Not at all. It’s just octopus isn’t fresh off the pickle boat. Not every tangent in a debate is worth time. People know what is meant by PC. Why should I delve unnecessarily and counterproductively into the domain of endless nitpickery?
That was a quick edit. Literally 1 sec before I hit quote. And not as fun to respond to.
You misread me, comrade.
I don’t think people really do understand “what is meant by PC”, which is quite clear by the multiple ways it’s been used in this thread.
Can you just define or sum up what exactly you disagree with? Pretty much all the liberals in this thread have stated directly that they oppose using violence to shut down speech they don’t like. Do you object to liberals being publicly critical and/or peacefully protesting against those who have said things they find offensive/racist/bigoted or otherwise objectionable?
Sorry to ruin your fun!
Have we decided yet whether part of Trumps victory was a backlash against political correctness run amok and people, rightly or wrongly, being tired of being called racists and misogynists too much?
Obama says it well, mostly.
I object to people telling others what they can’t say. I can say whatever I want. I can wear whatever costume I want. I can eat whatever food I want. I can make and sell whatever art I wish. Dirty hippies and eggheads in 3rd rate colleges have no right to dictate to others how or what to communicate.
I don’t care if people use so-called slurs. The words exist. Time for people to get over that.
Now why do I dislike PC? Again, it’s used as a fallacious rhetorical technique designed to agitate members of a tribe. There is no intellectual honesty with Orwellian PC. Hell, why do you think we have people that equate free speech with hate speech? It’s because free speech is a hedge against intellectual tyranny.
Why do you think the left is so keen on labeling things racist, bigoted, or sexist regardless of the accuracy of the label or the relevance? Because it’s a weaponized word. The left knows that the conversation will be sufficiently derailed and the accused, much like a heretic or a witch of old, will be on the defensive. It’s a slimy dishonest tactic. That’s what PC is. It’s a subset of rhetoric that acts as a strong and effective ad-hominem attack.
One doesn’t have to win an argument or use facts. One only has to shout “that’s racist!!!11!” Well guess what? Like the boy that cried wolf these techniques are having less impact.
Furthermore, the concept of “hate speech” and PC is used by governments to suppress thought, speech, and to imprison the unPC. I guess that’s modern liberalism.
Did you notice how he said “…the definition of political correctness is all over the map. I suspect the president-elect’s definition would be different than mine”?
I agree with him. The definition is all over the map.
You have no right to dictate to dirty hippies and eggheads in 3rd rate colleges that they have no right to dictate to others how or what to communicate. I have no right to dictate to you that you have no right to dictate to dirty hippies and eggheads that they have no right to dictate…
You see how this gets kind of silly? You can say anything you want. Others can say “you shouldn’t say that!” (or worse!) to you as much as they want. You can say “you shouldn’t say that I shouldn’t say that” as much as you want.
You can object all you want. So can they. That’s free speech. No one’s “dictating” except as much as just shouting into the wind is “dictating”.
“so-called”? Do you not believe nigger is a slur? How about kike? Faggot? Are all slurs “so-called”, or only some of them? If just some, which ones?
I don’t care if you don’t care that others might care that people use so-called slurs. These cares exist. Time for people (including octopus) to get over that.
This appears to be a disagreement and complaint about some tiny fraction of liberals, including none in this thread.
This does not describe the left in general. Here’s another assumption that, obviously, we don’t share. Occasionally such accusations are made spuriously, but I think such complaints are vastly overblown.
I could counter with this:
Why do you think the right is so keen on labeling criticism of conservative rhetoric as false accusations of racist/bigoted/sexist regardless of the accuracy of the label or the relevance? Because it’s a weaponized concept. The right knows that the conversation will be sufficiently derailed and the accused, much like a heretic or a witch of old, will be on the defensive. It’s a slimy dishonest tactic. That’s what the anti-PC-whiners are. It’s a subset of rhetoric that acts as a strong and effective ad-hominem attack.
But I only offer that as a demonstration – I don’t really believe that about a group as large and diverse as “the right”. Sure, some conservatives are so wound up, paranoid, or dishonest, that they’ll see almost any criticism as an accusation of racism, or sexism, or bigotry, but this doesn’t describe all of them.
In this post, at least, I think you may have become what you hate.
Let me know when the right riots, burns property, and beats people because of whom a college group invites to speak. Until then my opinion of the Orwellian elements of the left won’t change.
And if PC weren’t a problem the former president, a democrat, wouldn’t have felt the need to opine on it being so.
Those very, very few bad events should be criticized, but say no more about the left in general than Dylan Roof, Anders Breivik, or the recent Quebec mosque shooter say about the right.
