*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**
What has been my objection to december’s disingenuous dialogue on this issue in particular? Relevance and purpose…
However, bringing in irrelevancies to my view is intellectual laziness as best, at worst a form of intellectual hypocrisy even dishonesty. It is in fact a red herring. My objection is in no way based on “PC” but rather on my dislike for deliberately muddying the waters with weak to illogical arguments whose sole purpose is to appeal to emotion or to distract from actual causation, etc.
Perhaps december is unaware that in logical arguments, irrelevancies with no connection to the actual problem and whose intent is simply to distract from the actual issue are objectionable per se. Given what I have seen in terms of argumentation, this is not terribly surprising, but let me try to expand on this issue…**
C’bury says his objection to the MS/rough sex item was based on it’s irrelvancy to the argument, not because it’s un-PC. Wring straightforwardly says says that she found it “inflammatory.” I bet C’bury, found it inflammatory, too. After all, there are lots of irrelevant comments on this thread that nobody ever objected to.
Note that C’bury’s book criticism was based in part on a review from Salon magazine. However, faced with Camille Paglia’s uncomfortable item, also from Salon magazine, C’bury says, “I am unaware of any reliable reporting as to this aspect.” and wring says it “…has not been supported on a factual basis.” As Alice said, verdict first, trial afterwards.
Question – Assuming this uncomfortable item is true, how do feel about the decision of the NY Times and others not to report it? Are you in favor, because of its unpleasantness or because of its political impact? Are you against, because you support complete and truthful reporting of the news?
C’bury wrote: "Let me tackle the last first. Uncle Tom’s Cabin Well what can one say? Inflammatory without proper grounding in reality? I do not believe one could accuse Sam Clemmens of the same. In any case, it is fiction over a century old and from another context."
Is C’bury implying that Sam Clemmens (sic) wrote UTC?!
Well, if you find it impossible to actually address my critique above of your reasoning or argumentation, fine. I take this to mean you normally argue without regard to substance or logic. Very well, continue with the hand-waving and evasion of substance.
Ahh, facts my dear fellow, facts. Inconvenient little motherfuckers. I didn’t fucking read the Salon review. I noted that, what twice already? No matter, you will carry on. But, for the record, I depended on (a) the publisher’s comments (b) the more substantive NEJM review. I didn’t bother with anything else. So, would care to give this little straw man a rest, as I’m sure he’s tired. I’ll add for the record, although it is probably a waste of time, my dear fellow, the fact that a poor source is quoted in another context doesn’t make it a better source. When I see something of where Paglia derived her information from, then perhaps I will give it credence, otherwise I see it as simply an unsubstantiated irrelevancy critiquable for the previously stated reasons. After that, it might be a substantiated irrelevancy, per the following comments:
What’s uncomfortable about it? I personally don’t feel any discomfort.
But, taking the assertion as a given, what’s the relevance? Does the assertion add to our understanding of the event? Should we know if Matt lisped? I expect the information to have some degree of rational connection with the event and its causation.
If it was not reported, I might easily explain this by relevance insofar as as I recall, he was attacked for his sexual orientation, for looking to hook up per se based on the same without regard to whether he was looking for soft cuddly sex or rough anal ring riding sex or something in between.
Now, an item of relevance might enter into the equation if the killers claimed that they killed only or largely or at least partially because of the style of sex requested. Then I might see some relevance to the story. Of course it still remains irrelevant to your argument, which you so strenously attempt to sidestep.
[qutoe]
Are you in favor, because of its unpleasantness or because of its political impact? Are you against, because you support complete and truthful reporting of the news?
[/quote]
How about I’m against false dichotomies and sloppy thinking? How about I know that in constructing any newsstory one has to work with limited space and focus on what is likely to be relevant to the underlying facts. How about I understand that editorial constraint does not mean ipso facto PC or untruthful reporting.
So, rather clearly I’m for reporting the issue if its relevant. If not, I see no reason.
