NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a strawman, as it has been mentioned that there is a difference between politeness and political correctness. Political correctness is often forced (as in unnatural, artificial) and seems to me to be awkward and very close to alienating the person it is meant to be inoffensive to.

Please note the "most" in my post. Most political correctness is simple respect and courtesy. Some things which are supposedly "politically correct" are utter nonsense, such as the very briefly proposed use of "personhole" to replace the word "manhole," which I mentioned in an earlier post, and "vertically challenged" to replace "short," which I also mentioned in an earlier post. People who support political correctness do not, by and large, want manholes to be called personholes or short people to be called vertically challenged people, because that is, quite simply, dumb. :)

If you could offer an example of a "politically correct" term in widespread use which you consider forced and awkward, I'd be interested to hear it. I can't think of any offhand, other than "African-American," perhaps, which I haven't actually heard used in some time, since all the black people I know seem to prefer to be called "black people."

Please note the "most" in my post. Most political correctness is simple respect and courtesy. Some things which are supposedly "politically correct" are utter nonsense, such as the very briefly proposed use of "personhole" to replace the word "manhole," which I mentioned in an earlier post, and "vertically challenged" to replace "short," which I also mentioned in an earlier post. People who support political correctness do not, by and large, want manholes to be called personholes or short people to be called vertically challenged people, because that is, quite simply, dumb. :)

If you could offer an example of a "politically correct" term in widespread use which you consider forced and awkward, I'd be interested to hear it. I can't think of any offhand, other than "African-American," perhaps, which I haven't actually heard used in some time, since all the black people I know seem to prefer to be called "black people."

When I was a student worker I worked for a research agency that put together a curriculum for police officers in dealing with disabled individuals. Some of the terms used in that were so artificial and calculated that the writers might as well have been civil engineers instead of social workers and doctors.

Terms like "visually impaired", "hearing impaired", "intellectually disabled", who would actually feel comfortable using those terms or being labeled by those terms?

Also, "African-American" is a good example of PC gone wrong. Would that term had been adopted if not for a rush towards politically correct terms for ethnicities? Now it seems that that term is used far more frequently than those it was meant to protect would want it to.

The mascot for Florida State University was banned for a period of time for being insensitive, even after the Seminole tribe that their mascot was named for gave their endorsement to the university.

PC is a form of informal, non-codified censorship. It's practice is social. It was originally meant to limit the use of scatological terms referring to minorities, now it's a bugaboo used to intimidate people into keeping their opinions to themselves.

We may be guaranteed free speech under the Constitution, but it's not guaranteed in social or work situations. We keep our opinions to ourselves, if we know what's good for us.

When I was a student worker I worked for a research agency that put together a curriculum for police officers in dealing with disabled individuals. Some of the terms used in that were so artificial and calculated that the writers might as well have been civil engineers instead of social workers and doctors.

Terms like "visually impaired", "hearing impaired", "intellectually disabled", who would actually feel comfortable using those terms or being labeled by those terms?

Also, "African-American" is a good example of PC gone wrong. Would that term had been adopted if not for a rush towards politically correct terms for ethnicities? Now it seems that that term is used far more frequently than those it was meant to protect would want it to.

The mascot for Florida State University was banned for a period of time for being insensitive, even after the Seminole tribe that their mascot was named for gave their endorsement to the university.

I don't honestly see the issue with "hearing impaired" as a descriptor for people who have difficulty hearing but may or may not be fully deaf, on the grounds that it's the shortest way I can think of offhand to say "has difficulty hearing but may or may not be fully deaf." "Visually impaired," likewise, is reasonable, though I can think of fewer cases where it would be useful. "Intellectually disabled" is a little silly, but is probably a reaction to the frequent misuse of the initially perfectly reasonable term "mentally retarded."

I agree that "African-American" is a pretty silly term, especially since it is frequently used to apply to people who have little to no African heritage. Like I said, I'm with you on that one being "dumb" PC rather than "polite" PC, though the intention behind it was good.

