Again, why does the way some people talked (not here, not now, not us) have bearing on now, here, us?
Not getting the convincingness part of your argument, only the grasping at lame straws part.
I believe your OP premise is nonsensical. If you prefer to leave it at that, so be it. However, that does not change the fact your notion is unsupportable bullshit.
It isn’t strange at all, if you pay attention to language usage and how it means different things at different times.
But what strikes ME is the way people who want to have the freedom to insult others (who invariably have less cultural power) with impunity want to control the language because when you are the culture/gender in power and feel that everyone below you should just accept that you are going to speak in insulting and demeaning ways and there is nothing whatsoever they can do or say about it, THAT is extremely scary and dangerous.
I strongly dislike political correctness. It’s a modern form of oppression and a threat to our freedom.
I recognize that hate speech is not acceptable.
Otherwise, people should be free to express themselves however they want. Free speech should be protected in all areas of life. That includes at work, school, on television or any place else.
People should be able to express themselves without fear of public reprisal. The internet and social media is a powerful weapon that’s harmed too many people.
You sound like you are completely missing the point of “freedom of speech”.
Political correctness has become almost an obsession. Who can we catch this week and make them grovel for forgiveness?
People search old social media posts looking for something to be offended by.
A recent example is Kyler Murray, the current Heisman Trophy winner. It only took the Internet a few hours to find some unfortunate six year old tweets. He was a young and dumb kid in middle school. He’s already sincerely apologised.
A week never goes by without some public figure apologizing to the PC crowd.
I shudder to think what it must be like in college. The one place young people should be able to speak freely and be encouraged to explore new ideas. Unless, they run afoul of the pc culture.
Let’s say I go into the public square and shout as loud, “FUCK WHITE PEOPLE! MAY THEY ALL BURN IN HELL! THEY AIN’T NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF FISHY CUNTS AND SYPHYLITIC DICKS!!”
Should not people be able to crowd around me and boo?
If my employer were to see me, should they not have the right to fire me, especially if I’m front-facing employee and there are regular customers in the crowd?
Should people not be able to record me and share that recording with their friends and family, so that those friends and family may be able to hear the message I’m so intent on spreading, and either agree or disagree?
By saying there should be no public reprisals, you’re basically depriving other people of their free speech. You’re demanding a safe place where your special snowflake existence will always be validated and never challenged. You want a society where your little fee fees are protected but no one else’s are given the same courtesy.
Just piling on to this argument, because I haven’t seen anyone make this specific criticism yet:
You are saying that the authors in “old books” considered some language polite. And then say that they’d be metaphorically crucified for using that language today. Okay, fine. Assume that your authors are such good people that they’d never use a word they considered impolite. And “metaphorical crucifixion” could mean any negative social consequence you want, so that’s fine, too.
But you’re doing an apples to oranges thing in saying that
The speaker’s intent is not the sole thing that makes a statement “impolite;” another key factor is the recipient’s, er, reception of that statement.
(I remember being 6 or 7 years old and saying “that lady has a mustache!” That was an impolite thing to say, though I didn’t know that when I said it. I’m sure the woman was mortified – my parents sure were, and I heard about it.)
As adult members of a pluralistic society*, we can recognize that all people make mistakes and don’t always recognize how their words will be taken. But when it’s pointed out to us that “Negress” is almost always offensive, I’d hope that we can all let that word go without too much whining.
*I mean, the “pluralistic society” thing is at the heart of the problem here, right? **“We” **want to keep talking about women, foreigners, racial and sexual and religious minorities, and all those other people the way we’re used to talking about them when they’re not around. But they get all offended when “we” do that in front of them. Why do they presume bad faith on **“our” **part?
As white male supremacy has lost its official legal status in the US, it struggles to maintain its power in our culture, including language. I hope that I’m right in thinking that it won’t make a winning comeback in either arena.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Colin Kaepernick exercising his free speech, and the public reaction to that?
I apologize for returning to this, but I can’t in good conscience leave the debate as my singular unsupported opinion.
Below are some passages from a paper entitled:
“WE CAN LAUGH AT OURSELVES”:
HAWAI‘I ETHNIC HUMOR, LOCAL IDENTITY AND THE MYTH
OF MULTICULTURALISM1
Roderick N. Labrador
I won’t comment on the thesis and conclusion of the paper and as it would take more than a few read-throughs to fully grasp. I will however include below some of the quotes the author uses in his work that I believe shows my opinion is not mine alone.
