# Is there a place for non-politically correct speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 16, 2018, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218 "2018-12-16T06:28:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ZurBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71e660/32.png) [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/41 "2018-12-16T20:23:53Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/42 "2018-12-16T20:27:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/43 "2018-12-16T20:28:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![Helena330](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/helena330/32/531_2.png) [@Helena330](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena330)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/44 "2018-12-16T20:28:06Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/45 "2018-12-16T20:39:43Z")
Robots find language tough. It’s not basic math so they struggle. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/46 "2018-12-16T20:51:02Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden\_tribes\_report-2.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_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! > [@lingyi](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. > [@bump](#): > > 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 \ 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. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/47 "2018-12-16T20:53:35Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/48 "2018-12-16T21:19:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![MortSahlFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@MortSahlFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MortSahlFan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/49 "2018-12-16T21:29:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ZurBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71e660/32.png) [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/50 "2018-12-16T21:30:49Z")
> [@lingyi](#): > > 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.:smack: 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. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/51 "2018-12-16T21:31:51Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > 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. So people should be able to say whatever they want without fear of repercussions? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/52 "2018-12-16T21:34:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. Exactly. When I hear someone say “colored people”, my mind always go to “colored” restroom and water fountain signs. Someone who says “colored people” is basically announcing to the world that their mindset is still stuck in days of institutionalized segregation and _they have no desire to change._ > [@](#): > > How to solve this problem, I don’t know. I have to wonder if it’s really a problem for folks who aren’t living under a rock. It isn’t that hard to know what the contemporary lingo is as long as you are reasonably immersed in media and having regular conversations with a diverse set of people. At any rate, people haven’t been called “colored” in 50 years. “Negress” is absolutely ancient. If someone is still reaching for these terms after all these years, then they really do deserve all the eye-rolls they get. Because it means they have intentionally isolated themselves from the world and they are likely to be willfully ignorant about lots of things. I’ve actually never been witness to someone getting offended by someone using the “wrong” word anyway. I’ve seen people gently remind someone that, say, oriental is considered outdated and the American convention is to say “Asian” now. But I’ve never witnessed someone call a person “racist” just because they used the wrong word unless the wrong word is an actual racial slur. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/53 "2018-12-16T21:35:08Z")
> [@skyr](#): > > **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. > [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > 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. These are simply emotional appeals to fear, not based on any fact, logic, or rationality. No one is controlling how people speak, much less how they think. The only ones looking for control in this debate are the ones who are demanding that their speech be held up beyond any criticism. You want to control what people are allowed to disapprove of, what people are allowed to speak out against, what people are allowed to feel and whether they are allowed to express their opinions about your speech. You want to be able to say racist or bigoted stuff, and you do not want others to be allowed to express their disapproval of it. You are not fighting for free speech, you are not fighting for freedom of thought. You are fighting for others to have their speech curtailed so that there can be no consequence for yours. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/54 "2018-12-16T21:35:11Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > So people should be able to say whatever they want without fear of repercussions? No thanks. I gave up false dichotomies for the Holidays. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/55 "2018-12-16T21:37:41Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > 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. The only thing you don’t like is when the people you don’t identify with are the ones controlling the language. If your group identity is in charge of what’s okay to say I venture to guess you find that just A-OK and just as it should be. So your argument, such as it is, is suspect at best and likely completely disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/56 "2018-12-16T21:45:02Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > When I hear someone say “colored people”, my mind always go to “colored” restroom and water fountain signs. Someone who says “colored people” is basically announcing to the world that their mindset is still stuck in days of institutionalized segregation and _they have no desire to change._ > > I have to