Political correctness

[John Dibble]

Either non-existent or very positive. What MODU is talking about, I believe, is non-existent.

Without a sense of a political mainstream, however, there would be no basis of political agreement as a memebr of a single nation. Complete anarchy would break out, with the country splitting up into different factions fighting it out. What prevents this from happening-- such as a common belief in the rule of law and the constitution, derives from certain things being politically much stronger and more accepted than others.

A person who criticizes the validity of the rule of law, or the constitution, and advocates the right of rebellion against the government, such as the Unabomber for example, can expect to come under intense critcism by many people who dislike the view. Opponents have decided to label this phenomenon "political correctness". It might be enlightening for them, however, to try to live in a society where no political views can be broadly accepted over others and see if they can maintain an orderly society wherein political disagreements are resolved with relative efficiency.

No offense intended, but are you sure you understand the topic? I don't think any of that stuff you said has anything to do with political correctness - political correctness is going out of your way to not offend some group of people or to make something easier on the ears, usually with the use of euphemisms. It is oft used to soften the hard truth of things.

Grab yourself a copy of George Carlin's "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" - he talks about the overuse of euphemisms in the country all the time.

Blacks are 'African-Americans'
Stewardesses are now 'Flight Attendents'
Employees are now 'Associates'
Janitors are now 'Custodians'
Used cars are now 'Pre-owned vehicles'
Merry Christmas became 'Happy Holidays'
In WWI it was called 'shell-shock', in WWII it became 'combat-fatigue', and now it's called 'post-traumatic stress disorder' - all the same condition, but we made names that don't sound as bad
Old person became 'Senior citizen'
Housewife became 'Stay at home mom'
And apparently now thanks to Hawkeye gym teachers are 'physical educators'
Oh, and let's not forget that garbage men are now 'sanitation engineers'!

Do you need more examples of this attempt to rape the English language through hyper-politeness?

Keep in mind though that political correctness isn't limited to euphamisms, there are certain politically correct things people have to do like 'support the troops' and 'love the country' before they're allowed to state their opinions on issues like the war and terrorism. (this is a right wing example, but there are left wing things like this too) Oh, and my absolute favorite "It's for the children" - I swear, say you're doing it for the children and you can get away with anything.

[Joe Republic]

Negative, of course.  But I see no organized attempt to impose political correctness on the masses.  A lot of this is about "They want us to call them 'African-Americans'", or "Now they've made everybody call old people 'senior citizens'".  But who are 'they'?

[Gabu]

Negative, of course.  But I see no organized attempt to impose political correctness on the masses.  A lot of this is about "They want us to call them 'African-Americans'", or "Now they've made everybody call old people 'senior citizens'".  But who are 'they'?

Liberals.

Duh.

[Beet]

No offense intended, but are you sure you understand the topic? I don't think any of that stuff you said has anything to do with political correctness - political correctness is going out of your way to not offend some group of people or to make something easier on the ears, usually with the use of euphemisms. It is oft used to soften the hard truth of things.

Many people would be offended by the views of a terrorist who advocated the overthrow of the government. The offense that the overwhelming majority would take imposes heavy indirect social costs on expressing such a view. The same phenomenon would apply to any political position which was sufficiently at odds with a majority that a social cost would be imposed. My example was only an extreme version.

Going back to the first part of your definition of "P.C.", any time the social costs I've discussed might be imposed, some people will be incentivized to "[go] out of [their] way not to offend". By your definition, that in itself is sufficient for something to be labelled "P.C." I am simply pointing out that, assuming that the right of people to respond to political expressions is upheld, any society wherein certain views are broadly agreed on by the majority will be characterized by that incentive structure on the particular issue in question.

The second aspect of your definition says that any time something "make(s) something easier on the ears", it can be labelled "P.C." By this definition, I fail to distinguish between an attack on P.C. and an attack on euphemism in general, since you've basically described the definition of euphemism. You might be complaining that more euphemisms have come into use over time compared to the past, but a person complaining about this would simply argue how he feels there are too many euphemisms in the English language. There is no need for a new term, "P.C.", which implies something more going on. Furthermore, I've seen very little argument and discussion on the merits and disadvantages of euphemisms.