“As pidgin English became the common language of plantation laborers and their families, it
enabled people from different countries to communicate with each other and helped to create a
new island identity for them…Speaking Hawaiian English or pidgin, the immigrants and their
children were no longer only Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Puerto Rican, or Portuguese.
On the plantations, pidgin English began to give its users a working class as well as a Hawaiian
or “local” identity, which transcended their particular ethnic identity (Takaki 1983: 119).”
Takaki, R. (1983) Pau hana: Plantation life and labor in Hawaii, 1835-1920. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Takaki, R. (1983) Raising cane: The world of plantation Hawaii. New York: Chelsea House Publishers
“Here in Hawaii, we laugh at ourselves more than most people do in other places. Hawaii is a
chop suey nation - Portagee, Pake, Buddha Head, Sole, Yobo, Kanaka, Haole, all mixed up.
Nobody is the majority here. We are all part of at least one minority group. Some of us are part
of several minority groups. And we all laugh at ourselves. This is healthy (DeLima 1991: v).”
DeLima, F. (1991) Frank DeLima’s joke book: Having fun with Portagees, Pakes, Buddha Heads, Buk
Buks, Blallahs, Soles, Yobos, Haoles, Tidahs, Pit Bulls, and other Hawaiian minorities. Honolulu: Bess
Press.
“One thing each ethnic group in Hawaii had to learn was a healthy sense of humor so that they
would be able to laugh at each other and not take themselves too seriously. Living on a series of
small islands requires a high degree of open friendliness. Therefore, Hawaii’s people are not
reluctant to poke fun at each other and at themselves using words which from the mainland
standpoint seem derogatory but from the Island perspective seem descriptive or simply funny.
‘Buddhahead,’ ‘Pake,’ ‘Kanaka,’ Haole Crab,’ ‘Bok-bok,’ ‘Porogee Mouth,’ are just a small
sampling of the words which ethnic groups often use in reference to themselves; these words are
essential parts of the local Island culture (Ogawa 1978: 155-56).”
Ogawa, D. (1978) Jan ken po: The world of Hawaii’s Japanese Americans, 2nd ed. Honolulu: University
of Hawai‘i Press.
Kaepernick can say what he wants in interviews. I understand he’s a supporter of black lives matter. He should express that support.
I’m not convinced kneeling during the anthem is the way to do it. He’s on the clock and is expected to do his job and represent the NFL.
There’s so many other ways he can express his support… attend demonstrations, interviews, give money etc. He can discuss black lives matter with his teammates in the locker room.
He’s working when he steps out on the field.
A) by your own remarks, you are not allowed to even say what your opinion is.
B) you are also not his employer.
C) by your own remarks, im not even allowed to tell you what I think of your opinions.
What did you say?
I understand we need dialogue and the opportunity to disagree with someone.
It’s the pack mentality that bothers me. That a public figure says something and there’s a national out cry of indignation.
Social media has created unique problems and I’m not sure what can be done. People should discuss what they hear people say. How can we avoid that turning into mob rule? The loudest and most shrill voices get their way?
I don’t have the answers.
That’s an issue of copyrights. Disney owns Song of the South and they’ve decided to withdraw it from the market. Nobody made them do it.
Go on YouTube right now and you can watch All This and Rabbit Stew, Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs, Scrub Me Mamma with a Boogie Beat, or Uncle Tom’s Crabbin. Which demonstrates that racist cartoons from the past aren’t banned.
You have to learn to live with the fact that the world changes. And when the changes are positive ones, it’s called progress.
I remember seeing Crocodile Dundee in the theater. This scene wasn’t controversial at the time; most people just thought it was a funny joke.
But you watch it now and you see a room full of people, led by the hero of the movie, laughing at a transgendered woman who got caught when she “pretended” to be a woman.
I laughed at that joke in 1986 and I see it as offensive in 2018. Attitudes change. I can sympathize with somebody who fell into a coma in 1986 and woke up in 2018 and is now being told that his views about transgendered people are offensive. But no excuses for anyone who was awake during those thirty years. You had plenty of time to adjust.
PC is an early form of Orwellian thought control.
I say say what you wish. It’d be better for everyone around if people weren’t looking to be outraged. Some ridiculous people think it’s acceptable to be unemployable because of a 5 second rant. That’s really not good for society.
It’s not a synonym for politeness; the terms have significantly different meanings. Politeness is much more power neutral.
That’s not to say PC is inherently bad, it just that location of one’s position and power will have an effect on the interpretation.