OMG...There are folks who "get it" regarding political correctness

[GaryDog]

No, it's been explained numerous times why Obama doesn't use this term. And it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with not playing into ISIS's hands.

WTF happened to you? You're either extremely wimpy or extremely gullible. Or perhaps the former because of the latter.

The fuck are you talking about?

Sorry about the big words. I'll keep it simple:

You're (you are ) a wimp (Definition of WIMP).

Do you say this to everyone who attempts to educate you about the world? No wonder you're so fucking stupid.

Sorry wimp. I know far more about the world certainly than someone who thinks terrorists will leave us alone if we pretend they don't exist.

That, and of course the fact that I've spent 43 years outside of the US.

Is that supposed to cause me any reaction aside from a sigh of relief?

STAY the fuck out.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Political Correctness is about identifying that one of the first steps toward more inclusive social change (more acceptance of those who are different from you) is to alter our language. Deny it all you want, but our language affects how we view and think about certain people and groups.

Change the language first, and the rest follows with it. We've done away with n*gger, ch*nk, Wop, Nip and (for the most part) savage or redskin for a reason. It affects our perspective, not just our ears.

I resist changing my language for political purposes. There are no bad words, only words badly used.

Hail to the Redskins.

Also, I am not obligated to include anyone I do not not care to include, socially or otherwise.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

She is entitled to her opinion. I am equally of course entitled to mine, and am under no obligation to jump on the Newspeak bandwagon at the behest of someone else's opinion.

Ya know, it's so gay. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the difference between saying "colored people" and "people of color", and have been since Berke Breathed had Opus deliver a soliloquy on the subject back in the 80s, when all this nonsense started.

The problem is Billy, that on the majority of American campuses you are NOT entitled to your own opinion, nor even your own thoughts. PC is far more than prohibitions of the freedom of speech; it is an open assault on intellectual integrity, it is the prohibition to THINK. The left dictates the thoughts and CONCLUSIONS that undergrad students must regurgitate in order to gain the degree that they seek.

Political correctness is an assault on intellectual curiosity and the process of obtaining knowledge.

Bingo.

 

[Mac1958]

Political Correctness = Strategic hypersensitivity deployed specifically to put your target on the defensive and dictate the terms of the conversation.

Intellectually dishonest, cowardly, counterproductive.
.

 

[Meathead]

WTF happened to you? You're either extremely wimpy or extremely gullible. Or perhaps the former because of the latter.

The fuck are you talking about?

Sorry about the big words. I'll keep it simple:

You're (you are ) a wimp (Definition of WIMP).

Do you say this to everyone who attempts to educate you about the world? No wonder you're so fucking stupid.

Sorry wimp. I know far more about the world certainly than someone who thinks terrorists will leave us alone if we pretend they don't exist.

That, and of course the fact that I've spent 43 years outside of the US.

Is that supposed to cause me any reaction aside from a sigh of relief?

STAY the fuck out.

Shit, you really are a wimp. Scared of expats too, eh?

 

[there4eyeM]

There are words any of us might use in daily conversation that we might not use in front of Grandmom at Thanksgiving. That is self-censorship. That is being 'correct', respectful of someone. It is a choice.
Political correctness, which itself is probably not a very correct term, is the same thing on a broader scale. It is a decision or decisions based upon with whom and how we wish to communicate.
I say the term is not correct because there are no legal political consequences. Any 'censorship' is not official.
The fundamental problem in all this is the question of being offended and angry. To say that something or someone 'makes' one angry is a rather strange statement. It say that somehow another person invades one's brain to cause a reaction, as if one had no choice. Having no choice is being an automaton, not a person. Being offended or angry is a choice. Until we confront that and integrate it fully into consciousness, we will be automatons, as a great number of people effectively are.
Conforming to 'p.c.' criteria is a choice, and one I largely refuse to make. Still, that is tempered by situations. All things in moderation...
...except when moderation is inappropriate!

Are you saying I should choose NOT to be angry or offended if someone calls me a "c*nt" for no reason except that they don't like my ideas and I am a woman? Slapping me down with an anatomical slur to underscore my worthlessness because I have a female brain? I don't think that's a strange reaction at all.