On the other hand things like "I'm doing it for the children" or prefacing an argument with "I support the troops but..." are rhetorical devices. In fact, all rhetorical devices-- the study of rhetoric as a discipline, can be argued as a science of making things "more pleasant on the ears." I hardly believe those who complain about "P.C." are attempting to attack the use of rhetorical devices in general.

[John Dibble]

Many people would be offended by the views of a terrorist who advocated the overthrow of the government. The offense that the overwhelming majority would take imposes heavy indirect social costs on expressing such a view. The same phenomenon would apply to any political position which was sufficiently at odds with a majority that a social cost would be imposed. My example was only an extreme version.

So? I really fail to see what that has to do with political correctness in the sense we're talking about it. What you're talking about it plain common sense, what we're talking about it the sheer overuse of this type of thing. For instance, one aspect of political correctness can make it so that open criticism of a viewpoint or lifestyle(even extreme ones) is politically incorrect, even if those criticisms are valid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying there's no incentive to be politically correct - politicians are that way to whore themselves for votes, for instance - but political correctness prevents potential truths from being spoken by our leaders simply because it might offend someone. For instance, if a white man(and some cases a black man) were to make comments regarding something he thought was wrong with the black community(not the race, the culture and community in general) many would consider it to be politically incorrect and he might even be labeled a racist. His criticisms might be aimed at getting attention paid to a valid problem with the culture and alleviating the problem, but because it's not PC he might be risking his political career simply for pointing out the truth! (minority issues are one of those that are really hit hard by political correctness)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Politically correct" describes more than just euphemisms - it's a category of behavioral changes, euphemisms included. As far as euphemisms go, they're ok occassionally but these days they are overused.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And rhetorical devices are part of the whole PC package.


While I'm at it, I think I'll speak briefly about one of the worst places political correctness has gone into - our schools, especially in history class. Let's face it, history is filled with things that would be considered offensive by many, but hey, the truth isn't pretty, is it? God forbid we offend someone with the truth. So, in an effort not to offend people we dumb down our history books(sometimes even lie in them), ban many pieces of classic literature from literature class because it contains the word 'n' or some other such offensive material, and so on and so forth. Is this effort to not offend really worth the gradual decay of our education system? Don't you care about the children at all? End political correctness now - do it for the children.

[Kevin]

  I go to school each day and I'm bombarded by political correctness.

[Beet]

So? I really fail to see what that has to do with political correctness in the sense we're talking about it. What you're talking about it plain common sense, what we're talking about it the sheer overuse of this type of thing. For instance, one aspect of political correctness can make it so that open criticism of a viewpoint or lifestyle(even extreme ones) is politically incorrect, even if those criticisms are valid.

If you fail to see what my reply had to do with what you’re discussing, should define your terms more clearly in the future because my response was tailored directly to the definition that you gave me.

Please note that what is "overuse" in your eyes may not be the same as "overuse" in someone else's eyes. Ted Kaczynski probably felt that the rejection of his "Unabomber Manifesto" was an exampled of " 'overused' political correctness"! Generally, whomever feels that a position they agree with is being punished indirectly will feel that the popular reaction is being overused in their case, but in other cases it will be merely “common sense”.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to be implying that some people are being mislabeled as racist. When someone is misjudges a person, they’re doing something very different from being offended at a person’s stance.

Your complaint with “political correctness” (and your definition of it) up until now seems to have centered on the way people react to others’ opinions, not the way people perceive them. So please get it straight exactly what you mean. Of course, I’d be happy to discuss either one (or both) with you, as long as we’re clear that we’re discussing two entirely separate types of behavior.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So are euphemisms necessary or sufficient for “political correctness” to have occurred? Just what is your complaint with the use of euphemisms anyway? Who are you to tell someone else that they can’t use them?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So any time someone has used a rhetorical device they are politically correct? It seems as if every public figure from Socrates to George W. Bush is a politically correct nutjob then!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, history classes are excessively bland, but that’s not wholly or necessarily due to political correctness in the way conservatives like to complain about it—history books have been bland since well before the 1960s. This guy seems to agree.

