That’s the thing about PC, it’s not up for discussion. If you disagree, you are a bigot.
In this case, what they wanted was so out there that it was actually deemed offensive by the school’s President. And it was. I don’t think problematic is a strong enough word to describe it, nor is silly. These people are serious and want to hurt those who disagree with them. So when they go too far, they need to be hurt right back.
But people who complain about PC are almost never just pointing at laughing at some ludicrous set of rules that were proposed by some fringe organization but which have zero chance of actually being implemented (either officially or via group pressure), they are talking about actual power and consequences. Conflating the two just dishonestly muddies the issue, although it seems to happen quite frequently.
I agree that many who complain about PC are bigots. I just disagree that complaints against PC always arise from bigotry. A lot of PC is simply absurd, and at its extremes almost borders on racist itself.
Good
Clearly true, the title of this thread is undeniably overbroad, but I don’t think anyone really seriously literally supported it to begin with
Sure, but just about anything, no matter how good or benefiical, has extremes that are absurd.
The extreme form of any ideology is usually loathesome. Extremist libertarianism, extremist theocracy, extremist gun-rights or gun control, extremist pro-life or pro-choice.
If you want to judge a movement, judge it by the thick part of the bell curve, not the fringes. Otherwise, you, yourself, will be subject to guilt by association.
Most liberals laughed at “PC” when it first came out. We tittered at “Sanitation Engineer” and “Maternity Provider” and “Vertically Challenged.” Some of us remember when the challenge was “That speech is not appropriate.” Most of us didn’t care a whole lot back then, and certainly aren’t threatened now.
Meanwhile, good fucking riddance to some antiquated terms of art, such as “Cripple” and “Imbecile.” Softening the language to de-emphasize epithets that are as old as Dickens, if not Shakespeare, is a mark of good etiquette.
[QUOTE=Trinopus;18571372
Meanwhile, good fucking riddance to some antiquated terms of art, such as “Cripple” and “Imbecile.” Softening the language to de-emphasize epithets that are as old as Dickens, if not Shakespeare, is a mark of good etiquette.[/QUOTE]
So what’s the current acceptable word for a crip or a retard? Whatever it is, imagine it spat, with hate, at a person with disability or a developmentally-challenged individual. Because whatever it is, someone with an empathy deficit will spit it at a crip or a retard. You can’t “soften” language - whether you can soften people is still up for debate.
So what’s your point? Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Should it still be perfectly acceptable to say “nigger” just because someone else can say “african-american” with a sneer?
Changing language changes minds.* Discouraging dehumanizing language helps the disabled or the different more fully integrate into society, which is a net benefit for everyone.
(*Except yours, perhaps. But you’re an asshole.)
Those who seek control seek to control language.
Are you evil, then?
Sure, you got me. I’m evil for thinking maybe “retard” and “cripple” are disrespectful, and I’m evil for hoping to encourage people to be kinder to others. Congratufuckinglations, you win internet points.
You disgust me.
:shrug: Evil. Whatcha gonna do?
Actually as someone who had to listen to a lot of excesses in the 80s and 90s, we had a point.
Examples (sorry no cites):
a Carleton University (in Ottawa, Canada) administrator, in order to avoid controversy, had the male/female signs (the pictograms with stick figures in skirts (or not)) on washroom doors replaced by the ones that look like Volvo trademarks. A female student complained that it was sexist.
maybe this was just a Canadian thing, but does anyone remember the big “issue” about how man-hole covers had to be called “maintenance holes”? That didn’t seem to last too long.
how about “animal companions” instead of “pets”. I wouldn’t want to offend the cats would I?
an issue (there were a few magazine articles about this, back in the day) about “waiter” and “waitress”. Apparently even “waitron” was a suggested alternative - maybe in Star Trek - really?
there was, for a while, an issue about how we shouldn’t call children “kids”
how about the “holidays” instead of Christmas? Btw “Christmas” isn’t exclusive - I’m secular but the period of time towards the end of December is Christmas. Calling it something else changes nothing.
Note: maybe we should ban “holiday” since it’s a contraction of “holy day”
maybe we should ban “goodbye” since it’s a contraction of “god be with ye”
there was also a issue about some female university students who wanted their Bachelors degrees to be called something else - like, a Maiden of Arts (or science or whatever).
Meanwhile in the Royal Canadian Navy, a female Ordinary Seaman, Able Seaman, Leading Seaman, or Master Seaman is (how terrible) an Ordinary, Able, Leading, or Master Seaman. But they do get paid the same salary to do the same work and we have a number of female combat and weapons officers. We’ve also had a female ship’s captain.
If we treat people fairly and with the respect that they deserve I think that that’s what truly matters.
I hear they want to be called Feline Americans…
Agreed. We can rid ourselves of some of the really awful old terms. We’ve succeeded in some ways. When’s the last time you heard someone called Mulatto? Or someone called a Bastard with the very specific meaning of having unmarried parents?
(Some years ago, a friend invited me to the wedding of…his parents! Bastardy jokes were all over the place. No one cared: the word has lost its power to hurt!)
And, yeah, the liberals were among the first to heap ridicule upon excesses of “correct” speech, especially the clunky neologisms and figures of speech.
(That said, the Chair of the local science fiction convention’s organizing committee is…the Chair. Shrug. What harm?)
In addition,
Sorry, boy genius, but as far as I know, I’ve never actually used the term or attacked you before. It’s your many, many other detractors who I see as kicking you in the nuts.
Please tell me what in the fuck you are talking about. Seriously; this is a complete non sequitur as far as I can tell.
Ah, The Rule of So again - funnily enough, no, that’s not my point. I realise it’s the Pit, but still, the best way to clarify my point would be to ask what my point is, rather than invent one of your own and try to stick it on me.
I think my point is relatively clear - we need to work on attitudes, not language. If working on attitudes proves difficult, or even impossible, doing something else that doesn’t achieve your aims isn’t at all laudable, no matter how much you congratulate yourself for it.
That would depend on how you said ‘nigger’, I suppose - if all you do with it is distinguish between (fictional) ‘races’ then it’s functionally no different from anything you replace it with. On the other hand, if it’s said with a sneer or spat with hate, then gosh, it’s still functionally no different from anything you replace it with. “I don’t hire african-americans” is still hate speech, it’s still racism, it’s still ugly.
Using phrases like ‘the disabled’ is dehumanising language. People with disabilities are people, ‘the disabled’ just lost their status as people first and foremost. I don’t know who ‘the different’ are. Am I? Are you? Who does everyone need to be the same as, in order to be integrated? Why can’t you accept difference? I’d think that’s the real problem facing ‘the different’ - people like you, who demand everyone be the same…as them. I fail to see the net benefit of being the same as you.
Do try to keep up. I’m an arsehole. You’re an asshole. Vive la différence.
This post is a perfect example as to why some people “whine” about political correctness. Being against the control of language, and by extension the control of minds, isn’t bigoted.
Pablo Cruise.
I’m surprised you didn’t jump on the “George Orwell” bandwagon. :rolleyes:
If that’s what you and D’Anconia want to take away from my views, so be it. I ain’t stopping you. But damn, must be scary in there.