wonder if it’s really a problem for folks who aren’t living under a rock. It isn’t that hard to know what the contemporary lingo is as long as you are reasonably immersed in media and having regular conversations with a diverse set of people. At any rate, people haven’t been called “colored” in 50 years. “Negress” is absolutely ancient. If someone is still reaching for these terms after all these years, then they really do deserve all the eye-rolls they get. Because it means they have intentionally isolated themselves from the world and they are likely to be willfully ignorant about lots of things. You get a pass if you just woke up from a coma or were frozen in ice since WWII. But only a short pass, and surprise that language has evolved in some ways is acceptable, but resentfulness that you have to adapt is not. > [@](#): > > I’ve actually never been witness to someone getting offended by someone using the “wrong” word anyway. I’ve seen people gently remind someone that, say, oriental is considered outdated and the American convention is to say “Asian” now. But I’ve never witnessed someone call a person “racist” just because they used the wrong word unless the wrong word is an actual racial slur. But that’s the thing. If you gently remind someone that oriental is outdated, they look at you like you called them a racist. The accusations of being called a racist due to the gentle reminders are a large part of what’s fueling “anti-pc”. I don’t understand why people cannot accept that language changes, and that being reminded that language has changed is not being called a racist. IMHO, many of these “accusations of racism” are simply gentle reminders that language has changed, that racists have taken over yet another word that we no longer want to use, to avoid being associated with them. They take these gentle reminders as an accusation of personal moral failings, and then complain that their life was ruined because someone asked them to not use a particular term or phrase that they found hurtful. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/57 "2018-12-16T22:19:11Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 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. “Back in the day, it was considered polite to kill someone for insulting your wife. Nowadays, if you do it, the law gets involved. Clearly, your opinion on murder has nothing to do with politeness.” Sounds pretty stupid, right? > [@skyr](#): > > 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](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive): > > 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. …What the fuck do trigger warnings have to do with political correctness? Also, why are we looking to nutpicked randos on Tumblr to figure out what a term in common parlance should mean? (And for the record, if you know your material is going to deal with something that could easily be a psychological trigger for someone, like, say, rape, or violence, offering a trigger warning is really [just common courtesy](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/30/the-wonderful-thing-about-triggers/) - there’s no good reason not to do it. No, _especially_ not exposure therapy - **you are not your student’s psychiatrist and have no business offering them therapy, you have not asked for their consent, and _that is not how exposure therapy works_**. :mad: ) > [@](#): > > 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. What the fuck does this have to do with a comedian needing to abandon their career because of racist comments, or with trigger warnings? **Jesus, it’s almost like we’re talking about a concept which is intentionally so broad as to be incoherent**. These are very different scenarios that should be handled very different ways. There’s _no reason_ to put them under the same overarching banner unless you’re trying to overgeneralize for the sake of making a bogus argument. Or, y’know, what 99% of PC backlash discourse boils down to. > [@](#): > > 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. But I mean… It’s _literally_ true. We know it’s literally true. When it comes to people with PTSD or traumatic experiences, your words can trigger psychotic breakdowns. When it comes to marginalized populations, words teach them that they are second-class citizens, that they are different, that they are weird. There’s this whole intellectual framework of psychology and sociology you’d have to ignore to make this statement. _Words have power_, and pretending otherwise is nonsensical. > [@](#): > > 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. We don’t need to have that debate. We had that debate. We _won_ that debate. Continuing that debate is giving ideas that were quite rightly shown to be bullshit more oxygen than they deserve. The correct response to racism is, “Uh, you do realize that’s racist, right?” And if the answer is “yes”, the correct response is “Fuck you, get the fuck out of my house”. > [@lingyi](#): > > 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. Lemme just focus on that last point for a moment - what do you mean, “not allowed”? Do you mean that if you do it, the cops will get on your case? Or do you mean that if you bring him up, people (particularly ethnic minorities) are going to get a little bit uncomfortable about it? Because the latter isn’t “PC police”. It’s people not being okay with racism. > [@lingyi](#): > > 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. Buddy, if you can’t see what’s problematic about “Baby it’s Cold Outside”, you have probably never even done the first reading into the lyrics. I really can’t stay (but baby, it’s cold outside) I’ve got to go away (but baby, it’s cold outside) This evening has been (been hoping that you’d drop in) So very nice (i’ll hold your hands, they’re just like ice) My mother will start to worry (beautiful what’s your hurry?) My father will be pacing the floor (listen to the fireplace roar) So really I’d better scurry (beautiful please don’t hurry) But maybe just a half a drink more (put some records on while I pour) The neighbors might think (baby, it’s bad out there) Say what’s in this drink? (no cabs to be had out there) Like… That’s