One might wonder why in heaven's name you would dignify such an imbecile with your notice, much less your anger. They are not 'slapping you down', above all because women are quite the opposite of 'worthless' and the female brain is at least the equal of the male.

 

[Meathead]

There are words any of us might use in daily conversation that we might not use in front of Grandmom at Thanksgiving. That is self-censorship. That is being 'correct', respectful of someone. It is a choice.
Political correctness, which itself is probably not a very correct term, is the same thing on a broader scale. It is a decision or decisions based upon with whom and how we wish to communicate.
I say the term is not correct because there are no legal political consequences. Any 'censorship' is not official.
The fundamental problem in all this is the question of being offended and angry. To say that something or someone 'makes' one angry is a rather strange statement. It say that somehow another person invades one's brain to cause a reaction, as if one had no choice. Having no choice is being an automaton, not a person. Being offended or angry is a choice. Until we confront that and integrate it fully into consciousness, we will be automatons, as a great number of people effectively are.
Conforming to 'p.c.' criteria is a choice, and one I largely refuse to make. Still, that is tempered by situations. All things in moderation...
...except when moderation is inappropriate!

Are you saying I should choose NOT to be angry or offended if someone calls me a "c*nt" for no reason except that they don't like my ideas and I am a woman? Slapping me down with an anatomical slur to underscore my worthlessness because I have a female brain? I don't think that's a strange reaction at all.

One might wonder why in heaven's name you would dignify such an imbecile with your notice, much less your anger. They are not 'slapping you down', above all because women are quite the opposite of 'worthless' and the female brain is at least the equal of the male.

Is it then worse than calling a man a "dick"? Is there a difference in the nomenclature of body parts?

I defer to the PC police on these matters.

Thank you

 

[TNHarley]

Boy, this OP sure comes up with some doosies

 

[OldLady]

There are words any of us might use in daily conversation that we might not use in front of Grandmom at Thanksgiving. That is self-censorship. That is being 'correct', respectful of someone. It is a choice.
Political correctness, which itself is probably not a very correct term, is the same thing on a broader scale. It is a decision or decisions based upon with whom and how we wish to communicate.
I say the term is not correct because there are no legal political consequences. Any 'censorship' is not official.
The fundamental problem in all this is the question of being offended and angry. To say that something or someone 'makes' one angry is a rather strange statement. It say that somehow another person invades one's brain to cause a reaction, as if one had no choice. Having no choice is being an automaton, not a person. Being offended or angry is a choice. Until we confront that and integrate it fully into consciousness, we will be automatons, as a great number of people effectively are.
Conforming to 'p.c.' criteria is a choice, and one I largely refuse to make. Still, that is tempered by situations. All things in moderation...
...except when moderation is inappropriate!

Are you saying I should choose NOT to be angry or offended if someone calls me a "c*nt" for no reason except that they don't like my ideas and I am a woman? Slapping me down with an anatomical slur to underscore my worthlessness because I have a female brain? I don't think that's a strange reaction at all.

One might wonder why in heaven's name you would dignify such an imbecile with your notice, much less your anger. They are not 'slapping you down', above all because women are quite the opposite of 'worthless' and the female brain is at least the equal of the male.

Because I'm not an inanimate object, that's why it sometimes perturbs me. But I don't let hate take over, ever. It's a toxic emotion.

 

[OldLady]

I was looking for a video and happened across this. Why this idea is so challenging for folks, especially the most vehemently anti-PC folks, to "get" this. Nobody likes political correctness; people of all political persuasions poo-poo it. Yet it seems few folks, no matter their political stances, manage to get to where Ms. Silverman does. Shame.

What is Ms. Silverman's take? Well, you'll have to watch the video below. It's not short, but it's not long either.



One of the hosts also makes a good point. One need not agree with a speaker (writer), but if one doesn't it's one's job to present the opposing point of view. Regrettably, most folks think presenting the opposing point of view works like this...



...except most folks aren't nearly so good at it as that. Most folks are, or at least seem, incapable (or perhaps unwilling) to offend without being offensive, without being vulgar. Knowing that, one'd think most self-respecting folks would step to Ms. Silverman's antinomically sublime, sophisticated, and sober sensibilities when it comes to dealing with political correctness. And yet, they don't.

