America Needs Political Correctness
(Due to the recent debate regarding the use and abuse of the term ‘political correctness,’ I thought I would write a diary rather than answer the multitude of points I thought needed addressing from the comments.)
“The interdependence of thought and speech makes it clear that languages are not so much a means of expressing truth that has already been established, but are a means of discovering truth that was previously unknown. Their diversity is a diversity not of sounds and signs but of ways of looking at the world.” ~ Karl Kerenyi
Referential Language
‘Political correctness’ falls into the realm of language. For this reason, it becomes difficult to discuss unless we tackle the ‘nature’ of linguistics and how language shapes, or, at the very least, helps shape our reality. Much of our use of language is taken for granted, and we begin to think that language is referential instead of constitutive and differential. What I mean by this is that we think that we see an objective universe before us and we just attach ‘names,’ ‘labels,’ or ‘terms’ to what is already objectively present in front of us. This idea started with Plato. Plato’s forms present the idea of the referential view of reality. Plato argues that there are forms (think of these as ultimate or archetypal concepts of individual things) that exists independent of our mind and we just have to discover them, though they are already there. All the worldly forms are imitations of those otherworldly forms. That view of language and reality does not hold much weight. Referentialism is equivalent to ‘universals’ in linguistics—never changing.
Differential and Constitutive Language
Most linguists now accept that language is differential instead of referential. What is the difference between differential and referential? Differential treats the world like one big nameless mush of matter. What we then do with this mush is differentiate things from other things in order to create order from the flux of chaos before our eyes. Once we are able to separate one thing from another, we then can differentiate it from the surrounding matter by giving it a name. Thus, only a small number of things before our eyes actually have names and are differentiated from what surround them. This idea works at the linguistic level as well. We differentiate the sounds of ‘t’ and ‘d’ for example to make the two separate terms ‘dot’ and ‘tot’, though they are extremely closely related (but are a small example of the untouched possibilities of verbal sounds. Interesting side note: most Asians languages do not separate the sounds of ‘l’ and ‘r’ which causes the mispronunciation of many English words that depend on the differences in these sounds). Differential is the equivalent to relativism in linguistics—various cultures see the world differently based on their language (Whorf [see below] did extensive studies on the differences between Native American languages and English to show that we ‘think’ and ‘perceive’ the world differently due to language. Ender, you might see untranslatable things between Russian and English to show that the speakers of these two languages view the world differently). Thus language is constitutive (constructs reality) because it shapes the way we receive the world since we are dealing with ready-made concepts that are differential.
Language Shapes Reality
“What in the hell does differentiation have to do with ‘political correctness’?” you ask at this point. Everything. I’m trying to show that in many ways we have a ‘selective’ reality, and language helps to shape it. In fact, since we (as in me writing this and you reading this) did not create many of the words we use today, our reality has been shaped for us through the language given to us. Many of these ideas about differentiation come from Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (pay attention to the section on ‘difference’) and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
, which states:
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language... all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated."
— (Language, Thought and Reality pp. 212–214).
Since we have come to the conclusion that language shapes our reality, we must now examine how language is used in society to further understand ‘political correctness’.
Power Structures
Although there are some on this site that may think differently, I do not believe we live in a perfectly egalitarian society. Rather, I think there are power dynamics at work in our society that give preferential treatment to some members of our society compared to others. For example, I believe we live in a patriarchal society. Evidence for this argument comes from multiple sources. One source is our names. Our lineage stems from patronyms. If you’ve ever done genealogy, you know that tracing the mother’s line is much more difficult than the father’s. Women also make 70 cents to the dollar for the same work that men do . I do not wish to focus my attention on this issue other than to show that we live in a society where some groups have privileges in this country for various historical reasons. Those with privilege are young, straight, white, middle-to-upper class males. (Please do not take this as a criticism of any of these traits. For all intents and purposes, I am all of these traits also, and none of us chose to have this privilege. We just happened to win the luck of the draw.) As you can see, these privileges are based on sex, age, race, class, and sexual orientation. (Other factors exist in the periphery such as height, weight, and ability.) As I stated previously, for various and for the most part random historical reasons, we have a ‘norm’ in our society. People that do not fit this norm are seen as ‘other’. For example, when discussing events, people usually point out race only if it is not white. (A reverse example may be in order to illustrate this for us white folks who do not pay attention to such things: we only discuss ‘white’ people if we are in the minority or the ‘other’ in a certain context, for example basketball. We say Larry Bird was a good ‘white’ basketball player, but for Michael Jordan we just say he is a good basketball player, because the assumption is that he is already ‘black’. For anything else though, we usually point out the minority race.) Another example would be Danica Patrick who is always referred to as a ‘female’ IRL driver. I’ve never heard the term ‘male IRL or NASCAR driver’ used before to describe a driver. It was assumed ahead of time.
Political Correctness
Let’s review: 1) Language shapes our reality. 2) There are power dynamics at work that give privilege to some groups over others (no puppet master controlling this situation, but that’s just the way it is).
With these two things in mind, we are ready to see why ‘political correctness’ is important. We can consciously try to reshape our language to create new modes of thinking that change reality. The article on ‘political correctness ’ says this better than I do:
The goal of changing language and terminology consists of several points, including:
1. Certain people have their rights, opportunities, or freedoms restricted due to their categorization as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype.
2. This categorization is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology.
3. By making the labeling terminology problematic, people are made to think consciously about how they describe someone.
4. Once labeling is a conscious activity, individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership in a group, become more apparent.
In other words, we can take the terms that give power to one group and diffuse that power to make things on a more equal footing (don’t worry Ender, I’m talking about linguistics, not collectivism or redistribution of wealth). Isn’t that what we want in this society to make things fair for everybody? The system only works if we all start out with the same opportunities. Racial bias, sexism, homophobia, etc make it so some start out without the same opportunity. To help eradicate these thoughts and the subsequent actions that stem from these thoughts, we must help change the reality (perception) that leads to them. A real world example is the tendency toward gender neutral terms. Instead of saying fireman which excludes the idea of a woman fulfilling this occupation, we now use the neutral term firefighter so that reality (through language) tells aspiring females that they are not excluded. Simple enough and no big deal right?
I should also note that PC is inclusive rather than exclusive, though the majority term is often not noted (as discussed above with the ‘male’ NASCAR driver etc.). The minority term is not supposed to exclude the majority; it is only to make it apparent that it includes the minority as well. This discussion pertains to our ‘Happy Holiday’ debate. For example, bathrooms are now ‘wheel-chair accessible’. Does that mean it impairs the ability of able-bodied users to use the restroom? No, it just makes it clear that those who may need extra help have it. Another example is the term ‘hearing-impaired. This is an umbrella term which covers deafness, those partially deaf, or even those in an area too loud to focus in on one audio source (such as a TV in a bar). Again, it is unnecessary to state that those with properly functioning hearing can listen because it is assumed. This is comparable to ‘Merry Christmas’ in that ‘Happy Holidays’ already covers Christmas (Christmas is the majority holiday), but sometimes we find it necessary to make the minority term overt to make it clear we also include the minority too. If we found it necessary to include the majority terms always, for every NASCAR driver we would go through a ridiculous and redundant list of assumptions (straight, middle-aged, male, etc).
Tlaloc says this is mind control and newspeak. In a way he is right: political correctness is attempting to change thoughts and behaviors. These changes are for the better in my view, since they help dissipate the reality that leads to an unjust society. What he does not understand is that the language we use now is not more neutral than the ‘politically correct’ terminology. It is just as loaded and creates its own version of reality and newspeak. The only difference is that one leads to positive results and a more equal society, while the other traps groups in negative connotations (thus subjected to a less-empowered reality).
GoRight stated that political correctness does not change behavior. If you did not follow my argument about how language shapes reality, here is a good book for you to read to further understand these points: Language, Thought, and Reality 
For these reasons, I believe ‘political correctness’ is valuable. If you also value a society that embraces the American ideal that anyone can make it because we all have the same opportunity, then I hope you find a new appreciation for ‘politically correct.’ If not, then I think you are hindering American ideals in favor of aristocratic beliefs in which established classes or categories have structured favor. I do not expect everyone to agree with this argument. I’m aware there are excesses and it is impossible to accommodate everyone. But that does not mean PC is entirely worthless. Perhaps if you do not agree, at the very least my argument will create more understanding on the topic.
- Specter's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
This would've
been up earlier but I could not get through to the site. Did it crash overnight and earlier this morning?
I went through some of the parts a little too quickly, but it is already long as it is. There are semester long courses on just the difference between referential and differential language, so I apologize for the overly simplistic (and perhaps not very clear) overview. If anyone has any questions, I will be happy to elaborate.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I keep getting weird html code
error messages and stuff that says it looks like the server is down.
The top post is all in red and messed up.
The site has been off and on strange.
I don't know how you can make it through the day without my brilliant insights!!!
I'm only half stupid
yeah the server was down
earlier. Not sure what the problem was but since I was out, I wasn't even aware of it. Thanks for the diary, I'll comment tomorrow because I really need to rest up :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
First, a nit
Our lineage stems from patronyms. If you’ve ever done genealogy, you know that tracing the mother’s line is much more difficult than the father’s.
While you always know for a fact who the mother was, the father's identity can't be known for a certainty (other than to the mother of course). So you may trace the familial line through the father, the genetic line is more easily traced through the mother (the reason, I believe that 'Jewishness' is inherited from the mother)
Unfortunately, I think you are going to run into the 'moral relatvism vs objective good vs evil' issue here. Use of language is certainly used to indoctrinate others (I use the term in a neutral manner). However, take not that there are people on this site who think that torturing our enemies is OK (because we are fighting for GOOD dang it!) Likewise, they aren't against using language to influence world views, they are against the world view that is being pushed. 'PC' is the word they use to describe language changes that influence a 'liberal' world view.
Agreed about the biology
but once you get past your maternal grandma and are dealing only with documents, it becomes extremely frustrating. The only way you can find these records are through marriage certificates to find out what the maiden name was. But I get your point.
I understand the wall I'm up against with the relativism vs universals, but I think the meritocracy vs aristocracy point will maybe stick. Perhaps Ender reflecting on the structural differences between Russian and English to see that language helps form reality. Perhaps I am just blowing in the wind and will not make much ground, but I had to get this off my chest.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Well written, an inspiration to the choir
I don't disagree with what you wrote (certainly not the theory).
Unfortunately, the aristocracy never sees meritocracy as distinct from the aristrocracy. They believe that the rewards of meritocracy are inheritable (at least those rewards that they receive. ;-) and that this inheritence is what helps drive the meritocracy. It goes like this: That layabout who inherits a billion dollars might not have earned it, but their parent earned the right to give the billion to who they wanted. Thus, interfering with the aristocracy would damage the meritocracy by removing the big bonus of being ridiculously successful (generations of wealthy progeny)
Thanks
To fight an aristocracy, democrats want to tax that 'unearned income'. Here we find another battle of terms to help shape thoughts into a preferred reality: the democrats call it an 'Estate Tax' to show that these wealthy estates should be taxed when they switch hands, while the republicans call it a 'death tax' to say that democrats are trying to tax death. Which is the reality? This is a situation where the reality is formed by the words and whose side you agree with.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Yes, how come we don't see the PC bashers
... going after the Frank Luntz rhetorical flim-flamming like "Clear Skies Initiative" which allows more air pollution, or "Healthy Forests Initiative" which permits the logging of old-growth forests?
And for GoRight to claim that language doesn't matter... How disingenuous.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I had to update to fix a few mistakes
I was a little excited to post this while I could get on the site, so I put it up with a few errors.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Well done!
This is a topic that fascinates me, in part because of how quickly - and wrongly - it's been neutered in public discussion. The spectre (ha!) of PC causes immediate vomiting, but it's such a rich topic that we haven't begun to explore.
For one thing, even though I'm more or less a proponent of PC, there are negatives associated with it - and it's related to GoRight's claim that PC doesn't change behavior. To an extent, he's right, but even more perniciously: PC replaces spoken platitudes for genuine engagement. I think the reason is that it's so knee-jerk on the part of people who adopt it - how many people stop and think, "the term 'visually impaired' refers to a broader class of people than 'blind,' so in fact when I'm interacting with people who seem to me to be blind, I should keep in mind that there's a whole range of possibilities there"? More often than not, it's just a replacement of one label with another, without an understanding of the reasons or implications of that change. I agree with you that langauge does shape thought, but PC is only one piece of a much larger puzzle that often gets overlooked because people feel like they're using the "correct" terms.
And there are times when it gets abused. The case of the businessman fired for using the word "niggardly" is a case study in PC gone awry.
But for the most part, I think it's a pretty benign and important process. If anything, it's the natural result of a population trying to understand itself via language.
