Is the tide about to turn against political correctness?

[John_Mace]

@Cheesesteak

The real question is, what do YOU want to happen when this MSNBC contributor pisses off their viewers? Should the Suits not be allowed to fire this idiot? Should they be legally barred from firing someone over being an asshole? Should we make ‘asshole’ a legally protected class of people?

Let us all know how much you want to curtail the rights of the owners and operators of MSNBC to run their business the way they see fit.

No, this isn’t about me. Let’s go back to what started this whole conversation. The OP is somehow trying to say that we live in a Post-PC society. That “Okay, so rather than the tide turning on political correctness, perhaps at least the draconian consequences of minor violations of whatever code there is will end? IMO, consequences should be reserved for hate speech, not for ignorance, misspeaking, or microaggressions.”

I think he’s wrong. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I think is right or wrong, just what I think actually happens in the world today. Say the wrong thing, and you can booted from your job. Sometimes that can be a good thing and sometimes it can be a bad thing. But we’re not past that period.

[mage-girl]

@HoneyBadgerDC

The thing I find oppressive about Pc is that for folks like myself with very limited vocabularies it makes it tough for us to express ourselves and be heard. It is almost like saying only the educated have a worthwhile opinion.

I’m with you. Despite being a native English speaker and graduating from college, when talking I’m a little impulsive and clumsy. Sometimes I’m thinking out loud, trying to figure it out as I go. My brain is noisy; talking things through helps.

This leads to misunderstandings; for example, a friend (term used loosely) got on a rant about a social issue. I engaged her in my usual casual-but-realistic manner, like I would any other friend. She flipped the hell out! I tried to backtrack, and say that now that I’d thought about it, I actually agreed with part of her statement… But it was too late. :o

I know I should think more before I speak, but I haven’t had a problem with anyone else (that I’m aware of). Getting by in a professional environment became tricky, though. I think my overall likability saved me there. Not bragging, just very fortunate to seem innocuous enough not to be a real threat.

Incidentally, when writing, unlike when speaking, I’m fairly articulate. I love the ability to edit as I go. I need a backspace key for when I’m speaking. But I doubt I’m alone.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@John_Mace

I think he’s wrong. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I think is right or wrong, just what I think actually happens in the world today. Say the wrong thing, and you can booted from your job. Sometimes that can be a good thing and sometimes it can be a bad thing. But we’re not past that period.

The example is ridiculous, though. If I’m a mechanic, a major part of my job is to twist things. Twist the wrong thing, and I can be booted from my job. If I’m a surgeon, a major part of my job is to cut things. Cut the wrong thing, and I can be booted from my job. And if I’m a pundit, a major part of my job is to say things. Say the wrong thing, and I can be booted from my job.

How is getting fired for doing your job in a shitty fashion a draconian consequence?

Let’s say there’s an auto mechanic who gets fired from her job for calling Jenner “he” over and over in a conversation, and she’s not trying to be a dick to a transgender customer or co-worker, and her boss fires her. I’d definitely think that was draconian. Because using words the right way is not a major part of the mechanic’s job.

But you went straight for the speaky-person-job in order to gin up a draconian consequence. I think that’s not reasonable.

[XT]

@JVDaly

With all due respect to the OP, I think this thread is something of a non-starter without a rigorous definition of what Political Correctness actually is.

I mean, when some people think of political correctness they think of stuff like this:

YouTube: Stuart Lee on Political Correctness:

And when other people think of political correctness they think of stuff like this:

I Don’t Care That You Landed A Probe On A Comet. Your Shirt Is Sexist And Ostracising!

One of these is obviously very laudable. The other is stupid as fuck.

So which are we talking about?