Yes–what people mean by “PC” is “opinions on the left that they don’t like.” But you seem to have a different definition.
You confuse the issue when you talk about “people telling others what they can or can’t say.” What consequences of violating these directives do you imagine? We’ve got a continuum: “If you say that again I’ll give you the stink-eye,” to, “I’m going to murder you because you said that.” I’m totally fine with the first, and not at all fine with the second (except in the rarest of cases, e.g., I just plausibly told you I planned to murder your family, and you had no other way to stop me).
Too commonly, people who complain about PC are really objecting to the proper use of words like “racist” or “bigoted” or “sexist,” because they find those words painful, and they want to be protected from hearing them. I have little patience for those sorts of attempts at censorship.
Well dude, it was your words: “PC” is a term that is used by conservatives, or “illiberals,” not liberals, to describe a myriad of things done by liberals. You are specifying the people who “use the term” and saying they use it as a bludgeon. Perfectly accurate. But you’re not talking about liberals. OK so you still have some waking up to do.
Yep. President Obama is wasting his valuable time opining on something fictitious.
Well, you should, because nobody here has a goddamn clue what you’re talking about. As said, you might as well be talking about fucking schnozzberries. Between the last three people taking a whack at “PC”, we’ve apparently had two or three very different concepts, none of which are well-defined, all of which are used as nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon against concepts on the left people don’t like.
No, we don’t. If you ask me what is meant by “Political correctness”, I’d offer one of two things, depending on who’s using it. If it’s coming from the left: in rough terms, broadening the inclusiveness of language and society as a whole. If it’s coming from the right: a snarl word with no solid meaning meant to impugn any concept remotely related to broadening the inclusiveness of society. But that’s clearly not what you think you’re talking about, even though the definition fits this thread pretty much to a T.
Because nobody understands what the fuck you’re talking about. :mad:
:smack:
I agree!
“This is a tricky issue,” Obama answered. “Because the definition of political correctness is all over the map. I suspect the president-elect’s definition would be different than mine.”
Which is why it would be nice if you defined your terms.
Okay. So when a university stops serving Mexican food because of “cultural appropriation”, is that “PC”? After all, you can still eat Mexican food. You might have to go a little further than the local mess hall to do it, but you can still eat Mexican food. It’s just a private organization not serving a particular kind of food.
Or how about if a business fires you for calling a customer a “stupid nigger” after they leave? Is that PC? Again, you could say whatever you wanted. It’s just that, entirely in keeping with the first amendment, your words have consequences. Other people can react to your words. Sometimes, their reaction is to say, “Wow, I don’t want to associate me or my business with someone who would say that”. Would you tell them that they can’t say or do that? Stop being so “PC”, man. :rolleyes:
I care. And if you use these “so-called” slurs (which exist solely to display contempt and hatred for others, mind you), I will gladly throw you out of my restaurant, fire you from my business, or cut you from my social circle. You seem to have a problem with that. You think your words shouldn’t have consequences. Boy, if that was how the world worked, eh?
And again, because you clearly haven’t defined PC, you might as well be saying that Schnozzberries are a fallacious rhetorical technique designed to agigate members of a tribe. Is firing someone for referring to a customer as a “stupid nigger” behind their back “PC”? Is asking someone not to use the slur “nigger” “PC”? You never answered that question, despite it being a “yes” or “no” question. Maybe you could just describe some things you see as “PC” and we could try to derive a definition. Or maybe this is just a complete waste of time, and the common definition in this thread that implies that PC is nothing more than a reactionary snarl word is pretty much on point.
Why are you so keen on labeling accusations as irrelevant? Why is Trump so keen on labeling accusations as irrelevant? I keep coming back to that conversation with Megyn Kelly, where she rightfully pointed out that many things he said were disgustingly misogynistic, and his response was “stop being so PC”. Would you say that Megyn Kelly’s accusations of sexism are an example of “PC”? This cuts both ways. There are inaccurate accusations of bigotry, sure. There are also inaccurate accusations of inaccurate accusations of bigotry, wherein people use reactionary PC posturing to attempt to blow off anyone attempting to call them on their shit. Personally, I’d say the latter is a far bigger problem, given its constant abuse by the President of the United States.
So was Megyn Kelly out of line when she called Trump on his misogynist rhetoric? Is it ever valid to accuse someone of racism, sexism, or bigotry? Or does it all just fall under the banner of “PC”, to be ignored and shunted aside? And how do we tell the difference? Given the rise of the “alt-right” and the fact that Steve Bannon is now in the white house, I’d say that “PC” is not the problem right now. Rather, the problem is this reflexive anti-PC posturing. The right created a phantom enemy, acted like a handful of isolated events at college campuses reflected society as a whole, used that to tamp down any reasonable accusations of bigotry, and it worked. And you are still falling for it.