Back in June I did a diary
on one piece of the giant puzzle, during one of dailykos' periodic kerfuffles over language and inclusion. Since my goal was to talk about PC as a form of etiquette, and since I was trying to put out some flames, I took a slightly different tack than you did. If anything, it's less interesting for the text than for the discussion that follows.
Again: excellent diary.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Great points and thanks
About people feeling like they are using the 'correct' terms (as your diary at DKos discusses), this topic gets into the mess of context, speaker, and receiver. Most who study language for any time knows that none of these are the final stop for interpretation, but rather it is a relational process, with an emphasis on the receiver for the final interpretation. I got into a long, but mostly unfruitful, debate with Tlaloc about this a while back, but I agree with your conclusions (even if it uses smurfs and fraggles for examples [remember the snorks?]).
I thought this discussion might be too much of a tangent for what I wanted to cover in my diary, but I think it may be worthwhile to discuss either in the comments or as a new diary.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
A most excellent post
However the whole framing thing has created a new framing frame, that needs to be addressed.
By creating and beating to death the frame of PC conservatives quite disingenuously set up the frame that it is all a liberal only plot, even as they use it to push their own version of political correctness, to define the world as their , often bizzare reality.
Like "the Liberal media" by getting the first strike, when they are criticized, for really overt propaganda, or just outright sliming, they can resort to "its not a big thing because everybody does it". What Liberals say is reality is just their opinion, while the made up stuff conservatives pedal is just their (more correct) reality.
By insisting on accuracy, and noting the baggage (usually old frames) that words can have, the whole argument goes to Republican PC that add baggage, and are deliberately inaccurate, and are only real in their fantasy world.
Deny them their fantasy world, and force the discussion to stay about real stuff, and arguing actual ideology rather than POV, and their evil is fully exposed.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Good diary.
Let me start off by saying that this is a very good description of your side of this discussion and the rationale that goes into it. I appreciate your effort in putting this together because I believe it will help us to dissect the discussion a bit.
While I think I understood most of this to be the general thinking that has gone into the discussion thus far from your side, I also feel that it does make some of the points more crisp and well defined which is always a good thing when discussing such abstract concepts.
Needless to say I can agree with some, but not all, of the perspectives that you present and I fear that some of the ones with which I disagree are so fundamental to your argument as to leave it unconvincing.
Rather than try to address these points in totality in this one reply, I will endeavor to discuss my thoughts and observations about these points in separate replies so that we can have a more focused discussion thread on each. Hopefully this will prevent the usual flitting back and forth between threads that inevitably occurs in these discussions.
So, look for a number of replies from me as direct comments to this diary to start the individual threads.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Opening Quote
I have no idea who Karl Kerenyi is. I assume he is some appropriately accredited linguist. Is this correct?
Assuming that it is I will, for your benefit in understanding my perspective on such things, say that I will be happy to acknowledge that he is someone who has spent (perhaps large amounts of) time thinking about and forming views on how language and thought are inter-related. I will not, however, simply accept his opinion as fact or even as being correct without some critical analysis thereof.
In other words, the mere fact that he may or may not have written entire volumes on the subject does not (necessarily) make him correct and thus that fact does not carry, in and of itself, any particular weight with me. Others are free to weigh such respect according to their own personal satisfactions.
Let me begin by dissecting this quote and giving you some insight into my views of its meaning to help judge whether we are in agreement or not.
To be honest I am not exactly sure what the author is trying to say here, especially with respect to the word "truth". Given the context of our PC discussion, I will interpret the word "truth" to be a synonym for "ideas, perceptions, and concepts".
Given this interpretation of the word "truth" I would state the following:
interdependence between thought and speech.
I claim that the whole point of speech (language) is to give short-hand labels to complex ideas, perceptions, and concepts which have already been (or are currently being) developed within a particular society.
What comes first, the concept or the label?
I argue the concept does and in that sense the label merely becomes a means of expressing a concept that was pre-existing (not in Plato's sense but rather from the perspective of a given society). The concept may be a totally new concept which was devised solely out of the pre-existing set of concepts already found within that society, but clearly the concept precedes the label.
I assert that this should be obvious because a society does not just dream up new words and then look for concepts to attach to them. It goes the other way around. Society develops some new concept and then coins a new word or phrase to reference it.
For example, take the words "wingnut" and "moonbat". These are relatively new words in our societal lexicon, correct? Did these terms spontaneously come into being and then we as a society sought concepts to attach to them? Of course not. We in the blogosphere had groups of pre-existing concepts that we wished to have a short-hand means of referring to for simplicity.
So the concepts (i.e. the things that people associate with these words) came first, and then the labels were attached to them. Note that the choice of what labels to use was completely arbitrary, we as a sub-culture could just as easily have started using "foo" and "bar" without changing the thinking that goes behind them one bit. Note also that this is an illustration of what I mean by the separation of the underlying concepts (i.e. those attributes that people associate with these terms) from the words themselves.
Is this not correct in your estimation of recent history?
[As an aside, both of these terms are used in a manner similar to how "nigger" was used in its day, would you not agree? So are these not both terms which are born of hate and bigotry and, in that sense, just as bad as "nigger" (at least from a PC perspective)?]
Not in the sense that Plato expressed where the concepts are universally pre-existing, but rather in the sense that new ideas, perceptions, and concepts are outgrowths of the existing body of ideas, perceptions, and concepts held by society as a whole as well as those which are held only within specific sub-cultures.
Whenever a society or sub-culture develops a new concept, they then coin a new label to assign to it and at that point in time the new label takes on its assigned "meaning" (i.e. it is recognized as a reference to the concept in question) but not before.
Given the context of the original quote, I assume that "Their" is a reference to "languages"? Is that correct?
If so, then it should be OK to rephrase this sentence as follows: "The diversity [of languages] is a diversity not of sounds and signs but of ways of looking at the world." Is that a fair interpretation?
From my perspective there is a nugget of truth here but I disagree with the statement's current (re)phrasing (which is intended to have an identical meaning to the original).
If I were to rephrase it yet again so that I preserved the nugget of truth while making it more consistent with my world view, it would become: The diversity of languages is a diversity not of words but of ways of looking at the world (i.e. of societal concepts).
I will have to be away from the keyboard for a while and may not be able to continue until tomorrow, but there is enough here to get started.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sofar so good, but there is a difference
Perhaps only a quibble as far as you have gone, but a wild boulder in the overall.
If the PC crowd (the liberal one) changed the word from firemen to firefighters, it did not change what they did or denigrate either the men or the women. If anything it solved the Fahrenheit 441 issue by making it plain that they were not arsonists!
By comparison the Neocon word Conservative is wholly disingenuous to the point that the man who (if anyone did) owned the trademark on it, called them fraud almost literally to his dying breath.
I would use Republican for all who would call themselves so, but the "base" and particularly the leadership of that base, that is not specifically Neocon or Straussian, is therefore left without a legitimate name.
I think winger is less inflammatory, than the more specific and descriptive Theofascist, if you believe that we need a totalitarian social agenda (that all folk need to believe that a human exists before the structures exist fr'instance) and a Corporatist, anti-free-enterprise economic agenda, then the description would fit, but I try and save "wingnut" for the extreme, extreme, who dress up in actual Nazi uniforms, and march around, but have small credibility even in Republican circles. (though the bedsheet crowd seem to be gaining acceptance)
I do not find moonbat insulting, I find it petty and ignorant but not like the "n" word.
What they did to the L word on the other hand was a real insult and crime. I swore that if I heard Newt talk about what liberals were thinking one more time (always without challenge from anywhere) I would scream. They presented a total fraud, that I would guess that to this day most on the right here still believe is at least is a hidden agenda
You can find that actual Liberal Agenda in most Roget's Thesaurus under liberal, at least in mine from 30 years ago.
While people with different opinions, can discover the realities, people with different realities, can only see opinions
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
The Chicken or the Egg
Because this could drag into a long debate, I shied away from getting into linguistic technicalities. It looks like you do wish to get into some of these finer points, so I will attempt to explain as best I can.
This is called nomenclature, which is attaching names to pre-existing things. This understanding seems to be the commonsense version, but as we learn more and more about our strange universe, the commonsense answers are hardly the correct ones. You are partially correct, but it gets a little more complicated than this.
Ferdinand de Saussure
, the author of Course in General Linguistics 
explains this much better than I can, so I will defer to some quotes from this book as well as Saussure for Beginners:
In other words, you are partially correct that an individual can come up with a concept, but to define that concept and to communicate the concept to another person, he must create a label. So for all intents and purposes, the label usually comes first (except for the person who came up with the concept). So when it is passed on to the rest of us, we learn it as a label instead of as a concept. They are interdependent. Of course, since linguistics like any academic field is a game of one-upping, variations and degrees exist on the spectrum of interdependence. Some say the concept does not exist without labels (can we think without words) and others say the labels take on a life of their own leaving the concepts behind and creating new concepts that the original concept never intended such as may be the case for the word ‘negro’ or ‘mouse’.
This account does not take into consideration that language is differential also. You seem stuck in the prison of referentialism. If you look at biological taxonomy for instance, names are given to different sub-species depending on difference. This difference must come first before the name. So we don’t just point and say, “beetle forever more, because that is the concept in my head when I look at this” but we differentiate first according to specificities of the subspecies and then label. So the difference is dependent on an observer and not necessarily objectively there. Here is another example. The center stretch of a wall does not have a name at this point in time in English (that I know of). This is because we don’t differentiate it from the rest of the wall. It is just the wall. Let’s say we decided that it was the utmost importance to hang pictures only from the center of the wall. We then would create a name for it because we then decide to differentiate it. So differentiation comes before any objective nomenclature.
So some ways you are partially correct that we create concepts first, but I have a problem with the idea of a ready-made objective world for us to just apply names to. (I know there is a physical, objective world, and that if you throw a rock at my head it will hurt and probably knock me out. I’m not denying this type of objective world. What I am saying is that the way we process and discuss the non-physical objects [categorizations of people based on arbitrary differences] and to a lesser extent even the physical world) helps frame the way we look at the world.)
I think this is what the quote was also getting at. As much as I enjoy these long discussions, I have a hard time finding time for them between chasing a 1 year old around the house and tending to my pregnant wife. If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, read a book on this topic (especially Language, Thought, and Reality) which does a much better job of explaining these ideas than I do.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Let's just keep going down this path
for a bit as time permits. This can continue in this diary for some time, correct. I too have a hard time finding the time and I, sadly, am neglecting other chores at times to blog.
I believe that I understand the points you are trying to make based on your pre-existing reading and background in this area. I accept that background as a valuable source of information but I reserve the right to pick away at it where I believe that it is not so much outright wrong, but let's say where it is inaccurate or viewing things from an inappropriate perspective, IMHO.
I get the sense that we are getting to a level of thinking where we can at least come to an understanding of each others perspectives and can perhaps identify those points where we have fundamental disagreements on the nature of language and thought, which is core to the concept of PC. I believe that by identifying some of these points we can at least gain a better understanding of each others fundamental belief in the value, or lack thereof, of PC.
In any event, we will both be richer for the effort I think. Agreed?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Courtesy and Political Correctness
Let me start this off by saying that I am a fan of diversity and inclusiveness in society, and I have a deep preference for civility in social discourse. For example, I do not "attack" liberal or conservative posters on this site simply because I believe everyone has a right to hold and express their own POV. Much of what goes under the name of political correctness I would simply label as common courtesy and good manners. Making remarks about someone's person (color, shape, form, structure, attire, job, etc.) has never been considered polite.
But there is an aspect of PC that we're glossing over here, and I think it's the real thorn. The average person really does not desire a return to routine use of racist or sexist terminology in the public sphere and it is disingenuous to suggest that is the root of the disagreement with political correctness. Instead, what people are often reacting to is the the "Mother Scold" aspect of PC (h/t to cheney ;}).
Let's turn this sentence's voice around and tidy up its intentional ambiguity:
"By criticizing word choice, the politically correct person intends to force the speaker to prove to the politically correct person that the speaker has consciously thought about how they describe someone."
In other words, it's a way to say "prove to me that you are not thinking what I think you're thinking"
That's where PC goes overboard. Well-intentioned adults tend to feel insulted when someone too-readily implies that they are something they are not. If you really want to believe something negative about me, there is very little that I can do to change your mind, so PC is a trap as well; I cannot absolutely prove anything to you about my thoughts or my character, unless you are willing to believe it.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Excellent summation!
I agree that this describes a significant proportion of why people (at least those that do) who object to PC are doing so.
The Christians simply say, "We want to say Merry Christmas and don't mind if others use whatever greetings they want to."
Then the PC police say "LIARS! You are disgusting filth and a scourge on humanity and the only reason you don't want to say Happy Holidays is because you hate, Hate, HATE everyone and everything that is NOT a Christian."
And if the Christians refuse to comply (i.e. they don't prove that they aren't hate mongers by adopting Happy Holidays) well, then the PC police feel all justified and self-satisfied that they have once again exposed some hate group for who they really are.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I agree on the summation.
