The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

On Political Correctness Options
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:24:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,906
Neurons: 47,764
As there have been some debates (and frustrations lately), on the topic on Political Correctness, my chancing upon this article seemed fortunate to me. It lays out the political landscape currently established in much of Western Culture, but also reveals the shifts that are taking place. I found it a fascinating read, and thought to include it here for anyone interested in understanding what is happening culturally.

Here are a few excerpts form the article. They will give you a taste of it, as it is much longer, so you can decide if you want to read it or not.

The Coalition for Cultural Freedom
By Matthew Continetti
May 12, 2018 4:30 AM

“On May 15, 1939, philosopher John Dewey issued a statement to the press announcing the formation of the Committee for Cultural Freedom.”

…the affiliated American Committee for Cultural Freedom [was] organized in 1951. At that first meeting in Berlin, Arthur Koestler read from the dais the “Manifesto of Freedom,” which held “as self-evident” that “intellectual freedom is one of the inalienable rights of man,” and that such freedom “is defined first and foremost by his right to hold and express his own opinions, and particularly opinions which differ from those of his rulers. Deprived of his right to say ‘no,’ man becomes a slave.”

“A renascent Marxism competes with, and to a large extent has been subsumed by, the ideology of multiculturalism and its attendant identity politics.
It is this ideology and politics that have captured America’s most prestigious intellectual, cultural, and media institutions. The university, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and increasingly formerly “neutral” and “objective” platforms such as the New York Times and The Atlantic have come under the sway of racial and sexual dogmas and attitudes that brook no disagreement. Membership in these institutions, which play a crucial role in elite opinion formation, and the social networks in which they are embedded, is contingent on agreement with or silence about certain ideas of “white privilege,” patriarchal “oppression,” “Islamophobia,” and “gender fluidity.” To dissent from these ideas — to exercise one’s right to say no — invites not only anathematization from polite society but also the loss of one’s job and, in some cases, physical threats.”

“The simple truth is that people do not like being reduced to their skin color, and they hate being called racists. So they tend to abandon the figures and organizations that see them as nothing but biased, sexist, bigoted dullards who belong in a basket of deplorables. They may not voice their opinion to a pollster for fear of social ostracism. But they reveal their preferences through action.”

The article can be found at this link:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/jordan-peterson-kanye-west-challenge-political-correctness/



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, May 12, 2018 3:48:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,906
Neurons: 47,764
Hmm, it only took 4 hours for this post to disappear. Interesting, but not too surprising.

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:35:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 28,793
Neurons: 164,316
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
It hasn't disappeared, it's still there with its link.

The thing is, it doesn't mention political correctness.
As the Farlex Dictionary shows, the phrase "political correctness" can mean whatever you want it to mean (and therefore is pretty useless as a phrase and impossible to usefully use in an argument).

Political Correctness - noun
Can be an insult, accusation, joke, or the name of an effort to change a society by means of wide-ranging but often small-scale cultural reform.


You use it as an insult - your definition is whatever you feel it to be.
My meaning for it is "speaking in a way which attempts to not insult people". I'd like to change the culture a little for the better and reduce the hate which is evident in some areas.
I find it "politically correct" to say "I'm white (well, pinkish actually) and my son-in-law is black (well, very dark brown)." It's no different than "I was born in Lancashire and my son-in-law was born in Birmingham" or "He's thirty-two and I'm sixty-seven." They are just statements of fact and descriptions of two people.
Neither statement is an insult, and he would probably use very similar phrasing if he were asked to describe the two of us.

The article does speak disparagingly about "the ideology of multiculturalism and its attendant identity politics", which is fine.

My "creed" includes the right to freely say or write one's own opinions and to quote or write about or (verbally) disagree with the opinions of others.
In my opinion, it's perfectly OK for someone to say (outright or in other words) "I hate ______(whatever race/nationality)", or "people of other skin colour than mine are inferior and not really human" or "all ____(race/colour) are dangerous and violent" but it's not OK to then lie and say "but I'm not racist" - or then object to others telling one that it's a lie, when it obviously is, and can be easily proven to be a lie.
It's OK to say "I hate _____(whatever religion)", or "Women should not be allowed to ____, but men can" but not to then lie and say "but I'm not discriminatory", or to try to insinuate (or say outright) that anyone who argues against the idea is wrong for arguing or is mentally deficient for disagreeing.

If one says something of that sort (or implying it), one can't then try to prevent others from writing or saying that one is a discriminatory racist ____(fill in the noun).

