Which is why I think Politically Correct isn’t about being polite it is about not telling the truth. I suppose one of these days people won’t like the particular mode of thinking that comes about when the word Asian pops up. Then we’ll have to think of another word to call them.
Marc
Wring:
I had thought Womyn was an example.
Here’s another:
As my polite friends correct my usage without acrimony, I comply.
Had they accused me of demeaning them with my terminology, and given me a lecture in an attempt to raise my awareness, I would probably tell them to bite me. I would resent their attempts to control my behavior. Maybe I’d even determine to use “oriental,” whenever I got the chance. maybe I’d dig my heels in and refuse to budge in my usage. Certainly it would create bad feelings in me whether or not I chose to comply. If I wasn’t careful, I might even get pissed at Asians in general over the incident.
Which further defines the difference between PC and polite behavior in my mind. PC doesn’t have to be polite, since there’s an implied authority behind it.
The truth? Marc, I do not believe that you are familiar with the standard postcolonial arguments in favor of political correctness. I would urge you to pick up Said’s Orientalism or perhaps a primer on Michel Foucault’s writings.
The contention that PC is about “not telling the truth” is illuminating.
What is the truth, exactly? Who sets the “regime of truth,” to borrow a postmodern term? Surely not the minorities themselves, who not only did not choose certain appellations but often reject them outright. Hence political correctness creates an alternative regime of truth, defined by the groups themselves rather than by the interests in power.
And when they are no longer satisfied with the term “Asian,” they have every right to assert that a new one be used. Just as you have every right to continue participating in the old regime of truth.
MR
I see your point, Scylla - let’s however, take it out of a friendship routine (since we’d assume in general that our friends mean no disrespect/offense).
Mr. Smith uses term that Mr. Brown sees as highly charged and offensive. Mr. Smith may or may not know (ahead of time) that the term is considered offensive). Mr. Brown reacts negatively, assumes that at least the potential is there that Mr. Smith meant it offensive, makes rather pointed remark about “I find that offensive”. What to do?
To me, I’d tell Mr. Brown ‘chill a moment, maybe he didn’t mean it offensively, approach him calmly’, but I’d understand if he didn’t comply. I’d tell Mr. Smith 'doesn’t matter if YOU thought you were being offensive, the other guy took offense, now deal with it. Do you wish to have a good working relationship with him? then back down and apologize, make a note to not use that term with him again."
would your approach be different?
Wring:
I guess we’d need a more concrete or specific example. If the term was generally offensive, I’d apologize.
If the guy was taking offense because we’d had a prior conflict or he was looking to create trouble where there really was none, than I’d tell him to go to hell.
Just as one chooses what language to use, the listener chooses what they will get offended at.
Both parties are responsible for their choices, and I see no reason to cater to or respect an imagined authority who chooses badly.
Thanks, Wring, for not accusing me of being a racist. But, a conservative who questions PC usage is presumtively a racist in the liberal POV, or am I being too sensitive?
In other words, regardless of whether or not they intended to offend you with their words, you would find offense and set your actions accordingly. Hmmmmmm.
What I find illuminating is that when people raise the non-extremist elements and goals of political correctness, they get dismissed as “that’s just being polite. PC is this evil thing over here.” Surely it does not take a particularly deep study of history to realize that people are not always polite. I see a lot of resentment toward “thought police”, which I understand and to a large degree share. But unless one follows Orwell in finding that language determines thought, I don’t see the argument. Terminology is not thought. Eliminating the word nigger does not eliminate racism. Asking you not to use the word in an ofensive context does not control your thought. It asks you to place a control on your conduct.
Now, when institutions or organizations decide to set codes of conduct for their members, the request takes on added force. But it is still a restriction on conduct, not thought. Frankly, I find that the dangers of authoritarian restrictions on conduct have far more to do with human drives for power than any particular philosophical or political orientation.
I haven’t been elected yet the deciding voice of the liberal POV. 
that being said,
Anyone (conservative, moderate, liberal etc.), IMHO, who insists on using terminology that is identified by large groups of people as being offensive, is, to coin a term, acting in an offensive manner. I don’t really care if the person claims to have not meant offense. I had a client once who, when she and her friends were hangin’ out together would refer to each other as “bitch”. “hey, bitch, get me a Pepsi”, etc. She went to prison, tried to be friendly “Hey, bitch…Pow” they took offense. She kept trying it, kept getting beat up. Finally figured out that despite her lack of intentional insult, the folks she was talking to were insulted by her use of the word “bitch”.
The only thing in your statements that concerned me was, I got a sense of reluctance on your part to cease usage of a term if you couldn’t see the problem with it (ie you quarrel with the person’s explanation for why “oriental” was offensive). You, I think, stated you were Jewish? or was it Catholic? either way, if you asserted to me that you felt the term ‘kike’ offensive, I’d not use it. I wouldn’t ask you to explain why you thought it was offensive. I’d accept the fact you found it offensive and not pursue it any further. (actually, in reality, I wouldn’t and don’t use that term anyhow, but hopefully, you get my drift)
Well, would I be too sensitive to conclude that liberals, from your POV, lack the intellectual capacity to differentiate between disagreements over methods and disagreements over motivation?
Details, details…
It seems to me as though Scylla and Wring both agree that it is polite and respectful to acknowledge the title people prefer to be addressed with. Furthermore it also seems clear that one of Scylla’s contentions is that PC is onerous because there is a coercive element involved.
For some reason though it doesn’t feel like we’re all on the same page. Like we’re circling the topic without really coming to grips with it. I get the perception that the Pro-PC folks are defining PC only in the terms of generally polite behavior. The Anti-PC folks here really seem to have no problem with acknowledging the importance of courteous behavior. The problem from my perspective (and probably many of the other Anti-PC people) is that we attribute the positive effects (more respectful language), negative effects (speech codes muzzling professors), and everything in between to the PC movement. So… here’s a few questions for wring…
Do you limit your definition of PC behavior to being generally courteous behavior?
Do you acknowledge that many people (both for and against the PC movement) include a wide variety of politicial and social ideas in their definition of what is PC? (i.e. in addition to respectful language many people consider vegetarianism, feminism and marxism to be at the core of PC)
Do you feel that the current PC movement is coercive (i.e. threatening retribution or punishment of some kind) in it’s attempt to get people to socially conform?
Do you attribute some of the extreme cases mentioned (like the ‘niggardly’ incident, or university speech codes, or native americans protesting columbus day, etc.) in this thread to the current PC movement? Why or why not?
I had some more questions but I guess I’ll stop there.
Grim
Spiritus:
No, in this case it would not be their words that were offending me, it would be the attitudes behind them, i.e. presuming to lecture me or “raise my awareness.” It would be especially irksome if I felt they were talking down to me
Actually my guess is that people I know would be offended to be referred to as either Asian-American or Oriental. I consider the requirement to classify certain people as Asian-American to be racism.
Your example above doesn’t apply to me. It presumes someone who has been given a specific request. You wrote,"…if you asserted to me that you felt the term ‘kike’ offensive, I’d not use it." OK, but no Asian-American has ever made such an assertion to me about the word “Oriental.” So, I’m not in the hypothetical position you describe above.
Nevertheless, I have certainly gotten the PC message to use one term rather than the other. But, who sent out the message? How was it decided? There never was a vote of this group. What if some members of the group preferred the term “Oriental?” There never was a public debate, at least not to my knowledge. I feel uncomfortable about not knowing the answers to these questions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**
Exactly. Think whatever you want. Spout off racist epithets and judgments all you want in private.** But once you are in the world, it is not acceptable for you to create negative outcomes for people. This ranges anywhere from someone’s offense or discomfort from being called a name to discrimination in jobs and housing.
**I don’t necessarily agree with this because I think even opinions expressed in private can perpetuate offensive attitudes, but clearly it’s going to happen. Just don’t take it outside.
To answer the question about people from Egypt, how about “Egyptian”?
one at a time. December perhaps I shouldn’t have used ‘if you told me’ in my example. Re: the Oriental vs. Asian American thing, I’ve submitted examples of groups that identified themselves as such. Again, to presume that some group will issue a press release stating "we used to prefer the term ‘wop’, we’re now preferring the term “Italian American”, is setting an artificial standard. I don’t recall, for example, the point in time when “negro” went out of favor and “black” or “African American” came in. I wasn’t on the list for the press release. However, once well respected groups and individuals who were b/n/a-a referred to themselves in public as “African American” etc. I got it. What’s so damned difficult about that?