I remember the Seminole case, which was also pretty dumb. I do believe that teams with truly racist names (e.g. the "Redskins") should probably change their names/mascots, as those really do offend many Native Americans, just as many black Americans would be offended by a team called the "Washington Darkies," but changing any name that even mentions anything to do with Native Americans on principle is, again, the dumb variety of political correctness.

Basically, I suspect, there are really two main camps among those who generally support being "politically correct." There are those of us who want people not to use terms that others currently consider offensive, and there are those people who worry that others might someday find something offensive, and therefore we should bowdlerize it in advance. I find the latter absurd, as I think most people do, but I believe the former is entirely reasonable.

Basically, I suspect, there are really two main camps among those who generally support being "politically correct." There are those of us who want people not to use terms that others currently consider offensive, and there are those people who worry that others might someday find something offensive, and therefore we should bowdlerize it in advance. I find the latter absurd, as I think most people do, but I believe the former is entirely reasonable.

My dichotomy is a little different:

I see the two camps as those that seek to follow the socially derived connotations of words and weed out those that are actually offensive, and those that seeks to institute a very rigid language that is so cold and calculated that it could never be construed as offensive (because it has no meaning or feeling whatsoever).

I would call the first group polite, the second group politically correct.

My dichotomy is a little different:

I see the two camps as those that seek to follow the socially derived connotations of words and weed out those that are actually offensive, and those that seeks to institute a very rigid language that is so cold and calculated that it could never be construed as offensive (because it has no meaning or feeling whatsoever).

I would call the first group polite, the second group politically correct.

Assuming that you would agree that people should be polite and generally try to avoid offending each other unnecessarily, it sounds like we're simply using the two different valid definitions of the term. To quote dictionary.com, I'm using an approximation of this one: "Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation," and you're using an approximation of this one: "Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters."

Okay, sure thing, I’ll give you a definition. First things first, though. I have never heard PC ever ever defined as “the only people who complain about it are the same people who want to be allowed the right to use the word "******" and to be able to pinch the cute blonde at the office's buttocks without being sued for it.” Where are you getting this? (I ask this as a person who has seen plenty of right-wing BS, but get it straight for Christ’s sake) Are there people who want to do those things? Yes. ...And guess what....it has nothing to do with PC........


Here is what PC is........
PC is when a black woman in an office uses the racist phrase “My People” in 2006 while conveniently forgetting that many African-Americans abhor (hypocritically, in this case) the use of the phrase “You People” when it is used in purely innocent terms, especially in times when the African Americans in question know it is being used in innocent terms and ignore it anyway for political advantage or because of a knee-jerk reaction (see the Ross Perot incident, circa 1992)....

PC is when white males who had absolutely nothing to do with slavery or racism or segregation (and there are bazillions of them) are ridiculed and berated and ostracized simply because they belong to a certain ethnic/sexual class and are therefore seen as fodder for criticism ....which harkens back to the old biblical routine of how “the sins of the father shall be visited upon the seventh generation (paraphrasal)” which oh, BTW, is actually a very right-wing fundamentalist way of looking at things (ironically). Yet another way of blaming people who have nothing to do with the original crime (kinda like blaming a woman who gets raped for being raped), which just perpetuates the problem.....BTW, here’s a news flash for everyone-I’ve seen racism in all its forms, and yes, it still exists, hideously. By and large most white people (and black people) don’t give a damn about the color of your skin! They give a damn about the content of your character! PC is people who can’t accept this!

PC is when a gay guy deliberately tries to intimidate a straight guy for not wanting to be around other guys who are gay (which, oh BTW is called freedom of choice) and yet when the gay guy is discriminated against (which does still happen unfortunately) and gets pissed or when a woman bitches about unwanted sexual attention (as she should), this is considered okay. Hint: stop doing the very thing you hate.