I didn’t see any replies to this, and unfortunately where I’m at neither of the links work (PC firewall issues :p), but I think of the former and what you quoted there. As a pretty old fart I certainly recall a time when folks said truly offensive shit without any thought to who it would hurt or who would hear it in the perfect certainty that anyone who WAS offended couldn’t do shit about it and if they did the police would certainly be getting good use of those night sticks. So, to me, PC means a sort of forced politeness, where regardless of how much of a racist fuck you are, you aren’t going to come right out and say your offensive shit without getting a shit storm right back at you (except anonymously and usually on the darker message boards). This certainly has opened up things for abuse and some ridiculous antics, but, to me, it’s the price we pay for decades or even centuries of really nasty shit. It’s going to take time before we flush the last of that out of our systems, and it’s going to cause some folks who wish they could just say anything they like without regard to who it hurts or offends to get their panties in a bunch (:p) but I think it’s worth it.

So, to answer the OP, no…I don’t think the tide is turning against ‘political correctness’, nor do I think it should or ever will. What will happen is that people will over correct, there will be an adjustment, and there will be a new balance and we will move on until the next adjustment and re-balance. It’s how our society works.

[Malthus]

@XT

So, to answer the OP, no…I don’t think the tide is turning against ‘political correctness’, nor do I think it should or ever will. What will happen is that people will over correct, there will be an adjustment, and there will be a new balance and we will move on until the next adjustment and re-balance. It’s how our society works.

I’m not sure I understand the fundamental difference between 'the tide is turning against … ’ and ‘we are in a period of adjustment concerning an over-correction …’. They both seem to express the same basic notion.

Unless of course the “tide turning” comment was intended to imply that society was now on its way to re-set to, say, the 1950s. Which I don’t think it was. I suspect it was more ‘people are fed up with the excesses and unwilling to tolerate them any more’ (or to use the OP’s language, " It seems like if there’s going to be serious blowback against this kind of nonsense … "). To my mind, that’s pretty similar to saying ‘we are in a period of re-adjustment following some over-correction’.

[DigitalC]

@John_Mace

I’m saying there would be a shit-storm of protest from the Pronoun Police, and the person would be canned regardless of whether the employer cared one or the other, in order to quell the controversy.

If it was Fox, they might consider it a badge of honor to have offended the PP.

And I don’t know anything about Phil Donahue and the Iraq war, so don’t feel qualified to comment.

And why do you think this is a bad outcome?

[tomndebb]

@DigitalC

And why do you think this is a bad outcome?

The outcome would not seriously affect actual society while a person would lose a job for no sufficient reason. That seems “bad” to me.

Interestingly, NPR, (I think it was All Things Considered), did a story on Caitlyn Jenner a couiple of weeks ago and was immediatly tasken to task by a number of listeners for using male pronouns. No one was fired. The response from the authors was that Jenner used male pronouns for earlier periods and female pronouns for recent events and they followed Jenner’s lead.

[tomndebb]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The example is ridiculous, though. If I’m a mechanic, a major part of my job is to twist things. Twist the wrong thing, and I can be booted from my job. If I’m a surgeon, a major part of my job is to cut things. Cut the wrong thing, and I can be booted from my job. And if I’m a pundit, a major part of my job is to say things. Say the wrong thing, and I can be booted from my job.

How is getting fired for doing your job in a shitty fashion a draconian consequence?.

No mechanic gets fired for twisting something the wrong way. Surgeons go on, for years, after cutting the wrong things.

It is only after a mechanic has turned the same thing the wrong way multiple times, causing multiple thousands of dollars in damage or killing persons, that he or she is liable to get the boot. Surgeons have to demonstrate even more incompetence before their jobs are imperiled, and even killing people is often not enough of an error to lose a job. For a pundit to lose his or her job for grabbing the wrong pronoun in a story–provided it was not blatantly an effort to embarrass a person, which is a different offense–would be silly.

[John_Mace]

@DigitalC

And why do you think this is a bad outcome?

Why do you think I think it would bad? What was it in my post that indicated one way or another?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@tomndebb

No mechanic gets fired for twisting something the wrong way. Surgeons go on, for years, after cutting the wrong things.

It is only after a mechanic has turned the same thing the wrong way multiple times, causing multiple thousands of dollars in damage or killing persons, that he or she is liable to get the boot. Surgeons have to demonstrate even more incompetence before their jobs are imperiled, and even killing people is often not enough of an error to lose a job. For a pundit to lose his or her job for grabbing the wrong pronoun in a story–provided it was not blatantly an effort to embarrass a person, which is a different offense–would be silly.

