Political correctness is cowardice.

[Great_Antibob]

@Blackfaer

I said nothing like “it’s hard so why try”.

Actually, you did, but not in those words. It’s still a weak argument. It tries to sidestep the issue by “seeming” practical without actually doing much of anything useful. That ways leads to ethically questionable compromises.

It’s the same sort of argument that justified “separate but equal” and other reasonable-seeming accommodations that weren’t actually reasonable.

@Blackfaer

My point is that means we’re constantly altering the language, and what language is acceptable.

Exactly. The words people use to denigrate others constantly changes.

So, how about we start there (being pro-active) instead of starting with the people who are trying to do something about it (being re-active)?

If the words people use to denigrate others changes, it is absolutely fair that the words people find offensive changes right along with that.

You are expecting the people who aren’t racists and aren’t using words to put other human beings down to make the accommodation. That’s bass-ackwards.

@Blackfaer

That doesn’t make for clear and effective communication, and clarity of language is a benefit to understanding in general, which ideally should lead to LESS racism, as we all understand one another more.

You’d think that, wouldn’t you? Fortunately (or unfortunately) we’ve got several centuries of human history that say differently. Again, an argument that tries to sound “reasonable” yet advocates basically doing nothing about the underlying issue.

The “clear and effective” communication you advocate did exist at one point in history. And that language told women and minorities to stay in their place and not expect much of life. Basically, it was crummy.

Besides, language constantly evolves (or else Shakespeare was smoking some high quality stuff). Directing that evolution in at least one positive way is hardly a bad thing.

@Blackfaer

What if the French government suddenly launched a bunch of nuclear bombs and everyone decided that the French were warmongers out for blood? Perhaps in time the term French would be derisive.

Ok, fine. In that (unlikely) situation, I might be wrong.

You point being?

I’m actually ok with being wrong on that. Sure, any word can potentially become offensive to use.

Again, why is this a problem? Words change all the time. It used to be offensive to call somebody “black”. Not anymore (well, mostly).

It seems like you keep harping on the problem of changing language. Well, that’s going to keep being a problem, because the English language has NEVER had that sort of stability. At least we’re moving in the right direction - trying NOT to use words to hurt other people. Does that mean you have to work a bit harder at keeping track? Maybe, but tough titties. Nobody said it was easy to be a decent human being nor that it should be.

@Blackfaer

We’re trying to come up with new ‘better’ terms and have frequently come up with less accurate terms which are fraught with their own baggage.

So we should use more baggage laden terms because they’re more accurate?

BS. That’s letting the (possibly nonexistent) perfect solution get in the way of the merely good solution. Again, it’s saying “it’s too hard, so let’s not try”. It’s a reasonable “sounding” argument without actually making sense.

[Una_Persson]

@Jragon

You fit the definition of “transmedicalist” I believe – you make a point in saying that transexuality has specific medical criteria and people should not self-diagnose. “Truscum” is the name the mean people who disparage transmedicalists use. I mentioned it because it’s (sadly) easier to search for the term “truscum”, though there appears to be a certain amount of label reclaiming going on because I’ve seen people self-identify as truscum. (I did say as an aside that some Tumblr/Twitter/etc transmedicalists aren’t the nicest people to the opposition either, but you weren’t included in that)

My confusion is furthered by the fact that I’ve been an activist in the community, have a trans-oriented library which in paper form fills bookshelves and in electronic for consists of thousands of articles and papers, and I cannot recall seeing those words used.

Yes, I believe that people cannot self-diagnose. That goes for everything from chicken pox to brain tumors. In most cases that’s not a controversial statement. Historically in the trans community it is because gatekeeping used to be rigid and in some cases impossible to get past. That’s not the case nowadays - you can occasionally find folks in small communities who have only a couple of doctors available and who gatekeep harshly, but that’s now the exception rather than the rule, especially if they follow WPATH 7.

