Then you don’t know about the history or common usage of the word, do you?
While the phrase “politically correct” was originally used by a very small number of leftists as an unironic description of their efforts to change the language and thereby promote egalitarian concerns, the phrase is almost never used that way today. It is overwhelmingly–overwhelmingly–used to disparage such efforts. Try googling the phrase, and see how many uses of it you find that are disparaging versus how many you find that are complimentary or neutral.
A reasonable person knows that she is being insulted when she is described as “politically correct.” So I ask you again: would you like to see the phrase lumped in with “faggot” as hate speech?
a) there’s no such limitation.
b) the thread you’re looking for was started by december on 16 June 2003 (my time, which could be 17 June 2003 your time), which is less than one year ago.
c) Jeez you’re a stupid asshole.
That is exactly the method I used to determine that “fundie” is almost universally used derisively here at the SDMB, where so-called hate speech is on a rung just above child molestation. People are actually warned about it even though it has never been defined. It is sort of like obscenity; they know it when they see it — sometimes it looks like a a disorbital rhombus and sometimes it looks like a three-eyed fish.
Googling “political correctness”, however, I find among the top hits a site which states, “Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.”
The hate speech phrase, therefore, would be “politically incorrect”, which I suppose is hate speech that looks like a herniated peach pit. Frankly, as I’ve said many times, the whole hate speech mess is incredibly stupid and its enforcement is myopic and counter-productive. What I’m wondering in this thread is why it’s okay to subhumanize fundamentalists while simultaneously accusing them of being dehumanizers, which would fit my exception (2), except that “fundie” then becomes an exception to the exception.
How on earth do you draw from this quote the conclusion that “politically incorrect” is hate speech? This article equates political correctness with tyranny. And you don’t consider that to be a disparagement?
Over and over, “politically correct” is equated with tyranny, with sheepness, with mindless conformity, with thoughtcrimes, and so forth. “Politically Incorrect” is equated with originality of thought, bravery, iconoclasm, and so forth.
As near as I can tell, the same logic that leads you to call for banning “fundies” ought to call for banning the term “political correctness.”
Because of “those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution”. Is not the purpose of pejorative to persecute?
Sometimes, but most often these days, when it isn’t used as originally intended, it is used satirically. It actually has quite a history and is controversial. “Fundie” is not controversial here at SDMB. It is almost always used hatefully. Gobear has even compared fundamentalists to Nazis and has stated for the record that it should be assumed that Charter Members, like Twin, who say they are fundamentalists, are monsters until they prove otherwise. It is remarkable to me that you are seeking to ban “politically correct” but are batting not an eye at “fundie”.
Yeah, you’ve said that a couple of times, but you haven’t drawn the tableau.
When someone points at a dog and calls it a lion, you should be looking at the pointing finger, not at the dog.
Let’s change the quote so you can see what I mean:
“Those who were publicly declared as being not fundies became the object of persecution.” Were that the quote, would you conclude that the real hate-speech term would be “non-fundy”?
Of course not: you’d conclude that the person USING the term “fundie” was equating being a fundie with being a persecuter.
WHAT? Are we not on page frickin’ four of a thread arguing about it? That’s just nonsense, and you know it.
And yes, I read the Wikipedia story about it. The point you can draw from it is that “PC” is sometimes used satirically, sometimes used in a straightforward disparaging fashion (e.g., equating those who want to change language to tyrants). Virtually nobody calls themselves “politically correct,” any more than anyone calls themselves “evil.”
The only possible argument you’ve thrown up to distinguish between banning fundie and banning politically correct hinges on accepting a bizarre rant by an alienated out-of-work Australian computer programmer as gospel, instead of regarding it as indicative of how the phrase “politically correct” is most often used.
What I meant was that there is no controversy over whether “fundie” is used as a pejorative here. If anyone denies that that is the case, a simple search would prove them to be a liar. Some, like Gobear, have argued that fundamentalists deserve the derision, but there is no controversy over whether or not the term has meant “whacko” and “nutjob”. And some of the fundamentalists themselves have dropped in to say that they feel insulted by the term as it is used here, and they have been verbally lynched and driven away with hateful taunting. At this point, I don’t know whether you understand what nonsense even is.
As I’ve told you repeatedly, yes, you did. See post #202:
To accuse me of watering down the gospel is every bit as hateful and inaccurate as it would be if someone were to accuse you of perverting the Gospel. Some people can take the Gospel message of love and turn it into an excuse for licentiousness; others, myself included, have found that message of love saved our lives. Some take the Gospel message of judgement and use it to damage as many people and lives as they can; others use that message to turn towards behaving honorably and doing great good for their fellow human beings. As different parts of the body serve different purposes and do different things, so focusing on different parts of the Gospel allows people to serve different purposes, all of which serve God. As I said in that trainwreck of a thread I linked to, my faith to me is not water, but sweet, strong, life-giving wine and accusing me of watering it down is not something I take lightly.