[John Dibble]

Please note that what is "overuse" in your eyes may not be the same as "overuse" in someone else's eyes. Ted Kaczynski probably felt that the rejection of his "Unabomber Manifesto" was an exampled of " 'overused' political correctness"! Generally, whomever feels that a position they agree with is being punished indirectly will feel that the popular reaction is being overused in their case, but in other cases it will be merely “common sense”.

Why are you using one of the most extreme possible examples? The Unabomber Manifesto was rejected because Ted Kaczynski was BATSH*T CRAZY, it had nothing to do with political correctness. Calling people who've never even been to Africa 'African-Americans' is political correctness, the rejection of some loon's political and social ideas because reason dictates that it is wrong is not. I'm mainly Norse in heritage - do people call me Norweigan-American? No - I've never been to Norway, or Europe for that matter(I don't get called European-American either). Since I'm white and was born in this country, I'm just an American Why is it that blacks can't just be Americans too?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm saying people can be labeled as racist for making a 'politically incorrect' comment even if the comment is true, simply because that truth might offend some minorities. Quite often those doing such labeling aren't even of the race

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reaction and perception are intertwined, you can't seperate the two. You react based on what you perceive. My complaint about poltical correctness is that the PC crowd is more worried about offending someone than the truth being told - the truth, no matter how offensive, is the truth and reason dictates that we don't dumb it down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's somewhat based on intent - usually to prevent offense(quite often to someone who would have no reason to be offended if the original word was used).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above - intent of use matters. And btw, Bush is politically correct sometimes. (for example there's the "religion of peace", can't offend any Muslim voters now, can we?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why then, if not to prevent offense, have our history books been dumbed down, the real truth hidden from our students? And why then do we ban classic literature in the classroom because it contains the word 'n' if not to prevent offense? If not for the politically correct goal of keeping people from being offended why do we dumb down our educational system in this manner?

[Beet]

Why are you using one of the most extreme possible examples? The Unabomber Manifesto was rejected because Ted Kaczynski was BATSH*T CRAZY, it had nothing to do with political correctness. Calling people who've never even been to Africa 'African-Americans' is political correctness, the rejection of some loon's political and social ideas because reason dictates that it is wrong is not. I'm mainly Norse in heritage - do people call me Norweigan-American? No - I've never been to Norway, or Europe for that matter(I don't get called European-American either). Since I'm white and was born in this country, I'm just an American Why is it that blacks can't just be Americans too?

How the heck am I supposed to know? Black are just blacks to me, but if someone else wants to call them African-Americans, then I have no problem with that. To each his own. I'm not about to go up to someone and say they can't say 'African-American' just because I don't like it. That's fascist!

(edit: Btw, I think what you're talking about with your Norwegian-American example is a double standard, which is a legitimate complaint. I also dislike identity politics, which I feel is divisive and destructive. But neither of those are the same as this overgeneralized, muddled term called 'P.C.')

Anyway... reason dictates? Can you refute the entire Unabomber manifesto? Have you even read it? If not then how do you know his ideas are wrong? I used it because it's an actual example of political correctness-- anyone caught agreeing with him would face serious social penalties, unlike someone who says 'black', which almost everyone does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well people can be labelled racist for anything, so to say they can be labelled is saying nothing. And what's wrong with calling a racist person racist if that's the truth? On the other hand if they're not really racist-- then the person who labelled them has mislabelled them, just as I said. But I also pointed out that mislabelling soemone and reacting to someone's opinion are completely different. Which leads us into...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Misperception can occur without strong reaction, and strong reaction can occur without misperception... which is what I believe we were talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And...??