Oh bother, I was under the influence of this wonderful Bacardi. Of course it was actually HBS. For some reason I got Tom Sawyer in me head while writing this and fucked up. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I should know better. Doesn’t change the substance of my comment, however.
Listen kid, if you are suggesting the second source is myself then you are full of GM bovine excrement. It’s just like a punk to fling accusations left and right with no thought to accuracy.
What utter crap! If you think someone’s comments are irrelevant kid, then ignore them.
Listen kid, this is supposed to be a debate. Sorry if you don’t like the way someone presents their point of view. You don’t own this board.
Talk about irrelevance. Presuming a hypothetical scenario with the purpose of characterizing an opponents debating style. Attacking the messenger rather than the message.
Kid, you amaze me. After bewailing irrelevance and inflammatory literature,you immediately go on and do likewise. Do not presume you whipped my ass. Your arrogant conceit driving your determination to have the last word merely tired me out. My nine year old never loses an argument either.
Logical and clear I’ll grant you. Still, I am well aware of your puerile tactic of inviting others to help you bash an opponent. Such tactics are also political in that they are designed to gain support and approval by alignment with popular entities.
I guess I was misled by the use of the first name which normally suggests familiarity. In light of your dehumanization charge, It is now clear why you chose to express Mathew Shepherd’s name in such a familiar way as Matt. Rather phoney don’t you think.
I rather clearly stated my opinion in the original message. If you take the time to reread it, you will find that I do not see the relevance based on my current understanding of the incident, however I provided scenarios where is might be relevant. Standards and analysis based on the data.
So, grieny old man got himself rather worked up. My fault really, and I apologize:
Ah grieny, I’m not suggesting, I was saying it. Seems like a plain reading of your message. Political PC smears I believe you said, PC censoring, same vien, no? I believe its accurate. Hardly flinging accusations left and right.
Grieny old man, first I’m not a kid, but this is mere trivia. Second, you have misunderstood the point. When the irrelevency is brought into an argument as a method to muddy the waters, it criticisable. I also felt, and feel, that it was a good example of the slip-shod arguments coming from those who like to use the phrase PC as a big old smear, rather than engage argumetns and data logically. You did follow my example, did you not?
Ahhh, now this one is amusing. So grieny old man, chum, critiqing someone’s arguments means one “owns the board”? Oh this is peculiar logic. Part of a debate is having good, logical argumentation which stand up to examination. You do know this, don’t grieny old man? So, when the logic and structure of an argument is fault, it should be broken down. If the poster wants to continue with sloppy thinking and poor analysis, of course that’s their choice.
Now, I see you did get around to my example, good for you.
Well, grieny, can inquire if you would really like to stay on point or not? I know I did irritate you immensenly, but you seem to have missed the point in regards to the hypothetical. It was illustrative of the fault argumentation. I am sure that you are in fact aware that these are problems in arguments, logical errors in arguments which need to be pointed out. As such, it is hardly an attack on the messenger to illustrate how the argument itself is fault.
An attack on the messenger, just so for next time, would be an attack on december as a person. Ad hominem. E.g. if one attacked december for the fact of being a U of C graduate or a conservative per se. Or perhaps even willfully mischaracterizing a critique so as to imply something about the poster.
Now, it could be that my hypothetical isn’t quite as on point or useful as I thought it was. More than possible to be frank. As such, you might want to sit down and respond in the vien of Collounsbury, your hypothetical is not in fact relevant to december’s posting for the following reasons: blah blah in re my own analytical errors. That is addressing an argument. Either in terms of its structure or its content. Either one seems valid if they go to the ultimate validity of the argument.