As far as the folks you work with, I would imagine you’d call them by their names. However, if you were in a position of having to describe some other person to them (so they could recognize them at a meeting for example) and that person was Asian American, I’d hope, at the least that you’d offer up the term “Asian American” or “of Asian descent” vs. “oriental” since it should be abudantly clear at this point that “oriental” at least often, has negative connotations. If, of course, the individual dislikes the term “Asian American”, they would have the option of correcting you, but you wouldn’t be considered a lout in the meantime should you have been incorrect.
For example, Ms/Mrs/Miss/Maam. When some one calls me my less than preferred, I’ll correct them, and think nothing of it, unless of course, they kept using the less than preferred (it’s happened). If, however, they use the term ‘hon’ instead, I’d find them boorish from the outset.
will respond to **Grim ** in next post
We discussed the whole Asian/Oriental thing before. I remember the existance of the thread, although back then I was actually busy at work and don’t remember following it.
Asian replacing Oriental in PC Speech
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=44652
scylla
The point I was hoping to make was that you would use their word choices to infer their attitudes. Then you would judge them accordingly. How PC. 
grim
No. I limit it to specifically courteous behaviors. They may or may not jibe with your general definition.
No. At least, no regarding the examples you chose. Only from among your list, has traditionally been associated with deconsstruction of language along PC terms. I think extreme feminists have made a mistake by their attempts to radicalize gender-derived terms in a language which lacks a distinct nueter case, but that does not mean that real problems in gender biased terminology have not existed.
Any attempt to moderate another’s conduct risks being coercive. Exlusion from opportunity is coercive to the exact extent that you desire/need/would benefit from the opportunity. Nevertheless, if I don’t like you I might refuse to play with you. To use your specific terminology, every effort to achieve social conformity is by definition coercive.
Yes, but of the cases you list:
Niggardly demonstrated that ignorance and power make a poor combination. It is a better example for improvements in education than against PC.
University speech codes are one element of the control that universities exercise over the conduct of their students and faculty. The general restriction on conduct I have no trouble with, though I often disagree with specific instances of that control. The oft-cited case of “standards for sexual interaction” seems to me to be more of a reaction against the perceived prevalence of date rape than an example of PC restrictions upon language. They were not legislating against calling your girlfriend a “ho”, they were legislating against fucking until both parties had clearly (ridiculously, even) expressed specific consent.
Native Americans have some good reasons for protesting against Columbus Day.
** Grim’s** questions, my answers:
**1. Do you limit your definition of PC behavior to being generally courteous behavior? **
While some folks have given some extreme examples (the ‘womyn’ for instance, which, you’ll note, has not caught on, while “Ms” has), I have not seen an example of what I’d consider PC behavior that wasn’t essentiall ‘courtesy’ based. The “Ms” is a good example - back in the heyday, we labored under how to address some one formally without the distraction of ascertaining the marital status. Ms. was suggested, and is pretty damned common. In general, I would use the term “Ms” in business settings until and unless an individual requested an alternative. What would be an example of a PC behavior that wasn’t linked to politeness?
**2. Do you acknowledge that many people (both for and against the PC movement) include a wide variety of politicial and social ideas in their definition of what is PC? (i.e. in addition to respectful language many people consider vegetarianism, feminism and marxism to be at the core of PC) **
who are these people? Yes, I guess some folks put all sorts of things into the bag. But then again, I hear from the conservatives here on the board that I shouldn’t assume that since the Pat Robertsons of the world exist and call themselves conservative, that they speak for all. Point being that any and all movements, ideologies etc, when taken to their extreme can be, well, silly. And, any ideology and movement can of course be espoused by blithering idiots who attempt to assert that they speak for all. I try very hard to not paint the “moral majority/Pat Robertson” brush on all folks who are Republican, conservative and/or Christian. I would hope for the same courtesy in response.