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait a minute, what truth, and whose truth? Do you claim that no one has the right to be offended at anything? If not, who is to determine what is true and what is legitimately offensive? After all, what is inaccurate and thus offensive in one man's eyes is the truth in another man's eyes.

For example, you yourself seem to have rejected Ted Kaczynski as "BATSH*T CRAZY", even though he's probably much smarter than you are (of course, the two are not mutually exclusive). You seem to be willing to go to the limits of offensiveness in theory but not in practice. Your complaints are highly limited and constricted, and you seem to feel as if the practitioners of political correctness are limited to a "crowd", evidently not made up of the whole. Yet no one can have a conscience who is not offended at something, and almost everyone does have a conscience. You have not spoken up, for example, in opebo's defense on this forum when people have become offended at his acceptance of pedophilia. Do they not have the right to be offended at his pedophilia?

Overall your complaints seem to be that people are offended at what you consider "truth" yet you have no problem when people are offended at what you consider "untruth". Shall we call on John Dibble every time America wants to know "the truth" on some issue?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what if they do intend to prevent offense-- is there something wrong with this? Must everyone be obliged to shout out every negative thought we have about every other person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because there's no incentive to make it interesting. I don't think it's a matter of there being a brilliant curriculum beforehand, rather the school curriculum has always been somewhat more dull than it could be. The system is run by the government and the government is generally terribly poor at administrative matters.

[John Dibble]

(edit: Btw, I think what you're talking about with your Norwegian-American example is a double standard, which is a legitimate complaint. I also dislike identity politics, which I feel is divisive and destructive. But neither of those are the same as this overgeneralized, muddled term called 'P.C.')

Yes, it is a double standard - one that has resulted from the culture of political correctness.

Wait a minute, what truth, and whose truth?

No particular truth - it is dependent on the issue in question. See my example about someone pointing out a problem with the black community - undeniably there are problems, but if a white person tries to point it out it's often labeled as racist and politically incorrect by the people who adhere to the doctrine of political correctness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't see how you got that idea - people have the right to be offended, but they have no right to not be offended. Such a right is mutually exclusive to free speech. So long as people have free speech, someone is going to be offended.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never claimed to be all knowing, all I claimed is that political correctness gets in the way of the truth being spoken in many cases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Preventing offense is in itself not bad, but when it gets in the way of what really needs to be said it's a problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because there's no incentive to make it interesting. I don't think it's a matter of there being a brilliant curriculum beforehand, rather the school curriculum has always been somewhat more dull than it could be. The system is run by the government and the government is generally terribly poor at administrative matters.
[/quote]

I'm not talking about interesting, I'm talking about accurate. I would think there would be incentive for our hitory and literature classes to be accurate.(literature class is usually historical in nature, talking about the big writers of various days gone by) And what is the incentive for banning works of literature that contain the word 'n', even if the works themselves are by non-racists like Mark Twain?

[Beet]

Yes, it is a double standard - one that has resulted from the culture of political correctness.

There's nothing 'correct' about either diction usage, John. No one is forcing you into any form of diction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that no one has ever done this. Can you provide me with a single example where anyone has been called politically incorrect or racist solely because they said that there were problems in black communities?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad you're finally coming around to understanding, John. As long as people want to give their opinions they have to be prepared for the consequences of those opinions-- including that some people will be offended.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet, if you speak of subjective truth, then this is inevitable as long as people reserve the right to take offense. If you speak of objective (scientific) truth, people generally do not take offense to it, though they often challenge the accuracy of claims of scientific truth. And such challenges are legitimate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again-- a person who expresses a subjective opinion has to be willing to accept the consequences of their expression. That is in no way a violation of the rights of freedom of speech, but to deny others' a right to respond is a violation of others' rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The exclusion of Mark Twain does not necessarily make a curriculum 'inaccurate' any more than the exclusion of any writer. An example of an inaccuracy would be assigning a book by Mark Twain and claiming it was actually written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Once again you seem to be confusing the meaning of things and I can't tell what you're trying to say.

