My personal definition:
Saying we shouldn’t call persons with psychological issues “fruitcakes” is not PC.
Saying that we shouldn’t call a dense brandied confection containing candied fruit “fruitcake” because some people call persons with psychological issues “fruitcakes” is PC.
Why don’t we just settle this nicely. Islam is a wonderful, Godly religion and everyone is a good person, even murderers and rapists, so long as they are Muslims.
All Christians, Jews, Zorastrians, Protestants, Agnostics, Shinto, Hindu and every other creature on earth is rife with history of evilness for which there is no escaping and only damnation to hell for eternity.
No one must say one bad thing about Islam because these people are far more humane and moral than everyone else in the universe.
Feel free to toss rotten eggs and any and all other religions, but never say a bad word about Islam. They are to be emulated by everyone who has half a brain in their heads.
Amen.
The number of strawmen being stuffed and knocked down in this thread is approaching the ridiculous (especially the ones that describe some mythical group of people on this board who think Islam is some sort of perfect religion).
I haven’t seen more slamming of every religion EXCEPT for Islam. For awhile, I thought I must have found a Muslim website…maybe I am and maybe this is it.:smack:
You’re just factually wrong. Period. I hate to defend Islam, personally, as much as I hate to defend any particular religion. But the people here like Valteron who post screeds mixed of factually incorrect information and paranoid delusions about Islam need a counter. And before you say “Why don’t you do that with Christianity?”, you might want to check my background here. I’ve defended Christianity and Catholicism, in particular, from similar falsehoods and insanities. My concern is for truth and nuance, so I counter lies, misinformation and insane delusions about what “all” of whatever religion want to do.
I’m now curious as to where the non-theists fall on your scale?
You recognize that she’s being sarcastic, right?
I’m sorry… my version of babelfish doesn’t have an English <-> Crazytalk option. Can you maybe rephrase?
The movement definitely believes in the power of language to shape debate, and has wanted to reshape that debate to make it inclusive and multi-cultural in a Western society still greatly shaped by ‘dead white males.’
I see political correctness as an evolution of identity politics and an attempt that began within academia that language should encourage inclusiveness and awareness and that the curricula needed to expand beyond a Euro-centric focus. Thus saw the rise of ‘cultural diversity’ and ‘global awareness’ requirements at many colleges and high schools.
These were generally improvements over the status quo, but prompted backlash by conservatives who were generally happy with the status quo, and especially disliked public schools teaching the broadened curricula.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
More accurately, it’s about a small group of people attempting to speak for society on what should be acceptable or unacceptable.
[/QUOTE]
I would divide PC types into ‘hard sell’ and ‘soft sell’ activists. The hard sell activists try to dictate language usage and other behavior and are the first to cry foul at any perceived offense. They are intolerant of intolerance, and lacking a sense of irony is only one of their many issues.
The soft sell activists recognize the power of language, but generally try to only influence others, mostly through personal behavior, removing offensive language from their own works and inappropriate behaviors from their own workplaces through internal means. While they mostly do not try to ban or censor offensive materials or actions, they will definitely call it out when it occurs.
Identity politics is still the main fuel - the modern movement began with feminists in the 70s, reached a peak in the 90s with multiculturalism and anti-racism, and is now being fueled by gay rights where it loses support with some groups that benefited from previous rounds. See Prop 8.
Islam is another battleground as well.
Much of the focus in this thread has been on the left’s attempt to manipulate language and the right’s attept to neutralize this by flagging sensititivity to minority concerns as political correctness.
Is there not an equal and opposite manipulation by groups on the right (like the Moral Majority) to identify certain ideas and practices as beyond the pale? Isn’t this - or rather the self-censorship of network TV to avoid offending the moral majority for example - also a form of politcal correctness?
To be fair, it does work to a degree. You can carry out the experiment in the comfort of your own nervous system.