Follow the conversation back to the original hypothetical, though:

@John_Mace

OK, what do you think would happen to an MSNBC contributor, on payroll, who stated on air that he or she would refuse to refer to Jenner as anything other than “he”?

IOW, John wasn’t asking about a pundit fired for “grabbing the wrong pronoun in a story.” John was asking about a pundit who refused to follow a style form. That’s analogous to a mechanic who insists on twisting things the wrong way despite being told by a boss to do otherwise, to a surgeon who cuts things the wrong way in violation of hospital protocols.

That’s what I meant with the analogy, not a one-off thing.

Edit: FWIW, if you want to talk about someone who “grabbed the wrong pronoun in a story” by accident, of course I don’t think the person should be fired–although of course it’d be their employer’s prerogative to do so.

[John_Mace]

Please keep in mind that the only point I was trying to make was in response to the OP’s claim that the era of PC is waning. I don’t think it is. Whether that is good or bad is a separate debate.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@John_Mace

Please keep in mind that the only point I was trying to make was in response to the OP’s claim that the era of PC is waning. I don’t think it is. Whether that is good or bad is a separate debate.

That’s fine–my point is that the very idea of “politically correct” is an intellectually incoherent idea if it’s phrased in a way that’s factually accurate, and a factually inaccurate idea if phrased in a way that’s intellectually coherent. Without a definition of the term, we can’t really have a clear discussion.

[Dibbs]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s fine–my point is that the very idea of “politically correct” is an intellectually incoherent idea if it’s phrased in a way that’s factually accurate, and a factually inaccurate idea if phrased in a way that’s intellectually coherent. Without a definition of the term, we can’t really have a clear discussion.

I think you mean “Without AGREEING UPON a definition…”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Dibbs

I think you mean “Without AGREEING UPON a definition…”

Nope. If we disagree on a definition, at least we can bitch at each other about why our opponent’s definition sucks. Without a starting definition, the discussion is really a mess.

[Malthus]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Nope. If we disagree on a definition, at least we can bitch at each other about why our opponent’s definition sucks. Without a starting definition, the discussion is really a mess.

What’s difficult about the definition?

po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness

the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

The debatable part is the “taken to extremes”. There is general agreement that avoiding insulting people is common politeness (and as such, a good thing); also, that society’s mores have evolved over time so that marginalizations once considered value-neutral are now understood to be insulting and so impolite.

Where the debate lies is in what is considered “extreme”. One person’s ‘extreme’ is another person’s ‘next stage in the progression/evolution of society’s mores’.

[TriPolar]

I don’t suppose people could learn to understand context and not react like Butthead pointing and uttering “Huh huh … huh huh… you said he”.

[Stringbean]

@TriPolar

I don’t suppose people could learn to understand context and not react like Butthead pointing and uttering “Huh huh … huh huh… you said he”.

Have you seen the Social Media PC Police? You expect nuance and understanding from them??

[bobot]

I’ve seen those guys. They’re always filling up my Facebook with pictures of soldiers with phrases like “90 percent of you guys are too afraid to repost this.” Yeah, Those guys- uuuurgh! Or video links of secretly-returned soldiers sneaking up on their daughter during the daughter’s school recital. Jeezy those guys rattle my cage.

[bashere]

@Cheesesteak

Let’s say you are a student at a great university, and get bounced for exercising your free speech. Again, your attendance, your acceptance into the school is a voluntary choice by the school administration. They are not required to let any particular person attend the school, and certainly aren’t required to let racist assholes be chosen as part of the community.
.

I’d like a cite that says that a publicly funded university can “bounce” someone for exercising the right of free speech.

[Dibbs]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Nope. If we disagree on a definition, at least we can bitch at each other about why our opponent’s definition sucks. Without a starting definition, the discussion is really a mess.

I think I may need to start smoking pot again.:dubious: