It seems to me that they just want to go on being boorish and rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, what have you. They make it sound like it’s a kind of groupthink and it’s evil.
Is there any effective way to counter this kind of thinking?
Maybe they want to put “sexist, racist, homophobic” in a rational fact-based context, rather than be led around by the nose by special interest groups that take control of the manipulative media.
Or maybe they just don’t have the inclination to follow all the daily-changing trendiness about what is currently approved as the sensitive language and terminology and mantra. They daily refresher courses in “what do they want to be called now?” Let’s see – is it LGBT or something like that?
What kind of thinking - the kind that assumes that all resistance to political correctness is founded on a desire to be racist or sexist or boorish? Not that I know of.
Regards,
Shodan
The Vietnamese liked using reeducation camps after the war for thoughts and behaviors that they didn’t approve of.
Lately most if what Trump and his ilk decry as "politically correct " is really just being courteous and well mannered. Political correctness run amok is more like having a cow if someone says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.
As mentioned before, we need to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
People are thinking two different things when it comes to political correctness:
Liberals think “PC” means, “Avoiding using ethnic/sexist slurs, etc.” - and what good, rational citizen could be against that?
Conservatives think “PC” means, “Getting ridiculously offended over things like the white and black color of Oreo cookies” - and what good, rational citizen could be in favor of that?
That’s why right and left still don’t see eye to eye on this issue.
When the president of the Student government at a major Big Ten university stands on her chair to speak to the freshmen orientation session and announces, “Each and every one of you men here are rapists!” then I’m not sure I want anyone thinking anything other than that is all f—ed up.
When leftist students shout down a speaker invited by anther student group because they don’t agree with his beliefs then I think that is a pretty messed up way of dealing with civil discourse. And when your group’s excuse is that the sponsoring group can just pay to have the speaker return that is not right. And when the speaker is assassinated two weeks later, before he could return, then all the students who were willing to listen to him before deciding about his views are deprived of the opportunity.
Welcome to PC U. You’ll learn a lot, so long as you always agree with us and don’t ask questions.
Wow, what university was that?
Don’t fool yourself, PC is a form bullying. Think and act like we say or else.
UW Madison. Summer freshmen orientation 1989.
I was sitting at the table with this speaker. I thought it weird when she stood up on her chair to address the room, but there wasn’t a PA system so gave that a bit of a pass.
But after she spoke, what she said made me think long and hard about whether I wanted to attend UW.
You’d rather be a rapist at some other university?
I’m going to disagree with the OP’s premise, and here’s why:
Political correctness is often interpreted as censorship. There are good reasons that a person might offer an unpopular opinion, including valid criticism of genuine problems that need to be addressed. If these opinions are at odds with public policy or the society’s values, then the speaker is more likely to censor himself because he fears offending the group’s sensibilities. The problem many people have with political correctness is that they perceive themselves as being forced to avoid speaking unpopular ideas for the sake maintaining their reputation.
Take this thread for example: The OP started with the premise that anyone who resists political correctness is wrong because they just want license “to go on being boorish and rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, what have you.”
So what does OP think of me for disagreeing? Syllogistically:
(A) Anyone who resists political correctness wants to go on being sexist, racist, or homophobic.
(B) Chihuahua resists political correctness.
(C) Therefore, Chihuahua must want to be sexist, racist, or homophobic.
This line of reasoning discounts the possibility that I may have a well-founded and factually supported argument for why I disagree with OP. But, since the group (in this hypothetical situation) believes premise A, I must practice self-censorship or else be thought a bigot.
This is a big problem, because this tool can be used to actively suppress dissenting ideas. The phrase “politically correct” itself means that a person is expected to adhere to the orthodox political or social doctrine even when they personally disagree. And many people do believe that “politically correct” thinking is actively used as a weapon by people who want to launch ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with them; That is, the accusation that someone is politically incorrect besmirches their reputation but does not address the actual question at hand. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for a person to claim to be “offended” for practically any reason, whether I intended offense or not, and therefore have veto power over otherwise legitimate ideas and actions.
Cite:
Morris, S… (2001). Political Correctness. Journal of Political Economy, 109(2), 231–265. http://doi.org/10.1086/319554
Political Correctness Run Amok. (2008). Political Correctness Run Amok. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (59), 85–85. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25073909
Ah, this thread is gonna be a trainwreck, isn’t it?
I’m really just interested in why some conservatives are such contrarians or have a blind spot when it comes to civil discourse.
Note that Left and Right both have strong contingents of PC demanding folk. They just don’t call it PC on the Right. But if a GOP candidate start talking positively about abortion, gun control, slight tax increases on the rich, etc., they’re going to get hammered.
Same thing, different name.
Which PC rules you subscribe to kind of defines you on the political spectrum. Which, as usual, leaves out moderates or those whose positions are a mix across the spectrum.
So, in essence, regardless of origin, “PC” has become a political curse word used for political purposes.
Poisoning the Well a bit here.
My great-grandfather was killed in the tragic Waukegan train collision of 1887, so I would appreciate just a little bit of sensitivity and a trigger warning the next time you plan to callously use an expression like that.
This is how I see it. Apparently if you’re expected to be polite and civil, you’re actually being suppressed under the politically correct thumb… or something.
Big Brother was politically correct.