Example, December believes, wrongly that his little Matt thingy is an example of PC censorship. We would be talking about PC censorship if (a) the fact/assertion/question in question was relevant to the issue at hand (b) objected to on the sole or primary basis of its ‘objectionability’ or its inflammatory nature despite being otherwise relevant. That is censorship. Let us take a hypothetical as an illustration, don’t get too upset here now…
Let us suppose that instead of gay bashing, we take the issue of racial profiling being discussed in another thread. Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that there is a good body of data out there to examine in re differential rates of crime by race, income level, region and type of urbanization/non-urbanization. In other words, an ability to control for all those factors which otherwise muddy the waters of crime data discussions in re race and render informed discussions well-nigh impossible.
Let us suppose in such a discussion December decides to list factors which should be considered in analyzing crime data, and lists the above factors. Then posters come in and rough him up saying we should never look at race, its inflammatory and no matter how one does it, its wrong and bad. Perhaps one or two posters raise objections in regards to the quality of the data, the ability to extract differential income levels etc, that is to truly control for the various factors.
The PC objections, per the very definitions put forth here, are not ** all ** the objections, but rather those which do not rest upon factual or logical bases, or on a priori assumptions. Thus, presuming that we have decent data, objection to examining the question of different rates of crime by ethnic group, controlling for the factors cited above, might fairly be considered PC censorship. The learned objections in regards to the quality of the data, perhaps the methodology used etc. etc. are not.
I think this is clear and useful standard.
Now it seems in the final analysis that December assumed, ipso facto, that the nature of the sex between Matty and whomever was relevant to him getting killed, he then linked this with the assumption, implicit in his mind, that this should have been reported which in a further unexamined chain of assumptions, immediately led him to conclude that “PC censorship” — that apparently infinitely malleable term — was responsible. Ergo, he introduces this into his list as a provocative item, assuming its relevance and assuming the nature of an objection to its inclusion. I’ve already pointed out in prior messages the tenuous nature of this chain of assumptions.
Now, of course, if he wanted to establish relevance, he can argue that in fact Matty’s murder was in some significant part provoked or related to the issue of the type of sex involved — beyond of course it being gay. Perhaps a debatable issue, although one suspects not one which he would win on the evidence.
So, care to try again?
However grieny old man does have a point here:
You have a real point here at the start, in that I was unnecessarily needling you. The target was so very tempting, I gave into temptation. I’m sorry about that, it was unworthy and not strictly necessary. As for the factual nature of the issue, well, if you had had some arguments with ooomph or supported by evidence, but…
However, I think I need to take exception to this.
[/quote]
Logical and clear I’ll grant you. Still, I am well aware of your puerile tactic of inviting others to help you bash an opponent. Such tactics are also political in that they are designed to gain support and approval by alignment with popular entities.
[/quote]
Political? Huh. Peculiar. Well, I fail to see how, nor how this is “bashing” as you characterize it. If another poster is well-informed it strikes me as good to have he or she bring insights into the discussion. Popularity or not does not enter into the question, but whether the poster can bring something of substance to the discussion. Seemed and seems to me that Esprix might have, I could be wrong of course. How this is ‘puerile’ also escapes but ehh, what the hell.
Another item from old grieny:
No, I don’t think so, why? I do it all the time, use familiar forms and nicknames for public figures, etc. Got a problem in truth or just mad you misread it?
Yes, C’bury, you did indeed say that you considered the MS/rough sex incident to be irrelevant to my post.
However, the question at hand concerns the media coverage.
Assuming the incident happened:
Do you consider it relevant or irrelevant to the original media coverage of the story?
Do you approve or disapprove the decision of most of the media to not report that aspect?
This question is for other PC suporters as well. You’ve all agreed that offensive group labels are not PC. The point of the question is to find out whether your personal conception of propriety goes beyond that issue. Answering might help you better understand your own values.
Reading this thread, I am beginning to doubt the reading abilities of some people. It could not be more clear that the questions listed in december’s previous post have been answered in detail, and repeatedly, by Collounsbury.
I’m not sure what a “PC supporter” is and I don’t think I am one in any case, but I’ll throw in my two cents anyway.