I’ve seen too many lives destroyed by a crossdresser who caught the “pink fog” and thought they were transgender, only to find out after their wife left them, they lost their career, and had to move to an apartment that they really were not transgender. I’d much rather that a transgender person take the small risk of being gatekeeped than to proceed too far down a path which can be mostly irreversible.

And no one in my community questions my “cred” on this. I’ve written scientific articles on transgender people which have been viewed and cited all over the net, I’m one of the vanishingly few who isn’t afraid to get up in front of local politicians and lobby for my people, I’m the one who speaks to universities, high schools, church groups (I’m speaking to one in about 90 minutes in fact), Pride expert panels (yesterday), and who burns vacation time from work to go and mentor transkids. The only people I’ve found in real life who push back against my so-called “transmedical” view are the bitter old timers who have been stuck in the crossdressing phase for 10, 20, even 40 years and have never had the courage to go into a psychologist. They think they can take hormones secretly and even get SRS without telling their own wives (!), and that is a serious delusion IMO.

[Jragon]

@Una_Persson

My confusion is furthered by the fact that I’ve been an activist in the community, have a trans-oriented library which in paper form fills bookshelves and in electronic for consists of thousands of articles and papers, and I cannot recall seeing those words used.

I’m talking about the peculiar beast of freelance Tumblr/Twitter activism and social justice, not the sort of people who go to conferences and have professional cred. I’m not surprised you haven’t heard the terms.

[nachtmusick]

@tomndebb

I hardly get the vapors when I encounter someone claiming that he or she is not a racist. On the other hand, I have never in my life found an occasion to declare “I am not a racist” and I find such a need to be odd, at best. As I and others have noted, the declaration “I am not a somethingist” nearly always precedes or follows a statement that any reasonable person would recognize as somethingist. It is a pointless declaration that either means nothing or is false.
The notion that a person engaged in such behavior should be taken at their word, by default, when the overwhelming usage is otherwise is amusing.

Are you a racist?

[tomndebb]

@nachtmusick

Are you a racist?

Why would you ask such a question?

If it is simply to get me to deny it, you will not have made a point. Are you simply trying to get me to say that I am not a racist to “prove” some odd point that there is ever a reason to make that statement? That is nothing more than playing “gotcha” games and you are free to go play them somewhere else.
Note that my statement that you quoted was posted in the context of an unsolicited assertion on my part, not in the context of answering questions.

Even if, unlikely as it might be, you were asking a sincere question, my response in the negative would prove nothing more than that I did not wish to identify myself as a racist. So what? Others would judge me on my overall words and actions, not on a single statement.

[pulykamell]

@Blackfaer

I attended a journalism conference in 1995 in which a panel discussed at length the appropriate term and it was decided at that time that ‘black’ was definitely NOT PC and NOT acceptable to use in journalism.

If that’s true, that wasn’t true of any mainstream publications. “Black” was, and still is, Associated Press style for describing the skin color when germane to the story, and “African-American” when discussing aspects of African-American culture. That’s the distinction I remember being made clearly to us around 1994/1995. Feel free to look from any major newspaper from that time period. “Black” was certainly not taboo. Here’s one search from the New York Times archives just for “black men” and here’s one for “black women” in 1995. If there was a moratorium on the word, America’s paper of record didn’t get it.

I don’t doubt that you attended some sort of journalism panel discussion on race, but either you misunderstood the conclusions, or it was some sort of academic discussion that nobody in the mainstream journalism world paid attention to.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@tomndebb

“I am not a somethingist”

It’s true; some of my best friends are Somethings.

[JEngelman]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

What are you talking about? Are you saying that when someone says something racist, people call them on being racist, and being racist is so socially unacceptable that they get embarrassed about continuing to say the racist things and they stop saying them? If not, would you give an example of what you’re talking about?

How do you define “racist?”

[JEngelman]

@Miller

Yes, it is. It is, in fact, such an important difference that it renders your entire comparison absurd. You want the right to be able to say that Christianity is more important than Islam. And you have that right. I want the right to say that people who think that are bigots. And I have that right, too. Complaints about political correctness amount to nothing more than special pleading from people whose ideologies could not compete in the marketplace of ideas.

