Political Correctness is an attempt to use the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to control how people think. If you can control the language, you can control the speaker’s world view. It’s a doubleplusgood strategy!
This is much like my perception of the issue. My definition of political correctness boils down to not being a jerk with regard to race, gender, etc., and you should be living by “don’t be a jerk” anyway.
I see people on the internet complain about overboard PC nonsense, but I don’t encounter it in real life. The closest I come to it is reading the occasional newspaper article about someone on the other side of the country saying something ridiculous. And the entire purpose of said article is to say, “Look how stupid this stupid person is.” Yet somehow, there’s a large contingent of people who think that the overboard weirdos are influential, or even dangerous. I don’t see it.
If the OP wants to know why so many people object to political correctness, this is it in a nutshell. “Look at things like we do, use the terms we do, and employ the sensitivity that we insist upon, or you’re some kind of asshole and we’re not gonna be shy about letting you know it!”
It’s gotten so bad that now people are being jumped on and reviled for not coming around quickly enough on the proper pronoun to use when referring to Caitlyn Jenner and Kermit the Frog is being criticized for his new younger-than-Miss-Piggy girlfriend.
And then there’s also the fact that political correctness often insists we turn a blind eye to reality and pretend it doesn’t exist, or else be ready for insults. Recognize the fact that crime is greater in black communities and you’re a racist. Disagree with some feminist who claims that women can do any job as well as any man (fireman, oil field worker, etc., where greater upper body strength is required) and you’re a sexist pig.
Etc., etc., etc.
I am 100% for racial equality and open employment opportunities and equal pay for women, but if you’re gonna get on your politically correct high horse and call me names because I refuse to play along with your factually incorrect nonsense, then you’re just gonna have to be content to call me names because I’m not gonna play along in hopes that you and your ilk will take more kindly to or accept me.
And then there’s the fact that what is supposed to be the kind and correct and respectful way of speaking seems to turn on a dime and anyone not sufficiently tuned in to pick up on it comes in for abuse too. I remember when ‘colored’ was considered the polite way to refer to black people. Then all of a sudden the tide turned and anyone trying to be polite and respectful by using the term ‘colored’ would suddenly find themselves being castigated as racists for not using the new form of PC-speak, African-American. There was no attempt to politely educate anyone that the word had fallen out of favor and a better one was now favored by black people themselves. No, instead, immediate and hateful accusations of racism were hurled at anyone using the term ‘colored people’ even though they were trying to be polite and sensitive themselves.
So once again, political correctness, as perceived by those of us who object to it, is bullying, pure and simple. It’s an attempt by the left to force everyone into conforming with their own ideas as to how everyone should speak and act and woe betide anyone who fails to comply.
Freedom fries.
Dixie Chicks.
The real tragedy in Waukegan was the displacement of the original Native inhabitants by European invaders, so I would appreciate you restricting your cavalier use of that phrase to issues of real importance.
Those are good examples of political correctness as displayed by the Right. Equivalent examples from the Left are directly analogous and your examples should show why it is so annoying no matter what part of the political spectrum you hail from. Political Correctness doesn’t have anything to do with politeness or civility at least according to my view and that of many others. Those are already described by the terms I just used. It requires some combination of bullying, intentional condescension, fad labels, in-group speak that is designed to be inflammatory or just plain over-the-top movements to control speech or behavior.
Asking people to stop calling others whores, chinks, niggers and spics doesn’t fall under the heading of PC speech for most reasonable people. It is a term reserved for the outlandish or unusual or at least it should be in my opinion.
Well, if you know that some people are pathetic, stubbornly obstinate children, shown by their not agreeing with you: it’s your duty* to tell them so. Repeatedly.
It’s the only way we’ll learn.
- Think of it as a holy office: you are saving them from themselves.
Only, it’s pretty obvious by now that conservatives think “PC” means, “Avoiding using ethnic/sexist slurs, etc.,” and that that’s what they don’t like about it.
I’ll probably regret asking this, but, for example?
Doesn’t seem to work much, though.
That is completely not what it means even to the vast majority of strong conservatives. Where did you get that idea?
It is more like this Yale student who freaked out on her professor who wrote a reasonable letter about Halloween costumes (nobody wore an offensive one).
We also now have this bizarre idea of “cultural appropriation” making the rounds. In some ass-backwards twist of logic, black students at ultra-liberal Oberlin College are demanding more and better fried chicken and minorities of many types are protesting for segregation.
Those are just very recent stories but they are reasonable examples of what many of us are complaining about when we complain about ‘PC’ thought and behavior. It is nothing new though. There was a very similar wave that swept through the nation like an uncontrollable case of the shits in the early 1990’s. We got over that one and I thought it was gone for good but I was wrong because now there is a new generation that has to build up their intellectual immune system against it.
For instance, homosexuals have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals.
Part of it is that you can’t even have a factual conversation without SJWs getting upset.
I have said it before and I will say it again. The people that burn sacrilegious books and even witches in times past are almost identical to the people that attempt to censor others today by shouting them down in public forums and retaliating against them harshly using external resources when they say something that threatens their core beliefs.
The only difference is the religion they subscribe to even if that is that religion is just a social movement that they identify with.
