to better suit him?

Given the chance, wolf packs can (and do) wipe out large amounts of deer / moose / whatever populations and then starve because there is no food left, when they become repopulated the cycle begins again. This is a very chaotic method of nature, and it’s just how the world is. Humans happen to be able to adapt and make the environment more stable by keeping species alive, or getting rid of species.

If wolves could kill and eat everything on this planet, they would. Just be thankful that (some) humans are concious of our decisions.

How can you compare what humans have done to what animals do??? Do animals pump fuckloads of o-zone destroying gasses into the air? do animals destroy whole fucking rainforests??
That is beside the point. If I was in fact wrong about the difference between humans and animals with regards to the equilibrium of earth I still did not expect any responses to my comment, let alone serious ones! Why are people so fucking touchy about this subject??? It is baffling!

[Denis]

Lobsang, when you refer to our particular species of animal, homo sapiens, as a disease, I think you are using a grossly loaded term.

On environmental issues, I think we have made some pretty good strides. I also think we have a long way to go. Referring to us as a disease to the planet smacks of despair and misanthropy. I think that’s the reason for the bitching.

[sleeping]

@Ferrous

Wait a sec…are you saying that when I hear someone say “That is so gay!” about something, they’re using “gay” as a synonym for “cool”? That’s a whole different kettle of fish…

It’s the same thing as with the word retard. It was introduced as a PC term but has since attained a negative connotation due to schoolboys using it as an insult.

@you with the face

Um, it depends on who the word “gay” is being directed to. Many straight people–even if they are not homophobic, mind you–do not like to be referred to as gay. If I use the word about someone with the intent of describing their general merriness, I may offend them if they misunderstand me. And even if they don’t exactly misunderstand me, my message will take longer to be processed because when people hear “gay” they automatically think of “a man who has a sexual preference towards other men.” So they may laugh or blush or be caught off guard for just a second, which are the responses I don’t intend to spark. Point is, I am not communicating effectively by using that word instead of “happy” or some other less loaded word. It doesn’t matter if offense is involved or not.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by “positive” but I did not mean happy. My point was that it used to mean “homosexual” with a negative connotation and now it means “homosexual” with a positive connotation, as has been demonstrated by the fact that it’s the preferred adjective for just about every gay (rights/tolerance/etc.) group.

It’s true that most straight people would object to being called “gay.” The homophobes aside, I’m not sure what they would not like. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t correct the speaker if they wish to, but there is no reason to get upset. (I’m assuming you did not mean that the word was being used as an insult, which I’ve explained above.)

Language evolves. This is not a bad thing. Stop clinging to words as if they represent anything more than vehicles for communication.

Yes, language does evolve. But don’t you think there is a difference between a cultural trend that gradually takes root and a specific group of individuals saying that they want one term and one term only to be used to refer to something and that no other term can be used? I hate to bring up the more extreme cases of politicized language, but one of the ways in which some dictators have exercised their control was by constantly tweaking the definitions of words to serve their own ends. This allowed them to look good after making a political blunder as well as eliminate any opponents or people they saw as potential enemies. Clearly, the PC movement has not even approached this, but one must always be wary of the effects of such ideas.

@sleeping

You’re missing the point. Of course people will get offended. My problem with the PC movement is that it’s the reason why people still get offended. By focusing on the historical potency of the word it has succeeded in perpetuating it.

Can you give us an idea of some words that prior to the PC-movement were not offensive? It hasn’t been until relatively recently that minorities have had the opportunity to speak out against the labels pinned on them by the majority population and more importantly, have their objections listened to. Perhaps the PC-police is nothing more than the result of a multicultural society that doesn’t automatically give straight white men a free pass to say whatever they want without getting criticism in return.

I did not say that the PC movement has made offensive words that previously weren’t. I said that by focusing on certain words it has preserved their potency, rather than let it wane.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Where have I advocated the robbing of anyone’s language? I’m only advocating personal responsibility and common sense when it comes to speech. “Denigrate” is a common word and it doesn’t sound very much like “nigger”. I don’t expect to derail communication by using it. “Niggardly” is a different story.

And I thought that when the word niggardly is used in the proper context, and in the proper place (that is, on those rare occassions when other words won’t do), that people would take for it it is. Surprise, surprise.

If your mama taught you anything about common sense, then you don’t have much to worry about.

Funny, that’s what DeagantheWolf said in his OP and what I’ve been saying in my posts. (This is not in any way to be taken as an agreement with Deagan’s entire OP.)

@Lobsang

Why are people so fucking touchy about this subject??? It is baffling!

On the off chance that you haven’t realized it, you sounded like one of those environmental terrorists to some of those posters. I am not going to get into a debate as to who is actually better/more important/whatever.

[Lobsang]

@Denis

Lobsang, when you refer to our particular species of animal, homo sapiens, as a disease, I think you are using a grossly loaded term.

On environmental issues, I think we have made some pretty good strides. I also think we have a long way to go. Referring to us as a disease to the planet smacks of despair and misanthropy. I think that’s the reason for the bitching.

OK. well, if it helps - I did not mean it in that way. I am certainly not misanthropic. Nor am I in despair. I meant it in a very general basic broad fact sense. Using the term disease to mean what it literally means - not at ease.

I did not mean to imply that we are some vile repulsive oozing slime (although some of us are) infesting the planet. Just that we are technically not good for it, we are causing it harm.

I hope that you are right that we are making good strides on environmental issues. But I look at the state of the world, political beurocracy, power, corruption, and I do not feel confident that we have much of a future.

[Ferrous]

@sleeping

It’s the same thing as with the word retard. It was introduced as a PC term but has since attained a negative connotation due to schoolboys using it as an insult.

I do not beleve that the word “retard”, as a noun, has ever been anything but a derogatory term. Would you happen to have a cite for that claim?

Anyway, you’re missing the point. The word “gay”, as a descriptive term for homosexuals is not offensive. Nobody, as far as I know, said it was. But when it is used as a general term of derision—“You like N’Sync? That is so gay!”, in other words, as a synonym for “lame”, “uncool”, whatever—then it is offensive.

I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.