# Rehabilitating "political correctness"s' negative image **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600 "2017-01-30T18:59:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/201 "2017-02-04T03:09:28Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > This is so absolutely wrong it is mind blowing. The vast, vast majority of political violence in the U.S. since 1970 comes from the left. Second place? Sports riots. > > Wanna list? Here it is. [Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States#1970s). > > The idea that the right is responsible for most of the political violence in silly. > > Slee Your list of political violence seems to have strangely excluded the single most deadly domestic terror attack in American history. Which, incidentally, was perpetrated by right wing terrorists. Not sure how you can claim with a straight face that political violence comes from the left wing, and your cite is a list of only “incidents of civil unrest”. Somehow you don’t consider blowing up buildings, murdering hundreds of people, plotting to build and detonate a dirty bomb, plotting to overthrow the American government, attacking federal agents, occupying land, attacking police officers, killing doctors, etc etc etc, acts of political violence. Sure, if you blatantly ignore all incidents of right-wing political violence, there are more left-wing incidents. And if I ignore all odd numbers, all numbers are even. Hey, speaking of things that are so wrong they’re mind-blowing, thanks for your post. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/202 "2017-02-04T03:22:47Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It’s been my theory all along that this is the reason for the smaller crowd for Trump’s inauguration that there was for Obama’s or for the women’s march. Interesting theory, that, like most of your theories, can be shown to be wrong with less than 30 seconds on google. Wanna give it a try, or do you need me to spoon-feed it to you? ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/203 "2017-02-04T07:01:03Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I mean both. And I have a lot of exposure to this, professional exposure, every single day. So with all of your exposure, can you offer any kind of reasoned argument for a given trans person is reasonable for getting angry at someone else for not using a particular one of trans vs trans\* vs transgender vs transgendered vs trans-gender (or otherwise making a big deal out of it)? > [@](#): > > I illustrated why you seem to be unaware of many issues regarding us. No, you didn’t illustrate a thing, you made vague insinuations and unsupported claims. You aren’t supporting your ideas, you’re just declaring that I’m wrong and failing to address what I say in any real manner. I am quite aware of real issues affecting transgender people, and I don’t accept that ‘sometimes people don’t use whatever weird terminology variation one particular subgroup of transpeople have decided is correct for today’ is actually a significant issue. > [@](#): > > Dating and knowing a few of us does not automatically equal having any understanding of our issues, nor being a good representative for our community and our rights. What exactly is your actual Q&E in this area? Mine can be Googled pretty easily if you don’t want to search on here. What you’ve done here is engaged in the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, not made any legitimate point. If I am incorrect in something that I’m saying, you should be able to point out the problem with what I’m saying. The fact that you’re resorting to asking me personal questions and using insinuations against me instead of arguing directly unfortunately says a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/204 "2017-02-04T18:27:29Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Interesting theory, that, like most of your theories, can be shown to be wrong with less than 30 seconds on google. > > Wanna give it a try, or do you need me to spoon-feed it to you? Spoon-feed it to me, at least. I’m curious. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/205 "2017-02-04T19:06:36Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > There certainly were when I was at uni and I encounter enough people online going on about them for it be an issue. That’s unfortunate. I find it hard to believe that these people are enough of a problem to be a real threat. Annoying? Sure. Just reading about them pisses me off. I want to grab some of these people be the neck and shout, “HEY ASSHOLE, YOU’RE MISSING A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY HERE.” But I feel there are considerably bigger problems than annoying, oversensitive jerks, and I think the threat posed by them has been _substantially_ overstated - and not just by the kind of person who equates it with the iron curtain. I’m not convinced it’s a bigger problem than, well, the problems addressed by microaggressions and trigger warnings. Or by aggressively combating transphobia. > [@](#): > > I think it’s been pretty well outlined, TBH. Personally, I use the term to describe nonsense like “safe spaces” and “microaggressions” and the euphemism treadmill and over-sensitivity to things that aren’t actually harmful to most people. Okay, but do you understand my problem with this? You’re talking about microaggressions and safe spaces (and on a side note, while I understand why some might object to those concepts, I find their existence valuable) and the people who become extremely nasty towards those who reject those concepts. Other people on the right, meanwhile, are taking literally any idea involving tolerance (like, say, the idea that “gender” is a thing) and branding it with the brush of “political correctness”, as if it was the same kind of trivial bullshit. That’s kind of a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/206 "2017-02-04T19:36:28Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Spoon-feed it to me, at least. I’m curious. [The first link](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-where-the-economy-is-weaker/) from my google search analyzed the correlation between unemployment rates and county-level election results. Conclusion:“Actual election results show no correlation between counties’ September 2016 unemployment rates and their level of support for Trump — places with higher unemployment rates were no more likely to vote for Trump than those with lower rates.” So, unsurprisingly, facts available to anyone with a modicum of intellectual curiosity throw a little bit of a monkey wrench into **SA** ’s “theory”. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/207 "2017-02-05T16:43:00Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > So with all of your exposure, can you offer any kind of reasoned argument for a given trans person is reasonable for getting angry at someone else for not using a particular one of trans vs trans\* vs transgender vs transgendered vs trans-gender (or otherwise making a big deal out of it)? The current argument is that transgender persons should not be required to physically transition upon a third-party’s timetable, especially based upon the fact that such procedures are almost always not covered by insurance, and the significant unemployment and underemployment rates of “out” transgender persons further limits that. The flip-side of the coin are those who feel that they have paid their dues, gone through the treatment and surgery and legal and social trauma, who have put their families and relationships and jobs and lives on the line to transition, being considered under the same “transgender” umbrella as a drag queen. That being said, I do not personally see the huge difference between the two - I am a transsexual and I am transgender, which is the umbrella term. > [@](#): > > No, you didn’t illustrate a thing, you made vague insinuations and unsupported claims. You aren’t supporting your ideas, you’re just declaring that I’m wrong and failing to address what I say in any real manner. I am quite aware of real issues affecting transgender people, and I don’t accept that ‘sometimes people don’t use whatever weird terminology variation one particular subgroup of transpeople have decided is correct for today’ is actually a significant issue. Then I believe you are not in fact “aware” except as an outsider to our community. a simple Google search can find numerous examples of debates and discussions of the difference in the terms going back for half a decade or more. [My friend Julia writes about it here,](http://transadvocate.com/a-transsexual-versus-transgender-intervention_n_4383.htm) or [Janet Mock.](http://janetmock.com/2011/06/17/identifying-transsexual-versus-transgender/) Related to this is the overarching problem of [transgender persons versus drag queens,](https://thinkprogress.org/the-quiet-clash-between-transgender-women-and-drag-queens-297a9da4c5f6#.btxoh97cc) something one who actually was “aware” would already have known. > [@](#): > > What you’ve done here is engaged in the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, not made any legitimate point. If I am incorrect in something that I’m saying, you should be able to point out the problem with what I’m saying. The fact that you’re resorting to asking me personal questions and using insinuations against me instead of arguing directly unfortunately says a lot. Asking you for your Q&E is a “personal question?” You are aware of what forum you’re in, correct? Your initial claim is that you are “aware” of transgender issues because of your dating history. You put forth your personal experience as your Q&E, but object when I ask you for more. My personal experience trumps that by so much it’s not even comparable. But don’t take my word for it, do some of your own legwork and submit your proof that there is no controversy between the terms. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/208 "2017-02-06T20:38:22Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > That being said, I do not personally see the huge difference between the two - I am a transsexual and I am transgender, which is the umbrella term. So you’re a trans person who feels about the issue exactly like I said that trans people tend to feel about the issue in my experience, but you want to say that I’m completely wrong and not aware because… why exactly? I really have no idea what you disagree with, because you personally serve as a further example of the phenomenon that I observed. Aldiboronti said that some people are being labeled as bigots who are not bigots for not using up-to-the-minute terminology. I agreed and gave an example of a more-progressive-than-thou type getting angry at me for using transsexual instead of transgender, while noting that trans people generally don’t care (meaning, in context, that they don’t care to the point of angrily calling someone a bigot). Do you really think that the conversation with most trans people would go like: “Transexual? Really? I can’t believe you’re so intolerant, how dare you say that people have to surgically transition to count as trans” “Jesus Christ I’m outta here” Rather than: “Oh, that word isn’t really used any more, trangender is the regular term” “Oh, my bad, I’ll keep that in mind.” Because my experience is that the latter is vastly more common than the former, unless you’re hitting the sort of people that are referred to in ‘out of control PC’ comments. > [@](#): > > Then I believe you are not in fact “aware” except as an outsider to our