I'm not sure if you're still following this, now that it's been moved, but if so: I am having a hard time reconciling this post with a discussion I had with you a couple months ago, where you directed me to a couple of long and densely worded studies that said (in the long and short of it) p.c. allows racists to hide their stripes and carry out their agenda hidden, instead of out in the open the way it was before p.c. Remember that? Have you changed your mind or is there some distinction I should be making here?

 

[320 Years of History]

P.C. has morphed ... into an all-pervasive and constricting political outlook that demands absolute conformity of opinion. Anybody white and male or Christian is assumed to be in the wrong. Anybody of color, female and especially Muslim is defended. It doesn't make any difference what is being defended because the restrictive dictates of identity politics demands a specific response.

Red:
I can't find one thing that indicates political correctness is a political outlook/ideology.

• List Of Political Viewpoints & Political Ideologies
  
• List of political ideologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  
• 
  
  
• 

Do you have something credible that shows political correctness has risen to the level of being a political ideology/outlook?

we are now in the day when people are so desperate for a sense of victimization

I do not think there are nearly as many emotional or physical masochists as your statement suggests. Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence showing your statement is materially accurate with regard to the U.S. population?

At the end of the day, though, is there really a better term to call these people than fascist?

Yes. "Risk averse."

Both Orlando and the attack in cal,people knew things were not right,but kept their mouths shut out of fear of ridicule.PC ,contributor to death and destruction.

You're going to need to show something legit that supports your claim. I don't know why folks didn't report their suspicions, but merely to posit some possibilities I offer the following:

• Reticence to become involved.
• Realizing that they didn't know anything, but that what they thought were in fact merely unfounded or unsupportable suspicions and that we don't live in a "police state" where everyone's responsibility is to "spy and inform" on the people around them based solely on highly speculative ideas.

What is now labelled PC, used to be called good manners....and social graces...

Stephen Morris writes:

[Political correctness is an approach to communication that calls speakers/writers recognize and accept that] because certain statements will lead listeners to make adverse inferences about the [character] of the speaker, speakers have an incentive to alter what they say to avoid that inference. There is an innocuous version of this phenomenon, when speakers use different signals (words) to convey their meaning (to avoid the adverse inferences) but listeners are nonetheless able to invert the signals and deduce the true meaning; this version will have few welfare consequences since only the labeling of signals changes, not the information conveyed.​

Given the above description, one taken from here, I don't think political correctness is all except linguistically identical to good manners and/or social grace, but it's not grossly different from them either. There is definitely a linkage between them. I think what good manners and social graces are and are still called those things.

That said, I think political correctness is something else. I think the "else" that it is differs from good manners in that guidance to exhibit political correctness approaches decorum from the standpoint of avoiding offense to one's audience members regardless of whether one has or lacks social grace. In contrast, good manners/social grace approach decorum with an inherent assumption that a speaker gives a damn about showing themselves to be decorous, regardless of the ideas they have to express.

That distinction is why I included the "Bette Davis" clip in my OP. In that clip, we see Margo have two cocktails in the space of 40 seconds and then greet a guest by saying, "Addison, I distinctly remember crossing you off my guest list. What are you doing here?" The politically incorrect and impolite way to say the same thing: "Addison, you are a boor and you bore me. I have no desire to see you tonight. You should excuse yourself."

Do you see the difference? Margo's politically correct and polite remark followed by an inquiry makes no assertion about Addison; it does not directly insult him and it doesn't risk doing so. It speaks only of an act Margo performed and asks a question. Addison in turn can answer the question and then cavil as he sees fit about having been removed from the guest list, or he can parry the implication of Margo's comment with a genuine compliment and move on. How well he knows Margo will determine which approach he takes.

Given his actual response, we viewers must assume he knows Margo well enough to know that whatever dissensus led her to remove him from the guest list isn't materially significant to her or him. We find out that our assumption is borne out the fact that she continues to engage with him in conversation even after he elided a direct response to her comment or question.

Viewers will notice that very shortly later Addison tosses his own caustic remark, which Margo similarly ignores, again, because they know each other well enough to know they not only can, but also because nothing either of them said is factually/objectively untrue. Margo is not timid and she did remove Addison from her guest list, thus making him a party crasher. Regardless of what another says of one, if it's objectively true, it can't really be insulting. One knows it's true just as does the speaker, and both parties know that is the case, so how can one take umbrage at being told the truth. Being hurt and being offended aren't always the same things, nor is one emotion necessarily the fitting companion of the other.

