Nobody on the left supports “political correctness.” Many people on the left support things that people on the right derisively call “political correctness,” but that’s not the same thing.
If there is a real concept behind the term it is not aligned behind one party or another. The concept is that the language and terms you use show that you agree with ethical/political axioms and social norms associated with a political movement or system. Straying out side these norms or disagreeing with these axioms can result in censure from other members of the group. Conservatives have their own concept of political correctness. Most of the time this not controversial to 90% of people. A few are highly contested, and even more are somewhere in between.
Some current examples from both sides:
Liberal: Not controversial: Not referring to black people as N-words. Controversial: Using preferred pronouns. In between: Not using the word “retard” as a noun to refer to human beings.
Conservative: Not controversial: Standing for the national anthem. Controversial: Using “Merry Christmas” exclusively around the end of the year holiday period. In between: Military displays at sporting events.
That is the neutral concept behind the term. It is a pretty common social phenomenon. Toasting the health of the queen/king in a monarchy is politically correct. Celebrating Thanksgiving with family is politically correct.
In usage, the term became first a mocking reference to those that were either over zealous about finding infractions or those that were trying to use the mores for hypocritical and person gain. Now it is almost exclusively used to attack progressive stances.
People can say things that hurt without intending to be hurtful. I think everyone should try to stay hip enough so they don’t use words or phrases that might cause discomfort, and I think everyone should also try to be understanding if someone sometimes uses inartful words and phrases. I wouldn’t call any of this “political correctness”, since that has a negative connotation. I would just call it social awareness and sensitivity.
Several months ago my boss tried to make his underlings laugh in a staff meeting by telling us not to be “sissies” about some unpleasantness that no one wanted to deal with. He was very jocular when he said it, and everyone for the most part laughed. But one of my coworkers was pissed about it. He is gay and he was offended that the boss would throw out a term like that. I felt bad for laughing at the joke, not only because my coworker is a friend but also because it is a slam on women as well as gay men. Do I think my boss is a bad guy for saying “sissies”? No. And I don’t think my boss was trying to hurt anyone’s feelings. But I don’t think he’s as socially aware as he could be. The people who report to him shouldn’t have to worry whether he has biases against them. By using the word that I did, he gave my coworker cause to be concerned.
I’d like to add that I’ve often seen conservatives portray liberals as just waiting for somebody who is unaware of some ‘new rule’ to screw up so they can pounce. This is not an accurate portrayal. In an old thread, a black poster recounted a conversation they had. They had trouble sleeping and complained loudly of dark circles under their eyes. A friend, who was an immigrant and spoke English as a second language, said ‘Yes, with those circles you look like a coon.’. Rather than eviscerating the man, the poster explained that ‘You should say raccoon. Coon is sometimes used as a slur for black people.’
That’s the real practice. Somebody said something without knowing it was wrong. They were gently corrected.
The problem with “PC” is that it means different things to different people. It encompasses everything from “Don’t use the N-word” (which people shouldn’t,) to “don’t call a spade a spade.”
So then you end up with wild misunderstandings. People who support PC are aghast at those who oppose PC - what, you want to call black people the N-word??? And people who oppose PC are aghast at those who support it - what, you want everything to be sugarcoated and we can’t say that emperor’s clothes aren’t in fact real?
Errrrr…check out these links.
Political Correctness is an Absolute Must
Here’s Why Political Correctness is Actually a Good Thing
I totally agree here.
When “Jew” was used disparagingly, it was like this: “A Jew doctor,” or “a Jew lawyer.”
I have not heard anyone use that construction in a long time.
Simply to say that “RivkahChaya is a Jew,” is perfectly fine. I don’t like “a Jewish person,” when “a Jew” would do just as well," and I really hate “a person of the Jewish faith.”
It’s confusing because I would never want someone to say “monstro is a black”. I would rather someone say “monstro is black.” And I wouldn’t say “X is a Moroccan”. I’d say “X is Moroccan.”
I don’t think I’d say “Z is a Jewish person” but I do say “Z is Jewish.”
I don’t really care whether folks call me Jewish or a Jew. The one exception I can think of was when a Black Hebrew Israelite said I was “Jewish but not a Jew.”
Yeah, like what? Don’t be scared, be specific. You tell me: what is political correctness?
It’s interesting. If I’m remembering your stance on faith correctly, you likely wouldn’t object to “monstro is an atheist,” (a description of a faith stance) (no let’s not argue about whether it is, let it go), but you would object to “monstro is a black.” Similarly, I wouldn’t object to “LHOD was raised as a Christian,” but would be a little weirded out by “LHOD is a white.”
I think iiandyiiii’s distinction kinda makes sense, although I’d never really noticed it before: using a faith orientation as a noun is okay, using a racial/ethnic orientation is a little more problematic.
But then, “LHOD is a caucasian” sounds a lot more natural to my ear. Hmmm…
Another random example: I’m president of our local union.
An instructional assistant recently made a FB post in which she suggested that teachers were really entitled in our requests for remote work. It was pretty blunt. The temptation was strong to respond defensively, but I did my best to listen to her and find areas of agreement.
During the discussion, someone mentioned that our local FB group was called “…Teachers United,” and that a lot of school staff end up feeling excluded every time they hear anyone from the union talk about the needs of teachers. That word, “teachers,” turned out to be exclusionary.
I could be all fussy and defensive over this and let my feelings be hurt and claim the issue was a nothingburger and that those who objected to the word were just whiny. But you know what? It was a fair point.
I was inadvertently hurting folks that I love and respect. I was also using inaccurate language. I suggested using “educators,” because I think all the employees of the school help with educating kids, but the responses I got were that this seemed like blowing smoke up asses, that custodians and cafeteria workers and front office staff don’t feel included.
So I’ve changed my language, when I write press releases and letters to the school board and when I give interviews. I do my best to talk about “school staff,” and if I want to get specific, I give a list: “Teachers, instructional assistants, custodial workers, food service staff, front office workers, and all other school employees.”
Is this political correctness? I don’t give much of a shit what it gets labeled. It keeps people I love from feeling excluded, and it’s more accurate. If I decided to let my feelings get hurt by the blunt correction, I would’ve continued being less accurate and more hurtful.
It’s a little hard for me to have patience with people who, faced with similar corrections, can’t just pull their shit together and make the changes that make their communication better. There’s no shame in making a mistake, but it’s kinda shameful to refuse to fix one.
I’d add that some amount of current PC-ness in my mind falls into the category of virtue signaling. NOT all, that’s not what I’m saying! Just that some people think that by being [what they think is] PC they’re being A Good Person, whether it makes sense or not.
Recent example: Firefox now calls the Master password the Primary password. Because it was offending…the non-master passwords? C’mon.
OK, now you can flame me.
No flame needed. It was a little thing, but it’s okay to change little things. Not really a big deal to call it “master”, but also not a big deal to change it. It’s okay when companies do little things like this, just on the off chance someone might be offended. Changing it is no big deal at all.
If they start breaking their arm patting themselves on the back for doing it, that’s a whole ‘nother matter.
Who would reasonably be offended? If I’m offended by the capital letter P, do they have to rename it again? There’s no reason for “master” to be offensive in that context.
Don’t know. Doesn’t matter. Changing little things like that is harmless, no matter the reason.
See
And I think the reason for this is that a person is an X implies that this is the person’s identity, while saying a person is “Xish” is a descriptor of the person. I’d much rather be called Jewish than a Jew.
And an example of the difference is how the Nazis killed those they considered to be Jews, even if they were not Jewish (having assimilated or even converted.)
How about not being a jerk?