community. a simple Google search can find numerous examples of debates and discussions of the difference in the terms going back for half a decade or more. None of those examples demonstrate trans people calling someone a bigot for using the old term without realizing it was dated, general support from the trans community for treating such usage with anger, or indeed anything that looks like the situation Albibornonti described and I gave an example of. > [@](#): > > Asking you for your Q&E is a “personal question?” You are aware of what forum you’re in, correct? Yes, it’s a question about me as a person instead of discussion of any point put forth. Thanks for drawing attention to the forum that we’re in, on that topic you spectacularly failed to specify what your point of disagreement with me was in your initial complaint or in any of the responses until now. Vague insinuation, then a demand for someone’s Qualifications and Expertise without actually even saying what you think they’re wrong about is far from a great debating practice. I literally didn’t know what your point of disagreement was until this post, because you were so incredibly vague in what you wrote. > [@](#): > > But don’t take my word for it, do some of your own legwork and submit your proof that there is no controversy between the terms. I never claimed that there was no controversy between the terms, so why would I be motivated to submit a proof for something that I never claimed and don’t believe is true? When I said ‘who cares about it’, it was in the context of ‘cares enough about it to get angry and accuse the person innocently using the old term of bigotry’. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/209 "2017-02-08T19:39:10Z")
I read this [LA Times op-ed](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-macdonald-berkeley-victimology-20170207-story.html) about political correctness, Milo Yiannopoulos, the Berkeley riot, and the subversion of free speech to politically-correct norms. I thought it was interesting and worthwhile and wanted to share it with those who have been participating in this thread. To me it’s pretty clear that the Berkeley riot was an attempt (unfortunately successful) to infringe on Milo’s right to express himself, and that it was driven primarily by the modern university’s obsession with political correctness, but I’d like to hear the thoughts of those with differing opinions. That it happened at UC Berkeley - essentially hallowed ground for free speech advocates - is particularly ironic and disheartening. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/210 "2017-02-08T23:28:37Z")
Thanks for sharing that - US university culture is very different to my experiences here in Australia but from what I read and hear, I’d agree with the OpEds points about university students being more concerned about nonsense like “microaggressions” and extreme political correctness, and less about “learning things they need for their careers” or even “knowledge for its own sake.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/211 "2017-02-08T23:53:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > To me it’s pretty clear that the Berkeley riot was an attempt (unfortunately successful) to infringe on Milo’s right to express himself, and that it was driven primarily by the modern university’s obsession with political correctness, but I’d like to hear the thoughts of those with differing opinions. I agree with the first part of what you said, but not the second part. What makes you think that the “modern university” is responsible for that riot, rather than black bloc anarchists or their ilk? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/212 "2017-02-08T23:59:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I read this [LA Times op-ed](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-macdonald-berkeley-victimology-20170207-story.html) about political correctness, Milo Yiannopoulos, the Berkeley riot, and the subversion of free speech to politically-correct norms. I thought it was interesting and worthwhile and wanted to share it with those who have been participating in this thread. Huh. Y’know, I felt a little bad about responding without reading your link. Maybe your link contained the evidence I was asking you for, about why you blamed the university, and I was an idiot for asking for evidence when you’d provided it. So I hurried to read it, in case I needed to edit away my request for evidence. Sweet Jesus on a cracker. What a fuckin’ crock of an editorial. It whines about how it imagines a 19th-century quote would no longer be emblazoned on a new law school, fantasizing about all the objections people probably have to it (not that anyone’s quoted as objecting to it, natch). Then it imagines the worst possible motives for people who speak about wanting to be inclusive, and negatively compares banners of **undergrad quotes** to the words of an esteemed justice, as though the undergrads should be excoriated for their inability to expound in similar lofty tones. It mocks the pursuit of equality, mentioning how many people are employed by it, as though telling us their collective funding makes some sort of point about how silly they are. It’s a real shitbasket of an editorial, and beyond mentioning Milo in the first paragraph, has nothing to do with the riots at all. Is that really the cite you intended to offer? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/213 "2017-02-09T02:07:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > To me it’s pretty clear that the Berkeley riot was an attempt (unfortunately successful) to infringe on Milo’s right to express himself Sure… > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > and that it was driven primarily by the modern university’s obsession with political correctness and you lost me. Tell me, is there a section in the UCB Student Handbook about Political Correctness? Something that defines the term, instructs students how to be more politically correct, something like that? Per the editorial, when a student says “Respect the full humanity of others,” what they _actually mean_ is, “Do not violate any politically correct taboo.” When they say, “I will think before I speak and act,” what they actually mean is, “I will mentally scan the University of California’s official list of microaggressions before I open my mouth.” Do you understand how this sounds to someone not already initiated into the anti-PC army? It’s tilting at windmills. “Respect the humanity of others, think before you speak,” these are _nice things_ that we teach _children_. It’s like saying, “share with others, clean up after yourself,” and someone saying, “Sharing with others really means socialism, cleaning up after yourself is capitulating to climate scientists, I’m not playing your game commie!” It just sounds _insane._ But to be fair, I dunno, maybe you just gloss over that as rhetoric, and your actual take away is that students at UCB have been focusing on inclusion and minority rights for so long that they don’t see the free speech implications of their groupthink. Rioting is never acceptable. I don’t know what any of that has to do with political correctness, though. That’s the part that’s lost on me. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/214 "2017-02-09T04:11:34Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > So you’re a trans person who feels about the issue exactly like I said that trans people tend to feel about the issue in my experience, but you want to say that I’m completely wrong and not aware because… why exactly? Um, because I’m a sample size of one and my personal opinion for how I myself identify is completely subjective? Perhaps you should recognize your own subjectivity. > [@](#): > > None of those examples demonstrate trans people calling someone a bigot for using the old term without realizing it was dated, general support from the trans community for treating such usage with anger, or indeed anything that looks like the situation Albibornonti described and I gave an example of. Um, no, your original point was in post #61, and I quote “And note that it’s almost always PC-warrior types who make the distinction, I’ve never known an actual trans person who cares about it, generally they’re glad if you call them by the correct pronouns and don’t make a big deal out of it. (By ‘actual trans person’ I mean someone who actually identifies as a gender other than assigned at birth and tries to live their life that way as opposed to the ‘I self-identify as trans because I dress androgenously sometimes at university, I’m so modern’ types).” And this is what is so strange and suspicious. It’s a subject of common debate and discussion within my community. There have been entire seminars at my University about this very subject. I gave a lecture about this recently at our Institute and at a local LGBTQIA support organization. And for that matter, YOU made the initial claim. And yes the links I posted spoke directly to this. Where are your citations that this isn’t a big deal and that (almost) no “actual” transgender people (as you called us) care about it? Are you going to cite that “it’s almost always PC-warrior types who make the distinction, I’ve never known an actual trans person who cares about it?” Basically, it looks to me like you came into this debate and wanted to shoot off your mouth like you were a world-weary traveler down the transgender path, when in reality you took the bus from Newark to Brooklyn. And slept most of the way. > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s a question about me as a person instead of discussion of any point put forth. No it’s about your complete lack of experience other than “dating” one of us, and thinking you know so much about us. YOU put YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE forward as YOUR appeal to authority. So I’m answering in that same vein, and guess what, my qualifications and experience are vastly greater than yours. But now suddenly, you object to comparing that because, um, reasons I guess? By bringing up YOUR “dating” history as YOUR experience…YOU made YOUR citation about YOUR personal experience. So don’t act all sensitive all of a sudden about asking you “personal questions.” Next time don’t offer up “personal information” and try to use that as your claim, I guess. > [@](#): > > I never claimed that there was no controversy between the terms, so why would I be motivated to submit a proof for something that I never claimed and don’t believe is true? When I said ‘who cares about it’, it was in the context of ‘cares enough about it to get angry and accuse the person innocently using the old term of bigotry’. You claimed that “it’s almost always PC-warrior types who make the distinction, I’ve never known an actual trans person who cares about it…” It’s prima facie a claim that there is no _legitimate_ controversy, which is wrong. This may be 100% your experience, and that’s OK, but I’m saying that is not reflective of the broader reality. Discussions and debates about trans\* terminology have actually existed since even the 1800’s when the British were making censuses of the hijra and related communities in India for crying out loud. People are ALWAYS debating different terms and terminology, and likely will be for hundreds of years to come. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/215 "2017-02-09T17:04:11Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Thanks for sharing that - US university culture is very different to my experiences here in Australia but from what I read and hear, I’d agree with the OpEds points about university students being more concerned about nonsense like “microaggressions” and extreme political correctness, and less about “learning things they need for their careers” or even “knowledge for its own sake.” We’ve discussed these kinds of matters a little, and I have a question. You talk about “microaggressions” being nonsense, but from what I remember, you’ve reacted in the past to something small like “Let’s take a moment to honour the original inhabitants of this land” (or something along those lines) with immediate and significant distaste. What is it about “microaggressions” that seems nonsense to you, given that you seem to get, uh, micro-aggrieved? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/216 "2017-02-09T23:40:34Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > We’ve discussed these kinds of matters a little, and I have a question. You talk about “microaggressions” being nonsense, but from what I remember, you’ve reacted in the past to something small like “Let’s take a moment to honour the original inhabitants of this land” (or something along those lines) with immediate and significant distaste. What is it about “microaggressions” that seems nonsense to you, given that you seem to get, uh, micro-aggrieved? Going out of your way to honour the traditional inhabitants of a land they don’t own anymore and haven’t for centuries isn’t a “microaggression”, it’s a deliberate political act intended to virtue signal and clearly indicate the speaker’s position on a range of issues. Imagine if a politician in the US did that in an area which wasn’t presently associated with Indians or Indian culture. You, personally, might think that’s awesome - and that’s fine - but a _lot_ of people would think it was rather silly or be unhappy about it, too. It’s a totally different kettle of fish to getting offended because someone used the word “Black” to describe someone instead of this week’s Approved Term “Person of Colour”, or assumed someone with a traditionally masculine-sounding name was a man, or someone looked too long in passing at an attractive women in athletic wear stretching on a park bench, or something else where it’s clear to a reasonable person no offence or untoward behaviour was intended. I’ve said before on the boards one of my huge problems with Political Correctness is that it expects a bunch of “courtesies” (for want of a better term) that aren’t extended to straight white guys. Basically, I’m expected to moderate my thinking/speaking _beyond my standard paramaters of giving everyone a fair go_ to avoid offending or upsetting people I don’t know, don’t interact with, and who in all likelihood may not even be offended by the thing anyway - meaning I’m moderating my thinking/speaking to avoid offending people _who are being offended on behalf of someone else_. And the rules keep changing too. I’ve said on many occasions I’m all about a fair go for everyone, but - for example - while it’s socially OK for people to say “We have way too many white guys working here, we’d better get some women”, it’s not OK to say “We have way too many women working here; we’d better get some men” (Primary school teaching appears to be major exception to that, however). When I talk about missing out on a job because someone wanted a woman for the role, despite me being more qualified and experienced, I get the “Boo hoo, poor privileged man missing out on enjoying his privilege; cry some male tears” response. If a woman missed out on a job because they wanted a less qualified and experienced man for the job, there’d be howls of outrage and protests and calls for boycotts. The fundamental issue I see with political correctness is it wants to make the lives of many people more difficult or less pleasant and offers little tangible benefit in return for them. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/217 "2017-02-10T18:45:18Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Going out of your way to honour the traditional inhabitants of a land they don’t own anymore and haven’t for centuries isn’t a “microaggression”, it’s a deliberate political act intended to virtue signal and clearly indicate the speaker’s position on a range of issues. It can’t be just as a result of a person’s honest desire to express their belief? > [@](#): > > It’s a totally different kettle of fish to getting offended because someone used the word “Black” to describe someone instead of this week’s Approved Term “Person of Colour”, or assumed someone with a traditionally masculine-sounding name was a man, or someone looked too long in passing at an attractive women in athletic wear stretching on a park bench, or something else where it’s clear to a reasonable person no offence or untoward behaviour was intended. Why? No offence or untoward behaviour was intended by our honouring candidate. Even in your interpretation of their actions, you don’t seem to include “annoy **Martini Enfield** ”. You and I as reasonable individuals don’t seem to see any deliberate intent to offend or act untowardly. Why are “microaggression” nonsense, but “This otherwise fine candidate said “Let’s honour the people originally on this land” and through that alone completely lost my possible support, and annoyed me.” is reasonable and sensible? > [@](#): > > Basically, I’m expected to moderate my thinking/speaking _beyond my standard paramaters of giving everyone a fair go_ to avoid offending or upsetting people I don’t know, don’t interact with, and who in all likelihood may not even be offended by the thing anyway - meaning I’m moderating my thinking/speaking to avoid offending people _who are being offended on behalf of someone