Oh, and now hate speech is somehow connected to “PC”.
When come back, please define terms. Kthx.
What part of not wasting time on the unproductive tangent of precise definition is hard to understand? Some concepts, quite a few actually try precisely defining a peach or any other species so no one can nitpick exceptions, resist precise and 100% accurate definition.
And why do people in this thread keep using racial and other so-called slurs if they are exclusively and intrinsically offensive? Why do I hear them in music and tv almost daily?
Anyways, I feel that political correctness is a dishonest attack on people and their freedom to communicate. If I’m going to err it’s going to be in the pro liberty direction. Not the pro oppression direction. I don’t care if people get offended over words.
It’s sad that the modern left is illiberal with regards to the 1st amendment. At least they’ve discovered the 10th.
You know what would help the left? Unambiguous support for basic liberties.
Hands up, everyone who knows what **octopus **means by “political correctness”.
You continue to dodge my examples. Could you please address that? If you get fired for calling a customer a “nigger”, is that “PC”? How about if you get fired for posting a transphobic meme to your facebook account? How about if you get criticized by a journalist for saying something bigoted? Or criticized because they misunderstood you and thought you said something bigoted when you in fact did not? Is that “PC”?
Or is the only thing we need to worry about violent or legal restrictions on free speech? Because I think there isn’t a single person here who has or would react to, say, the violent heckler’s veto used against Milo Yiannopolous with “Good, we should be shutting him down and preventing him from speaking with violence”. Okay, maybe one or two people, but certainly not the vast majority of liberals present here. So if that’s the case, we’re really closer in position than you might think - you’re just not communicating your position clearly at all, and constantly refusing to answer clarifying questions.
It’s not helped when you say things like this:
See, given that the overwhelming majority of “leftists” here have clearly come out against silencing Milo, I have no idea what you mean by this.
You know what would help you? Unambiguous statements that actually mean something, and defining your terms.
Where did I say anything like this? Can you please try to just respond to the words that I write?
It’s a shame that you seem so much more interested in venting and repeating broad brush (and incorrect, IMO) accusations about a huge and diverse group than actually discussing and debating.
All of the liberals in this thread, and almost all of the liberals I have ever known, unambiguously support free speech and the 1st Amendment.
Yeah, this is a tired old cliche about the left that some folks on the right enjoy dusting off and throwing around in the backyard every now and then. It doesn’t bear up under scrutiny, which probably explains the reluctance to talk about what words mean or to respond to straightforward questions; I might similarly demur if someone were trying to puncture one of my favorite fantasies, too.
But as long as the fantasy remains intact, it’s a helpful tool for derailing conversations about unjust, unfair, and antidemocratic behavior by folks on the right; it forces the conversation to be about it. So there’s that going for it.
Its easier for me if there is a side by side comparison available.
Some people get offended by it and consider the offender to be racist.
To the extent they are just tired of being asked, the reason they are tired of being asked is because when someone asks an Asian where they are from, there is a good chance they are actually asking what Asian country they are from. And it reaffirms the notion that Asians are seen as perpetual outsiders.
IMHO, this is an improvement from when I was growing up when people thought all Asians were Chinese. I still remember having a conversation as a kid explaining to a white adult that Korea was not a province of China. And it wasn’t until I brought up the TV show MASH (and the Korean War) that they understood.
I don’t know how things should play out in close cases but I think there are clear cases of cultural appropriation that have varying levels of offensiveness and there are clear cases of PC whining about cultural appropriation.
Not sure I’ve seen that, but I’ve definitely seen the case that many if not most American liberals conflate free speech with America’s first amendment, a rather parochial concept. This XKCD comic is a common reference point. To them, as long as it’s not the government shutting people up or taking away their livelihoods it’s not a free speech issue.
So, if back during the primaries the mods on this board banned anyone who supported Hillary, but not Bernie, then the SDMB wouldn’t have a free speech problem. It can’t, since it’s a private entity and is free to do whatever it wants. Or back during the Iraq war, no free speech issues when anyone who questioned the war was called unpatriotic, the Dixie Chicks were boycotted, and anyone vaguely anti-war was drummed out of the mainstream media. No one owes anyone a platform, so no biggie, right? The public intellectual discourse was as healthy as a horse.
Seems like they say a fair amount. The right is partially animated by xenophobia and male insecurity. The left is willing to trade some free speech to stop hate speech. Certainly true of Europe, where racist and fascist speech and symbols are often illegal. They also tend to have tighter libel and slander laws compared to America, IIRC.