Well done purple!
But not so much with your example. Your bias is glaring but not surprising. The PC police? Who are they in this case? It seems the Christians are the one manufacturing this fake war on Christmas. That the White House uses Happy Holidays, shows a diplomatic effort not to offend. Why don't they say, Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays? Why? Because our country is a diverse mix.
Just asking the question, Are you a Christian or a Jew or a Muslem seems offesnvie? Is that PC?
I'm only half stupid
The PC Police
Are those who are demanding/arguing in favor of Happy Holidays.
I assure you that over on DailyKos you would be able to find examples of the PC Police reaction just as offensive as the one I made up. Obviously I am aiming to give an extreme example for effect here, but such responses do exist.
As a public service I will highlight some examples gleaned from last Wednesday's Open Thread
that started this recent PC discussion and provide my version of how these posts are likely to be received by their intended targets:
In other words, Christians are visious lying hate mongers.
The "lyrics" basically try to make the point that the Christians are hate mongers who basically say "F**k You" to every other religion on earth.
This just mocks the Christians in general, basically saying that they are idiots for believing in Mary and Jesus, I guess.
In other words, Christians are idiots who are making the whole thing up (i.e. they're LYING about being offended).
In other words, Christians are LYING about this whole being offended thing and they just want to claim America for themselves. I'm not really clear on whether there is an intent here to smear the Christians with the whole "Nice tits, nigger dyke!" meme or not, but given the context I can understand how some might see it that way.
In other words, the Christians are LYING about being offended and they are making the whole thing up.
In other words, Christians are LYING WHINERS who are making the whole thing up.
Now that I read the underlined statement more closely, it doesn't even make sense. O'Reilly's point about the Merry Christmas flap us NOT to support PC but rather to denounce it, so the last part of the comment which tries to portray O'Reilly as some sort of PC hipocrit is just wrong.
In other words, the Christians are a bunch of lame LIARS.
In other words, the Christians are intolerant bigots who want to be the only ones recognized during the holiday season and they actively want to exclude any mention of any other religion.
Note also, that this post tries to (falsely as following posts revealed) imply that the World Net Daily article was a fabrication. I am not sure if this accusation was being directed at Christians or just the source.
In other words, the Christians are LYING about being offended and just using boycotts (a typically liberal inspired technique unless I am mistaken) to enforce their discrimination against all other forms of religion. This is nothing more than a diversionary issue on the part of the Republican leadership, completely unfounded and disingenuous.
In other words, Christians are analogous to "top order predators" with a "middle-school boy mentality". They feel that they absolutely need to dominate everyone and everything around them to the exclusion of all others.
In other words the Christians are in complete control of our public schools and are successfully indoctrinating innocent children into their evil religion on a daily basis, and have successfully excluded even a mention of other religions. Oh yea, and did I forget to mention that Christians are evil?
Is this enough to make my point? I hope so because I am not going to waste more time following other threads.
Gee, those stupid hate mongering whacko Christians, why do they insist that people are out to get them? You know, they're not crazy if it's true ... which even this small collection suggests that it is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What would you make of people who accused those who
... criticized the war of being "unamerican," unpatriotic" and "not supporting the troops?"
What is the intention of such accusations? To try and silence the war's critics?
See, PC comes in all flavors...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Not the same thing at all.
Those on right have never claimed that critics of the war don't have a right to speak their minds on the subject. We have not tried to silence them at all. But more to the point, we have not tried to change their lexicon at all.
In this context, the PC equivalent from our side would be something more akin to saying "Quagmire is sort of an offensive term. It is offending some people on our side of the aisle. Please use words like 'progressively challenged' instead." Or how about, "Please don't say 'torture' because it reminds us all of bad things in the world, try something like 'made uncomfortable' instead."
What we ARE doing is exercising OUR right to say what WE think about those critics of the war and the troops. Something the silent majority hasn't done for a long time. Those times are changing.
For example, Bush praised rather than denigrated John Murtha for his comments
on the war:
Now obviously Bush needs to play the statesman more so than us mind-numbed minions as your side likes to refer to us. I suspect your reference to words like "unamerican," unpatriotic" and "not supporting the troops" are coming from people who are actually able to more freely and accurately describe their feelings on the subject than the President is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bush praised John Murtha?
How about the posters at RedState? They called him all sorts of names.
Gee, this is hard:
RedState search on "Murtha"
Get off it.
And now you're the "silent majority" again? That's not what the past elections suggested. Or current public opinion polls.
And there you go again:
You pull the same rhetorical scumbucket trick of claiming those who don't support the war are also criticizing the troops.
Are you claiming Murtha does not support the military or our forces?
So quit your phony whining about PC. It is just as bad if not worse from the conservative side.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Touchy.
I only included "war" and "the troops" in my reference to the critics because those were both in your list of offending comments (e.g criticized the war of being "unamerican," unpatriotic" and "not supporting the troops?").
Anyway, this is a digression from the discussion on PC. As I said, in either case we did not attempt to change your lexicon which is what PC is all about, by my understanding.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Attempting to change the lexicon
I recall Howard Dean being asked if we were safer with Saddam Huessien out of power, and the PC police, if that's who they are went completely NUTS. It was seen as very unPC to say that the world is not safer with Hussein gone. Everyone wasn't saying it.
Too bad so many people bought into that little fairy tale.
I'm only half stupid
um...
You mean other than repeatedly calling for them to be killed? Cause to my mind suggesting someone should be hung does kind of infringe on their free speaking.
Extraordinary Rendition
Stress positions
Temperature variation
Extreme wakefulness
Aggressive information gathering techniques
And so on. There has been a huge amount of PC-esque euphemisms for torture from the right and from Bush in particular.
Majority? Didn't the GOP just lose a national election by a huge margin?
Silent? Doesn't the GOP own a major media corporation?
"I come here not to praise ceasar but to bury him..."
Bush absolutely denigrated Murtha for his comments by consistently referring to him (either directly or indirectly) as advocating "cut and run," something that Bush considers a perjorative.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Christian control and the desire for total control
There is a very powerful totalitarian stream in the rightwing fundamentalist movement that has a stated agenda to remove the wall between Church and State and a more hidden but still well documented plan to make this country a theocracy, that even many religious Christians claim is UnChristian.
But to claim that Freedom and democracy are an affront to the rule of God, and the work of the devil, that sounds like both hate and evil, and UnAmerican to me.
Added - I will believe that Christians are not in control of the public schools when they have as many Pagan pageants as Christian ones. Even if that is zero.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Oops, forgot one ...
My post above speaks well enough to whether I am exhibiting a "bias" or not. Even your post here is basically saying that the Christians are making the whole thing up (i.e. LYING by manufacturing the fake war on Christmas). What do the Christians have to do to prove to you that they actually are offended and not just perpetrating some massively large cover-up for the purposes of religious world domination?
And again, as I have stated in many many posts in this thread, the Christians are NOT upset about saying Happy Holidays, they are upset that they are the only ones required by the PC Police to use Happy Holidays. They don't like having their holiday being singled out for special treatment.
See the World Net Daily references in my previous posts for more details.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What group of Christians care about the "Merry Christmas" flap?
All Christians?
I don't know any Christians who give a sh**, frankly.
But the same crowd of jingoists brings it up every year as a way to stir the pot and score political points.
Is Bill O'Reilly really that religious? Is he a (married) God-fearing Christian who tries to bang his young assistants?
Yeah, he's a hypocrite.
We're all wrong when we say "Christians this..." or "Christians that..."
That goes for you, me and everyone else who uses this generalized tone.
I'm guess the Christians who want to bemon the whole "Happy holidays" thing are the same ones who want to ban the teaching of evolution and who want to tell you and me what we can do with our family members who may be in a vegetative state.
They're just as guilty as PC-style behavior as anyone from the other side.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
the poor persecuted Christians
what a crock.
You have free speech. Have the courage of your convictions as would Jesus. Say Merry Christmas whenever and wherever you want.
This manufactured fake conspiracy against Christians is just a little too much for me to buy into.
Take your war on Christmas and export it to Israel, our other US friendly ally that is sympathetic to Judeo-Christian values.
Asking me to read World Net Daily, is like asking you to read the New York Times.
I'm only half stupid
What about the Christians on the Kansas Board of Education?
You ignore the very real "PC-ness" of the other side.
How does this
rate in your book?
Banning the teaching of evolution?
How much more (rightist) PC can you get?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I call BS
Wrong. It's the Christians who are boycotting stores for saying "Happy Holidays," not the reverse. Find me one example of a similar boycott for saying "Merry Christmas".
Wrong. The only arena the so-called "PC police" are involved in is government. Atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and everyone else are perfectly happy and supportive of Christians' wishing Merry Christmas to their hearts' desire. In fact, the evil ACLU has consistently defended the rights of Christians to wish people a Merry Christmas, even *gasp* at official functions, so long as they're representing themselves and not the state.
You've got it all upside down.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
My understanding is not that way
I have not seen , or heard of anyone being scolded for saying "Merry Christmas". Bill O said so but his points were disproved quite soundly. Most notably in the case of the school play where the situation was the opposite of B.O.'s speech.
Now you can make a hate crime out of pointing that out, but I have always felt that reality should have the final say, as with my sig.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Here's the problem:
Can you give me a strong argument that calling women "womyn" will fix this? As far as I can tell there is no such argument beyond mere handwaving that "once labeling is a conscious activity, individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership in a group, become more apparent."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Womyn
is not PC according to my above explanation. It is separatist; thus, it's not inclusive.
I already gave an example: fireman to firefighter. By definition, fireman excludes women. The neutral term bases the job on merit, fighting fires, instead of gender.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
But you are arbitrarily...
... excluding the bulk of what is PC from your description of PC then!
I guarantee you that "womyn" is very much a PC term. As is "african-american." As is "differently abled." And so on...
Furthermore the "fireman" example is simply wrong because in english the masculine pronoun also doubles as the generic. The term "fireman" in no way excludes women. Neither does "mankind." Neither does "human."
This is a perfect example of PC: the arbitrary decision that some term is offensive based on nothing except a gut reaction. See the "niggardly" example.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No,
PC is always inclusive. When did I state otherwise? It may be part of your definition, but since you refuse to define it, it is hard to say.
All those terms you bring up are sexist and what PC aims to change. Using a majority term for a generic is making a structured favored term and reality.
Did you read anything in my post? This is why I find it so frustrating to discuss this with you. 1) Read. 2) Process. 3) Reply. You are skipping step two.
'Niggardly' is not PC, it is a combination of ignorance of the audience and tactlessness on the user.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
theory vs reality
No. Your theory of what PC is is always inclusive. But your thoery has no connection at all with what PC actually is. It is a nice theory and while I think it still fails it at least has a rational basis. there is no such reason to what PC is in practice.
You are getting stuck like a student who reads marx and thinks that's what communism actually is. It isn't. The theory and the practice deviate significantly. So while you talk about the marxist ideals I'm pointing you at the politburo and you then declare they aren't communists because they don't match your reading of Marx. Neat. But they exist and they are the ones who are called "communists."
You have a theory of PC. Now let me point you at the womynists. They say they are PC. And there are a great many of them.
There isn't a definition because there is no underlying purpose or structure. PC is merely an association based on a name. It has no real meaning or depth beyond a voluntary association. And I am telling you from direct experience what that association tries to do, and how they do it.
They are not sexist, they merely correct. And the objection to them is based on an ignorance of the language. Again see the "niggardly" example.
I did read, and I did process and in the process I realized that you had, I'm sorry to be so blunt, no idea what you are talking about. You've got an idea in your head completely divorced from reality and when i point out how it is so removed you simply say "well that isn't PC" as if you were the arbiter of that rather than the millions of people who actually call themselves "PC."
I'm sorry, Specter, but you don't just get to decide what PC is. It would be better for the world if you did because your idea of what it should be is better than what it is. Still the term is already in use, too late for you to redefine it into something good.
The reaction of the audience was EXACTLY what PC is. You don't realize that because you aren't looking at reality but a personal fantasy.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just wondering....
So who does decide? You! That is what you seem to be saying.
Is it PC to say "stupid"? Or is it just rude?
I'm only half stupid
So who does decide? You!
No the people who claim the mantle of PC are the ones who decide what PC is by virtue of their membership in the "club." PC lacks any coherent basis or rationale, hence its only identity is the amalgamation of its constituents and their actions in the name of "PC."
I think you mean is it un-PC to say stupid. But in either case it would seem to depend. That is, the PC police certainly would step in if you were saying it to someone who actually was "mentally challenged," but not so much were you saying it to say a white male oppressor. Like I said: no rational basis.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The PC Police?
Who are they? Where do they come from? And do they have a brochure.
Golly, I sure wouldn't won't to violate the PC rules.
I would guess the words, nazi, nigger and cunt are on that list of words that are un-PC. If you use them make sure you are in a private club that has an agreed secrecy pact so that you won't be in danger.
And where do nipples come in on your scale of PC. I agree, in every case it seems to depend. In your circle certain words might be okay, but definitely not made for TV.
I'm only half stupid
Who are they? Where do they
I'd guess they come from the same place as spelling police and grammar nazis. All self appointed guardians of propriety.
As Specter admits above such terms as "fireman" are un-PC.
I don't have a personal scale of PC, and for the record I'm firmly in favor of nipples for both their aesthetic and functional qualities.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I would guess.....
we should nominate you Chief of the PC police....:+)
YOu can watch over the shadowy groups that invade our lives in the name of PC.
I'm only half stupid
But I'm already...
...a leftenant for the grammar nazis. I don't think I'm allowed to hold both positions.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wait a minute...
Wow.
Now it's a "club."
And now you can't define it. But it's out there.
And we have to take your word on how it operates, what it's rules are and who belongs to it, right?
Jeez...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
And now you can't define it.
I certainly can and have defined it in terms of attributes, but no I can't define it in terms of essences because it has none. It's like saying "define what is the democratic party." The problem is that the party is not a thing unto itself it is merely an association of fairly likeminded people for the purpose of political advantage. It has no root, it is merely a group who go by a name.
You don't have to but since you don't seem to have any idea how it works you might want to listen to someone with experience with the matter. But you may not. Up to you.
As for "who belongs", what part of "self identified" is unclear?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Let me see If I get this straight....
A few idiots who are on the far fringe of a group without power anyway gets to say what the majority of the left are supposed to think.
But the group at the center of the televangelist religious right who preach to audiences of millions who actually listen to them (unlike the left who are as easy to herd as cats) are some how not responsible for the " pro-human, pro-democracy, pro-freedom, is evil and helping the terrorists" spiel that is beaten like a drum at every opportunity?
I would not be surprised if that extreme pc fringe most quoted on the right weren't winger posers to begin with. They have been caught at such things before.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
I don't see that, no...
I do not associate PC with the entire left, I associate it with the (pretty sizable) body of people who say they are "PC." I know it is a bt of a tautology but this isn't formal logic here.
Far from being "a few idiots" these are the people who have created and advanced the concept. Who else should i listen to as to the nature of PC if not the people who are PC?
When did I say anything even remotely like that?
Yes, I'm sure that a sizable chunk of the U of O population is actually right wingers in disguise. Seriously... no.
There are certainly astroturf organizations and such but the rotten core of PC is a problem of the left, one they need to come to grips with.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
a problem of the left
oh please. But if you say so. Why argue when you seem so obtuse.
I'm only half stupid
missL, here's a thread you might enjoy...
Start here
(or even move up a few posts, if you like).
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I am not even going to go there.
I ususally scare men to death...... (kidding).
Men are so weak. They are paralyzed by the sight of a beautiful woman like myself who is smart, opinionated, and speaks out. (snarkagram)
Every situation is different, depending on the individuals involved.
I'm only half stupid
*shrug*
I can tell you with no exaggeration that it is the PC movement that pushed me firmly out of the democrat column. In a way I'm grateful because the democrats are only marginally less corrupt than the republicans and I am better off not being "wed" to them. But the point still remains there is a toxic element in the left that you'd best deal with before you end up reflecting the current right (which embraced their more toxic elements and became utterly monstrous).
Or don't. It's not like I particularly want either party to survive. We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How do you enjoy yourself
with such a cynical attitude.
Maybe you should run for office...... on the anarchist ticket!
You could have some great discussions with toxic politicians from the left and the right.
I'm only half stupid
If my personal enjoyment...
...depended on politics, I would be a very miserable person, indeed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
well..... you are the one railing
about the horrid leftists and the PC, which I assume stands for Politically Correct, as in politics........ of what is and is not offensive.
So I assume you are miserable in school.
I'm only half stupid
So I assume you are
I'm not in school now. I graduated in '99. But for the most part my schooling was alright since the physics department was pretty well insulated from the PC garbage. Most of the sciences seemed to be. It was only the elective courses I took in non-science fields and time on campus but out of class that was often annoying.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
So I assume you are
I'm not in school now. I graduated in '99. But for the most part my schooling was alright since the physics department was pretty well insulated from the PC garbage. Most of the sciences seemed to be. It was only the elective courses I took in non-science fields and time on campus but out of class that was often annoying.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Womyn
You say in reference to the separatist term 'womyn' and how I say it is not PC:
Let's look at the terms 'political correctness'. These terms basically mean that a politician would stretch language so as to not offend part of the voting population. Correct? In this way it means greater inclusivity, as a politician would never think to be a separatist and win votes.
The article at wikipedia on PC
(not that it's the end-all of discussions, but I think its assessment of PC is fairly accurate to what most people would consider it) also only discusses inclusiveness. It never brings up exclusiveness, so I think my definition is fairly accurate.
What you are thinking of when you discuss 'womyn' is 'Identity Politics'
, which we've already discussed in detail in the past.
(Before I go on, I wish to stop to show you why these discussions with you are so frustrating. A few months back, I spent about two hours a day for a little over a week explaining identity politics with you in great detail. I gave you sources, I gave you examples, and I provided the best explanation I could to help you understand this concept. After I was done, you simply stated you disagreed without any sources, (very good) examples, or explanations. You seem to be stuck on a basic premise that most of the soft sciences (sociology, anthropology, linguistics, history, etc) heartily accept: we live in a society with hierarchical power structures.
You work on semiconductors right? Let's say you spent an hour a week explaining semiconductors to me and at the end of our discussion, I said, "Well, I don't believe it, because you say semiconductors are made of silicon. I know that silicon is also sand, and I've never seen a computer made of sand before." Wouldn't you be frustrated? How could I not understand this basic premise after all this effort?
Now I know linguistics, especially political linguistics, is not an exact science, but, unless you want to discount all theories in the soft sciences, what gains have been made in linguistics should be respected. If you wish to criticize them, at least know what you are talking about first by reading the theories instead of just going from anecdotal evidence (the equivalent of me saying I've never seen a computer made of sand and you saying, "And I am telling you from direct experience what that association tries to do, and how they do it." I would feel a lot better about our discussions if we were on the same page as far as basic premises. End of rant. :))
Ok, back to identity politics: identity politics is related to PC, but only in the same way that religion is related to evolution through creation stories, tangentially. In other words, PC and identity politics both deal with the inegalitarian social structures in our society but they take different approaches. Identity politics thinks the best way to settle power differences is to separate from the major group and draw attention to their cause in radical ways, usually (but not always) by attempting to reverse the hierarchy and claim the minority subset is more superior than the majority group. Some examples of I.P. are the Black Panthers, the radical feminist movement (womyn), a lot of nationalist movements, etc. There is some overlap with PC, but to call these separatist groups PC is incorrect.
PC is inclusive. Identity politics are not. You are confusing the two. Simple as that. Perhaps your experiences were with identity politics folk, and you confused them with PC. Easy mistake to make.
If you wish to discuss identity politics again, we can. But first I wanted to clarify your confusion which carries over to many of your comments in these threads.
I guess knowing these things makes me a 'cunning linguist'! Ha, ha; get it? :)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I think you are reading too much into the name...
I think that is reading too much into the name. Furthermore it is not at all unheard of for a politician to use a term like "womyn" when addressing a crowd that they think will be receptive to it.
Ah. I think I may see part of our problem communicating here. You seem to be speaking exclusively (no pun intended) to PC as a linguistic concept and not to the broader idea of PC as it is generally used. So when you say that America needs PC you mean America needs PC as Linguists use the term. Much as I might say that magnets never do work as physicists use the term, but they do in the sense of "work" that most people mean.
If that's the case then you may be right within your area of expertise, I couldn't say, but it's not connected to the bigger PC arguments we've been having.
I come to this conclusion because the only part of the wikipedia article that talks about inclusiveness is the "PC as linguistic concept." You started your diary with "‘Political correctness’ falls into the realm of language." Which I took as you saying that all PC belongs within linguistics, rather than saying you only intend to address the concept of PC that does exist within linguistics.
I disagree with a great deal of the social studies but that isn't one of the points I contest. I absolutely agree that power structures exist. I think where we differ is in their nature and how important they are. Probably also in what qualifies as a power structure too. Can you point me to what I said that made you think I didn't think power structures existed? I honestly can't think of how I could have given that impression.
I appreciate the effort but we should establish something up front- I can show you a semiconductor and prove it works. Not so with any of the social studies. What you have are various competing ideas which make more or less sense and which more or less fit with the reams of anecdotal data that has been collected. And they have value. I emphatically believe that psychology and sociology and so on are worth studying. But they cannot and will not ever really prove basically anything because the fields they deal with are not ones amenable to the accumulation of objective data or the independent observation of identical actors. They are much more philosophy than science. I like philosophy. But at the end of the day the philosopher has to accept that "I disagree" is perfectly valid because he is dealing with subjective matters.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Now we are getting somewhere (kind of)
Can you give me a real world example? Or is this just another one of those 'probably's'?
I was speaking of the basis for PC within linguistics, which is why I began my diary in this way. Arguably, it does come down to linguistics, though I admit that some of the excesses (niggardly) escape the linguistic territory that I am comfotrable defending. Because there are these excesses does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. I still think PC is important and will continue to defend it, especially on the linguistic level.
In which I tried to cover my butt by saying:
To repeat, I understand these are not hard sciences, but there are demonstratable 'facts' (through research studies like pay rates, interviews, surveys, and various other methodologies) to get quantifiable information that escapes the 'subjective' realm of philosophy in these fields. That is why they are referred to as the 'soft' sciences. I am perfectly willing to admit the inability to ground information as 'laws' in these fields, but again, should we discount the progress in these fields becasue they are based solely on 'theory' instead of laws? I don't think so, and I hope you don't either. If you do, then you sound like a creationist knocking the word 'theory' in evolution because it is not 100% provable.
I will take your silence on 'identity politics' as an agreement on the difference between it and PC.
P.S. Here is where
I got the idea that you think power hierarchies don't exist (or at least matter) in society. Sorry, it's a long thread (as are all of our debates :) ). I am probably taking your position too far, but that is the impression I get from what you are saying here.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Can you give me a real world
Of a politician pandering to a crowd? Well for a recent example you can look at McCain going to Liberty University (Falwell's place) to give the commencement speech after calling Falwell in 200 an agent of intolerance. Now all of a sudden it's all huggy-huggy because McCain wants to woo the evangelical vote.
We seem to have opposite views here. You see PC as a primarily linguistic thing with a few excesses that escape the linguistic domain. I see PC as a monstrously huge movement of which the linguistic component is a negligible (and unobjectionable) part. Hence what you are thinking is the exception my experience says is the norm. And vice versa.
Can you give me an example of these objective facts that are established by a social study? You can say that psychology for instance has mapped out portions of the brain with EEGs that seem to correspond to various activities, but then what you have is not psychologists engaged in psychology, but biology. And, yes, biology has hard facts. But when it comes to the actual psychology there are no facts, which why there is no consistency of models. Rather the models are revolutionized because they are as much fashion as fact.
And again I want to stress that I do think they have value, but it is important to recognize what they can and can't do.
I don;t honestly think they should be considered sciences at all which is why I use the term social studies. Scientific method requires that you be able to independently observe identical situations so you can repeat results. This is never possible in social studies because no two individuals or groups of humans are ever identical mentally. Even identical twins show variation in personality due to the nature/nurture synthesis of our personalities.
I didn't particularly disagree but then again it didn;t seem to matter because we mean two very different things when each of us says "PC." Suffice it to say that I have little objection to your PC and a big one to mine. We seem to disagree about which is the dominant form.
Ah. I wasn't trying to deny that the slave holder had more power in the scenario, I just meant that the slave has power enough for his racism to cause harm as well, and escalate the racism on all sides.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Use of the term
No, the use of the term 'womyn'. Speaking to a crowd and using separatist language are two separate things. Show me a politician advocating for separatism that was taken seriously (meaning won) by voters in the context of PC (meaning not slavery times).
You can't be serious. Studies are done all the time that establish facts but aren't laws. Where do I start. The 'fact' that women make 70 cents to the dollar that men do for the same jobs I already cited above. In this comment
I cited a fact that whites are called back in disprorportionate numbers than blacks when qualifications are the same and so on. Are these laws? No. Are they accepted as 'facts'. Yes, in that context (place and time). The government does many studies (everything from welfare rolls to crime numbers to analyses of whether the war in Iraq is making us more safe or not). These are all 'facts' for that context. Are they permanent and universal? No. But they are facts for that context.
That's the point. You are using terms to loosely (see my example above about lumping the religious with the evolutionists and calling it all creation stories). There are vital differences in these terms it seems which you are still ignoring. Your definition of PC is too all-encompassing. I gave you sources (fairly neutral and erudite enough for our purposes) to show the difference. You only have 'your experiences' as a definition. Not in the same ballpark.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
alright
Farrakhan?