What I do disagree with (in life, not in that article) is anyone fomenting violence or suggesting it.
"_____ should be killed", "lynch them" are illegal statements (in the UK at least) and rightly so.



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 6:19:47 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,951
Neurons: 42,873
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
I rest my case about us not speaking the same language. All the many references directed to Foundit have been carefully fact-based so they can't be seen as partisan.

In return we're directed to link which has "Kanye" in it! It provides a link to a an article in one of the most biased and partisan of publications in America.

There's no chance of a discussion with anyone who truly believes bias,innuendo and distortion trump facts and truth.

'Nuff said.


Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:19:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,660
Neurons: 44,241
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Freedom of speech is what makes democracy different from other "ocracies". I will defend it, except for hate speech, to the end. When there is concern that it is in jeopardy these days, one approach is to discuss its importance with university students where that was always the concept. It was unnecessary but I had that talk with my university student grans anyhow.

When definers of political-correctness-as-negative try to shut down definers-of-political-correctness-as-positive, it is the same as what they accuse positive-definers of doing to them. The street always goes both ways, a fact often forgotten when passions are roused through politics and religion. 'You call us racists so we'll call you snowflakes etc.’

But the real issue is about what kind of morality our society should encourage and whether that morality is based on empty rhetoric OR facts plus sound reasoning and behaviour that is for the common good. Does respect and courtesy for EVERYONE - no matter their views - fit into the common good? Is overlooking, disregarding, and dismissing the impact of words and videos that deny the reality of another for the common good? Should these moral rules and or/sanctions apply to all or just to those who call others racist or misogynist as in the OP link? Is "disruption" in the name of "authenticity", which was the goal, worth it when it is replaced by proven blatant lying?

According to the author on the OP link, the 'crime' of those who believe political correctness to be positive is "the ideology of multiculturalism and its attendant identity politics."

Multiculturalism on TFD: Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

So from where does all the moral outrage come these days of digital ease? Many factors are mentioned on this link that has an excellent article about psychological experiments done re motivations for the expression of moral outrage when it may have no impact on the protesters personal well-being. Anti-abortion outrage is an example mentioned in the article.

https://bangordailynews.com/2017/03/31/the-point/why-we-publicly-express-moral-outrage-over-coffee-cups-and-war-crimes/



Part of one statement the OP link author made is quite true, although he uses it to refer to one group only when it applies to all: "The simple truth is that people do not like being reduced to their skin color...". Skin colour is just a matter of whether ancestors lived closer to the equator and developed melanin to protect them, or whether they moved to colder climes where Vitamin D from the sun is in short supply so melanin is removed. It has nothing to do with their worth as a person. Surely we have better things to do than to fight over the effects of geographical location on the earth.

If the founders of the group to which this author was trying to attach his ideas thought the following was true then, it has now increased exponentially: "Never before in modern times,” the document began, “has the integrity of the writer, the artists, the scientist, and the scholar been threatened so seriously.”

BTW - who is afraid to tell a pollster the truth? To do that is just silly. Are people really that dishonest? A rhetorical question.

A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:56:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,906
Neurons: 47,764
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
It hasn't disappeared, it's still there with its link.

The thing is, it doesn't mention political correctness.
As the Farlex Dictionary shows, the phrase "political correctness" can mean whatever you want it to mean (and therefore is pretty useless as a phrase and impossible to usefully use in an argument).

Political Correctness - noun
Can be an insult, accusation, joke, or the name of an effort to change a society by means of wide-ranging but often small-scale cultural reform.


You use it as an insult - your definition is whatever you feel it to be.
Do you mean me, personally? I use it as an insult? Well, no. I don't think of it as an insult. I think of it as a political movement, an effort to accomplish a goal. My definition of it is the same as that stated in the article: "[political correctness] is contingent on agreement with or silence about certain ideas of “white privilege,” patriarchal “oppression,” “Islamophobia,” and “gender fluidity.” To dissent from these ideas — to exercise one’s right to say no — invites not only anathematization from polite society but also the loss of one’s job and, in some cases, physical threats.”

Political Correctness was what got the Google employee fired for sending out his memo in which he suggested that there might be differences in the sexes and their desire to work in certain fields.

Political Correctness was what a judge used to block Trump's travel ban for only certain people from a few countries, claiming that it was based on religious discrimination, rather than preventing terrorism.

It was Political Correctness that got a student kicked out of his University for disagreeing with a professor on a political topic, and it is Political Correctness that accuses people of racism for wanting to verify the citizenship of voters.

The examples are legion.


