tomndebb:
Quite right. Beat me to it. the Dixie Chicks episode is a case in point.
(I think you garbled your point with too many negatives, tho)
Like a lot of ideas, Good idea, bad execution. Trying to limit certain vile speech terms wasn’t neccesarily a poor idea; unfortunetly, it’s become a ridiculous institution that is trying to protect the most easily offended’s sensebilities. Bad I say.
My understanding from some old lefty friends of mine, as well as some published accounts, was that the term “politically correct” was a pejorative term created BY the left.
It was a term reserved for those who stood up at meetings, demanded that one certain term be used for another in the name of cultural sensitivity, then sat back down, and contributed NOTHING else to the conversation at hand.
(Perhaps in a similar way to how someone of a different bent might correct someone else’s sentence structure without actually addressing their argument. I imagine the term might have been created as a parallel to “gramatically correct”.)
From there, it became an attack word used by the right for ANY suggestions from the opposite side of the fence.
IMO, if it is clear that those who are offended have a justifiable reason to be so offended, and make their offense known, I will consider changing my language.
Where PC got a bad name, IYAM, was when self-righteous and over-zealous college students took it upon themselves to be the Language Police, correcting people’s speech because, in their minds, someone of some certain persuasion could CONCEIVABLY interpret it in an offensive manner, whether or not they actually had evidence that such offense had indeed been taken by anyone.
This heavy-handed approach, with its accompanying sense of those with “morality” on their side having the right to declare what others ought or ought not to do, is not only anathema to a free society, it has created a vehement backlash that has struck a blow against basic civility in this country.
Complaints about how some third party has no business declaring that something a person says is offensive to someone else have transmogrified into declarations that offended parties have no business speaking up themselves, which I find completely unsupportable.
so you’re saying that a company should not be concerned with how its employees appear publicly? it seems to me that if a government told a company that it couldn’t fire someone for being offensive, that would be a much scarier world to live in. do you actually believe that no one ought to be concerned with how many people are offended? think about this now: the reason these words are avoided is because they are offensive, and the people speaking don’t want to offend those people. politicians, public representatives of companies, etc. those people should be skewered for being insensitive to public opinion and the social implications of their words.
i can’t imagine why anyone would be offended by the word. i think people should explore the history and social implications of words before they defend the use of those words.
The probelm with PC is that doesnt apply to everyone. Its not PC for a for a straight man to call a gay man a “fag” or “homo”, but its okay for one gay person to call another just that. If a word is offensive in someone it really should be offensive no matter who says it!
If words and phrases can really cause so much harm, that rules and regulations are made to govern them, they shouldnt be used at all…period. I just love watching cable and seeing a black man user “nigger” and not get beeped, but another person uses it and its bleeped.
Personally I find the idea of PC silly. If I am being offensive does using the word African-American dilute the hate in my message? Of course not. If the PC movement would work more on intent than words it might have actually accomplished something.
No, I think that companies do have the right to fire employees if they are violating company rules that have been instituted and made known to everyone.
My problem with the PC movement is that it’s institutionalized. If it remained a cultural trend, I could simply roll my eyes and ignore it. The “self-righteous and over-zealous college students” have probably done more damage to the liberal movement than anything else. To me, it doesn’t make sense to try to censor speech if it’s objectionable to you. Since you have reached your opinion through reason, you could certainly explain to someone who holds a different view why you think they’re wrong.
I think that government involvement in such matters is worse than a lack of it.
Sure, you can be concerned. But censorship is not the answer.
Who says one’s okay and the other isn’t? “Some people”? The PC constitution? Do you realize how stupid you sound talking about an entity that doesn’t even exist as if it’s some big, powerful force? Apparently, nobody can even agree on what PC means, so we should just drop the stupid buzzword and talk about what you really mean.
from pizzabrat
Well I used the “…the stupid buzzword” because that was the title of the OP.
“about an entity that doesn’t even exist” Are you saying the topic of the OP doesnt exist, or just the way I used it?
I did not want to voice my view prematurely and alter the course of this debate since I started this thread and wanted to see what the Zeitgeist was in here these days. I feel I may now. For the record I consider myself a liberal Democrat but I am also a strong believer in individual liberty and the sanctity of freedom of speech. The following event relayed to me by a dear friend I’ve known since Kindergarten had a big impact how I react to objections on the basis of political correctness.
When, in the early ‘90’s my friend went away to school at Antioch in Ohio he was enthusiastic about the school. I lost count of how many times he told me Rod Sterling of Twilight Zone was a graduate.
In his first semester he awoke in his dorm room to shouts and the beating of pots and pans outside in the corridor. When got up the guts to investigate he was told that it was a “take back the night” rally. As he heard about this kind of thing and was sympathetic to it he followed the noise to a cafeteria where a woman at a podium was angrily yelling about the injustices women were subjected to by men. He wandered into the rear of the room and watched as a man raised his hand and suggested in an effeminate voice that not all men where bad, and that some men supported their goals. The speaker responded to this by screaming for the man that he had no right to speak or even be there and that he should get out immediately. As she had no use for him. The man then dropped to his seat and began weeping. Seeing this, my friend went over to the young gay man and tried to be of comfort to him. Seeing this, the women yelled for them both to “get the explicative out if you know what’s good for you!”, in addition to some other unfriendly remarks. Upon this, my friend helped the fellow up and out of the room but that was not the end of it.
My friend learned a couple days latter that he was named on a list circulated throughout campus of men that it was not acceptable to date. It turned out the two events were directly related. My friend who was a straight A student, ended up leaving school later that year.
I believe that this would not have happened had both sides been open to free communication and heard each other out. Indeed I believe everyone would have been richer for engaging in such a dialogue. I think Leftist Liberals that try to control or silence debate by trying to impose their agenda on its language end up getting Right Wing Conservatives elected in the resultant backlash. But that is just my opinion.