Okay, I'll give you that kind of thing. I guess when I think "fact" I'm not thinking "something that is true at this instant in time," rather something that is generally or always true. But you are using the term correctly. I'd call those observations, personally, because they vary moment to moment.
My definition of PC is encompassing because I want it to encompass all of PC! Your definition is strict and narrow which is great for describing the particular branch of thought that you are espousing but which doesn't match reality on the ground.
There is PC the school of linguistic thought. Then there is PC the social movement. The two are at best tangentially related.
Specter, your own source clearly indicates that the linguistic elements you are interested in are separate from the main body of PC. Look at the headings they have:
Contents
1 History
2 Explanation
3 Political correctness as a linguistic concept
4 Critics of political correctness
5 Criticism of the concept of political correctness
6 Satirical use
7 See also
8 References
8.1 Against political correctness
8.2 Skeptical of claims about political correctness
9 Further reading
10 External links
(emphasis added)
Notice that the entirety of what you are talking about fits in just section 3. I'm talking about sections 1, 2, and 4 mainly. You are looking at a small subset of the phenomenon. That's fine, more power to you. But you then want to dismiss and ignore the bulk of what PC is and does.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You are still off
My criteria:
Farrakhan does not match my above criteria. It seems you are really reaching.
Please give me a quote from the article that is not talking about satire of the topic that suggests that I am off in my definition and it encompasses exclusiveness.
I have to run, but I will attempt to be back to discuss more tonight.
(Edited to take out an unnecessary rhetorical jab. I apologize Tlaloc.)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I'm not sure I understand
Which criteria does he fail? Besides which my initial statement was merely that it is not at all uncommon for a politician to pander to a given crowd including using separatist temrs if that's what gets them going. I never said anything about winning a vote.
I'm not focusing on the inclusive/exclusive aspects, that's your interest. I'm focusing on the difference between the general movement and a linguistic school of thought that happens to share the same name.
But if you want a quote that exemplifies what I'm talking about then this from the "history" section pretty much sums up my point:
Tiny.
Subset.
Multiculturalists.
Oblivious.
Does that not perfectly describe what I've been saying about your use of the term? That you are representing a small subset that is using the term in a very different way (a better way I would add) but that is deliberately or accidentally ignoring the origins of the term and hence what the word means to virtually everyone else.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Farrakhan vs Pat Robertson?
Pat Robertson is often at the seat of power, having an important say in the mainstream of Republican dialog
Mr Farrakhan may have his supporters, but I can think of few Democrats who would even be seen with him. David Duke has more influence with Republicans than Mr Farrakhan has with Democrats.
On a policy basis, Authoritarian basis, and behavior basis, the only thing that keeps him from being a Republican is his anti-White racism.
To hold Farrakhan up as any connection to the river of liberal thought, would be like saying the fools who actually march about in Nazi uniforms are at the center of Republican thought.
You might find points of agreement in each case, but it would be like claiming a hair on a flea, on the tail of the dog, was wagging the dog. Much less it Being the dog.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
The end
Farrakhan is not a politician, nor was he voted in. If anything your lack of either taking this seriously or intentionally using fabricated means of argument at this point shows that I am done with this conversation after a quick wrap-up.
Review:
Me: I set up two premises and a defintion to reach a conclusion.
You: Tries to make the definition unstable by claiming it includes exclusive terms (such as womyn). This was your move which you deny in the above post. Read the first comment in the thread and follow the thread down to see how your argument has morphed.
Me: Shows through sources that PC is only inclusive and the separatist movements are not PC. They are identity politics.
You: Shows a quote that says 'controversial' as the best way to counter my point. What these 'controversial' parts consist of are still not defined.
Me: Laughs real hard and says:
I am done with this conversation because you can't follow a line of reasoning, never mind following our argument.
I know you will have some jibber-jabber to counter what I say here, but I am done discussing this topic with you. Bye.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Specter...
...I think you are right, we are done here. What's more I have to go back to my initial assessment- you need to grow up. I've tried to be nice and ignore your consistent little barbs and give you a chance to prove you aren't just a raging ass and for what? So you can continue to argue in bad faith and heap more insults. Yeah I'm done. If at some time in the future you manage to elevate the principle of communication above your ego let me know. Actually, don't bother because I have no reason to believe anything you say after this thread.
I think we're done discussing all topics.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You get the award
No wonder you are an anarchist! You need an island all your own.
You insulted him and he still tried to carry on a reasonable conversation, in spite of your less than stellar logic, which bends to your bias at whim.
Specter is one of the kinder, gentler folks that posts here. It says a lot that he gave up on trying to have a rational discussion with you.
The award is for standing alone and beating back the hordes who don't see the wisdom or your unclear arguments while ignoring every logical point presented to you.
I'm only half stupid
You insulted him and he
If you reread the thread I think you'll find that from the very beginning he kept stating that my disagreement meant I either hadn't read his work or was too stupid to agree with it. His second post to me here contains this insult. And i grant that since this was not exactly the first time he'd started in with that crap I got a bit ticked and told him to grow up. He responded that I'd misunderstood him and over-reacted. And I agreed and tried to let it go. The he again sets in with the same thing (accusing me of not reading what he says and then huffing that he won't discuss the matter).
I can certainly be contrarian and difficult, I recognize that. But I am also very difficult to make mad. It takes a fair amount of BS before I give up on someone.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You still haven't given up
as being the sole defender as to what is and is not PC. You refuse to even consider anyone else's thoughts on the issue.
That's fine.
But just note that you are in the minority, as far as your definition of PC. I think it is fair to say that no one else agrees with you.
I imagine the free-thinker that you are you are used to that.
You have consistently maintained the rigtheousness of your position no matter how many facts are presented to the contrary. That is quite a feat.
There is always the agree to disagree option, which at least gives some respect to another point of view besides your own.
I'm only half stupid
OMG
I haven't defended PC at all, quite the opposite, but I think you mean "definer." What do you want me to say, there are people who clearly have no idea what PC is and defend some mythical concept of PC after never having experienced it and willfully disregarding the examples of it I provide. Should I just accept their position even though I think they are wrong? Have I told them to shut up? No. I am fine with letting them state their case and support it as best they can, but I will of course address those points I find to be false, and I don't appreciate being told to shut up in return.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE! Why is it that disagreement is read as not having considered something? Do you all just assume that you are infallible, and that any statement of yours not immediately accepted is the fault of the listener?
I HAVE LISTENED. I HAVE CONSIDERED. I HAVE POSTED COUNTER ARGUMENTS THAT I BELIEVE ADDRESS THE POINTS MADE.
You can certainly disagree with whether my arguments are valid and are free to make further counterarguments of your own BUT WILL EVERYONE PLEASE STOP ASSUMING DISAGREEMENT MEANS YOU JUST WEREN'T LISTENED TO?
Two points:
1) no one else here has any experience with PC.
2) Specter's source (the Wikipedia article) actually does agree with me. Specter has been arguing for a specific narrow meaning of PC as only used by a small sect of academics and his own source says so. I quoted the passage to him.
Okay please notice that here I listened to your point, thought about it and rebutted it. That process inherently means I am processing what you wrote. I hate to stress this but a lot of people just aren;t getting that today.
Tell you what give me a list of the "facts" rebutting me. I will address each and every one in turn. What is more fair than that?
And where was this option when CLC kept calling me an idiot? Why was this not invoked when Specter insists I can't understand his sublime majesty? Why is it always the other side who has to "agree to disagree" and never your own?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Guess what!
I don't care to give you a list.
I don't care what your definition of PC or unPC is.
Is that fair?
Who cares?
And thank you for listening. Good job.
Happy Hunnauka!
I'm only half stupid
Then you'll have to excuse me...
...if I can't be bothered to care about your perception of the situation.
If you have a case to make then make it, otherwise expect to be regarded as inconsequential.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Bother
perception would be the key word in this whole debate. Yours and everyone else's.
Yes please. Mark me down as inconsequential. Make a note of it.
I'm only half stupid
My side of the story
To anyone reading this, I respect the opinions of everyone. I attempt to do my best to explain my position, and when I'm wrong, I readily admit to it. I'm more often the peacemaker than a person searching for conflict. For this reason, I wanted to state my side of this argument since Tlaloc already stated his.
The above comment shows exactly why I refuse to discuss this issue with him any longer. He lies and uses vagueness to hide behind (who can fight a shadow?).
It is true that I did say to read more carefully because I answered many of the things he kept raising. For example, he uses 'womyn' as term to show PC is exclusive
. I showed 'womyn'not to be part of PC 
which he then denies 
was even a point he was making:
This in turn enraged me and was the first time he outright lied/changed the argument beyond recognition: he also said that politicians use separatist language (womyn) all the time-
When I ask for an example of a serious politician using this term or any separatist term for that matter, he says Farrakhan
(who is neither a politician, nor taken seriously).
Not only that, but besides some vague word, 'controversial', he refuse to say what is wrong with PC.
He claims that linguistics is only a small part of PC, but when pushed to say what this other part is, he only states it is societal but cannot say how it differs from linguistic (at least in my discussion with him). He does give a list above, but every single part of that list deals with linguistics (the history, the explanation, the criticism, etc). They are not separate; it all deals with language. (Is there a PC car I do not know about? It's all about language.)
I never used the word stupid, nor did I ever call him a name. I told him to think about what I was saying and to read more carefully because of the above (linked) discrepancies in what I thought was our argument and how he constantly veered it in different directions to avoid my points. If he wants to point out where I call him a name or where I get more personal than 'please process this information', then please quote it for me.
He goes on:
Besides refusing to discuss the issue with him (because I've already discussed most of this with him in the past), I said I did not have time
to discuss this topic with him at the moment. To this he tells me to grow up 
. Who would continue on with a person who resorts to this? Foolishly I did, leading to the womyn/Farrakhan change of topic, which infuriated me again after pointing out his mistake twice and him refusing to acknowledge it other than to say 
that I "then asked [him] to prove not just what [he] said but what [he] said with a host of conditions [I] arbitrarily added." I'm sorry if I asked for a serious politician that uses words like 'womyn' which was your point.
Since I am busy, I like to argue with people when it is productive and when people follow the thread and the arguments made within them (see the above linked examples). If people refuse to follow the thread and do not change the topic, I am more than willing to communicate with them. Tlaloc has proved not to be such a person.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
You're really full of yourself.
Embarrassingly so.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
self vs. issue.
I'd much rather be discussing the issue. Notice that I'm not the one who keeps dragging the discussion onto matters of interpersonal difficulties. I have responded along those lines but not initiated.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No, you'd rather discuss your version of the issue.
You twist the words of others to suit your argument. As specter pointed out, there is no having a discussion of the issue with you because you won't discuss the issue.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
We disagree on what the issue is...
Of course I want to discuss the issue as i see it, just as you want to discuss it from your view. That's why there is an issue to discuss: we see the thing differently. The point of the discussion is to try and determine which elements of each view are true or valuable.
I have not tried to deliberately twist someone's meaning. I do sometimes take their stated view and exaggerate it so that the flaws become obvious but I don't think this is the same thing. You are absolutely free to call me on it anytime you think I've taken something out of context. I don't object to that at all.
I do however have a very differnt view of things than you do, can you just admit the possibility that maybe this causes us to argue differently? I am arguing in good faith whether you choose to believe it or not.
I discussed the issue, I just didn't immediately agree and that's the problem. Look if you only want conversations where everybody thinks the same thing and they all say the same thing and everyone congratulates each other on how alike they are then I'm in the wrong place. But the name of the place is "sword's crossed." The point of the place is to engage in useful discussions between different views.
Can you honestly say that you've been trying to engage me on my view?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No, you changed the parameters I presented to suit your argument
If you want to discuss the issue, take the issue as it was presented, not as you would like it to be.
You argue disingenuously and then deny that you're being disingenuous (as in the Farrakhan example, above).
So why bother?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Which parameters are you talking about?
Tell me which scenario you are talking about and I'll address the issue.
Actually that's a perfect example of Specter being disingenuous. I made a simple throw away comment about a politician pandering to a crowd and he tried to jump on it as if it didn't know perfectly well that all politicians do that. He then asked me to prove not just what I said but what I said with a host of conditions he arbitrarily added. Look I take total responsibility for what I say. I do not take any responsibility for what others think I said, or want me to have said.
It's as if you said "some men are hairy" and I said "I demand that you prove that european men are hairier than other men!" Why not just ask the person to prove their actual contention?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
At least you didn't call him an idiot.
Like I did.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Perhaps you can explain to me...
...by what criteria it is decided that, for example, "black" is unacceptable while "african american" is not.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Black is acceptable for some.
Read pico's diary (the link is in the above comment by pico). This gets into the argument about audience reception and interpretation, which we already discussed at length. Sorry, but right now I don't want to get into this topic with you. Maybe later when I have more time.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
No, not according to PC.