[John Dibble]

Yes, it is a double standard - one that has resulted from the culture of political correctness.

There's nothing 'correct' about either diction usage, John. No one is forcing you into any form of diction.

'Political correctness' is a term that has nothing to do with correct diction - it's a subjectively 'correct' behavior. I was pointing out that blacks getting to be called "African-Americans" even though most have never even set foot there is due to the culture of political correctness that has grown in these last few decades.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't find one online atm, though I know it happens. Though one thing has been happening in Georgia where the Republicans are being called racists for supporting a voter ID law meant to decrease fraud, and quite ridiculously so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said they weren't - I really don't know where the hell you're getting these impressions. I said that there's people out there who are so god damn obsessed with trying to keep people from being offended that it is ruining our culture and politics for the reason of never offending anyone. Being un-PC is such a taboo that people are de-facto having their freedom of speech taken due to the fear of the ridiculous level of reprecussions. Some political correctness if fine and dandy, but the level of it today has become unreasonable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I went off on a tangent with the Twain issue that wasn't related to the innacuracy issue - still, I want an answer to why schools are banning works like Huckleberry Finn just because it contains the word n.

History textbooks are innacurate in how they portray things(until you get into college at least, they don't worry about offending people so much there) - not necessarily outright lies, but leaving out facts still distorts things. For instance, you'll hear a lot about the aggression of the white settlers against the Indians, but you'll rarely if ever hear about Indian aggression against the white settlers - the truth is aggression went both ways and both sides were provoking eachother, not that the Indians were just innocent victims as they are oft portrayed.

[Beet]

'Political correctness' is a term that has nothing to do with correct diction - it's a subjectively 'correct' behavior.

How can something be "subjectively correct"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that there is a controversy over that issue b/c of its association with the poll tax in the state's history, though I wasn't aware anyone was called a racist merely for supporting voter the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't agree with unreasonableness, all I'm saying is that if you accept the fact that people have a right to be offended at some things, it's inevitable that people who express controversial opinions-- be they about government legitimacy (Kazcynski), pedophilia (opebo), the President (Dixie Chicks) or race (say, Trent Lott) will face certain consequences as a result of their expression. I'm not saying the reaction is never overblown, but it's not always unjustified either. That is inevitable. No one is taking away anyone's right to free speech, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't agree with that, but I think it's a very different issue from substituting "senior citizen" from "old person." The book issue involves a school board making decisions for teachers or students, while the the latter involves an individual's personal preference as to which diction they prefer to use.

After doing a little reading on this controversy, the overwhelming majority of sources seem to support keeping the book in schools. Most townships that have debated this issue have decided to do so, though with more sensitivity on how they present the topic. Courts have flatly rejected any form of outside censorship.

So I don't think the use of the word correct (politically or otherwise) is an accurate description of a position in favor of removing the book. If anything these people are in the minority.

Further, the book appears at only #5 in the American Library Associations' list of most challenged books of the 1990s. At #3 is Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, apparently because of scenes dealing with lesbianism and rape. In fact, the most common complaints of books on the list seem to be "anti-family values", "sexually explicit" or "homosexuality". (http://solonor.com/archives/000134.html) Yet you never hear conservatives complaining that such complaints represent some kind of "political correctness".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true, and history books in high school dumb down a lot of things. It's too bad, most students in my upper-middle class high school were too apathetic to even understand the dumbed-down version of the history book. Then again, maybe because it was so boring. But their omissions run both ways, as you'll see if you read James Loewen's book which I linked above. Not that I'm endorsing the book, but just to show you the omissions run both ways.

[John Dibble]

'Political correctness' is a term that has nothing to do with correct diction - it's a subjectively 'correct' behavior.

How can something be "subjectively correct"?

