I have yet to have seen an argument centered around attacking political correctness, that wasn’t either an avoidance of dealing with the actual issue, or a deflection of the entire subject.
I’m not clear on what you are attacking in my post. Nor is it at all clear what your take on political correctness is.
The term political correctness was NOT created to make people feel better about ignoring someone’s legitimate grievance. The term political correctness is actually very old, a lot older than the modern applications it is being applied to.
I suspect that you don’t understand what I posted. Please clarify, and I will answer your question, whatever it actually is.
Would you mind defining “political correctness”? Because this is now the fourth or fifth clearly distinct usage of the term in this thread (contrast the way you’re using it with the way octopus is using it), and I honestly have no idea what you actually mean by the term. Which would sort of support the point made by me, Miller, Moviebob, and many others - that “PC” is almost excusively used as a way for jerks to feel self-righteous about being jerks.
Neither is yours. Many of us probably did not understand what you meant. Because “political correctness” is not a thing. It’s a snarl word, meant to impugn any given thing related to not being a dick to other people, so when you start talking about it seriously, it’s best you define it, because depending on who you talk to, the umbrella of political correctness can contain anything from objecting to casual racism like “You could starve a wetback by hiding his food stamps under his work boots” to objecting to trigger warnings and safe spaces to whatever else. It is, on its own, virtually meaningless, except as a way to tar the “other”.
That’s how it’s being used though. Case in point, from earlier in the thread:
So here we go again. There have been, that I remember, two previous threads about PC. One was something along the lines of “If you are against PC then you are a bigot” and the second was from 30 March 2016: Why are some people so resistant to "political correctness"? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
Why are some people so resistant to “political correctness”?
In response to the second thread I posted some examples of why PC is seen as ridiculous:
"Examples (sorry no cites):
-
a Carleton University (in Ottawa, Canada) administrator, in order to avoid controversy, had the male/female signs (the pictograms with stick figures in skirts (or not)) on washroom doors replaced by the ones that look like Volvo trademarks. A female student complained that it was sexist.
-
maybe this was just a Canadian thing, but does anyone remember the big “issue” about how man-hole covers had to be called “maintenance holes”? That didn’t seem to last too long.
-
how about “animal companions” instead of “pets”. I wouldn’t want to offend the cats would I?
-
an issue (there were a few magazine articles about this, back in the day) about “waiter” and “waitress”. Apparently even “waitron” was a suggested alternative - maybe in Star Trek - really?
-
in the late '80s/early '90s there was, for a while, an issue about how we shouldn’t call children “kids”
-
how about the “holidays” instead of Christmas? Btw “Christmas” isn’t exclusive - I’m secular but the period of time towards the end of December is Christmas. Calling it something else changes nothing.
Note: maybe we should ban “holiday” since it’s a contraction of “holy day”
maybe we should ban “goodbye” since it’s a contraction of “god be with ye” -
there was also a issue about some female university students who wanted their Bachelors degrees to be called something else - like, a Maiden of Arts (or science or whatever).
Meanwhile in the Royal Canadian Navy, a female Ordinary Seaman, Able Seaman, Leading Seaman, or Master Seaman is (how terrible) an Ordinary, Able, Leading, or Master Seaman. But they do get paid the same salary to do the same work and we have a number of female combat and weapons officers. We’ve also had a female ship’s captain.
If we treat people fairly and with the respect that they deserve I think that that’s what truly matters.
[/QUOTE]
And more recently (Nov 2015):
Basically, free yoga classes offered at the University of Ottawa have been scrapped because of complaints by some students and volunteers about “cultural appropriation”.
According to the instructor:
“I guess it was this cultural appropriation issue because yoga originally comes from India,” she said on Sunday. "I told them, ‘Why don’t we just change the name of the course?’ It’s simple enough, just call it mindful stretching.… We’re not going through the finer points of scripture. We’re talking about basic physical awareness and how to stretch so that you feel good.
“That went back and forth… The higher-ups at the student federation got involved, finally we got an email routed through the student federation basically saying they couldn’t get a French name and nobody wants to do it, so we’re going to cancel it for now.”
So someone volunteers to teach a free course, and this is the outcome, thanks to PC."
So can those in favour of PC please explain, based on the above, how PC is a good thing?
“Here we go again” indeed.
No cites means no context. I can’t find this story. I have no idea what the big deal is supposed to be here; a student complained. So what? Stupid people believe stupid things. Why should this reflect poorly on anyone or anything else?
Every single cite I found on this was someone complaining about political correctness. Couldn’t find a single case that actually cited this happening. Just a whole lot of people getting angry about it without any source. But even if it were, I again fail to see the problem. A city wanted to “degender” our language (where? In its own official communications? In public speech? What are you even talking about? This is the problem with making uncited claims!), and part of that is the implication that these are “man holes”, holes men use. There are female plumbers and technicians. A waste of time? Maybe. But a bad thing? Assuming this actually existed, could you explain why it bothers you so much? And how does this have anything to do with the previous example? How are they even remotely related?
Apparently this is a thing in ethics. How we talk about something changes how we view the thing in question. It is not, as the study’s author clearly pointed out, about insulting our pets. It is about how we see them.