According to PC there is only one acceptable term for a black american: afro-american/african-america.
That's it.
Audience reception doesn't matter according to PC. The speaker's intent doesn't matter according to PC. The only thing that matters is the super special list of which words are okay and which are not.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm glad you're
an expert without reading the requisite material (did you read his diary before you replied)?
I said I'm not discussing this with you.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
But Tlalaoc is quoting from the "Official Book of PC"
... although he has the only copy.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
CLC...
...I'm not sure why it is you think you score points by mocking me when I bring up some central tenet of PC and you are ignorant of it. That doesn't exactly reflect poorly on me, now does it?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I ask you to prove your claim.
You don't like that, obviously.
You suggest that people could be fired for using "handicapped" and I have now asked you twice to prove your assertion.
And I'm the one who is "ignorant?"
Back up your claim. Or is that too much to ask?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Again you've gotten it wrong....
No that's fine. I expect that. The problem is that you proceed to get my claim wrong. That's more of a problem.
See? I never said that. What I said was that according to PC a person should be fired (or otherwise disciplined) for using the term "handicapped." Do you see the difference between my claim and what you then changed it to? One is a statement of theory and the other of action.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Show me where you asked me to define a philosophy.
I must have missed that.
And now you claim that "accprding to a PC person" someone whould be fired for using the word "handicapped" in the workplace?
I asked you before... Do you have a job?
You seem to be basing every comment you make on your traumatic experience at your university.
Well, that ain't life, pal.
You got nuthin'. As usual.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
"nuthin" is something apparently.
In the previous thread I asked you to tell me what PC meant to you. If you like I can go find the comment.
Actually this is one of the first claims I made. According to PC you should be penalized (maybe fired ) for saying "handicapped" exactly the same as saying "nigger." Both are utterly unacceptable words, again in the PC mentality.
And I answered you at the time: yes I currently have a job. I have worked with my current company since 2000. Before that I held a number of other jobs while in school and in the short period after graduating but before finding my current position.
I am basing my comments on my interactions with actual PC people. As opposed to the counter arguments which are based on nothing at all. Feel free to tell me that your personal fantasies of how PC works beats the actual real world actions of PC. Go ahead...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Specter...
...I'm going to say this as nicely as I can: grow up.
You have consistently posted things on this site and when called on them immediately resorted to personal attacks and then huffed off in a storm refusing to discuss the issue.
If you don't want your pet ideas questioned that's fine: don't post them. If you post them then expect to have to defend them. And, no, simply declaring that people don't understand what you are trying to say is not "defending" them.
These are big important issues and you are welcome to discuss them, even discuss them vigorously, but try to do it in a mature fashion. I don't think you are a dumb guy, but frankly you don't seem to be able to deal with even the vaguest dissent without getting personally offended. Are we clear?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I will speak only for myself here...
But you continue to post crap without anything to back up your points except your self-proclaimed definitions.
And then you want to be arrogant about it and tell someone else to "grow up?"
That is truly laughable.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Wow, grow up?
All I said was that I was busy and didn't have time to discuss it with you at the moment. Yes, I get frustrated, but, besides asking you to read more carefully and think about what I am saying, I never resorted to personal attacks. I never called you a name or resorted to measuring your maturity (pot meet kettle).
I am a very busy person (as I'm sure we all are). As I stated above to GoRight, I have to cater to my 1 year old, my wife is pregnant; I have grading to finish, a ridiculously hyper-husky that needs about three walks a day, and all the other daily routine stuff to do also. I often have to post using the 'on-screen' keyboard b/c my boy likes to fall asleep on me and I can't reach the keyboard. It becomes difficult to type out long responses in that manner (which was the case this morning). The fact that I do not feel like covering the same ground repeatedly (especially with the above considerations) should say less about my maturity and more about the fact that you are really not all that important to me in the big scheme of things. If I don't want to discuss something with you that I feel I've done my best to explain before, that's my prerogative. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Live with it.
As far as the rest of your post, I do not mind someone questioning my ideas. I just don't like to cover the same ground over and over without any chance for change. Have you ever talked to a wall? Not very fun or fruitful.
I give adequate evidence and reasoning to back my assertions. For this reason, I do not feel threatened by you or your gut reactions and misinterpretations by any measure. I find this whole episode kind of funny.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Fair enough...
...I'll chock it up to miscommunication and over-reaction on my part. It has seemed to me though that you have been quick in the past to denigrate me and to refuse to discuss the issues with me. By your second comment to me in this thread you were already accusing me of not having read the diary because I disagreed with it and with your characterization of PC. That suggests to me an unwillingness to accept challenges. Again I probably over-reacted especially because this is a topic that absolutely infuriates me, but I'd appreciate it if you could not assume that a lack of agreement means a lack of familiarity.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I admit
I can be a bit short and give the impression (ha) that I'm put-off by an argument. I respect your opinion and will be more inclined to explain my lack of time situations more clearly.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Actually, no.
"African American" and "black" are more or less interchangeable. The only difference is that the former sounds more academic, so it's more likely to appear in official writing. In regular conversation, most people tend to prefer "black" (and I've known some black people who cringe at being called "African American"). Both terms are problematic, as are "Hispanic" and "Latino" - this is something I tried to discuss here
, but it's an enormous topic. In a nutshell: the words don't always overlap with the groups and individuals' sense of self-identity, and that's why it's inevitable that - no matter what word you choose - someone is bound to correct you. And that's not a problem. Accept the correction and move on.
I'm not sure where you're getting this "according to PC" from.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Painful experience.
From attending one of the most hideously PC universities in the world (the U of Oregon). And I can tell you with little exaggeration that the "wrong" person saying "black" instead of "african american" (or asian/oriental instead of asian-american, and so on) will get you crucified by the PC police there, even though the local african american student union is called the "black student union" (or was when I went there, it may have changed since then).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Example?
Sorry, but I need something more concrete than "crucified by the PC police". Who are the PC police there? What exactly does a crucifiction consist of? And if you say "oriental" and someone says "we don't use that term because it's Eurocentric," then what's the big deal with simply not using the term "oriental"?
I don't disagree that it can go overboard at times, but overall it's a pretty benign and natural process. "Oriental" is now an unused word not because of some evil army of leftists that wrestled language to the ground, but because enough people started questioning the term: both Asians who didn't like being referred to as the "other" and English-speakers who realized that the term was a little condescending.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Sure...
Back in school I vividly remember an incident that really brought it all home. A black male student and a white female student were involved in an incident where a rape charge was leveled.
The Black Student Union and the femal equivilent (name escapes me) on campus prceeded to excorciate each other. The BSU accused the women of being racists who were out to oppress them. The WSU (for lack of the actual name) declared that as black men they were the real oppressors and didn't know what it meant to be a true underclass. There were protests and counter protests. Vicious verbal exchanges on the student council and all in all a nice little re-enactment of the night of the long knives.
Those are the PC police. Both sides. Both absolutely wedded to their concept of victimization and lashing out and anyone and anything who doesn't immedately agree. That is what PC is. It is an infantile reaction to the fact that life isn't fair.
It's not that big a deal, except I have never in my life heard anyone who would describe themselves as PC actually respond that way. The typical response would seem to be to write an editorial in the local paper about how the person said "oriental" and how that just goes to prove everything that the PC crowd has been saying. That and maybe the delivery of some death threats. The PC crowd is anything but tolerant. Again personal painful experience.
I took classes at the U of O that were nominally Psychology classes but also part of the "women's studies" program and I listened to how incredibly sexist they were and how entitled they felt to be sexist as long as it was aimed at men. PC is the ultimate fruition of Nietzsche's quote about the abyss and becoming a monster.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Who are these people?
So there are people walking arounf who describe themselves as PC? Perhaps on your college campus, but where else? Why do you insist on framing this discussion only through your traumatic college experiences?
Have you had similar experiences in the working world? If so, what were they?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
So there are people walking
Uh...yeah.
CLC do you imagine that there are people pushing PC who do not think of themselves in those terms? If so why would they push a philosophy they don't agree with?
Because college is the one area of life where PC has gotten a really big hold and so it is the best place to look at the affects of the ideology.
Nothing nearly so extreme. For the most part the PC culture doesn't seem to have worked into the big corporate world to anywhere near such a degree. We have had the odd "sensitivity training" class through HR which have generally been milder versions of the PC brainwashing from college. I think we've had two of those in the six years I've been at the current job.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thanks for admitting that.
Your rarefied world of the university is not the world that I was referring to in my posts, nor is it the world in which most Americans spend their days.
It is a conceit of college students that they believe their world makes up the universe.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oregonians
do have their own culture and it tends to be rather uptight. Have you ever been there? I went to grade school there and still have tons of family there. There is something in what he's saying, although whether it's entirely a PC-thing or something else is debatable.
An illustrative anecdote: My better half and I were visiting Portland for a relatives's wedding. We rented a car as we planned to also tour the state while we were there (Crater Lake is amazing!). The rehersal dinner was way across town. We were sitting around the table with other relatives, talking about this and that and time got away from us. Someone realized the time and told us we had waited too long and we would be late. I remarked "Well, we'll be OK, we'll just have to speed a bit."
You could have heard a pin drop. We were surrounded by shocked, embarassed faces. You would have thought I'd said I was planning to murder my mother or something. Finally, someone managed to squeak "but you can't do that!" They were deathly serious.
It's a fact. Drivers in the Willamette Valley always obey the speed limit. Being from Texas, where speed limits are really considered more of a guideline, it was astounding to watch. Mass conformity is considered a civic virtue by many in Oregon.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I wouldn't put it that way...
I definitely know people who speed, but it's true that the highways here are nowhere near as insane as either Texas or California (both of which I have unfortunately been on).
Eugene is a lot like Berkley. You have a very strong extremely liberal young population (due to the U of O). The University and Sacred Heart hospital are the two main movers and shakers of the town.
The problem is that most of these kids have far too much heart and far too little brain. When the Rodney King verdict came down an entirely predictable protest crowd/riot formed and marched down to the local federal building and broke the windows...of the Department of Fish and Game.
Genius.
I could completely understand their anger and sense of just raw injustice but their reaction was %$&^ing idiotic. And the PC culture on campus was more of the same. They didn't have enough obvious oppression, and couldn't recognize the more subtle versions, so they spent their time playing inquisitorial squad and judging everyone else.
I ended up reading the local conservative university paper (the Commentator) because even though they were very bad with any kind of government issues they absolutely nailed the PC issues on campus time and again.
Anyway, Western Oregon (the vast majority of the populous) is actually very laid back in most ways. People are a lot more friendly. I was talking to a new bus driver the other day who had moved here from Philly and he was going on and on about how much nicer and relaxed people are here. But there are things you don't do. Ever thrown an empty soda can out your car window? We'll tear you a new one for that. :)
Eastern Oregon is a whole other world and one I'm not going to defend.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
But it may be someday...
But if we embrace PC how long until that experience is the norm?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The proverbial "slippery slope," eh?
Colleges and universities have been different from society at large for generations.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
True...
...but we might ask whether the colleges have simple remained different or presaged the society changes while they themselves changed. That is if at some arbitrary point the society is in state A and colleges are B then further down the road is society B and colleges C? Does society lag behind the changes that we see in academia or are the two really on very different courses.
Can't answer but might be an intersting topic to research.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I don't think it's linear.
It's more of a pendelum, albeit with some resultant movement in a particular direction.
College campuses may presage changes in society, but it is not a straight line.
Society and culture change in fits and starts. Just like fashion.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Slippery slopes
I am astounded that there is anything like a Leftist culture of the sort you describe. Here in the Wholly Rodent Empire our slippery slopes slant entirely the other way and we are much further down them.
I was literally attacked and nearly killed in a road rage incident, where the driver was so incensed at my bumper sticker, he literally rammed me from behind and into a wall and back into traffic. It was not a mistake but accompanied by a lot of weirdness before.
When Shrub was first crowned, there was much local triumphalism from open Dominionists, openly touting their hatred for democracy or the very idea of freedom.
Far from banning the tossing of cans, they are occasionally thrown at bicyclists and the like, and though I am on a side street, a couple times a month I have to pull empties out of my shrubbery compliments of passing cars.
Different volunteer groups sign up to keep the more traveled roads cleared, but they have frequent need to do so. What you call PC kinda goes the other way around here.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
England's PC reality
Here's a link to how political correctness is currently enforced by the arm of the law in Britain.
A reportable hate incident is defined as
If we applied their standards to the conversations on this site (and others), we'd all be taken downtown.
http://www.online.police.uk/english/description_hate_crime.asp
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Blasphemy
It is still technically illegal in england to blaspheme. As in you can be arrested for offending God. From what I read it has never been used to bring a criminal case in modern times but in a couple cases a civil prosecution was brought against authors.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That is frightening.