My meaning for it is "speaking in a way which attempts to not insult people".
I agree, and have no problem with that. But what do you do about people who insist on being insulted and offended by simply hearing a common word, or the name of a political candidate?

From where comes this "Right" to be offended, and to demand that it cease? Do these folks not also have the responsibility to refrain from insulting people also, simply because they "choose" to be offended by things most reasonable people find inoffensive?


I'd like to change the culture a little for the better and reduce the hate which is evident in some areas.
I'd like that, too, but how to accomplish that with folks who demand no one offend them, while they get to choose what is offensive at any given moment?

The article does speak disparagingly about "the ideology of multiculturalism and its attendant identity politics", which is fine.

My "creed" includes the right to freely say or write one's own opinions and to quote or write about or (verbally) disagree with the opinions of others.
In my opinion, it's perfectly OK for someone to say (outright or in other words) "I hate ______(whatever race/nationality)", or "people of other skin colour than mine are inferior and not really human" or "all ____(race/colour) are dangerous and violent" but it's not OK to then lie and say "but I'm not racist" - or then object to others telling one that it's a lie, when it obviously is, and can be easily proven to be a lie.
It's OK to say "I hate _____(whatever religion)", or "Women should not be allowed to ____, but men can" but not to then lie and say "but I'm not discriminatory", or to try to insinuate (or say outright) that anyone who argues against the idea is wrong for arguing or is mentally deficient for disagreeing.
But under Political Correctness, you aren't permitted to say you hate someone for their color, their sex, their religion, their creed, their gender, or a host of other characteristics. To do so is to have scorn, ridicule and hatred from the PC crowd heaped upon that person.

Now this would be fine for true hatred, but it isn't reserved just for that. Too often, a common, ordinary word will have it's meaning changed by the PC crowd, and folks who mean no harm at all will suddenly find themselves the target of hate. Or a speaker who holds a differing opinion finds his home and family targeted with death threats for simply wanting to voice a different opinion. This is the legacy of Political Correctness.

Edited to add: Notice that Romany and Hope both state that they present me with "facts" on why I'm wrong, but I refuse to listen to them. This is the goal of Political Correctness: you must agree with us or you are wrong, or simply refuse to listen. What constitutes "Wrong" is holding a different opinion, or legitimately questioning the ideas presented.

If one says something of that sort (or implying it), one can't then try to prevent others from writing or saying that one is a discriminatory racist ____(fill in the noun).

What I do disagree with (in life, not in that article) is anyone fomenting violence or suggesting it.
"_____ should be killed", "lynch them" are illegal statements (in the UK at least) and rightly so.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 1:02:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,906
Neurons: 47,764
Romany wrote:
I rest my case about us not speaking the same language. All the many references directed to Foundit have been carefully fact-based so they can't be seen as partisan.
Proof. Present your proof. As I stated in the "Mankind" topic, I look forward to reading your facts.

In return we're directed to link which has "Kanye" in it! It provides a link to a an article in one of the most biased and partisan of publications in America.
This is the basis for your rejection — that the word "Kanye" appears in it? And you imply that I am close-minded. I wouldn't have believed it, if I had not seen it written by you. And you think this is the only biased and partisan publications in America? Every publication is biased to some degree. So what? The idea is that there should be a variety of opinion, isn't it? Or perhaps you don't see it that way.

There's no chance of a discussion with anyone who truly believes bias,innuendo and distortion trump facts and truth.

'Nuff said.
I can agree with that.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 2:30:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,660
Neurons: 44,241
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, Please copy and paste the line where I said I presented you with facts and you don't listen. I wasn't even writing to you but once again made an academic argument discussing the article on the link in the OP and what that author wrote. My opening paragraph said I would defend free speech to the end. What part of that don't you understand?

It blows my mind how you take and make everything personal. This is the third time in three days I've asked you to stop doing that. It is getting tiresome. Why can't you respond to the content of my posts - say talk about the morality issues I raised or whatever else you disagree with or respond to some of the questions I posed for discussion? Your def of PC seems to fit your response. Hope must agree with me or Hope is wrong so I'll criticize her for attacking me even though she didn't and shut her up.

If you had read my post you'd understand that I actually did agree it is wrong, even talked to my grans about freedom of speech. I added that both sides are guilty! I'll mention just one as proof of that - Look at the statistics of transgendered people losing jobs, being harassed, being passed over for promotion, or having their workplace vandalized because of their identity. Seeing both sides of an argument is called being open-minded.