For a week (or a month, if you prefer), make it a point to broadbrush as much as possible whenever you’re discussing any group. Not “radical Islamic elements in Egypt are…” but “Muslims in Egypt are…” or even “Muslims are…”
Then, the next week (or month) make it a point to break down categories as much as possible. Not even “radical Islamic elements are…” but “some but not all of the radical Islamists in…”
Choose any category and linguistic pattern that you like. “Those blacks are…” vs “Some black Americans sometimes…”, “Americans are…” vs “x% of the following demographics in America tend to support position Y when the questions are phrased in such as manner as to…”
There are neurological trends that develop over time, based on habit and repetition.
Whether or not that means it’s used correctly when people try to control the national dialogue is another matter.
Some people might consider it so, but most of the press and debates I’ve seen usually only classified leftist manipulation as politically correct, and I have only seen leftists self-identify as such (back in the 90’s, haven’t noticed it much this time around). The Moral Majority types were the traditional social conservatives that identity politicians and academics were combating.
I would agree that social conservatives view their ideals as the politically correct ones, and objected to leftists ‘imposing’ a different standard of correctness.
It is just an offshoot of traditional politics, but instead of electing officials or trying to pass legislation which promote their views, this battleground is focused on shaping the terms and participants of the debate, rather than the possible outcomes.
As an aside, while I support the PC agenda of inclusiveness and multiculturalism, I think it focuses too much on civil rights and participation, and not enough on economic injustices. And while language is important, it is not worth being ‘offended’ by incorrect usage. I see it as a procedural matter that ignores the more substantial matters. Make the objection, then move on.
The agenda was then co-opted by Third Way politicians who supported democratic civil rights, but not the economic agenda of the traditional left. So now everyone can vote, but only the rich can afford to run for office. But broader participation is still a step in the ‘correct’ direction.
I’m with you on the goals, and I also agree that the taking of mock offense is taking it to far. But then I am back full circle… Who am I to decide which offense is real and which is mock?
Is the Lord’s Prayer offensive? shrug. the word chairman? Merry Christmas?
I find them about as offensive as nipples on prime time TV. Which is to say, not at all. I wish I understood better what people mean when they say they are offended by these thing.
I wonder if there would be less backlash against The ideas behind PC thinking if people were more moderate in their attempts to correct attitudes that they disagree with?
You’re missing the point, which is that gestures that are not racist or otherwise not intended to mock a minority group are nevertheless seen as such because they bear similarities to common past examples of racist (or whatever-ist) mockery.
For example, it’s logically correct that there’s nothing racist about dressing up as Tiger Woods for Halloween because it’s not intended to mock black people, but politically it will remind people of old-time “blackface”–which was intended to mock blacks–and that’s enough to push their buttons.
There’s power in victimhood, and while the reaction is often knee-jerk, minority group members are (apparently) trained to sniff out seemingly racist slights, with ever more sensitivity so they won’t run out of things to complain about and lose their victim status.
Plenty of PC on the right too, of course, and if Christians have to go all the way back to the Romans feeding them to the lions for examples of historical oppression, that’s just what they’ll do.
I think there is too much truth in this statement. Sensitivity training is a double-edged sword - while it is meant to inform the majority how their behavior can affect disadvantaged minorities and offer them methods to change those behaviors, (or at least consciously recognize them and become an honest asshole instead of an ignorant one), those same minorities will often use it to learn to perceive offense where none was meant.
I think that is the major failing of identity politics and why I am not an adamant supporter - it reinforces the existing social identities and classes rather than creating a new classless consciousness.
[QUOTE=kevlaw]
I wonder if there would be less backlash against The ideas behind PC thinking if people were more moderate in their attempts to correct attitudes that they disagree with?
[/QUOTE]
I think that is true for all sides. While I admire the rhetoric of the revolutionary and their call for action, I believe experience shows that real progress is only achieved through reform - one moderate step at a time. While it is important to take advantage of revolutionary opportunities, they are rare occurrences, and should not be relied on.