I defend PC as a line of etiquette, but not as a legal strategy. And that's exactly why.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Man, I hate this
PC is a thing of voluntary censorship become cultural more. The entire concept flounders on a single, basic, principle: you do not have a fundamental right not to be offended. And there is no requirement on my part to shield you from thoswe things you find offensive.
If it scares or disturbs you to call someone who lacks sight blind, then that's your problem, you know? Imagine, a blind person is not visually challenged, given that if it could be improved it wouldn't be a challenge. It's a condition, and a relatively easy one to see, as is mental retardation (such as Down's or moderate to sever autism), obesity, dwarfism, or the oft cited "gaydar".
A thing just is, and there are descriptors to express that to another who is conversant in the same symbology. When you start to circumscribe those descriptors for no other reason than your concern for how someone might react to it, then you have taken the first steps toward sanitizing our language, and making it less than it was.
Let's take an example, which will certainly offend some: it was not so very long ago that the word faggot described a bundle of wood. That's it, a bundle of wood. Then some emotionally stunted folks decided it made a great word to accost homosexuals with (rolled off the tongue much easier than soddomite). Over time it got adopted as the choice epithet, the target didn't even have to be gay.
And throughout, the word never changed. Meanings were assigned to it, and old meanings fell away, but the word itself remained the same. The word is trivial next to the emotional freight you can load it with, and when it comes down to that, you could do the same with a grunt.
And that's the danger of PC. Trim off enough parts of a language to keep everyone happy, and un-offended, and you could find yourself back at a place where grunting is a viable means of communication.
Now it's PC's fault that the word "faggot" is offensive?
Is there any blame to be placed on the people who started using it as a derogatory name for homosexuals?
Just askin'.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Offensive to whom?
As if that word is offensive to anyone who hears it, by definition.
I blame the people who misused a benign word to attempt to degrade a group of people. I blame the people who imagine that if we simply cut that word out of the lexicon, then all that baggage goes with it.
All you end up with is a "bad word" (of which there are zero in the lexicon of man) you have to explain to your children. What a crock. And that is what PC does. It identifies the pool of "bad words" requiring explanation to the next generation.
For a thought experiment, identify why and in what way the "F" word is offensive.
On the other side of the coin
I have heard the word faggot used with a sense of fondness and humor. Maybe its a matter of context and tone....;+)
So as pyyrho would say, it's relative.
I am much more offended by the faux cause for our faux war in Iraq, then I am by bad words.
I'm only half stupid
But blaming PC for the meaning attached to "faggot"
... is like blaming blacks for not wanting to be called "niggers."
Seems to me what you're describing is the natural evolution of a language. It's not PC's fault that "faggot" became known as a derogatory term for homosexuals. Language is not static. It is a living thing that hcanges over time.
"Douchebag" has a different meaning, too. It is not the fault of douchebags that the term is now applied to people.
The people who are most concerned with the "F" word are, ironically, the same hyper-sensitive crew that seems to have raised all the stink over "Happy holidays."
Maybe one day faggot will return to its original meaning. But to blame some concept of PC for the word's connotation is disingenuous.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Then you misunderstood me
I don't blame PC for the change in meaning, or the connotation a word becomes subject to.
I blame PC for acting against the word, rather than the bigotry or ignorance that changed the meaning. Trying to round off the sharp edges and dress other words or phrases in its place, with the hope that the hatred and ignorance can at least be hidden from view, given the "difficulty" in challenging it directly.
It's the same kind of form over substance approach that led to metal detectors in school. Addressing one symptom to attack another symptom, without much thought to the cause.
Did you read Specter's diary?
The reason I ask is, this is exactly the point he tries to counter: that language and worldview are somehow not linked, and changing one doesn't necessarily affect the other.
Example, from another thread: oriental. That used to be an acceptable way to refer to people the eastern half of Asia, but it's no longer considered acceptable. Why? Because it places that chunk of the world into a concrete position with Europe at the center - it's a geographically narrow and condescending way to view the world.
"Oriental" has gone out of fashion in part because Eurocentrism has gone out of fashion. And it may be that the latter came first, and that's why the former is now largely unused. Or vice-versa. These things often go together, and I'm not sure you can blame PC for that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It is only condescending....
It is only condescending if you insist that that is the "only" way to view the world or the "proper" way. We have to choose a frame of reference in order to refer to anything. There's nothing wrong with the frame of reference that puts Europe or the US at the center of the map. Similarly there is nothing wrong with a frame that puts Africa at the center of the map. They are all equally valid. The critique of "oriental" says that the eurocentric view not only isn't the only view (correct) but is somehow a "wrong" view (incorrect).
Am I being condescended to because I live on the "west" coast? Why do the people in Kansas get to be in "central" time? Doesn't that presuppose that they are somehow of more value that me stuck way out on the edge?
Of course not. We have to choose a frame of reference, so we do.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The issue occurs
when someone who identifies as Asian stops you and says, "Please stop calling me 'oriental.'"
Do you keep doing it?
Why or why not?
That to me is the essence of PC: respecting the wishes of people to choose what they are called.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
That's fine
Let me ask you this, if someone says to you "I don't like the term oriental," are you then supposed to call just them asian (or whatever) or are you supposed to call all of "them" asian?
See I have no problem with the first, it implies a person expressing a personal choice and you respecting it. The latter however is setting an expectation that this person somehow speaks for all of their race (or really races since the term "oriental" includes several ethnic groups).
The latter I strongly identify as PC. The former is merely being respectful, and in my experience respect and PC have never met.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Language and worldview are linked
We just disagree on how they are linked. Worldview comes into being through, and is informed by, language. But when the worldview begins to distort the language, the point of attack to address that is not to remove the word from common usage, but to attack the meaning attached to it.
When you come down on the language, it slips under the radar. In much the same way "East Coast liberal" began to subsume "Jew", and the more...abrupt "kike". The venom remains, but it becomes cloaked in double speak, and the impact is mitigated, as is the pressure to address the cause.
I find it pretty offensive.
I'll agree with you that there's no such thing as a word that's inherently bad, given that words are only auditory/visual symbols with no inherent meaning - but they pick up meanings along the way, and "faggot" has picked up a violently homophobic meaning.
I'll toss back a thought experiment: explain why it's problematic to discourage using "faggot", given its accumulated meaning.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Results of the experiment
It's problematic in that your effort to discourage its use, highlights it as a word for "concern", a curiosity to be puzzled over. More importantly, discouraging its use is exactly that:discouraging the use of a word because of the way in which a portion of the population takes it.
Let's turn this around a bit. Since I got no response to my thought experiment, let's try it from another angle. The word "boy" is fairly benign, unless it comes from a white man and is directed at a black man, and, even then, only if the tone and inflection weight the word in a particular way. Are we then prepared to discourage the use of the word in a particular way, or with a particular tone? Or, better yet, do we chalk the whole thing up to ignorance, and challenge that, while allowing the word to continue innocently on its way?
But now you're taking
a multivalent word and trying to argue that it carries the same baggage as a more narrowly interpreted word. Give me some circumstances - in American English - in which calling someone a "faggot" is acceptable. Or "nigger" - I'm sure you can argue that there's no difference between that and the word "boy", right?
You can, but only if you argue that the words themselves are empty symbols. But language is usage, not inherent meaning - and "boy" is used 99% of the time in a benign, non-threatening manner. Those other words can't claim that - and that's why we discourage their usage. If people stopped using "boy" to mean "young male" and only used it as a condescending term alluding to slavery, you can bet it'd be on the short-list for non-usage in standard conversation.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes, language does not exist in a vacuum.
This is the same point I was making to GoRight who argued that the word (nigger) and the action associated with the word (racism) were discreet.
As I pointed out to Go, they are part of a larger whole, and, in fact, the language is a significant player in that whole.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Tlaloc hit it.
Depending on the worldview, you (in the general sense) need a word or phrase to carry your disdain/venom/ignorance of or for a particular group. And, as we've seen, it can be anything. Geeks and dorks (those aren't even real words), fags and homos (the latter of which translates directly to human, which is fairly accurate), munchkin, whatever.
The real significance of language is that you can reclaim it. The best examples, in my opinion, is the reclaiming of the word "nigger" by black folks. Similar to reclamation of the word geek (Geek Squad) by Best Buy. You want to adjust the worldview? Reclaim the words that define it, as opposed to suppressing them.
Who is "suppressing" them?
Walk around and use the word "faggot" if you want. Who's stopping you?
I say you're stopping yourself.
Just like Tlaloc.
More victimization. You become the thing you most despise.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
That was a sidestep
Suppression is accomplished by peer pressure, with backing of the policy at nearly every level of government. The target of which is the language, not the behavior.
And that is the central thrust of PC, to target the language and not the behavior, and the reason I disagree with it. Here's a relevant example for you: the Carlin rant about combat stress. How "Shell Shock" became Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Did the government enact laws to change the language? No. But their ability to alter forms, and create laws including the preferred terms, gives them the ability to control the context.
The difference here, Cheney, is that my lack of desire to offend is not the same as my trying to prevent my neighbor from being offensive. PC, as policy, can impose a social and legal stigma (hate speech), and bring about penalties ranging from loss of employment (have a you read the handbook on hostile work environments, lately?), to being socially outcast, to being deprived of my liberty if someone can make the case that my hate speech has the potential to incite violence. Its a fundamental difference between policy,as an arm of the state or church, and personal beliefs regarding ethical behavior.
Okay.
I believe in the case of PTSD, that was not a governmental call, but, rather a definition of something that was previously undefined by the psychological community. They applied a name to it as a way of better identifying/quantifying/measuring its symptoms and its treatments.
Now, you can blame government if you want, but what I keep reading from you and Tlaloc is, essentially, "The man is keeping me down!" and, frankly, it seems like just one more whine.
Do you think work environments are worse off because you can't call a black colleague a "nigger?" The colleague doesn't like the term. Do you think the work environment is worse off because men can't comment on the shape of a woman's breasts to her?
Just asking.
Granted, on college campuses, the self-righteous can go overboard.
But are you inclined to do the things in the workplace I highlight, above? Also, please cite an example of someone being prosecuted for "hate speech" in the U.S.
Seems to me, you and I have much more to fear from the Patriot Act and from Bush's NSA spying program that permit prosecution based simply on who we may have associated with at a social event or what charities we support.
Sure, the radical PCists can be a pain in the ass. But the whining about them surely exceeds their real-world impact. And in terms of bringing civility to the workplace and having actual policies that state that telling a woman she has a "nice ass" is not acceptable, that's an improvement if you ask me.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Here's how I'd approach the issue...
...in fact this is how I approached the issue. This is what I suggested to my company's HR department:
You have a system in which if a coworker feels that a comment was inappropriate they make a special complain to HR. HR tracks the complain and logs it into a special file separate from an employees normal record. The offending employee is informed of the event, told what it was that they did that was considered offensive. The offending employee may challenge the incident either in terms of the factual basis or in terms of whether the issue is actually a required part of the job. In such a case a HR employee adjudicates the issue.
Then the matter ends unless and until the employee chooses to repeat the issue. If they do then it becomes a punitive issue.
Here's why the system works: because it doesn't presuppose that anyone knows what is or isn't offensive to everyone else they may work with. At the same time it allows for people who are genuinely offended to make known that they are having an issue and if the offender decides to continue being offensive to get protections from their employer.
It is precisely that continuation of a behavior you know to be obnoxious that is the key. That is where a person knows they are steping over the line and choosing to do so. And punishing them in such a case is perfectly acceptable.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous.
Companies have written policies for a reason, not the least of which is to protect themselves legally (and usually not from the offended, but, rather, the offender).
In addition, why should a person get a second chance in every case?
A male worker who makes a disgustingly suggestive remark to a female co-worker may not deserve a second chance. Put yourself in the shoes of the woman who has to face this creep every day.
Your idea doesn't function in the real world.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
wrongs.
because until they blow their "second chance" they have done nothing objectively wrong.
Let us say that I eat a hamburger at my desk. I work with a great many engineers from India. Any one of them could be a strict Hindu and find the consumption of a sacred animal to be personally offensive. Have I done anything wrong? No I haven't. But if my coworker complains that the smell of charred beef really offends him and then I choose to eat a burger even though I know it causes them discomfort then I have done something wrong.
Presumably in such a circumstance I'd be allowed to eat in the cafeteria, just not at my desk where my neighbor really has no way to get away from the smell/sight.
Anything...ANYTHING can be offensive. No one can be reasonably expected to know what will twig everyone else. But once they know they can be expected to avoid such behavior to maintain a genial work place.
Interactions, particularly romantic interactions, are fraught with miscommunication. I don't see where a woman who has asserted her dislike of a coworker's advances and knows that if he continues them he will be punished is particularly put upon.
I'd like to at least try it before concluding that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wow. You are way, way off. I hope some women here comment.
You are shockingly uninformed!
I wrote:
And your reply:
I suspect many, many women will vehemently disagree with the sentiments you've expressed here. I know I do and I'm a man.
