People are thinking two different things when it comes to political correctness:
Liberals think “PC” means, “Avoiding using ethnic/sexist slurs, etc.” - and what good, rational citizen could be against that?
Conservatives think “PC” means, “Getting ridiculously offended over things like the white and black color of Oreo cookies” - and what good, rational citizen could be in favor of that?
That’s why right and left still don’t see eye to eye on this issue.
This just sounds like another one of those hypothetical problems that liberals insist on solving (by penalizing whites, no doubt).
ALL LIVES face challenges in life.
…and there are plenty of instances where Obama doesn’t sound any more articulate than GWB did.
But, it’s not hypothetical, it’s based on observations of real-world social interactions.
So what? That kind of truism could be used to dismiss concern over any social injustice of any kind, even genocide.
Perhaps, but what’s that remark doing in this thread?
Since you ask, “cunt” to me strongly implies an aggressive and belligerent woman. But I sincerely doubt that I’ve used it more than five times in the last five years. Just not part of my repartee repertwat. Repertoire! Damn auto-correct, what a dick move!
Cunt, strictly speaking does refer to genitalia but I’ve never understood it to have some deeper meaning about being passive, maybe the chick is on top and she’s riding the dick, then is she active in the sexual act? This active vs. passive aspect of the insult honestly just sounds to me like something someone made up off the top of their head and is frankly ridiculous. Cunt to me is just an extremely harsh sounding way of basically calling a woman a giant bitch but trying to make the insult really sting the ears.
****Biden, from the quoted article in your post.
And the very real, observed microaggressions they suffer are not their fault.
Perhaps it has more to do with regional usages. I hear the term used far more frequently to refer to the sex organ specifically than to the woman it belongs to, so when it is used for a female generally, it refers to her genitalia rather than her temperament.
“chick is on top and she’s riding the dick” is a very modern idea; in traditional circles. Proper Women Don’t Do That. A true lady submits herself graciously to her husband; her having even an equal role, much less an aggressor role, in sexual activity is simply Not Done.
This is the milieu and context in which I heard and hear the term. Your experience, of course, may be different, but where I come from, the term is deeply rooted in sex, sexual organs, and traditional sexual roles, which is why it is so deeply offensive to those of us who don’t believe in such roles and such objectification.
So here is my question:
If someone is strongly against the idea of PC and Microagressions in general, can we trust their objectivity on any one specific example - not - being a Microagression?
An excellent description, especially when using Trump as an example!
You’re getting there, but you’re missing the big issue. Conservatives and liberals use those definitions to describe the same behaviors. A liberal who, for example, says you shouldn’t say the word “thug” is treated like they are whining about Oreos, not possibly discussing things that real black people find offensive and demeaning.
It’s not a mere semantic argument. It’s a fundamental disagreement of value. Sure, we agree on the far ends, but that’s about it. There really is a big argument in conservative circles that people should be able to be assholes to other people, and those other people should just shut up and take it. Those other people should have to change to accomodate us, but we should be able to stay the same.
And that group of conservatives is the type that Donald Trump is courting with this behavior, and pretty much his entire campaign. People who are angry that things are changing, and think that’s more important than being nice to others.
As for “cunt,” I don’t think the exact meaning of it matters all that much. What is definitely the case is that, in America at least, it’s on a level that is much higher than the corresponding male term. It’s a female gendered insult that is apparently the most insulting thing you can call someone that isn’t racial or homophobic or similar.
There just isn’t a male gendered term that is equivalent, any more than there’s a white version of “nigger.” And that is what forms the basis of calling it a sexist term.
I think that sums it up pretty well and it is the way that I think of the term. I don’t view things like not calling someone a nigger, spic or chink Politically Correct at all. Nor do I consider viewing people as individuals rather than blatantly stereotyping based on groups PC. Those are just basic manners and common sense unless it is used well for ironic comedic effect or satire.
Whenever I refer to Political Correctness, it is only the extreme cases usually given as the new social mandate of the week from privileged people in academia or the ‘elite’ Left. It is only the mostly made up causes with pointless solutions that try to use guilt as core theme that I call true Political Correctness and I believe many others, especially non-lefties, view it the same way.
BTW, Donald Trump irritates the piss out of me when he uses the term ‘Politically Correct’ because it doesn’t match my definition at all. He is a showman and businessman first and foremost and always goes for the most controversial effect which sadly plays quite well to a minority of people. I don’t think that most people, especially mainstream Republicans, agree with his use of the term either.
[QUOTE=From BrainGlutton’s quote]
For example, white students and professors seeming surprised when an African-American student makes a particularly insightful or intelligent comment in class,
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t something like this the inevitable result of affirmative action in the admissions process? I’m not suggesting that blacks are stupid, but they will be admitted to a higher quality school than their raw intelligence would otherwise allow.
The black law student, for example, that would have been near the top of his class as State U Law School, is admitted to Harvard because of a racial preference.
The left has mismatched minority students by all but making them the dumbest in the class they are in (when they would have been great where they should be). The professors and the students correctly recognize this basic fact, and do not insult this student, but are impressed when he makes a positive contribution to this class.
How exactly should students and professors respond in this situation?
And, of course, it doesn’t work the other way around. You still gotta take care not to hurt their feelings.
They tend to be armed.
Except that they’re not “very real”, in fact, they’re not real at all.
Avoidant behavior is a so-called microagression ?
People avoid other people for all sorts of reasons, and most of them are not racist, misogynistic, or homophobic.
I find it odd that you think you could be top of the class at State U and be “dumb” at harvard. Top of your class at state U would probably put you about middle of the class at harvard.
Well, yeah, the main reason I avoid Republicans is that they are either infuriating or boring. So, nothing racist, mysogynistic, homophobic about that. Point taken.