I do not see how it is relevant, nor have I heard any attempt to show how it is relevant. If either of the media reports which included mention of rough sex indicated that it was relevant, it should be easy for you to provide us with that information. At least a paraphrase of the reasoning. The least one could expect is that you might tell us why you think it is relevant. In light of the fact that noone has given any such explanation, I wonder if anyone actually believes that it is relevant.
The media reports all manner of irrelevant facts. I do not consider this a good thing. Leaving out irrelevant information seems like a good thing to me.
As for grienspace’s post, I know Collounsbury has already addressed this, but I am so amazed by the ridiculousness of this one statement that I cannot help myself:
Do you mean to say, grienspace, that you believe that ad hominem arguments, irrelevant information, and other tools of faulty logic are all acceptable methods of debate? If so, it’s no wonder your 9 year old never loses an argument. I don’t tolerate that crap from my 10 year old. I don’t recall him winning any arguments with me. But you have my sympathy in your child rearing difficulties.
It was irrelevant to the original story. How the victim acted in consensual situations is not part of the equation when the subject is the victim’s unconsensual murder. It would only be relevant if the murderers contended that the victim had requested his being tied up, battery etc. Did they attempt this at their trial? If the answer is yes, then the story is relevant, if the answer is no, irrelevant.
I think that it was appropriate to not report it, since it was not relevant to the crime. Had it been relevant to the crime that was being reported, then the other information would have been fair game.
Let me ask you - if you had a loved one who, say was an alcoholic, had once been arrested for indecent exposure, or was a fan of pornography or had a foot fetish or whatever, and they were targeted and murdered because they were Jewish, would you think that the media should report all of these other facts? After all, they’re true, even if they’re irrelevant to the case. Or would you argue that to do so would be as an attempt to smear the victim, and in a gruesome way harm them again after death?
You really aren’t getting it, are you? even if it’s true the information was not relevant to the crime or situation being reported. It’s introduction would not help anyone explain or understand better what had happened, it would only serve to demonize the victim (to some).
I also clearly commented on the relevence in terms of media coverage. So, my reply to this message is asked and answered. I’m not sure of the purpose of your reply, other than perhaps as an attempt to evade my rather clearly stated and I certainly hope logically coherent responses.
I guess Wring and I are on opposidte sides. As a citizen, I’d like all newsworthy facts to be reported, even though, as Wring implies, I’d be unhappy to see people I care about criticized publicly.
Wring’s comment reminds me of a social worker friend who was unfairly demonized by the media for alleged abuse of mentally disabled adults. In her case, the story was entirely bogus, although she had to spend over $100,000 in legal bills to avoid prosecution. It’s relevant to this thread to note that the attacks on her were perfectly PC, even though they were false, because of the nature of the alleged offense.
Please, tell us what makes a fact newsworthy. Surely there is some standard that should be used? I would think that relevancy would be one of those. Or are you upset that all incidents of rough sex do not get reported?
** and why would you, as the citizen, want 'all newsworthy facts" to be reported, even if it wasn’t relevant? Case in point your friend to whom you next refer.
Let’s say that in addition to the false allegations, there also were references to an extramarital affiar, an illegitimate child given up for adoption, an arrest for shoplifting while she was in grade school, her suspension for smoking in the girls locker room in high school, and her less than perfect response to recycling? I mean what in the world would any of that have to do with the case against her?
I suspect that you feel that the ‘pro PC’ crowd would see that as a success. Frankly this is getting absurd. Can you show me a single person who is pleased that an innocent person is accused and has to undergo what had to be excrutiating times?
And just in case, no, I wouldn’t ‘approve’ of a murderer who killed, but didn’t, in the process use unPC language. Why in the world are you even bringing this up? It is not relevant to this thread just 'cause the attacks on her were ‘PC’.
Perhaps we’re missing your interpretation of the word relevant. What would make MS’s sexual habits in consensual situations relevant to the newstory of his hideous murder? In a debate about P/C=polite, what is relevant about a story of a woman who was wrongfully but politely accused?