I view “political correctness” as a conservative or libertarian (including left-libertarian) rhetorical device and nothing more. Those who blast “political correctness” are just using it as a sort of moving goalpost that means “everything I dislike about liberalism, but none of the things I’m fine with about liberalism.” So “political correctness” might mean believing that it’s wrong to oppose gay marriage, or it might mean believing that it’s wrong to unironically call a black person “nigger,” or it might mean believing that we evolved from other primates, or it might mean thinking that it’s okay to eat meat. The critic has lots of wiggle room. There’s an entire book series devoted to this motif, which further creates the impression that “political correctness” just means “those dumb things liberals believe.”
The crux of the motif is that no matter what the critic specifically disagree with, they always think that the “politically correct” people they disdain are guilty of thought policing. It’s a useful tactic because it makes it sound like the speaker/writer is a rugged individualist who thinks for himself battling mindless liberal drones.
Where this stands in the issue I am not sure, but I know enough real examples to show that this fictional example is unfortunately representative:
In the 1960s Dragnet TV movie is a scene in which a cop (played by ex-Dodger catcher John Roseboro) has been questioning an arrested suspect–a child molester. Friday joins in. Roseboro asks a question and the lowlife snaps, “Go swallow a germ, you n----- cop!” Friday is furious. He spends the next few minutes blistering the molester’s ears, and ends his lecture with, “And one more thing, you smart-mouth punk! If the Department doesn’t question the color of his skin, you damn well see that you don’t!” :mad:
My great-great-great grandfather was a Cavalier who was brutally executed by the Roundheads. I think you owe me a public apology and a resolution to stop minimizing the tragedy of his death by throwing the word “cavalier” around with such gay abandon.
Funnily enough the latest episode of the Cracked Podcast addresses some of these very issues:
There are several factors involved here:
-
Society is constantly evolving. It doesn’t stay in one place. Every day, what is generally accepted as socially proper changes.
-
Individuals are constantly evolving, but not necessarily at the same pace as society, and not necessarily at the same pace as each other.
-
Human society is not monolithic. Standards differ from one social group to the next.
-
It’s very difficult to view yourself objectively. What you are comfortable with yourself right now feels like it should be right for everyone.
-
It’s very difficult to view the people closest to you but unlike you objectively: People one step to one side are barbarians, and people one step to the other side are unreasonable idiots.
-
It’s very hard to discuss an issue such as “what language is acceptable” without people getting defensive. Once they get defensive, they get obstinate.
-
People collect anecdotes about individuals and make them into stories about groups. Some examples are right here in this thread: The girl who stood up and called everyone a racist? That’s one girl, perhaps she was young and excitable, as young people can be. That protest group that “shut down” a speaker? They weren’t banning someone else’s speech; they were just exercising their own right to protest.
-
People who make bigoted statements, perhaps based on being misinformed, think of themselves as virtuous because they are “honest” and they are being criticized by people who want to hide some kind of truth.
I’ve come along on several issues in my lifetime, some big and some small:
-
As a teen-ager, I believed that unmarried high school girls who got pregnant should be barred from being valedictorians. I don’t believe that now.
-
In my 20s, I believed that same-sex couples should be satisfied with “everything but marriage” or “marriage in all but name.” Now I believe they should have fully equal and recognized marriages.
-
Not long ago, I was comfortable with using the word “oriental” to mean a person who is ethnically East Asian, and it annoyed me that it was being denounced as racist. Now, I don’t use that word with that meaning.
-
Even more recently, I found the word “retard” or “retarded” a very satisfying insult against someone I believed was intellectually inferior. When people started saying criticizing that usage, I felt like a very emotionally satisfying insult was being taken away from me. Now, I don’t use that word with that meaning.
Wow. Okay, I really don’t think that expecting adults to not use certain words or terms is censorship. I’m more interested in why certain individuals feel (or claim to feel) put upon when called out on particular kinds of speech or thought, which, as already pointed out, we might think we don’t have to review at this point in our history, fer crine out loud.
Surely Donald Trump (to pick a name) knows that it is not cool to imply that all Mexican immigrants are rapists, for example. Surely conservatives know by now that global warming is a thing and has to be dealt with. But why oh why do they dig in their heels and react with this NO NO NO YOU CAN’T MAKE ME nonsense, when they must know it makes them look like morons to do so? What’s in it for them?
There is a kind of giggly nastiness behind a lot of it, I think. They know perfectly well that they’re pissing you off and, like a bratty little brother, they LIVE to piss you off. Tee-hee, ha ha ha.
I agree with you about almost everything you said except for that statement. ‘Shouting down’ free speech for people that are willfully assembled to listen to it isn’t a right; it is disruption of the peace at best and a general violation of the right of assembly no matter what your ideas are.
I support that for everyone whether they are modern day Communists, right wing militia members or Green Peace. That is an American ideal that I think everyone should support. Why would anyone be scared of radical speeches in a public park or a public auditorium? That is crazy foreign shit.
I also believe that the right of freedom of speech is not granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution; it is simply recognized by it as being an inalienable human right. It certainly comes with limits on where and when you exercise it but, I do not support the idea that people can simply ‘shout down’ ideas they do not personally approve of as long as it is in a public forum or a sanctioned private one. I have no idea where the Far Left got the idea where that is an intellectually acceptable idea but it seems to become popular with that set every couple of decades or so.