In closing, I want to point out two key yet subtle elements:

• How well one knows and is known by one's audience is a pivotal discriminant in determining whether one is being impolite or politically incorrect. For example, there are many folks on USMB who say all sorts of inane things, and while I can call their remarks inane, I cannot call their writer inane. Why not? Because I don't know them well enough to be sure that I'd be right in doing so. So out of courtesy, gentility accruing from their novelty to me, I just don't.
• The other pivotal factor is whether one is generalizing or extrapolating with or without foundation. I may or may not care for blacks, Jews, gays, whites, Latinos, etc., but I'm a polite person and I don't care to be thought otherwise, even by blacks, Jews, gays, whites, Latinos, etc. Whereas I'm fine with them knowing I may not care for them for cause, I insist too that they know my disdain (assuming I have any) derives from something real, something known and proven, not from something merely perceived or suspected which coincidentally panders to my predisposition toward them. I thus will refrain from attesting X or Y using certain politically correct terms, but I'll do so only so long as I know I don't know whether the statement I care to make may not be true. Once I find out the truth, well, "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."

Political Correctness is about identifying that one of the first steps toward more inclusive social change (more acceptance of those who are different from you) is to alter our language. Deny it all you want, but our language affects how we view and think about certain people and groups.

It does and denial of as much won't alter the fact that it does.

 

[TNHarley]

There you go

 

[GaryDog]

Political Correctness is about identifying that one of the first steps toward more inclusive social change (more acceptance of those who are different from you) is to alter our language. Deny it all you want, but our language affects how we view and think about certain people and groups.

Change the language first, and the rest follows with it. We've done away with n*gger, ch*nk, Wop, Nip and (for the most part) savage or redskin for a reason. It affects our perspective, not just our ears.

I resist changing my language for political purposes. There are no bad words, only words badly used.

Hail to the Redskins.

Also, I am not obligated to include anyone I do not not care to include, socially or otherwise.

It's about inclusiveness in society in general, not including them in YOUR life.

And frankly, from the sound of things, I doubt anyone wants to be included in your circle anyway. You sound like a miserable fuck.

 

[GaryDog]

The fuck are you talking about?

Sorry about the big words. I'll keep it simple:

You're (you are ) a wimp (Definition of WIMP).

Do you say this to everyone who attempts to educate you about the world? No wonder you're so fucking stupid.

Sorry wimp. I know far more about the world certainly than someone who thinks terrorists will leave us alone if we pretend they don't exist.

That, and of course the fact that I've spent 43 years outside of the US.

Is that supposed to cause me any reaction aside from a sigh of relief?

STAY the fuck out.

Shit, you really are a wimp. Scared of expats too, eh?

Scared? Not really. Do you normally try to scare people via keyboard? You just sound like a sorry piece of shit to me.

 

[320 Years of History]

I was looking for a video and happened across this. Why this idea is so challenging for folks, especially the most vehemently anti-PC folks, to "get" this. Nobody likes political correctness; people of all political persuasions poo-poo it. Yet it seems few folks, no matter their political stances, manage to get to where Ms. Silverman does. Shame.

What is Ms. Silverman's take? Well, you'll have to watch the video below. It's not short, but it's not long either.



One of the hosts also makes a good point. One need not agree with a speaker (writer), but if one doesn't it's one's job to present the opposing point of view. Regrettably, most folks think presenting the opposing point of view works like this...



...except most folks aren't nearly so good at it as that. Most folks are, or at least seem, incapable (or perhaps unwilling) to offend without being offensive, without being vulgar. Knowing that, one'd think most self-respecting folks would step to Ms. Silverman's antinomically sublime, sophisticated, and sober sensibilities when it comes to dealing with political correctness. And yet, they don't.

I'm not sure if you're still following this, now that it's been moved, but if so: I am having a hard time reconciling this post with a discussion I had with you a couple months ago, where you directed me to a couple of long and densely worded studies that said (in the long and short of it) p.c. allows racists to hide their stripes and carry out their agenda hidden, instead of out in the open the way it was before p.c. Remember that? Have you changed your mind or is there some distinction I should be making here?