One is allowed to be upset about being wrongfully accused, period. One is also allowed to be upset at being treated unfairly (as in had rude terms applied to you or being wrongfully accused).
Well, december, I am failing to grasp your definition of newsworthy. Perhaps you can not grasp this given the obtuseness so far displayed, but any story has limited time and space devoted to it. As such the editor and reporter have to make decisions about what facts actually convey something about the story.
The question is not public criticism, or PC or whatnot. It’s relevence. Conveying information in wring’s example about the fellow’s religion and foot-fetish tells us nothing about the event nor anything remotely relevant about the person as connected to the story. Nor would nice fuzzy infos such as he was a bird lover who volunteered with the APSCA. Nothing, nada, zippo.
As such it’s not inclusion in the story is not objectionable.
In order to be an actual response to wring’s message there should be a logical connection here. As wring’s message focused on the reporting of irrelevent and abusive information which unfairly and irrelevently cast aspersion on the person in question, in order for your response to be connected, the same must be said in this case.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tourbot *
[B
Please, tell us what makes a fact newsworthy. Surely there is some standard that should be used? I would think that relevancy would be one of those. Or are you upset that all incidents of rough sex do not get reported? **
IMHO the process by which MS came to hook up with his murderers was a newsworthy aspect of this horrible story. This seems crystal clear to me, but of course others are entitled to their own judgments and standards.
How so? please supply some evidence to support your contention.
As opposed to this where, according to his girlfriend, one of the murderers planned to ‘pose as gay and rob’ the victim. Apparently the murderers claimed that MS had made ‘an advance’ towards them, and nowhere even by the defendants is there an allegation or reference to ‘rough sex’. This, of course, doesn’t seem to relate to them kidnapping, robbing and beating him, since the jury found that was their plan in the first place.
Up to you now. where’s your proof that MS’s prior consensual sexual practices have anything to do with the intentional kidnap, robbery and beating death he suffered at the hands of two guys who decided, as part of their plan to “act gay”?
I finally found, what may be the source for decembers allegations. here where Camilla P. uses the word “rough” and Matthew Shepard in the same article. here’s the direct quote:
In the first place, she does not refer to ‘rough sex’ or even imply a sado masochistic idea. She’s referring to a term “rough trade”, which she then defines as gay men picking up straight or semi straight men moonlighting as hustlers (ie willing to trade $$ for sex)
All of which is, again, irrelevant to his murder, only speaks to a potential rational as to why he may have at least at first willingly left the bar with them.
She makes this speculation based on assumptions that cannot be proven, does not appear to be based on specific reports of his prior behavior, and seems to be solely based on his physical type, and the phsyical type of his killers.
And this speculation, is what december felt the rest of the media should have jumped on?
Nope, seems very clear that the rest of the media wisely chose not to continue to report baseless allegations from some one who wasn’t involved at all.
Well done, wring. This was indeed the source. Here’s a reprint of her entire discussion of the MS murder and its impliciations. It’s directly on point for this thread.
*…
Thanks partly to the flock of posturing Hollywood personalities who swooped in on the case, Shepard’s death was immediately transmogrified into a moral parable of sweet, saintly gay boy set upon by bigoted thugs and crucified for his homosexuality. But the truth seems to be (from the scanty evidence thus far) that Shepard was attracted to his assailants because they were thugs. Does anyone really believe that Shepard, educated in Switzerland, thought those two, barely literate hoodlums were gay or that he left the bar with them for cozy tea and conversation?