PC is when people who claim to be in favor of freedom of speech can’t stand it when someone exercises freedom of speech. This means: sometimes jackass professors in college don’t want to allow forms of speech on campus from right-wingers, no matter how asinine they are, to be heard, yet want THEIR speech to be heard, which is an exact reversal of the way it was forty years ago when the right-wing professors repressed left wing speech. Solution: come to grips with what freedom means: Freedom, by definition means that if you aren’t in favor of freedom for people you hate, you aren’t in favor of freedom.

BTW, I don't buy into your automatic assumption that "PC thuggery" has ruined someone's life. It hasn't ruined mine, because I'm stronger than that. It's not about "ruining" someone's life, it's just that it is a pain in the ass, if you would get off your damn pedestal for a moment. Stop going to the opposite extreme and trying to position the phrase that you disagree with in terms of absolutism; you're making the exact same mistake yourself. It just means that sometimes people who percieve themselves as part of a group that at one time was disadvantaged will take it to the hilt and attack other, newer people who come along who had nothing to do with the original bullshit.

THAT is basic politeness. PC language, when the phrase is used in the context i used it refers to saying "african american" instead of "black", "alternative religion" instead of "occultism" and "political prisoner" instead of "captured terrorist". politeness and PC language are different.


eh political prisoners aren't necessarily "captured terrorist"?!? consider journalists locked up in Chinese prisons for example. have a read on the Amnesty International website!

If you could offer an example of a "politically correct" term in widespread use which you consider forced and awkward, I'd be interested to hear it.

I don't like 'mailperson' and 'policeperson'.

Actually, the best way to refer to anyone is by their name, or their title. Skin color is irrelevant.

I don't go around saying "Hey! Black person!" (If you weren't going to help me out then why not just ignore my post?) But sometimes when you're discribing someone you need to add in something to differentrate (sorry if I murdered the spelling) them from everyone else and that can be a good way and if I am discribing someone how do I describe them with the least chance of offending someone?

Is this thread Politically Correct? :D

I don't like 'mailperson' and 'policeperson'.

Note the "in widespread use" in the post you responded to. Those terms, which admittedly sound rather silly, are not widely used by any means. "Mail carrier" and "police officer" are, however. Do you consider "police officer" to be awkward or contrived? :)

Personally, I believe that political correctness was originally designed to promote equality, but has been misused by people who:
a. Are pussies who are afraid of pissing off anyone. These are often employers and administrators who impose rediculous rules regarding "appropriate" speech. This is especially fustrating when they ban the word "indian" to appease assholes who just happen to have Native American ancestors, but you have to describe something from India. What do you call people from India? People from India? Please freak'n tell me. Not every person from India is a Hindu since Hinduism is a religion.

b. Assholes in minority groups who get power trips by insulting and harrassing the majority groups. They are given power and they intend to use it.

c. Idiots, but not from groups a or b. These people want to be as polite as possible, but they forget that you can't please two masters. Oops, I mean people you work for. God knows how many people are offended by the word "master". That's right, group c-ers. God, god, god. I said it. Bill O' Rights says that I can.

Note the "in widespread use" in the post you responded to. Those terms, which admittedly sound rather silly, are not widely used by any means. "Mail carrier" and "police officer" are, however. Do you consider "police officer" to be awkward or contrived? :)

How about chairperson?

How about chairperson?
Dina....what happened to LaDame?

How about chairperson?

Heh. "Chairperson" is slightly goofy-sounding, I admit, which is almost certainly why it hasn't caught on hugely as a gender-neutral term. ("Chairperson of the board" sounds especially silly.) I think that's a reasonable example of people worrying a little too much about avoiding potential offense when no one's really taking much offense to begin with. However, there is actually a decent completely gender-neutral term (which is used much more often than "chairperson") in this case, too - the shortened version, "chair." I suspect that "chairperson" will completely fade into oblivion and that "chair" will gradually beat out "chairman" to become the most common way to refer to someone running a committee, since people tend to like short words, anyway. :p

Basically, I think PC-ness will always triumph in the end - it just sometimes has to go through stupid versions first. Once people figure out that many people who identify themselves as "black" are not, by any logical definition, "African-American," or that "personhole" (which is still my all-time favorite nonsensical PC-word suggestion) sounds absolutely ridiculous, they move on to better, saner ways of not offending people. :)

Dina....what happened to LaDame?