rapey. That’s _incredibly_ rapey. That’s ten lines of a woman saying, “I need to leave” and a man trying to convince her not to in increasingly coercive ways. Best-case scenario (and keep in mind, by this point we’re already giving it a deeper reading than you are), it’s harkening back to a time where there’s no acceptable way for a woman to say yes, so she’s looking for excuses… But if there’s no acceptable way for her to say yes, then there’s no unambiguous way to say no. It’s kinda creepy and kinda rapey and there’s really nothing wrong with people having a problem with that. > [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > 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. Uh… You do realize this is just how society works, right? First off, what kind of “PC” are we talking about here? Is it the kind where racists can no longer shout racial slurs at people without facing consequences? Because if so, I’m _glad_ we’re controlling the way people speak, because _that shit ain’t kosher, deah_. The less people speak like that, the better, and if they think less like that as a result, _mission fucking accomplished_. Secondly, if you’re just complaining about day-to-day bullshit like people at the office not wanting to say “have a nice day”, well, welcome to a society where middle management attempts to be nice in ways that are fumble-y and silly and often counterproductive. Or just more generally: “society”. Because in every society, there is shit you cannot say without getting some kind of backlash. For example, in the past, if you said that you loved a black woman, the “backlash” would be imprisonment or lynching. Just for example. In the less recent past, saying nice things about socialism would get you kicked out of your job. No matter what society, there will always be something you just _cannot say_ in polite company - that’s what makes it “polite company”. At the same time, there’s no ignoring that words have power. So if it’s generally acceptable for some people to say certain things, like, say, “Those animals are committing genocide against the pure white race by outbreeding us”, then certain other things become… Shall we say… _risky_ to say. Things like “black people deserve equal rights”. In any given society, you can either have a society where white fascist rhetoric is generally acceptable and tolerable, _or_ you can have a society where literally any expression of non-white culture is tolerated. So there’s that. ---
**Author:** ![lingyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@lingyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lingyi)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/58 "2018-12-16T22:21:48Z")
> [@ZurBob](#): > > 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.:smack: > > 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. The terms I gave weren’t then and aren’t now (to those of us who understand your plantation history and culture) viewed as racial slurs. In a work environment where the only common language was pidgin, those terms enabled people to communicate and grow closer. “Ey, Japanee, you go work with the bukbuk. nanchu, you go help the yobo ova dea”. “Oh, you know, the yobo I was workin’ next to was real hard worka!” “That nanchu wahnine (woman) over dea, real good lookin’, I goin’ ask her out!” Again, these were not racial slurs. merely terms to identify the different ethnic groups in a way everyone could understand. Remember, these immigrants typically spoke no English and had no clue of the romanized form of their nationality, much less be able to pronounce it correctly. Also, foreign proper names, first and last, take practice to get them right. Easier to use a generic (non-derogatory term) to communicate with them until you’re familiar and comfortable enough to learn their proper name or agree upon one that both of you can pronounce and understand. Call out to Joe Say or George and see if Jose and Jorge respond. Believe what you want. You’re entitled to your opinion and I mine. I’ll leave you the last word if you choose. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/59 "2018-12-16T22:37:44Z")
> [@lingyi](#): > > The terms I gave weren’t then and aren’t now (to those of us who understand your plantation history and culture) viewed as racial slurs. In a work environment where the only common language was pidgin, those terms enabled people to communicate and grow closer. > > “Ey, Japanee, you go work with the bukbuk. nanchu, you go help the yobo ova dea”. > > “Oh, you know, the yobo I was workin’ next to was real hard worka!” > > “That nanchu wahnine (woman) over dea, real good lookin’, I goin’ ask her out!” > > Again, these were not racial slurs. merely terms to identify the different ethnic groups in a way everyone could understand. Remember, these immigrants typically spoke no English and had no clue of the romanized form of their nationality, much less be able to pronounce it correctly. > > Also, foreign proper names, first and last, take practice to get them right. Easier to use a generic (non-derogatory term) to communicate with them until you’re familiar and comfortable enough to learn their proper name or agree upon one that both of you can pronounce and understand. Call out to Joe Say or George and see if Jose and Jorge respond. > > Believe what you want. You’re entitled to your opinion and I mine. I’ll leave you the last word if you choose. So, you are using your memories of a situation with poorly educated people with little in common language to justify the use of slurs by people who should know better? Are you trying to say that they don’t know any better, and that is why they have no choice but to resort to ethnic slurs, or that they do better, and yet, still choose to use ethnic slurs? ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2018, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218/60 "2018-12-16T22:55:07Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 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. I fail to detect the logic of your argument. Are you saying that culture and language shouldn’t change? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-non-politically-correct-speech/826218.md?page=4)