It used to be called “rough trade” – the dangerous, centuries-old practice of gay men picking up grimy, testosterone-packed straight or semi-straight toughs, sometimes moonlighting as hustlers. Before Stonewall, urban newspaper obituaries were coded for such typical scenarios as “the 49-year-old unmarried antiques dealer was found bound and gagged in his ransacked, lavishly furnished apartment.” These grisly spectacles are unheard of in lesbianism, where incidents of assault and battery seem dully limited to actual lovers (women can’t cut the apron strings, even when masquerading as S/M chains)…*
{Edited for copyright infringment. Do not post the entire text of an article; use short excerpts (if you must) or a link. --Gaudere}
december - this board frowns on quoting entire articles. I quoted what I felt was the relevant material (and seems that you concur), and left the link so folks could check to see that I quoted fairly or not. I’m assuming that you’re not saying I quoted unfairly. The SDMB frowns on copyright infringement.
Now, that having been said, can we get to the substance?
OK. according to the article, the implication you kept reporting, that MS was ‘into rough sex’ was not in fact there. All that was there was a guess from the writer that he may have been looking for some level of prostitution. Her assumption was apparently based on what MS looked like, the known fact about his schooling and an assumption, 2, 3 or 4 about the murderers. At no point does she indicate that she interviewed any of the persons involved or, in fact, anyone at all.
So, instead of the mainstream media ‘refusing to print unpleasant facts’ seems that they refused to print unsubstantiated speculation.
i]Originally posted by wring * december - this board frowns on quoting entire articles.
Wring – I accept your rebuke. I didn’t actually quote the entire article, just all that related to MS. However, I had forgotten about the board policy and appreciate your reminding me.
** according to the article, the implication you kept reporting, that MS was ‘into rough sex’ was not in fact there. All that was there was a guess from the writer that he may have been looking for some level of prostitution.**
The article said MS was seeking sex with “toughs” (ruffians is a synonym for toughs) of a type called “rough trade.” I don’t think it was unreasonable to refer to it as “rough sex.”
**Her assumption was apparently based on what MS looked like, the known fact about his schooling and an assumption, 2, 3 or 4 about the murderers. At no point does she indicate that she interviewed any of the persons involved or, in fact, anyone at all.
So, instead of the mainstream media ‘refusing to print unpleasant facts’ seems that they refused to print unsubstantiated speculation.
**
Yes, I pretty much agree with you. She did say that her report was based on, “…the scanty evidence thus far,” which sounds pretty weak.
On the other hand, the mainstream media could have investigated and reported on how MS came to hook up with his killers.
Finally, the provocative title of this post is a tabloid type exaggeration of Paglia’s actual conclusions. She claimed that a politicized gay activism failed to help MS avoid the risk of “rough trade” – when he desperately need help.
“Gay activism, by tilting too much toward politics, has ended up obscuring basic psychology – which novice gays like Shephard desperately need. Rainbow flags and upbeat slogans about “tolerance” are not going to help a frail, confused young man in dark encounters with sociopaths”
She also claimed that PC framing of gay issues and PC speech codes have caused some anti-gay people to become far more fanatical and uncontrollable.
“Conservative Christianity is not the cause of gay problems. On the contrary, the present religious extremism about homosexuality is the direct result of the major media’s 20-year-long liberal stranglehold on gay issues, which have been simplistically framed as a conflict between enlightened, humane tolerance and reactionary, redneck repression. As a militant free-speech advocate, I have warned again and again that when “offensive” speech is silenced by well-meaning, liberal authoritarians (as it was in the campus speech codes early this decade), any argument is forced underground and eventually emerges in far more fanatical and uncontrollable form.”
Many readers may not agree with her conclusons. Nevertheless, they at least demonstrate that the question of how MS came to encounter his murderers is an appropriate topic on a thread dealing with the virtues and vices of political correctness. It’s not “irrelevant.”
It depends. It seems to me that a common sense rule in regards to social policy might be something along the lines of:
“If a social custom does more harm then good it should be revised or disposed of”
That raises the next question…
“How do we determine when a social custom does more harm then good?”
Which is a question that becomes difficult to answer. Why is it difficult? It’s difficult because ideas do not exist in some static bubble with no interaction with the outside world.