First, TY for remembering that discussion and for having read the post and its related reference materials.

• No, I have not changed my mind.
• Yes, I remember that discussion in general; that is to say, I know what I think about political correctness and what I think hasn't changed since I joined USMB. LOL

I have not and do not condone political correctness. I continue to see political correctness as a tool that proffers to bigots et al the guidelines they should follow in order to avoid appearing bigoted, or whatever, assuming appearing so be their intent.


Yes, there are distinctions you should make. You'll find some of them in the latter portion of this post -- OMG...There are folks who "get it" regarding political correctness . The relevant remarks begin with "Stephen Morris writes." In that discussion one will find that I don't reject social grace or one's (my) obligation to display good manners. One'll find too that I espouse making only attestations that are factually accurate.

That said, I bid anyone to look through any number of USMB posts to see what passes as fact in the minds of some people and one will find that quite often what folks deem as fact is at best an unsubstantiated and/or unfounded opinion. One will find that a lot of it is second guessing and innuendo, but precious little that credible. Now one can call it "bad manners," "boorishness," "provincialism," "politically incorrectness," or any number of other things, but at the end of the day, it's just wrong -- regardless of why or what be the impact of doing so -- to make false statements, unproven generalizations and unsupportable extrapolations, be they about things, or worse, about other people. One goal of political correctness is to, in a minor way, give folks guidelines they can use to avoid making innuendo laden assertions.


What Ms.Silverman says is that it's just not hard to respect the fact that someone may take offense at a given way of communicating an idea and in light of that being so, choose a different way to convey one's thoughts. For example:

• "Girl" vs. "Woman/Lady"
  When the object of my remarks are female and they have not reached the age of majority, I will, in a public setting refer to them as "girls." Why? Because they are girls. If they have reached adulthood, I will refer to them as "women" or "ladies" because I recognize that calling them girls implies by definition some degree of physical or mental immaturity. Does my calling an adult female a woman necessarily mean anything other than that they've reached the age of majority? No it doesn't, but it does allow for the (perhaps debatable) possibility that they exhibit additional qualities of maturation that are expected of adults and that are not extant, incumbent or common among infants, toddlers, older children and teens.
  
  On the other hand, if it is known, or has been shown, or I can show credibly that all or substantially all of the female members of my audience display one or more of the immaturities of girls, I will feel free to use the term "girls" when referring to and addressing them.

Applying the above rationale to Ms. Silverman's remarks...

• Does it cost me anything to confer the benefit of the doubt to the females in my audience and just not call them girls? No.
• Do I, by using "women" instead of "girls," avoid accidentally insulting one or several females in my audience? Yes.
• Is it hard for me to use "women" instead of "girls?" No.
• If I were ignorant of the distinction between "girls" and "women," would a documented guideline that tells me to use "women" instead of "girls" help me avoid offending the females in my audience who may take umbrage had I not? Yes.
• Can one use "girls" when one's audience is girls? Yes, of course.
• Can one use "girls" when one knows nobody in one's target audience will take offense at being called a "girl" even though the objects of one's comments are grown? Yes, of course. If the audience members know one well, they know whether one meant to offend or imply some element of immaturity by having used the word "girl" rather than "woman" or "lady."
• Can one use "girls" for literary effect to address a/a group of adult females? Yes, of course, but in doing so, one must also make sure, assuming one's audience contains folks who don't personally know one quite well, that the rest of one's remarks make clear that one in no way at all meant the term as a subtle disparagement.

Now can one carry the concept I've outlined above to the extreme? Of course one can, but God only knows why one would. Quite a few extreme examples are here: Politically Incorrect Dictionary . I can't see myself using any of the politically correct alternatives presented there, except perhaps for literary effect. This site, on the other hand has fewer extreme forms of political correct verbiage. Of the terms listed on the second site, some of them I understand why they are considered caddish I don't know, and others aren't at all hard for me to see the innuendo they carry and thus what's wrong with them.