And once again, I have to ask - what does this have to do with either of the previous examples? What’s the connecting line? What the fuck even is this “PC”, and why would this be a silly thing?
By who? For what? In what context? What are you even talking about? After some googling I found this article, which makes an entirely reasonable case for why we use “server” instead of waitress or waiter, based merely on the etymology of the words. I wonder - did you even notice people saying, “Hi, I’m <person>, I’ll be your server today”? Did you even care? Why should you?
Why? The closest thing I found was this article about a mother not wanting to use the term because it implied a relation to goats and whatnot. Which is silly. But to call it an “issue”? And what does this have to do with any of the other examples?
:rolleyes:
Referring to the period at the end of December as “the holidays” instead of “Christmas” recognizes that there are multiple faiths and denominations, not all of whom celebrate Christmas, and that there are numerous celebrations around that time period. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone has a problem with people choosing to say “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas”, except the kind of people who get defensive when reminded that not everyone is exactly like them. I’m still left at a bit of a loss as to why this is a bad thing. You are free as anyone else to say “Merry Christmas”. It’s just that “happy holidays” is less likely to alienate people who celebrate a different holiday. Or no holiday.
I can’t find a single article on this. But once again, same problem: why is this a bad thing? And what does this have to do with any other item on your list?
You throw out this long list of uncited, unverifiable issues with no context and no way for the rest of us to understand them, and say, “Yeah, that’s what makes Political Correctness look silly!” And I have no idea what you’re talking about! You haven’t defined the term, and as has been pointed out numerous times, the term is a nebulous, vague thing, which can be used to describe anything from punching nazis to asking people why they said something reprehensibly misogynistic.
It seems to me that all you’ve done is pull up a random list of cases where people got offended for the sake of making language more inclusive and it seemed silly to you. So don’t call it “PC”. Say what you mean - “Here are some examples of why making language more inclusive is ridiculous”. And then, of course, you fail to explain why it’s ridiculous, bring up examples from decades ago which have already been resolved, treat individual, personal grievances like they reflect on the rest of society, and so on and so forth. If I had such a loose filter, I wouldn’t need more than five minutes to make a similar list: “Here are some examples of why being a republican is ridiculous”. Just pop down to the Stupid Republican Idea of the Day thread and you have literally thousands. Or I could just copy the first 7 posts I see on FreeRepublican and call it a day. And they’d be considerably dumber and have considerably more ill intent than this.
And meanwhile, we skip over why this shit matters in the first place - how we describe the world influences how we see the world. When I say “seaman”, do you picture a woman? Now how about the guy in the navy recruiting office? Now how about when I say “policeman”? There’s no reason to gender these terms. There’s no reason why we should say “policeman” or “policewoman” instead of “police officer” in the general case, and a good reason why we shouldn’t - in the past, the female form of a profession very often had a stigma attached. Not a great reason to get offended, but there’s a reasonable argument to be made that the change from “waitress” to “server” was probably a good thing, and it’s something I hadn’t even noticed until I googled it and thought back to the last times I ate at a chain store in the USA.
Maybe you could finish reading the article?
Ahimakin said they suspended the class as part of a review of all their programs to make them more interesting, accessible, inclusive and responsive to the needs of students.
He said they’re doing consultations on the idea of bringing a free yoga class back and could get a more accessible version of it as soon as the next semester starts in January.
On Monday the University of Ottawa tweeted out a notice that it’s organizing free yoga sessions Dec. 1, 8 and 15 at its University Centre. One yoga teacher at the school emailed CBC News to say the university does that during exams and through the summer so there are other yoga options on campus.
This is why context matters. Because there are a lot of people who either unintentionally or intentionally misinterpret any given article on any subject related to universities and “political correctness” (whatever the fuck they take that to mean). Because sometimes the issue isn’t as clear-cut as “look at those stupid college kids”, and because most of the rest of the time, it’s a bit unfair, like the aforementioned picking of republican talking points from FreeRepublic.
And meanwhile, as for why “PC” is a good thing, I don’t even know what you mean by PC. But judging by how the President of the United States uses the term, I’d say that PC is a good thing because it allows us to call people on saying horribly misogynistic and nasty things.
That’s not it at all. PC is nothing more than attempt censor speech and thought. Rightfully labeling PC as an illiberal tool is perfectly fair. Attempting to smear opponents of shrill social censorship is fallacious.
Is saying “you shouldn’t call black people ‘nigger’” political correctness? Could you please define the term you’re using?
Political correctness is no more real than the biological concept of race.
I think that what he is trying to say, is that if someone wants to call black people “niggers”, then you are not allowed to say anything that might make them feel bad for using that term.
Does this mean you think the narrative of economically insecure rural conservatives lashing out against liberal urban elites is a bunch of BS?
I’ve already said what political correctness is. And you guys are free to inaccurately say whatever you wish. You know, freedom of speech and all that. I’m not part of the left wing mob that beats people for expressing ideas. I’m part of the pro freedom group that advocates people can speak as they wish.
The closest thing you’ve offered is this. Not much of a definition, but okay, we’ll roll with it.