Let’s say we have an idea and we’ll call it X. If we were to present X to a population of 250 million people the idea will be internalized in a large number of different ways. The difference in internalization will most likely be due to environmental factors, the individuals personal background, their culture and perception, etc. This will result in an unknown (but very large) number of permutations of X. Ideas that are based on X and which are more or less similar to it. Some of these permutations of X will be very similar to it, some of the permutations will be a bit less similar, and some of the permutations will be a lot less similar. My sentences 1, 2, and 3 in my previous post might be a fair example of the permutation of the original idea/intent of the PC concept. So, not only must we examine the idea based on it’s intent but also on how people will interpret it and attempt to implement it.
If there is an idea which is basically noble in intent but has detrimental results because of the method of it’s implementation, then the implementation needs to be re-examined. As an example if Joe-Schmoe has the idea:
Idea: “Poverty is a great social ill. I will commit myself to improving the situation of the poor.”
But decides to act on the idea by implementing the solution…
Solution: “Let’s print off an extra $10,000 per poor person and give it to them”
It is obvious that his proposed solution is impractical. Based on some simple economic principles we can make a pretty good guess that the proposed solution will cause more harm then good. Therefore, when discussing “political politeness” (or PC’ness) I think it is more useful to examine it’s implementation rather then it’s intent. So, how is it implemented? I would contend that political politeness is commonly implemented in the following ways:
Implementation 1. Person monitors their own speech and action so as not to offend.
Implementation 2. Person monitors others speech and action and attempts to correct others speech/action so that they (the person monitoring), or an individual whose preferences they know are not offended.
Implementation 3. Person monitors others speech and action and attempts to correct others speech/action so that other people (other people would be people who are not the monitors themselves nor individuals whose preferences the monitor knows) are not offended.
I have no problem with implementation 1. Policing your own behavior is the hallmark of a responsible individual. Implementation 2 is only problematic if the person monitoring others speech is unreasonably sensitive to offense, or if they ask for an unreasonable solution to correct the situation. Implementation 3 I definitely have some problems with. Implementation 3 assumes that the person can know with a relative degree of accuracy that people they do not know prefer to use a particular label or form of speech. Implementation 3 becomes even more onerous when:
A. It is couched with a high-handed self righteous attitude.
B. Is in contradiction to the actual preferences of some of the individuals they are supposedly representing
C. It’s use is generally common (i.e. that people feel justified in speaking for people who they do not personally know and will commonly do so)
D. It successfully changes the speech/action of the person being corrected. This is onerous in that the person doing the correcting can not accurately represent the opinions of individuals that they do not know. This means that behavior is being changed because of an unsubstantiated assumption on the part of another person.
E. People and words are demonized out of context (i.e. the Supermarket Sniper who, without being asked, snidely stated that she was sure the person in question would prefer to be called “African American” when in fact he preferred the term “Black”)
Back to the essential question, namely: “Does political politeness cause more harm then good?”. In the case of implementation 1 I would say the answer is no, political politeness does more good then harm. In the case of implementation 2 I would say that answer is that it depends on the circumstances. In the case of implementation 3 I would say the answer is a resounding yes.
I already practice 1, I do not and never will practice implementation 3 nor will I ever change my behavior in response to someone else using implementation 3, and I have never practiced implementation 2 even though according to some peoples level of sensitivity I’ve had occasion to.
Conclusion?
The term “politically correct” is hopelessly loaded down with all sorts of meanings. It will never be recovered to mean what we’re currently calling “politically polite” in this thread.
Recommendation?
Create a new term, sufficiently different from “politically correct” in wording but with the definition and acceptable implementations clearly delineated. Retain implementation 1. Scrap implementation 3 completely and immediately. Evaluate the use of implementation 2 in regards to it’s ratio of helpfulness compared to it’s use as a bludgeoning tool for the hypersensitive. Promote new term and it’s limitations while decrying the extremism and hypersensitivity which is found to varying degrees in proponents of the old term “politically correct”.