• Some that I understand the innuendo they carry:
  • black sheep
  • manhole
  • acting like wild Indians
  • gifted children
• Some that I don't know what makes them offensive, but knowing they offend, I have no good reason to refrain from using them:
  • wheel-chair bound
  • retarded
  • uneducated
  • flip chart

As with so many things, context makes a huge difference. I had no idea "Flip" is a pejorative equivalent for "the N-word" but one that pertains to Filipinos. Even so, I can see how saying "hand me the flip chart" may fairly (due to the audience's unfamiliarity with me) be considered offensive if it's got depictions of Filipinos in/on it or when Filipinos are somehow relevant to or involved in act of proffering/making/installing the chart. If it isn't taken expressly as offensive, I can see how my using it may create uncertainty about my character in the minds of one or several audience members. Making the same request in a different situation my not create any form or degree of uncertainty at all, in which case it's probably fine to say "flip chart."

In closing, I call the reader to remember the first rule of good writing and speaking: consider your audience. Whatever one writes necessarily reflects the assumptions one has and has not made about one's audience. As long as the assumptions one makes are true, there's no issue. If they are false there may be a problem. Political correctness at its heart tries to keep people from appearing to have made and acted upon inaccurate assumptions. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing. Just as some folks can over-/underestimate their audience, some speakers and writers can carry their efforts not to misestimate their audience's sensibilities to an extreme.

So what is a writer to do to maintain balance?

1. First, assume the best about one's audience to fully grasp one's meaning and intent.
2. Then, write or utter one's remarks in a way that doesn't confound one's actual meaning and intent with doubt.

That's not called "being politically correct." It's called "being an excellent communicator."

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Political Correctness is about identifying that one of the first steps toward more inclusive social change (more acceptance of those who are different from you) is to alter our language. Deny it all you want, but our language affects how we view and think about certain people and groups.

Change the language first, and the rest follows with it. We've done away with n*gger, ch*nk, Wop, Nip and (for the most part) savage or redskin for a reason. It affects our perspective, not just our ears.

I resist changing my language for political purposes. There are no bad words, only words badly used.

Hail to the Redskins.

Also, I am not obligated to include anyone I do not not care to include, socially or otherwise.

It's about inclusiveness in society in general, not including them in YOUR life.

And frankly, from the sound of things, I doubt anyone wants to be included in your circle anyway. You sound like a miserable fuck.

Too funny. If you only knew.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not sure if you're still following this, now that it's been moved, but if so: I am having a hard time reconciling this post with a discussion I had with you a couple months ago, where you directed me to a couple of long and densely worded studies that said (in the long and short of it) p.c. allows racists to hide their stripes and carry out their agenda hidden, instead of out in the open the way it was before p.c. Remember that? Have you changed your mind or is there some distinction I should be making here?

Here's another clip from All About Eve that illustrates the points I made in the two "long" posts to which I referred in replying earlier to you.



You'll note that the entire scene is the zenith of political incorrectness. It's also worth noting that Eve points out one of the subtle distinctions to which I drew attention in those earlier posts: the controlling influence of the truth in distinguishing what is and is not politically correct.

"Imagine how snide and vicious he could get and still tell nothing but the truth," Eve says. Well, that's where I draw the line between what is a brutal truth to hear/tell and what is merely the pandering platitudes of political correctness.

 

[Ravi]

Try criticizing Christians and the PC police will do anything and everything to destroy you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Politically Correct is a polite way of saying Fascism

 

[OldLady]

I'm not sure if you're still following this, now that it's been moved, but if so: I am having a hard time reconciling this post with a discussion I had with you a couple months ago, where you directed me to a couple of long and densely worded studies that said (in the long and short of it) p.c. allows racists to hide their stripes and carry out their agenda hidden, instead of out in the open the way it was before p.c. Remember that? Have you changed your mind or is there some distinction I should be making here?

Here's another clip from All About Eve that illustrates the points I made in the two "long" posts to which I referred in replying earlier to you.



You'll note that the entire scene is the zenith of political incorrectness. It's also worth noting that Eve points out one of the subtle distinctions to which I drew attention in those earlier posts: the controlling influence of the truth in distinguishing what is and is not politically correct.

"Imagine how snide and vicious he could get and still tell nothing but the truth," Eve says. Well, that's where I draw the line between what is a brutal truth to hear/tell and what is merely the pandering platitudes of political correctness.

Gotcha. I think.