Tross, how does your anecdote fit in with the topic? You have not described “PC.” Did the Antioch administration prevent anyone (of the “wrong” ideas) from addressing the crowd? Did the Antioch faculty and staff participate in or endorse the “do not date” memo?
What you have described is the classic case of any loud group demanding the silence of anyone with whom they disagree. The Right and the Left both engage in this tactic pretty equally. (And the Left and the Right should both be condemned for their behavior.) Only the Left, however, has a tag applied to it.
To be “Politically correct” in 1984 twenty years past , is to be chic, to be in the know, and to be with-it, by way of blindly following the falsidical egalitarian pronouncements of the clerisy, who increasingly dictate properspeak to the straight speaking masses.
These modern day Inquisitidors are simply thought police; insidious, small, people who knowingly lie. They know very well that words can’t create reality. Words can only describe a reality that already is.
But luckily, the silliness imposed upon us by these self-righteous malcontents will soon past, and as such their funny proscriptions will be no longer the vogue, then, we, as a nation, can continue our destined search for truth with renewed and unabated, zeal and vigor.
I can hardly wait.
What, exactly, Milum, are you so bitterly proscribed from saying? Is there some truth you are bursting to reveal, stifled by the Orwellian jackboots of…who, exactly? Would you mount a soapbox and cry out “Barefoot and pregnant, that is God’s Way!”, but fear to be dragged down and lynched. Have the PC Brownshirts threatened your family with dire consequences?
What, exactly, are you so eager to say that you cannot?
Apparently, the fact that he can’t be confident that everyone in the world will agree with him about everything is stifiling. The same goes for most PC “victims”.
I didn’t mean for my post to be directed just to you, but like I pointed out before, the OP’s title is stupid. Of course political correctness is bad, it’s a perjorative term!
Not necessarily. Context is everything.
Is there any woman here who would shrug off being called whore or slut on the job every day? Would any of you men not mind your mother or wife being referred to as a cunt? Should your boss or professor or classroom teacher feel free to call you an * ignorant asswipe*?
So why did your friend leave school? I’ve never known women to be of one mind enough to pay any attention to such a circulated list. Nor have I known women who bothered to circulate a list to begin with. Were all of the women attending this college men-haters? How else can you explain such a cohesive boycott of your friend? But would he have left school because he couldn’t get a date? And why was the young man crying? How did you know he was gay?
The term “politically incorrect” actually came BEFORE “politically correct,” and both existed as adjectives describing particular people or actions before there was the conspiracy model of a lump “political correctnesss.” The term was coined by Vladimir Nabokov in the dystopia novel “Bend Sinister,” a satire of bureaucracy and tyranny.
No. Context–as in a person’s actions–should be everything. My problem with the college PC crowd is that, too often, it’s not.
I have always taken a broader view of “political correctness”. Always meant to me to be the minority (and possibly unpopular) viewpoint. Having nothing to do with politeness or “sensitivity”. In other words--------a viewpoint that could not get you elected garbage collector.
Having nothing at all to do with the validity of your position. Just “People shouldn’t say things like that because we, the majority, find it disgusting.”
Have used it many times in that context and never been corrected. Was I wrong?
Am thinking along the lines of the old Bill Maher show.----“Politically Incorrect” (on cable and then on commercial TV and then kicked off commercial TV for actually living up to its title in a very unpopular way.--------in other words “What you said may be quite true, but you shouldn’t say things like that, because it will seriously piss off the general populace.”
Which I believe (on the Bill Maher show) is where I first heard the term.
Originally posted by Zoe
“So why did your friend leave school?”
He felt alienated. He felt he could not be himself and say what was on his mind without fear of it being considered not PC and the harsh consequences that might result.
“I’ve never known women to be of one mind enough to pay any attention to such a circulated list. Nor have I known women who bothered to circulate a list to begin with.”
Well, those are two experiences you have not had. I’m glad to hear it. To further put it in context Antioch made the news some time after my friend left for establishing a policy where male students were required to ask permission of the females at each stage of courtship, i.e., “May I kiss you on the cheek? May I kiss you on the lips? May I kiss you with my tongue? May I put my hand on your breast?” All the way to, “May I insert my penis into your vagina?”. Good idea, eh? I seem to remember SNL did a skit about it.
“Were all of the women attending this college men-haters? How else can you explain such a cohesive boycott of your friend?”
How do you explain the black listings of the McCarthy era or the treatment of jews in Nazi Germany? I think people tend to be afraid of the consequences of opposition and say nothing and often join the ranks.
“But would he have left school because he couldn’t get a date? And why was the young man crying? How did you know he was gay?”
He left school because he got sick of having to explain why he was on the list and have people shun him never the less. You might ask: Why did the distance themselves when they understood he had done nothing wrong? From what he has told me and what I’ve experience myself I imagine that they did not want to risk ending up in suspicion or on a black list themselves.
The young man was crying because he was very sensitive and his feelings were hurt by what the speaker said to him. I know he was gay because I later met him and we became friends.
Tomndebb wondered what my anecdote had to do with PC. I’ll try to be more clear. The self righteous disregard for other’s rights in order to redress the historical injustices of women in the “bring back the night” rally resulted in at least two additional very unnecessary and counterproductive injustices. My one friend spoke up respectfully, offering his support for the championed cause at a public gathering and my other friend merely tried to aid the former. Their speech/behavior was labeled not PC and both ended up getting named as not PC to date. My gay friend was not as stressed about being on the list though. 
My point is that the self-appointed authorities on what politically correct is in any given situation can have a lot of power and do a lot of damage to individuals, and to everyone’s personal freedom.