Uuuhh...I dunno...not on MSN for a while either.

Vacation?

Gotcha. Your position seems more internally consistent here than it did in your previous comments, which suggests that much of the earlier debate may have been misunderstanding. It also seems more reasonable (to me, anyway), even if I don't entirely agree. :)
Don't tell anyone, but sometimes I will overstate the issue just to generate interesting discussion. Shhhh! :D

All "PC language" really entails is not using terms which you have reason to believe people may find offensive.
Sorry to spoil all your childhood illusions about PC, but it gets lots stranger than that.

How about the PC idiots who insist that a female child be called "woman child?" That's just one example off the top of my head.

Get this through your skull ... PC has gone entirely too far, and nothing in the Constitution protects people from getting their feelings hurt. Part of becoming a mature adult is learning to get over being called something you might not like but which others have every right to say. The freedom to speak your mind is absolute.

Part of becoming a mature adult is learning to get over being called something you might not like but which others have every right to say. The freedom to speak your mind is absolute.

Preach it, honkey!

It's little more than an attempt to add to the US Constitution some contrived "right" to never having your feelings hurt. Unfortunately, it was began in North Carolina by a Duke University college professor.
That is perfect. The extensions to that basic definition are endless. The obligation to punish people for thinking hateful thoughts, while committing an otherwise neutral crime like assault, is certainly another example of that "right" being used.

I don't go around saying "Hey! Black person!" (If you weren't going to help me out then why not just ignore my post?) But sometimes when you're discribing someone you need to add in something to differentrate (sorry if I murdered the spelling) them from everyone else and that can be a good way and if I am discribing someone how do I describe them with the least chance of offending someone?
That's the root of the problem, IMHO. When we finally "get it" and realize that everyone ... all members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens ... have far more in common than not, then we can use skin color to help "differintiate them from everyone else." But of course, by then derogatory adjectives will have lost all their sting and will have become simply amusing. We can watch this process today with terms like "******" which is gradually losing its power to hurt; it's now used by quite a number of stand-up comics in a variety of contexts. If you've not yet had the chance, check out some of the routines of Carlos Mencia (http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=carlos+mencia), who routinely uses the term, as well as every other "bad" word you can imagine.

Is this thread Politically Correct? :D
Fuck no! And ... who really gives a shit? :D

Heh. "Chairperson" is slightly goofy-sounding, I admit, which is almost certainly why it hasn't caught on hugely as a gender-neutral term. ("Chairperson of the board" sounds especially silly.) I think that's a reasonable example of people worrying a little too much about avoiding potential offense when no one's really taking much offense to begin with. However, there is actually a decent completely gender-neutral term (which is used much more often than "chairperson") in this case, too - the shortened version, "chair." I suspect that "chairperson" will completely fade into oblivion and that "chair" will gradually beat out "chairman" to become the most common way to refer to someone running a committee, since people tend to like short words, anyway. :p

"I would like to adress the chair!"
"Oh, I'll get out of your way, then." *gets up off the chair and leaves the room*

"I would like to adress the chair!"
"Oh, I'll get out of your way, then." *gets up off the chair and leaves the room*

*grin* Point taken, of course, but when you think about it, though, is "chair" really any worse than "chairman"? "Chairman" sounds more like some sort of superhero who throws chairs at villains (or possibly a really, really impossible hybrid creature) than someone who runs a committee.

Come to think of it, didn't the Tick fight a villain whose head was a chair? That's what "chairman" ought to describe. :p

isnt it suppose to be 'chairsperson'?

now that does sound like a hybrid creature:p

Sorry to spoil all your childhood illusions about PC, but it gets lots stranger than that.

How about the PC idiots who insist that a female child be called "woman child?" That's just one example off the top of my head.