else_. And the rules keep changing too. Actually, I think I can help you on that one, at least as it comes to me; personally speaking, I am offended by people who act offensively towards others. So, for example, if someone were to swear violently at someone totally unconnected with me, I would be against that not simply on behalf of that person but also because I am offended by that loutish, unpleasant, unhelpful behaviour. I don’t know, of course, if this is the case for all the experiences you’ve had, but I’d be surprised if you too didn’t also experience personal offense and an offense directed at someone else. > [@](#): > > I’ve said on many occasions I’m all about a fair go for everyone, but - for example - while it’s socially OK for people to say “We have way too many white guys working here, we’d better get some women”, it’s not OK to say “We have way too many women working here; we’d better get some men” (Primary school teaching appears to be major exception to that, however). I think the general problem with this issue is that “a fair go for everyone” isn’t fair if the overall situation isn’t fair. Let’s say every day for ten years you and I go and collect payment for our jobs, and I get paid £100 while you get paid £10, for doing the same job equally well. You’d be justly aggrieved (and probably would’ve quit, but let’s assume universal problems of this scale in our hypothetical). Then, one day, the boss calls us up, says now it’s time to give everyone a fair go, and so from then on we each get paid £100. Fair? Not really. From that point on, perhaps. But as much as we’re now giving everyone a “fair go” from that point on, our boss isn’t taking into account that you’ve still been way underpaid in our working history. You are unjustly out of pocket. Giving everyone a “fair go” is a perfectly reasonable, workable, and even laudable practice, but not if it’s following a history of _un_fair gos that haven’t been addressed. > [@](#): > > The fundamental issue I see with political correctness is it wants to make the lives of many people more difficult or less pleasant and offers little tangible benefit in return for them. Well, this one I’d need to have a cite for, to be honest. If you’re coming down hard on the cost end of a benefit/cost analysis, I’d need to know what you’re judging that by. I mean, the cost, as you’ve totted it up generally speaking here, seems to be “People have to learn which are the right words”. Which doesn’t really strike me as that onerous. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/218 "2017-02-12T16:53:37Z")
Sorry, I have neither the time or the patience to read through everyone else’s responses, so pardon if I say something redundant. But the answer to the opening proposal is a flat “No.” Don’t even bother to begin to try to “fix” or “reconstitute” or otherwise “rehabilitate” Political Correctness. Not only has it been thoroughly defeated, it was a wrong-headed idea to begin with. Here is what Political Correctness ALWAYS is (note, this includes the current and past RIGHT WING versions of PC as well): a lame and ineffective attempt at an automated and mindless shortcut. What opponents of things like racism, sexism and so on need to do, isn’t to try to persuade people who are already inured to it, to have another look see at the old rhetoric. What they need to do, is to go back to focusing on the ACTUAL PROBLEMS. When someone tries to trick you into giving up on your cause because you spelled it wrong, or used words they didn’t care for, or any other such side issue, the best reaction isn’t to try to change their minds about grammar and presentation forms, the thing to do is to stop them in their tracks, and reiterate that it is the PROBLEM that has to be fixed, and that the rhetoric about it is just their way of avoiding their very real responsibility for the difficulty. The creation of what came to be called “political correctness,” was due to people who wanted to stop having to work on ACTUAL concerns about equality and justice, and set up an automated system, so that they could go back to sleep. All in all, it was the equivalent of insisting that all rapists use the words “please” and “ms victim” while going about doing as they wished anyway, and when that failed to prevent rapes, they tried to automate rape prevention by adding more details to the nomenclature restrictions. All in all, it was every bit the failure that the Right wing’s trick was, where they tried (and are trying again) to use censorship alone to “prevent” crimes. If no one is allowed to TALK about rape, then it ceases to be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/219 "2017-02-12T17:10:08Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > What opponents of things like racism, sexism and so on need to do, isn’t to try to persuade people who are already inured to it, to have another look see at the old rhetoric. What they need to do, is to go back to focusing on the ACTUAL PROBLEMS. What would you say to people who dismiss arguments that transgendered people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their identified gender in order to avoid harassment as “pandering to political correctness”? Is that not an actual problem? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600/220 "2017-02-12T18:34:31Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > When someone tries to trick you into giving up on your cause… By dismissing it as “political correctness?” Because, contrary to the rest of your post, that’s why the term was created, and what it means: it’s a label people use to make them feel better about ignoring someone’s legitimate grievance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rehabilitating-political-correctness-s-negative-image/778600.md?page=12)