Critical thinking 101: If an argument becomes personal it loses all critical validity.


A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:46:00 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 159
Neurons: 1,611
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
But under Political Correctness, you aren't permitted to say you hate someone for their color, their sex, their religion, their creed, their gender, or a host of other characteristics. To do so is to have scorn, ridicule and hatred from the PC crowd heaped upon that person.


That seems to me to be a pretty good argument for Political Correctness.

Quote:
Now this would be fine for true hatred, but it isn't reserved just for that. Too often, a common, ordinary word will have it's meaning changed by the PC crowd, and folks who mean no harm at all will suddenly find themselves the target of hate. Or a speaker who holds a differing opinion finds his home and family targeted with death threats for simply wanting to voice a different opinion. This is the legacy of Political Correctness.


Few would deny that some people, under the guise of political correctness, have said and done things that are hateful and repressive. To tar all liberals/democrats/lefties/PC crowd (or whatever you care to call people who think in a similar way to me) with the same brush is simply unreasonable. I accept that some people have sincerely-held beliefs about the wrongness (to them) of abortion. I do not consider them all to be thugs like the tiny minority who threaten, and commit, violence against people working in abortion clinics. Please don't muddy the waters by assuming that all in the 'PC crowd are rabid antifas.

And it is simply not true that the meanings of many common words have been changed by the PC crowd. It is rather that some of these common words have changed their meanings for most people, as many modern dictionaries confirm. I am quite sure that many white people who used the word nigger of people with darker skin a century and more ago did not do so with any malice or thought to offend. They simply used a common, ordinary word for people who were different from them in a recognisable way. The fact that this recognition almost inevitably came with a belief that people with a darker skin were inferior in some ways to divinely-favoured people with lighter skin was ignored - it was the natural course of events. We have (most of us) moved on a long way since then. We recognise not only that judging a person's character, morality, criminal tendencies, acceptability in society, potential to become President of the USA, etc, is nothing but ignorant prejudice. We have also recognised that some of the common and ordinary words we used to use 'harmlessly' in fact reinforced the many prejudices we had - prejudices that had an extremely negative impact on the lives of the people the prejudice was directed at.

In a similar way, the use of supposedly gender-neutral masculine pronouns was perfectly acceptable in the male-dominated world of my schooldays, when it was a fact that 95+% of top doctors, lawyers, business executives, politicians, school principals, tc, were male (and a belief, for many, that this was because males were inherently superior to women in pretty well everything exxcept childbirth and domestic chores).Ideas about women have changed, and continue to change. The language is changing too.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, May 17, 2018 1:05:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,660
Neurons: 44,241
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Well said, Bob S.

As Dragon says, definitions are important - and so is getting the whole story before classifying an incident without slant or spin.

I had time to do some research today on the examples posted that were supposed to illustrate PC. It seems there were two sides to each story. There may be other examples not listed but my opinion differs from FD's in the validity of the classification in three of the four examples mentioned as PC.

I agree that identifying voters as citizens is NOT racist. All voters should have photo ID of citizenship and show their face to the polling clerk. It is ridiculous if polling clerks (or anyone) are called racist for doing that.

But I read the article about the student and prof. The student was disrespectful, disruptive, would not stop talking out of turn, had angry outbursts refusing to listen to a trans speaker, and claimed that any low grade would be because of her (the teacher's) personal prejudice. That's a slap in the face to any teacher. I'd have kicked him out of my classroom too. This was not an example of political correctness but an example of discipline in a classroom. No student would ever respect a teacher who let any student get away with that. Discipline would be gone forever.

The Google example too is not an example of political correctness. "Damore's views, however, were not the reason he was fired — rather, it was because portions of his manifesto violated Google's code of conduct." (It was a several page manifesto that attacked Google's policies. It is rather stupid to attack your company's policies if you value your job.)

Judge overturning ban because of discrimination is not an example of political correctness. It was Trump's own words of discrimination that the judge pointed at to show Trump meant the ban to be discriminatory.

The examples are legion on the opposite side too.

This is not an example of PC either, but just another proof that both sides are culpatory in this fight and an example that politeness and common sense are in shirt shrift these days. It is never just one-sided.

A patient said a pro-Trump doctor kicked her out of his practice for disagreeing with his politics. He did not deny it and apologized in writing. You go to the doc for health care, not to be lectured about their politics. He did say she was the one who left after he told her she didn't belong in his practice.