Get this through your skull ... PC has gone entirely too far, and nothing in the Constitution protects people from getting their feelings hurt. Part of becoming a mature adult is learning to get over being called something you might not like but which others have every right to say. The freedom to speak your mind is absolute.

*sigh* No one reads my modifiers in this thread. I keep saying things like "the basic point of political correctness," or "most of political correctness" or "the important part of political correctness," and you people keep pointing out that there are also idiotic things that come out of people's desire to be "politically correct." I know that. I've said that. I've even given multiple examples of that. Some "political correctness" is just nonsense. But the central point of political correctness is just not deliberately being an offensive dick to people, which I find hard to disagree with.

Okay? :p

*sigh* No one reads my modifiers in this thread. I keep saying things like "the basic point of political correctness," or "most of political correctness" or "the important part of political correctness," and you people keep pointing out that there are also idiotic things that come out of people's desire to be "politically correct." I know that. I've said that. I've even given multiple examples of that. Some "political correctness" is just nonsense. But the central point of political correctness is just not deliberately being an offensive dick to people, which I find hard to disagree with.

Okay? :p
I'm down w'dat. :)

I've thought of a good one. (I don't even know if your still on topic though)

An example of politcal correctness is: when someone complains about political correctness, another guy immediately makes an assumption and says that all the other guy wants to do is say ****** or be racist, forcing the other guy to loose the debate as he is immediately labelled a racist. When all he really wants to do is pray in school.

Ahhh, I only heard the catch a tiger version.

does kind of make a little more sense though. why the hell would you catch a tiger by the toe?

well still it doesnt make sense

does kind of make a little more sense though. why the hell would you catch a tiger by the toe?

well still it doesnt make sense

... or by the paw at all? 'dem things is sharp. ^^'

I don't know how that's applied in practice. I would imagine that if someone is arrested for "hate speech," they would also lose their job if their employer had a policy which forbids "hate speech." But if an emplyee was simply overheard using "hate speech" outside of the work environment but without being charged with anything, then subsequently fired, I don't think that would stand up in court.

Meh, that sounds more like businesses covering their arses then political correctness

but I would never try to get a law passed prohibiting it.

Why do you always tack that on as if PC has made or is trying to make ******, fag et al illegal?

It's political correctness when an English book urges you use "gender-inclusive" pronouns and noun, because only using the "default" gender (in most cases, masculine) is a way to demean others. Of course, there is no evidence to indicate that gender systems developed as a means of sexism, yet we have fucking English books telling us that it's grammatically incorrect to say fireman or simply use "he" to refer to indeterminate sex. Of course, we're also told that the alternative singular "they" is wrong... silly prescriptivists.

You'll always get people who want to impose their grammar rules on the rest of us. Some are just slightly more successful then others.

e.g. Putting a preposition at the end of a sentance.

Yes it is rather silly, but those are fringe inhabitants. (Though I have heard some interesting arguements on the sexism inherent in language, nut they don't focus on pronouns)

I want a definition.

I want to know the rules.

I want someone to give me the codified law as to exactly what PC means.

From everything I've seen, the only people who complain about it are the same people who want to be allowed the right to use the word "******" and to be able to pinch the cute blonde at the office's buttocks without being sued for it.

So here's your chance! Show me where these laws are! Show me how "PC Thuggery" has ruined your life.

Sweden is politically correct. They never publish data concerning immigrant percentage of overall crimes and/or rapes. So besides not offending anyone, political correctness is used as a political tool (Swedish socialists in this case) to supress freedom of information/speech and to not display the failure of the system the ruling party is arguing for (multi culturalism in this case).

I wouldn't use it, nor would I use it in front of the impressionable. Once more testament to quite how one should judge one's audiance.
Sounds like your friend didn't judge their audience very well.

if you actually read the link, you would find that political correctness had nothing to do with the ban of winnie the pooh in turkey

And if you actually read Free Soviet's post you would understand what he is saying.