Please forgive the hijack. Is “fundie” offensive and obnxious? It certainly can be. Is it as obnxious as hate speech? I caught a lot of flack for being English growing up. I heard pretty much every insult in the book plus a couple they made up especially for me, so I can be pretty thick-skinned. On the other hand, I can’t see “limey” ever being classed as hate speech. “Ugly” is a word which still makes me flinch. I’ll still defend someone’s right to use it, though.
Excuse me. Lunch is over and I’ve got to get back to work.
CJ
That’s an inaccurate precis of my post. “Fundie” is just shorthand for “fundamentalist” and it carries no more opprobrium than “fundamentalist” does. Being a fundie often does mean being a whacko, so I can certainly understand your confusion.
Fundamentalists are bigoted jackasses, and their feelings on the matter are immaterial.
Gay people enact legislation to restrict the rights of fundies
Gay people agitate to keep fundies from being legally married
Gay people prevent fundies from adopting children
Gay people picket fundie funerals, happy that the deceased entrance will suffer eternal torment for wanting to be loved
Gay people protest fundie books in public libraries
Gay people try to have fundies fired from teaching positions
Gay people urge their kids to attack fundie children in school,
and then try to portray themselves as the aggrieved parties who are dreadfully hurt by a shortened name, then we’d be square.
I do not care about the hurt feelings of al Qaeda.
I do not care aobut the hburt feelings of Klansmen
I don’t care aobut the hurt feelings of fundies.
Fuck 'em.
The day fundies agree to live in peace with gay people and to stop harrassing us, then I’ll sign a peace treaty with them.
well, I think I’m a fundie and I for sure have never harrassed anyone, much less a gay person so you may want to come over here and bring that peace pipe, Mon…
yes, I know, churches do all or some of those things you posted.
But let me state, in case any christian board people are reading this that our neighbor, a gay man, has done more for us and been kinder to us (driving us, inviting us to memorial cookout) than any church person.
I guess I’m the only “fundie” here who isn’t insulted by this term.
I’ll agree with that much; but there is similarly no controversy over whether “politically correct” is used as a pejorative on the Internet. Your counterarguments have consisted of taking the historical descriptions of a British retired computer programming lunatic as gospel, as of misreading Wikipedia. Virtually nobody self-identifies as politically correct; virtually nobody uses the term in either a complimentary or even neutral fashion. The only “controversy” is over whether the term is used satirically or seriously.
(There is, of course, controversy over the referent itself–that is, over whether social-engineering-through-language is a good idea. That’s a whole nother subject).
Again: “politically correct” is a disparaging term used to refer to a specific set of beliefs and actions. “Fundie” is a disparaging term used to refer to a specific set of beliefs and actions. Although you’ve tried to obfuscate the issue by quoting Limey loonies, you’ve not shown an actual and relevant difference between the two terms.
Actually, I’m starting to change my mind. It’s not in the same league as words that carry the weight of societal hate (If someone shouts “Nigger” or “Faggot” at someone in the street, that could plausibly be a heartbeat away from a physical attack.). Neither is it inherently perjoritive, as “hand-stabber” or “George Monkey Bush” are, since those imply specific that the person has done something specific, which you think is wrong.
But, here, on SDMB, while “fundie” sometimes is used as a shorthand for fundamentalist, it often is being perjoritively imho. I think a majority of people here view the fundamentalist position as rather ludicrous, and the people in the large of overlap of that with those calling for more discriminatory laws to back up their opinion as actually odious. (Me, for instance.) Thus, “fundie” has shifted from “fundamentalist” to “loony fundamentalist.” The problem imho, is that its use now tends to conflate those two groups.
Seriously, would you (most of you) not understand me if I said “I expect a backlash from fundies” or “I was accosted by a fundie” as implying loony? And I could be offending both loony fundamentalists, who I was in fact insulting, and non-loony fundamentalists, by implication.
However, I’m still not sure. Lib, can you suggest a better term?
I agree with this and disagree that it’s either the same thing as hate speech or that it should be banned.
As I said earlier, there’s a long list of words that refer disparagingly to sets of beliefs and actions: fundie, tree-hugger, bleeding-heart, john-bircher, homophobe, white-supremacist, pinko, commie, feminazi, politically correct, and so forth. While these aren’t terribly helpful terms in great debates, for the most part, they’re all of a piece. Ban 'em all or ban none of them.