That is just so uninformed and, frankly, ignorant that I don't know what to say.
As for this comment:
You'll get that chance when you start your own business and have employees. My guess is that your attorney will tell you you need written policies.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Thank you for demonstrating my point...
And naturally because they are women they know what sexual harrassment is and because I'm a man I don't. Thank you for demonstrating perfectly what i hate about PC. This is the quintessential PC attitude: sexism masking as anti-sexism.
That is a written policy, it just isn't one with an entirely arbitrary set of do's and don't's.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
C'mon... I'm a man. I know what sexual harrassment is.
And I know it has absolutely nothing to do with romantic miscommunications.
Try this in your workplace tomorrow: Walk up to a woman you work with and tell her straightforwardly that she "has a nice ass."
Get back to me with her response and that of your supervisors.
Just because you may not recognize it, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't.
Your comments are idiotic in the extreme.
As far as "arbitrary do's and don'ts" I suggest that you must generally abhor all laws.
Your "philosophy" is so inconsistent and arbitrary itself to render it meaningless in the real world.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Your "knowledge" is quite impressive.
Again demonstrating the PC mindset- you know what it is, whatever "it" is, and regardless of not being able to define it you just know.. Not only that but you know that all right minded people (i.e. the rest of the PC mob) know what you know.
It's only us lowly heathen barbarians who need be bothered by things like evidence, doubt, burdens of proof. How much simpler to jus know you are right.
Case in point.
Good god, could you try any harder to prove my point?! You start with the false implicit assertion that women know sexual harrassment better than men, follow it up with the assertion that there is no ambiguity in the matter and then lay in with the personal insults. Are you secretly on my side and trying to prove the thuggish character of the PC movement?
Fairly true although most laws are not nearly so bad as this example.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I set up the situation in my post, idiot.
Jeezusfeckinchrist, your are thick.
You're the loon who added "romantic miscommunication" to the equation.
You're the thug. And ignorant one to boot.
I suggest you try out your hypothesis in the workplace tomorrow and see how you fare.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Tell you what...
...can you try to imagine that you work at an office and your personal hot button isn't one of the ones listed in the official policy? Because under your system there is a specific list of the things that are not okay to say.
Now you have absolutely no recourse. Because that system is idiotic. No list of do's and don't's can possibly cover every offense unless it is so broad as to prohibit any contact with coworkers.
My system protects everyone and protects them all equally (barring any systemic prejudice from the HR department in adjudicating disputes, but no system is utterly perfect). It is far far better than trying to work piecemeal.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Considering just how brilliant your system is...
... why do you think it is that a system like it is not in place in corporate America?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Mostly because of the legal issues...
...you are correct that corporate america is far more concerned with their bottom line than with providing social equity.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wrong.
They're also concerned with maintaining a "going concern."
I love how you are an adamant anarchist, yet you pick and choose where to apply your principles. Seems rather unprincipled, doesn't it?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
and again.
Again with the knowing.
See, you apparently know nothing about what my principles are but you love to leap to conclusions. Judgmental conclusions, naturally.
I do have to thank you though for so perfectly exemplifying what I've been talking about. You've dramatically brought that charming mixture of asinine self assurance, and belligerent self righteousness, called PC to life here for all to see.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You've described yourself as an anarchist, correct?
What principles of anarchy do you apply to your daily life?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Anarachy defined as absolute freedom
becomes as dangerous as any other form of absolutism.
I think that is where we see the rub.
Absolutisim seeks a perfection that cannot be attained.
Freedom does also.
That is why "freedom" is a wise word choice for those covering up political agenda's. It is an ideal that sounds nice, like the beauty queen that wants world peace, but there is no pragmatism to it, and makes a great smoke screen.
I'm only half stupid
Here I will disagree with you (which is not often)
The exercise of the freedom is the exercise of choice, but it is also being accountable for that choice, to all those your choice will affect.
Who get to hold who accountable and how, is certainly a point over which reasonable people can quibble. But there is a point in all directions that is clearly out of bounds, even if the exact boundary is sometimes very fuzzy.
I noted here a thinker who has tried to take the hot words out of the equation and express a unified set of thoughts about honorable behavior that is mostly liberal, but also addresses the situations Tlaloc describes.
It strikes me to wonder what take Lenny Bruce might have on it and also to wonder at the PC that virtually killed him, and how the folks most complaining, or their ideological parents, paved the way by mixing up a gander sauce thinking it would just be for the goose.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Yes, but the word...
...can mean a lot of things. In fact I have never yet met two anarchists with precisely the same view of anarchy. And actually I love that. The word is an umbrella for thousands of different views.
If you want to learn something about my views this is a good start:
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/665
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually, this may be a better question...
How does your particular philosophy of anarchy manifest itself in your everyday life?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
So make it a thread?
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Um...
Military Psychiatry defined the problem, and the VA defined the coverage. Which slipped, on a budgetary basis, down the memory hole. PTSD became something the VA (a government agency) treated, sort of, because it is, traditionally, a military problem. Funding, being predicated on the types and severity of the injuries, was a VA bureaucratic issue. Pretty much the same reason funding to head trauma research, the signature injury of the Iraq War, has been cut. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if, by the end of the war, decapitation had been modified to "Lateral Cranial Displacement Injury".
I didn't say anything about the man keeping me down, I said (listen carefully) that PC is stupid, ineffectual, and concerned with attacking language, not the cause of bigotry or hatred. I can't be any clearer than that.
As to the work environment, it's gone way past racial epithets and sexual harrassment. I can be terminated for pointing out that you've done something stupid. Not that you are stupid, but that you did something stupid. A picture of my wife at the beach, depending on her dress (and if she looks good in a bikini top, why shouldn't I have a photo of it?), can be deemed offensive. A picture of my child in the bath, by some, could be deemed offensive. And why is that? Because of the collective concern in the corporate boardroom that their employees should be happy, or because of the court victories, protected classes laws, and civil intervention? (You only get one guess on this one.)
And let's talk about hate speech.
That's some precedent. And it's not the only one. People have been imprisoned in Germany, the Netherlands, several other countries in Europe, Russia, and, I think, Canada.
And, since you may not be aware of it, this is an example of whining when it comes to PC:
Just sayin'.
Let me ask you...
So you do think the Supreme Court was wrong in that 1942 ruling?
I thought PC came alive in the 1990s?
As for the fundie website you cite, that loony Reverend seems to be making the same point you're making. So how is his inane rant any different than your point of view?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Yup
I think the Court was wrong on several fronts, but the limitation of speech is prime among them. Free speech is dangerous, and it should be. It is one of the conundrums of a truly free society, but you have the right to utter the most vile, disgusting, hateful speech your mind can come up with. By the same token, the reaction you get is also on you. It is my personal opinion that if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, then you are responsible for the damages and injuries that result, including your own.
PC has had many guises. McCarthyism was the PC of its time, as the Sedition Act was its, and the Temperance Movement was its. There seems no end to the line of people who want to tell you what is acceptable and what isn't.
I'm surprised you don't recognize the distinction, but I'll go ahead and spell it out. When you are in the majority, and perceive every limitation as a personal threat to your way of life, that makes you a loon. When you disagree with a policy, while abiding by it, and simply wish your fellow citizens could see its fundamental lack of substance and failure to address the issue, that makes you a citizen that disagrees with a policy. I hope that clears it up for you.
So now John McCain is a PC liberal???
As I noted in my diary, John McCain has taken a step way beyond the PC activities you complain about. Though his law will probably go nowhere but to be used to accuse Liberals of favoring pedophiles, it is those crazy PC liberals who would keep you out of prison and lifetime ruin over that picture of the kid in the bathtub.
Unlike the worst of the PC described here, that would insult you by claiming that you had thoughts you believe you don't even have, the McCain law would not only put you away for having the picture, but could put away anyone who knew you had the picture, and did not report you even if they thought it was innocent as well!
So not only does the most extreme view rule, but it is enforced, and not only on the "criminal" but on everyone who knew about the "criminal". Not only in your office but across the Internet as well.
We can all only hope that the new Liberals in Congress will have the spine to stand up to him on this.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Sorry?
You took a sharp turn, there, and lost me.
The difficulty is yours
A few things the most outlandish Liberal PC is not.
1 Made a federal law with life ruining sanctions.
2 Enforceable not only on the "perp" but on any bystander who was aware of the "perp's" alleged transgressions and did not rush to mob prosecution, even if the bystander did not think that there was a transgression.
3 Allowing the most absurd extremist to be the driver of that. (though your arguments constantly point out those people as being the "normal case" as a strawman)
By contrast John McCain's bill would do all those things, but apparently only those PC Liberals you so despise are concerned that it might be an attack on their (and your) freedom.
Exactly the gnat your are railing about, even as you have no problem swallowing the elephants.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
why would it have to be calling a person?
Why specifically calling a person? Shouldn't the test be if the term "faggot" can be used in english appropriately at all?
Of course there are examples of this-
A faggot can mean a bundle of sticks and in LoTR Tolkien writes about them throwing another faggot on the fire. A faggot can also mean a cigarette in some slang.
I think you are getting the causality backwards. What comes first is the outrage and then the decline of the other meanings of the term.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You're kidding, right?
You walk up to someone on the street and call him a "faggot" and see if your explanation passes the test. When you get back here with your bloody nose, we'll talk about the reality of language usage versus a parsing that no one cares about.
The issue - as I've said again and again and again - is usage, not something as abstract and arbitrary as "meaning" sans context. "Faggot" is unacceptable not because a bunch of uptight lefties took over your college, but because the intended meaning in 99% of cases is hurtful, and often violently so. The "PC police" aren't going after people who use "faggot" to mean bundles of sticks or cigarettes, so your comparison makes no sense at all.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
My point earlier.
As I told Officious Pedant, feel free to use "faggot" as you like and explain to those around you that it means a bundle of wood.
What the hell.
You're right on the bloody nose. Reality has a way of intruding into these pie-in-the-sky notions.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I used a faggot
of oak last night as it has been quite chilly here.
I'm only half stupid
And this is different how?
go to harlem look for some black guy out with his kids and start saying "hey, boy!"
Want to bet the reaction is the same? So again why not push to remove the word "boy" from the lexicon of polite society? It can be used as an offensive term.
So just how often does the word "boy" have to be used derogatorally before it qualifies? Is it a 51% kind of thing?
I have to call a big "bullshit" there. Remember the PC police went after the politician for saying "niggardly." The PC police don't exactly bother with accuracy or even reading comprehension. In fact they seem to be on call if someone even uses a word that sounds similar to one of the verbotten terms.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why are you continually
dodging every point I make? When I say this:
and you respond with this:
I have to wonder if you're even digesting my posts. Because the former quote already answers the latter.
On "niggardly", I could only think of one case where it was a problem, and it involved an idiotic boss, not a chimerical PC police. And yes, he was wrong to get worked up over a non-issue. You may enjoy this article
on it, by the way.
But I'm weighing the pros and cons here, and I'm seeing "disapprove of words like 'faggot' at the risk of someone getting worked up over 'niggardly'" on one side, and "don't disapprove of words like 'faggot' (and much worse)" on the other side, and I gotta say that I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the former.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I pretty much gave up
for the same reason.
You make a point and he either disregards it or morphs it to such an unrecognizable version that it no longer has any relevance to what you were originally talking about.
Good luck if you continue. You have more patience than I do.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Pico...
no, what you said was this:
And I responded with a precisely analagous situation:
How can you accuse me of dodging your point when I was making an analogy based directly on the situation you had just suggested?
Except I don't accept that the former quote is correct so obviously it doesn;t "answer" the latter for me. You are free to disagree, but please don't pretend that just because you say something it is automatically true.
The issue is not "usage" the issue is the word being forbidden regardless of usage!
An aide to the mayor of DC used the term "niggardly" correctly in a comment and there was an enormous reaction and he was forced to apologize and eventually fired for it. He had to apologize and was fired even though he was clearly in the right and the PC mob was clearly ignorant and in the wrong. This is why I say usage does not matter to these people. Their idiocy is enough to sustain their hatred regardless.
No one needs PC to disapprove of using "faggot" or "nigger" or whatever as a pejorative. What you hate there is not the word but the intent to offend and hurt someone based on a prejudice. There is absolutely no reason to invoke PC for that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hi Specter ...
this is a terrific diary because sensitivity to what we say and how we say it has become stigmatized by bigots and reactionaries.
Might I suggest you cross post this on Bob Higgins, Worldwide Sawdust
blog? Would love to promote it on the frontpage over there.
Intrepid Liberal Journal
Good idea!
I gotta say, it's fun for me to start recognizing people in lots of different places... here, MLW, the forvm, RS, Kos, and personal blogs.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I am humbled
Thank you for the generous offer and the recognition. I will tidy it up a bit, change some introductory bits for the new context, and get it to you tomorrow.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/