And yes, I did go back through every single post you made in the thread just to check. 
So in other words, your definition of “political correctness” is completely different from anyone else’s in this thread. It’s completely different from the common usage of political correctness. It excludes anything except violent responses to free speech which is deemed “politically incorrect” (another term you definitely haven’t defined; would you mind doing so?), and is therefore exceedingly rare. You might as well say “The schnozzberry is the violent reaction to one deemed wingdangdoodle,” at least that way you wouldn’t be confusing as many people. But at least we can say with some certainty that none of the objections to Trump’s or Milo’s misogyny and bigotry that weren’t outright physically violent are “political correctness”. Great! We’re moving forward! :rolleyes:
More to the point, though, this is obviously not what Miller meant by the word, and obviously not what the person Miller was responding to meant by the word, so this is like butting in to a conversation about rape and saying, “Okay, you guys are talking about rape, but I’ve redefined rape (in a way I’m not going to make clear), and according to my definition, that’s not actually rape.” Except you don’t explain that you’ve redefined the terms on the fly, so you leave us all guessing as to what the heck you’re actually talking about. Hence why the aforementioned rephrasing would confuse far less people. 
What, precisely, is free speech?
Unless that speech is calling people out for racist, bigoted, or just mean or rude things, in which case, you wish us to shut up. That’s not really freedom of speech, that’s wanting to be free to speak anything you want without consequence, and that’s a whole different thing.
Unless your “beats people for expressing ideas” is meant to be taken literally, in which case, I would agree that using violence to squelch someone’s speech is wrong, but then you will have to point to the time in this thread where anyone has used violence to squelch speech. Good luck on that.
I’d go by amnesty international’s definition, personally. I’m no legal scholar, and this is a complex and thorny issue.
The main gist of “freedom of speech” is the ability to speak freely to convey ideas or information without fear of government reprisal or illegal (particularly violent) retribution.
With a few obvious caveats - certain speech must necessarily be restricted (national security, copyright for example) for society to function and freedom to speak does not demand that you be heard or that you be given a platform to speak from.
That’d be the general gist of it.
I have no idea why you consider this question relevant. Given that you seem to have no objections to how I described your definition of political correctness, surely we can assume that the following are not political correctness:
- A university dropping a free yoga class because they were worried about “cultural appropriation”
- This South Park Christmas Play
- Lynching someone for drawing Mohammed (hardly qualifies as “politically incorrect” in western countries, does it?)
- A university sanctioning students for using “he” or “she” instead of “xe” or “they” (that is, sanctioning them within the university code of conduct, not any particular legal bounds)
Or am I missing something in your confusing definition?
I don’t care about a precise definition for PC or it’s zealots. I’m not getting drawn into a pointless debate about definitions. All that matters is that the concept of PC is used by the unwashed illiberal hordes as a bludgeon to oppress.
The definition and usage of the phrase “political correctness” and “politically correct” has changed over history, since the first known usage in 1796.
At various times, it has been used by fanatic groups, to delineate the behaviors required from citizens, in order to avoid the displeasure of the current government; it has been used by the Left in the last century, to jokingly remind each other NOT to go overboard; and it has been used most commonly since the latter half of the nineties, entirely by the Right, as a straw-man to attack, when they don’t want to directly excuse something they have been criticized for.
As can be seen above, the people who are most intent on attacking it, don't have any supporting examples of their opposition using the term, only themselves. They apply the term to anything that they can find, where someone calls for changes or actions that they don't like, to be made general policy, usually involving social situations.
The problems with the proposals which get referred to as “PC” by their opponents, are often quite real. However, by using the “anti-PC” attack, the people opposing them purposely attach the bad ideas to a host of others, as well as to specific groups of people who’s sensibilities they additionally want to discount and discard as invalid.
THAT is the problem with the now VERY Politically Correct, Anti-Political Correctness Movement. While PRETENDING to champion freedom of thought and action, they do so by declaring that anyone who disagrees with them, should be ignored, not JUST in the case of the immediate issue at hand, but in their entirety.
Thus, the fanatically ANTI-PC people, are every bit as much and more in to oppression as the people they have labeled as promoting “political correctness.”
Speaking for myself: I have ALWAYS opposed anyone who sought to use tricks of language or misrepresentations of facts and history, to promote obviously distorted and negative personal agendas.
If you’re unwilling to define your terms, Great Debates isn’t going to be a very interesting place for you to post. Your claims are nebulous and hand-wavey and utterly lacking in substance.
“All that matters is that the concept of PC is used by the unwashed illiberal hordes as a bludgeon to oppress.”
How did you zero in on it so accurately? Nothing anyone has said today has been more true. This is unusual for you. You said “illiberal” and not “liberal” so it looks like you have had some kind of spiritual and political awakening. Congratulations.
Are you saying that the alt righties/ neofascists don’t wash because you have some kind of first hand testimony you want to give associated with your rebirth?
I’m curious what you’re actually criticizing, but if you’re not interested in providing any definitions or elaborating on what you’re disagreeing with, then there probably won’t be much point at further debating on the issue.