Sweden is politically correct. They never publish data concerning immigrant percentage of overall crimes and/or rapes. So besides not offending anyone, political correctness is used as a political tool (Swedish socialists in this case) to supress freedom of information/speech and to not display the failure of the system the ruling party is arguing for (multi culturalism in this case).
Nonono. They did publish such a study, and it didn't show what you wanted it to. So now you are supposed to complain that they never publish data concerning religions of criminals (because all rapes are committed by muslims or "immigrants" who look like muslims).

Nonono. They did publish such a study, and it didn't show what you wanted it to. So now you are supposed to complain that they never publish data concerning religions of criminals (because all rapes are committed by muslims or "immigrants" who look like muslims).

Dont assume what I think or not. It's just straw men. I'm pretty sure Sweden doesnt publish such statistics, maybe you can provide some links?
What is the Swedish equivelant of these statistics?

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece

Huh?

1) I'm not a liberal. At least, not as is defined in modern terms.

You are liberal (adjective, not a noun). I've been reading your posts for years.

You are liberal (adjective, not a noun). I've been reading your posts for years.
Bottle has a cyber stalker. :p

Bottle has a cyber stalker. :p
So do you... Clarice...

The disabled are more accurately refered to as "The conveniently parked".


OK, normally I hate the PC terms for the handicapped, and I really don't like it when someone uses one of them to describe me, but that one is funny. :D

Bottle has a cyber stalker. :p

A cyberstalker who's been reading her posts for years... but has only posted four times. Seems pretty unlikely to me. ^^'

Simple rule for determining if something is politically correct: If it offends anyone who is not a white, Christian male, it's politically incorrect.

Simply put, PC is like almost everything else that conservatives in this country, and in particular conservatives on this forum bitch about -- a strawman.

Political correctness is best left to politicking where it can get a candidate elected and to this forum where it can save posters from being called nasty names. Others might be better off using plain truth and clear language.

In regards to political correctness:

THANK GOD FOR GEORGE CARLIN!

A cyberstalker who's been reading her posts for years... but has only posted four times. Seems pretty unlikely to me. ^^'
...or it's someone who has simply created a new nation recently and has been about for longer.

...or it's someone who has simply created a new nation recently and has been about for longer.

Or it's a lurker:eek:

So do you... Clarice...
Quid pro quo, Clarice. Quid pro quo. :D

Simple rule for determining if something is politically correct: If it offends anyone who is not a white, Christian male, it's politically incorrect.
Exactly! How did you ever guess? :D

In regards to political correctness:

THANK GOD FOR GEORGE CARLIN!
AND CARLOS MENCIA AND STEVE HARVEY! :D

Personally I see it being used more by the right as some sort of straw man demon in which to blame things when people no longer find their racist or bigoted opinions appetizing

That's a subjective opinion by yourself. Its the left who calls a Christmas tree a holiday tree, or is that racist and bigoted according to you??? The left uses these words when they have nothing of substance in their argument(s).

That's a subjective opinion by yourself. Its the left who calls a Christmas tree a holiday tree, or is that racist and bigoted according to you??? The left uses these words when they have nothing of substance in their argument(s).
Some people are idiots and call it a holiday tree and you blame it on some mass conspiracy.

Nice

I choose to avoid using politically correct speech. It does not sound right. I particularly bristle at the whole gender neutral thing and the Hyphenated-American thing.

Furthermore, it is advocated by feminists and I do not want anything to do with them. As far as I am concerned, women were given the right to vote and the feminists won and all the feminists since then have pretty much just made a mess of society.

The Hyphenated-American thing really bugs me because it has a salad bowl connotation as opposed to the melting pot idea that I hold so dear to my red, white, and blue American heart.

Some people are idiots and call it a holiday tree and you blame it on some mass conspiracy.

Nice

No it is actually a hallmark of "leftism." Forget about economic or social attitudes. How one refers to a Christmas tree determines where they fall on the left-right spectrum.

Someone should tell the political compass