There was also this thread on the other incident I mentioned, and a video.
From what I understand, Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price accused another Commissioner of using racist language by using the term “black hole”.
On further investigation, Price seems to be a bit of an idiot. He has made a few other similar outbursts and is (according to Wikipedia) being investigated by the FBI in relation to fraud and money laundering, among other things. On the subject of the “black hole” issue, he later started an interview by saying he feels the same way about “black hole” as he does about “Black Friday” (i.e. he finds it offensive) and ended it by heavily implying that the existence of the term “white Christmas” is indicative of racism in society. In his defence, he did make clear that he understands the non-racist meaning of “black hole”, or as he referred to it, “the Wikipedia, you know, term” and “the astrological, you know, scientific term”.
More worrying is the judge who sided with Price.
In this instance, the problem seems to be more ignorance, attention-seeking stupidity, and perhaps the poor judgement of Dallas’s voters, than “political correctness gone mad”.
We had a similar policy when I used to do intake interviews in prison. I’d ask each incoming prisoner what his ethnic group was and I’d write down whatever he self-identified as.
Some people would identify their “ethnic group” as black or white. But others would pick something like Haitian or Polish or Korean. Some would identify as Catholic or Muslim or Rastafarian. And some would identify as Redneck or Extraterrestrial or Ninja - and I’d write that down.
I know it may be a hijack at this point, but I’d like to address the title. I actually defined political correctness in another thread recently. As far as I can tell, it’s about conceding a small, rather insignificant thing for yourself with the goal of making someone else significantly feel better. For example, “niggardly” is just not that common a word, and so not using it is not that big an imposition, but it prevents people from thinking you’re using the word because it’s close to “nigger” and thus being offended by your racism.
Now, of course, different people have different ideas about what is significant for one party and not the other. The line is drawn different for different people. You may think the above logic is rather stupid about “niggardly.” But surely you don’t have a problem not referring to brazilnuts as “nigger toes,” right?
Since you asked Because it is perfectly possible to be both in the country as a legal immigrant and be missing proper documents. The US goverment’s current “security” procedures mean that other procedures (such as renewing a SS card) are taking a lot longer than they should. While these procedures are taking place, legal immigrants are undocumented and at risk of being expelled for it.
Mostly I think it is striking that we apparently are living through a period more sensitive to public expressions that the Victorian Age, otherwise often seen as absurdly sensitive, so that Victorians artworks and works of art that was seen as permissible to the Victorian prudes, are now seen as too dicey. And secondly, how completely bereft of basic knowledge of a common grounding in history and science so many of these people are. It’s all about how feelings, and facts be damned.
Maybe, but it’s probably like one of those things where if you smile even if you are in a bad mood you’ll feel better. So even if there is racism, it will lesson if people stop getting so bent out of shape about word use.
Supposedly said by an anonymous Texas A&M student prior to 2006, according to Chet Beates, from his book Son of a Gun : The Life and Times of a Lifer Brat.
“A bit” isn’t nearly emphatic enough; more like “30 foot tall, flaming…”
He’s a crooked idiot whose entire political career seems to be based on pitting black south Dallas residents against the rest of the county by crying “Racism!” if anything doesn’t necessarily fall just so for that side of the county.
He’s divisive and he’s every bit as racist as anyone who he accuses, but since the voters in his district are black, it’s ok, and they keep voting him in, because “he looks out for them”, when in fact, he looks out for himself, and uses them as a convenient prop.
Bingo. JWP needs to go; he doesn’t do much of anything other than incite conflict between the white and hispanic commissioners court members and antagonize poor Clay Jenkins (who seems “special” when interviewed).
To take the only instance in your list I’m familiar with, the decision by a Canadian radio industry body to recommend against playing Dire Strait’s Money for Nothing with the unedited lyrics about the little faggot with the earring and the makeup who’s a millionaire, the recommendation was roundly derided by the public and was reversed. I suspect other incidents in your list have similar “rest of the stories.” What does that say about your conclusion that we’re all absurdly sensitive, etc?