In my humble opinion a debate about the relative merits of Christianity and Islam can and should be carried out without name calling. One can discuss the effects each religion has had on nations that adopted it. One can discuss the inclination of each religion toward religious intolerance and persecution. One can even discuss how plausible each religion is.

[JEngelman]

@Shagnasty

Political correctness is the liberal equivalent of Fox News combined with Jesus fish and 2nd amendment bumper stickers in the right wing world but, for some reason, liberal types can’t see the irony or the parallel. I dislike them both equally.

I see political correctness as the liberal equivalent of loyalty oaths, witch hunts of presumed Communist influence in the State Department and Hollywood, black lists, and so on. From the beginning of the Cold War to the Tet Offensive, which made the War in Vietnam unpopular, it was often dangerous to advocate socialism, criticize capitalism, or defend a Communist government.

In my opinion the danger of Communism was exaggerated in ways that promoted unfortunate U.S. foreign policies. If between 1945 to 1968 there had been more intellectual freedom in the United States the mistakes that led to the War in Vietnam and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 may have been avoided.

[plevy28]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

I can mainly speak about the UK here. In the 1970’s our culture was full of nasty names for blacks and gays. Names that I wont repeat here. Political correctness did a lot to reduce such abuse and intolerance against minorities(I wont count physical abuseas that has always been punishable by law).

Examples of the closing down of debate: saying things like I dont really care about the plight of minorities any more than I have to. That im against positive discrimination; im against giving minorities or the poor a hand up. That im comfortable enough with child bearing aged women being discriminated against in terms of wages; that I believe Christianity is superior to Islam; that Western Civilization ought to be defended in Universities. All that kind of stuff. Far too often people espousing these attitudes are labelled racist or intolerant. That the politically correct lobby over-reach for political gain.

Another example would be the argument over the names of football and baseball teams. Names that have been around for years are suddenly deemed racist.

[Miller]

@JEngelman

I see political correctness as the liberal equivalent of loyalty oaths, witch hunts of presumed Communist influence in the State Department and Hollywood, black lists, and so on.

Interesting. Do you often see things?

[Monty]

@plevy28

Another example would be the argument over the names of football and baseball teams. Names that have been around for years are suddenly deemed racist.

You know how long racist laws were around?

[monstro]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I recently encountered the idea that everyone’s got some racist/sexist leanings. What determines whether you ARE a racist/sexist is what you do when confronted on some bullshit you say. If you “kowtow” (nice dig there), which is to say, if you’re brave enough to evaluate what you did and its effects, and decent enough to change going forward, well, that’s the baseline normal human thing to do. If your precious ego is so fragile that getting confronted about your bullshit makes it Drama O’Clock, and you turn the whole thing into how Mean the Politically Correct Police are, and you’re too cowardly actually to take a hard look at yourself–well, that’s when you cross over into being a racist or a sexist.

Like Jragon, I’ll only partially agree. If someone I trust, someone who knows me well, says that I’m racist/sexist/whatever, I’m probably going to listen to them and not rear back defensively. But if it’s a stranger and they don’t know me and I don’t know them, I’m under no obligation to listen to anything they have to say.

I was recently banned from a “black people-specific” reddit sub over the stupidest thing ever. I posted something that sounded “Uncle Tommish” to a moderator. When I responded a bit too ardently, the other moderators decided that I was indeed an Uncle Tom(ette) and banned me.

I know I’m not an Uncle Tom. The moderators may have had good reason to be hypervigilant against racists and other negative elements stirring up trouble. But neither my post or my posting history fit the profile of an Uncle Tom. Someone who speaks her mind and isn’t afraid to argue, yes. But not someone who hates being black.

A person definitely has to look at themselves critically. But that doesn’t mean swallowing whatever BS accusation gets leveled at them either.