**3. Do you feel that the current PC movement is coercive (i.e. threatening retribution or punishment of some kind) in it’s attempt to get people to socially conform? **
I haven’t seen any examples of ‘coercive’. Unless you’re attempting to draw the line from some one getting in trouble say, at work, for using rude language to others. That isn’t the PC movement. Employers have always had the right to disciplin their employees for behavior they consider to be problematic. Is this where you’re going with the coercive aspect?
**4. Do you attribute some of the extreme cases mentioned (like the ‘niggardly’ incident, or university speech codes, or native americans protesting columbus day, etc.) in this thread to the current PC movement? Why or why not? **
The ‘niggardly’ incident was, to me, an ignorance issue. Folks who were less than familiar with the term took offense, because of their ignorance. The initial reaction to the person who used it (disciplined IIRC) was, (again IIRC) rescinded. If not, it should have been.
Do I attribute it to the PC movement? well, in the first place, I gotta get on the list for meetings. Last time I checked, I could look up the local Democratic Party, the local Optimist club, the local ACLU, local Pro life movements. To the best of my knowledge, the so called “PC” movement is not actually a group of folks sitting in a room deciding arbitraily that ‘you’re doing it wrong’. Different groups of people, sub-sets of our society, have, by naming themselves, by protesting, by informational pickets etc, brought to our collective attention things they find rude, coersive, condeming, racist etc.
Things like the “Columbus day” and the renaming of pro ball clugs to loose the “Indian” references - well. I think that when we (the collective ‘we’, not individuals) look back on US history, our (collective) treatment of the Native Americans does not bear much scrutiny. (ie certainly by today’s standards we treated them poorly. In many/most cases, even by the standards at the time, except of course, we didn’t consider them people ). At this point, my personal preference is to alter the celebration of Columbus day, perhaps rename it etc. Hell, we did it with Washington/Lincoln’s birtdays, right?. I’m not so ‘married’ to all those types of things that I can’t step back and look at how it would seem to the folks involved. I remember cringing at seeing the old “Peter Pan” with Mary Martin - where the cartoonish “Indian” figures made me embarassed for it’s stereotype. re-naming the teams - hell it already happens anyhow. Teams move, (if I followed sports more, I could tell ya which ones), and have changed their names due to their owners’ whims. I do acknowledge that such things do come with a price tag, however, and for that reason, there may be a legitimate gripe. OTOH, streets get re-named all the time to honor different people or for other reasons, and the businesses who have to order new stationary etc all manage to cope.
hell, it’s all part of our collective history. I spent some time today looking at a webiste for a Ferris University (in Michigan) Museum. It detailed quite a bit about Jim Crow laws, and the various stereotypes re: blacks, and the effects.
I see the human species and our society as evolving, hopefully improving on some of the less than savory aspects of our past. and I see it as a generally good thing.
Now, to give everybody a laugh, we called the local tv station on this one. They’d reported that Nelson Mandella had been elected Pres of South Africa, and was the first “African American” to have been so elected. Yes, obviously folks can get sucker punched into idiocy.
On the same note as Nelson Mandela, African American:
A friend of mine was planning on adopting a Russian child. She was warned by the social worker “Not all the children available from Russia are white, you may be referred an Asian-American child.”
I don’t know Spiritus… from the quick Google search I did I saw a large number of site’s that include all sorts of political and social idealogies in what they considered PC.
I did a quick google search on “Politically Correct”. Of the top 20 hits, I got what looked like 8 humorous sites about politically correct speech/behavior, 8 sites that were critical of political correctness (one of the links was broken) and 4 sites that seemed to have very little or nothing to do with political correctness at all.
I found quotes at the above mentioned 20 sites such as:
Bolded words added by me for clarity…
Without examining just how widespread PC based extremism is it seems pretty clear that there are other people who include other topics than language use when they define what PC is. Variously it’s described as having an impact on race, education, politics, gender issues, race issues, religious issues and what you should and shouldn’t believe in regards to those topics.
The issue is one of legality and degree. If I’m offended by a statement made by you one option I have is to attempt to coerce you by “refusing to play with you”. To me this is a perfectly acceptable degree of coercion. However it would not be an acceptable degree of coercion if the potential for legal punishment (via a monetary fine, sensitivity classes, community service, whatever…) existed.