What I conclude from a suspicion you have over something extrapolated from a single data point? No much, I’d say. In any case, “we” is stating it too strongly. I for one can handle a few painting with naked breasts and naked cigarettes, silly pop lyrics, etc. So the neo-Victorians would only be those who stand behind the PC-nonsense. And just the fact that the officials of the Canadian radio industry came to the conclusion is quite enough absurdity in that story.
Political Correctness is a practice used to promote a political agenda.
The idea is to liberate disadvantaged groups from oppression by conciously trying to change the culture and language that are thought to promote ideas of superiority for one group or inferiority of another. To promote equal opportunity, a level playing field.
In most developed countries there is a political consensus that is ‘multi-culturalist’ because this is thought to be the best way of dealing with a national population that may be composed of many diverse cultures and heritages.
In the past there have been other uses for political correctness. Authoritarian government regimes used it extensively to keep people obedient. Control the language and culture, you control their minds. George Orwell’s 1984 envisioned it in an extreme example of where this may lead.
Here is a clip, quite chilling.
I am sure many people here have seen Political Correctness it in action in large organisations, where repeating the messages of some Dear Leader is required for continuous employment.
There is a political theory behind it all. The Frankfurt Group developed it as Cultural Theory suggesting it is way of promoting Marxist ideals where dictatorship was not viable. These guys were very influential in academic circles that informed public policy. Clearly this sort of framework does not appeal to conservative or libertarian sensibilities (not that it matters where an idea comes from.)
It has some clear problems with English. Language is often not conducive to being changed so easily. Meaning of word changes quite naturally, words come in and out of common usage, there are lots of geographical variations and words often have a long history which can be quite surprising.
Getting to the nitty-gritty is seldom straightforward.
The term ‘PC’, in the UK, seems to have become a term of derision, directed at those people, frequently councillors, who get offended on behalf of some minority.
These are the people who want to ban the flying of our national flag; call Christmas ‘Winter Holiday’, and, civil servants in Scotland were told that; “It is not acceptable to use the word ‘homosexual.’
I think you might be conflating two position here…
If I were the public spokesperson for any organization of any level of prominence, I would avoid using the word “niggardly”. I’d go so far as to say that it’s generally wise for people in that position to avoid using the word “niggardly”, which is hardly different from saying that they should avoid using the word “niggardly”.
Why? Because as we have seen, doing so results in a massive media headache. So unless you’re cynically trying to bring your organization publicity, or in fact your organization is specifically dedicated to the cause of preserving somewhat archaic words, you’re generally wiser NOT using that word, as doing so will almost certainly cause your intended message to get lost.
HOWEVER, all of that said, that does NOT mean that I think it’s reasonable to demand that anyone in that situation who DOES use that word be censured/fired/ridiculed/etc. The fact of the matter is that “niggardly” IS a word with a legitimate and useful meaning that is completely unrelated to its near-homophone, and even if someone has never heard the word before, and is like “WTF!!?!?! WHAT DID THAT GUY SAY!?!?!?!”, a quick link to a dictionary cite ought to get them to realize that in fact it was not what they thought.
(Of course, if my view became the mainstream one, I’m sure that there would be some number of asshole trolls who then went out of their way to use “niggardly” all the time in public just to test the limits of my tolerance, etc., etc. But we can cross that hypothetical bridge when we come to it.)
So summing up, depending on how you phrase it, it’s quite possible to believe that both "one should not use the word ‘niggardly’ " and "public figures should not be fired or censured for using the word ‘niggardly’ ".
Because it is perfectly possible to be both in the country as a legal immigrant and be missing proper documents. The US goverment’s current “security” procedures mean that other procedures (such as renewing a SS card) are taking a lot longer than they should. While these procedures are taking place, legal immigrants are undocumented and at risk of being expelled for it.