Notice the single quotes - 'correct' means 'acceptable' in this case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then we agree for the most part - in my view it's just gotten to a point where one can't talk about certain issues without an unreasonable reaction. The fear of that reaction is, as I said, kind of a de facto ban on free speech.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, 'politically correct' is just a phrase anyways - to the extent it's gotten I'd rather be incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, there's no denying conservative political correctness exists. I see it as a sad state of affairs on both sides.

[Beet]

Notice the single quotes - 'correct' means 'acceptable' in this case
...
Then we agree for the most part - in my view it's just gotten to a point where one can't talk about certain issues without an unreasonable reaction. The fear of that reaction is, as I said, kind of a de facto ban on free speech.

Well it depends which issues you're talking about, the reaction to many supposed violations of what conservatives like to call 'political correctness' (such as saying 'old person' or 'slum') is nil in comparison positions that would be truly difficult to take socially.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a highly misleading phrase.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's my problem with the current usage of the term "political correctness". The phrase implies that there is some overwhelmingly powerful political force that compels people to take certain positions or use certain diction. Yet in the examples wherein people (usually conservatives) like to complain about "political correctness", such as the use of the term 'African-American' vs. 'black', no such overwhelmingly powerful force exists. In fact, most people use the term 'black'.

The very fact that so many people disdain 'political correctness' (80% in this poll) by itself ought to prove that proponents of what is called 'political correctness' are in fact not overwhelmingly powerful, and that their position thus does not deserve to be labelled 'correct' (or 'acceptable').

The cost that this misuse of this term imposes is that it gets people to forget what true political correctness is. Which positions--which values-- in our society are backed by such overwhelming support and punishment for transgression that they deserve to be called 'politically correct' positions? Support for freedom, democracy, equal opportunity, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Support for the nation in time of war. Support for racial integration. Opposition to such things such as pedophilia, sodomy, polygamy, and rape.

I recognize that these positions are politically correct, but I have no problem with this, because they are also positions that I hold myself. I am pleased that the overwhelming majority of the nation shares my views on these basic issues. And I think that broad agreement on certain issues is importance for the coherence of any nation. But if any issues can be truly called 'politically correct', it is these..... Which is why I have a positive opinion of political correctness, not in the narrow sense that conservatives use it to complain selectively about what they don't like, but in the sense that the term itself truly suggests.

[Michael Z]

"Political correctness" is a slur created by people who don't like the idea of being polite towards minority groups.

[John Dibble]

"Political correctness" is a slur created by people who don't like the idea of being polite towards minority groups.

No, it's a term that was made for being polite to minorities when you really shouldn't be - they need the hard, brutal, honest truth. The kind of truth that makes people get angry, that makes people get up and do something.


Speaking of this issue, did anyone else see the MLK episode of the Boondocks last week? That's the kind of thing we need more of in today's world.

[dazzleman]

"Political correctness" is a slur created by people who don't like the idea of being polite towards minority groups.

I disagree.  I think it's harmful toward minority groups in the long run, because it prevents an honest discussion of the problems that plague them.

Political correctness is really more of an effort to force people to deny reality in favor of a very dubious political agenda than it is to spare the feelings of minority groups.

In any case, those who push political correctness say only  the most vile things about white males, Christians, etc.  It's very hard to take them seriously when they are so hypocritical and have such a double standard.

[they don't love you like i love you]

neither, it's a bit annoying but people aren't that PC anyway. If you actually feel oppressed by it then that's pathetic, just say what you want to say at the risk of offending people (homosexuals, minorities etc., if you're not an idiot it is quite easy to do so) but don't bottle it in as if the thought police will come and get you.

So true, dazzleman seems to think that if he ever says "black" instead of "African-American" he'll be lynched. Despite the fact that I have NEVER met anyone who was offended by "black", every black I've met says black too. Hell, even the Black Panthers obviously don't have a problem with it. So where are these supposed PC police?

[dazzleman]

That's not what my concern is, but frankly, I wouldn't waste my time explaining it it you, as it is beyond your comprehension.