Actually, in this case the ‘Niggardly’ incident I was referring to is not the one most people are familiar with. It is an incident described in the first post I made to this topic. Here is the link again:
http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol8No1/Still8.1.pdf
Basically a student objected to the word being used by a professor because she was offended by it even though she knew what it meant. Additionally this same student wanted professors to be punished when they offended, intentionally or not. Clearly, this is a much higher degree of coercion then “refusing to play”.
Are you aware that many university speech codes have explicity listed punishments for people who violate them? Don’t these punishments directly contradict our first amendment rights?
I will certainly defend Native American rights to protest. In this case though I certainly do not approve of their methods (making racial slurs against Italians and splattering a statue of Columbus in red paint).
I see political correctness in much the same category as I see misguided fundamentalists who attempt to censor library books and conduct book burnings. The major difference between the two, and what makes political correctness more dangerous to me, is it’s apparent acceptance and continued growth. I don’t see the extremist PC acts as rare and individual instances of a good idea gone awry. I see extremist PC acts as becoming more and more the norm rather then the exception.
Grim
. Special interest groups espouse their special interests and try and convince folks to do the same? Call out the guards! Seriously, in the first place, you obviously have your own options to follow or not follow these things - How is this any different than say, the NRA making recommondations on who to vote for? I don’t see this as anything to be concerned about.
And this is a problem, how? Any discussion that advances our understanding of different people and cultures can be beneficial.
Well, now this is a loaded one, isn’t it? One item that this conveniently doesn’t consider is that, for example, “hate crimes” are also charged when a white person is victimized. Sorta dispels the idea that last statement, eh? here
And this is a problem… why? The folks at Disney took quite a bit of license with historical figures, all to make the story more, what? And they’re taken to task about it. What’s wrong here?
Actually, there’s more than a little validity there. While the giving of a gift is generally a kind act, to label and wrap it as a “Christmas gift” can, in fact, be more than a little problematic for a wide range of other folks - Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Confuscism, Atheists, Jews etc. Again, what is wrong with being sensative to not only the donor’s but the recipients feelings?
What seems clear to me, is that you’ve discovered quite a few people have sites that complain about “PC” gone haywire, but I’m not seeing a whole lotta evidence that it actually has.
Legal fines? etc etc. ? Ok, you’re talking about criminal sanctions for criminal acts. As this link shows, the persons convicted under this legislation were convicted for crimes such as rape, robbery, assault, etc. I’m sure you thought that these referred to folks yelling epitaphs on a sidewalk with no other action, right? I’ll assume, unless you tell me differently, that you’re ok with folks getting legal punishments for the offenses listed.
Well, she’s a twit. I can’t access that cite (pdf and my computer don’t get along), so I can’t tell what actually happened. Was the prof punished? If not, then what’s the problem? My dad, years ago, called for the firing of one of my teachers. He didn’t get his way. He ran for school board for the next 5 years in a row to try and get the guy fired. Didn’t happen. (my dad’s kinda a legend in some circles). If the prof was punished, I’d say there’s a problem. One. One problem does not an epidemic make.
I didn’t speak to this the last time, sorry. Universities are a special kind of environment, both an employer and an educational system, they have a great deal of differences from any other setting. In general, I give them a whole lotta leeway because of that.
? in what way? First amendment rights have all sorts of restrictions on them anyhow. I’ve got friends who are employed by the State, who’ve been advised that they may not speak to any media outlet (letters to the editor, tv news etc.) and identify themselves as state employees, expressing opinions or offering information - all information and opinions are to come from the departments. They’re allowed to write a letter to editor as “john smith” but not as “john smith, probation agent”. Again, you seem to be attributing things to “PC” that either aren’t attributable or are often there anyhow.
, and neither would I. Criminal activity (such as defacing property) is not protected. One group making slurs against another certainly is not “PC”. Why would you think so?
since many of the cites you referred to were ‘agin’ PC, I’m not certain that your claim of “acceptance” is warranted. And if the above is an example of what you consider to be the “extremist” and “common” then we have other problems. Other than the woman who attempted to get some one disciplined for using the word “niggardly” even tho she knew what it meant, and a group that’s acting in a criminal manner and making decidedly ‘unPC’ comments as well (then, I guess, by my definition they wouldn’t be “PC”), I don’t see the problems that you allude to.