Doing something while black in America - like driving, waiting for a friend in Starbucks, checking out of an Airbnb, napping at Yale, using a bbq in a park, and looking at a house as a potential investor. All recent examples. Police were called in these examples and they only sided with the black person in the last example. These are examples of why just plain decency and common sense are necessary when people act in such discriminatory fashion.

The staff and police in an Alberta (I think it was Alberta) restaurant sided with a woman who shouted a rant at 4 men to go back to Syria (they were not of Syrian heritage) because she thought they were laughing at her when their laughter had nothing to do with her. They acted politely but were told to leave. She lost her job when the video was posted - and rightly so. I watched it - she was racist, vulgar, disruptive, just plain nasty, and had to be restrained over something that was all in HER head. If she can act like that in public, she could disgrace the company while working. There was a lot of public opinion voiced against her and the fact that the innocent parties were the ones forced to leave while the waitress apologized to the woman as she led her to a new booth.


Disclaimer - this post was to further discussion about the necessity for getting all the facts before labeling behaviour as PC or as racist etc. It is not meant to shut anyone down or to be politically correct. Response is encouraged.

A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:25:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 28,793
Neurons: 164,316
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hi FounDit.

Yes - If you apply your definition of political correctness (the insulting, derogatory one of "Too often, a common, ordinary word will have it's meaning changed by the PC crowd, and folks who mean no harm at all will suddenly find themselves the target of hate. Or a speaker who holds a differing opinion finds his home and family targeted with death threats for simply wanting to voice a different opinion.") then my post seems self-contradictory.

If you apply the definition of PC which I mean ("the name of an effort to change a society by means of wide-ranging but often small-scale cultural reform - I'd like to change the culture a little for the better and reduce the hate which is evident in some areas") then it is not.

This is my major point.
Arguments (even what would normally be very sane discussions) go to pieces when one person gives 'facts' which are perfectly true if you apply "meaning A" but ludicrous if you apply "Meaning B".
These facts are then 'sneered at' by the person using a different definition. This (second) person then gives facts which are perfectly true using "meaning B" but ludicrous when looked at using "meaning A".

Then it goes round and round with each side thinking the other side is being totally obtuse.

I say I try to be politically correct. I mean I try (bit-by-bit, by small changes) to improve society.

You say it was political correctness which got the Google employee fired for sending out his memo - no, it was disagreements between him, his message and his management. Nothing to do with improving society.
You say it is Political Correctness that accuses people of racism for wanting to verify the citizenship of voters. No, it's sheer stupidity on the part of a few. They are not trying to produce cultural reform, and improve society.
Of course citizens should have a vote (all of them) and non-citizens should not have a vote. All citizens should be issued with photo-ID with their National Insurance number (or whatever it is called in the USA). This could easily be done on a county-by-county basis. I'm sure it can't be done on a Federal basis, it's just too complex. Here, it is the town council which does it.

I don't really know enough about the Trump Ban question or the student/professor one. I can't say what the actual cause of the problem was. However, it was not "small-scale cultural reform". It was not actual political correctness. It may have been prejudice against white people or christians for all I know.

**************
Of course people have a right to feel offended by what I say. People have "buttons" on all sorts of things - some people don't like certain words because they have bad earlier connotations. If they are offended and they tell me, I'll try to change what I say to them.
If they change their minds and decide to be offended at my new phrasing, well, they have a right to continue feeling offended for as long as they wish.

One version of the "Golden Rules" which I like a lot is:
"Try to cause only those effects which others can easily have, and be able to confront anything."


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:35:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,660
Neurons: 44,241
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Nice analysis, Drago. I'm sure FounDit is just as passionate about improving society and the goal of helping everyone including minorities as we are.

So why do you think the dichotomy happened? Why is there now a negative/opposite response to what originally started as positive? Did the positives become too pushy as claimed? Or do the negatives fear change and loss of identity?

Or - oh my goodness - could it possibly be - both?

And most importantly - how to get the diverging lines to converge just as the railway tracks going off into the distance do.

The reason they converge is because of perspective.

P.S. Like your golden rule interpretation.

A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2018 9:10:17 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 28,793
Neurons: 164,316
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Thank you.

Yes - from various other threads and topics, it is pretty obvious that no-one who is currently active here is evil or doesn't want things to improve. FounDit has been (quietly) passionate about it at times.

How it happened and who started it, I have no idea - some of it dates to the pioneer times in the USA, I feel. I think it was FounDit who mentioned it a couple of years ago - from the days of 'land-grabbing' and 'gold-rush' and so on, the American 'mind-set' has been "the person who can take the most, and fight off anyone trying to take it, is successful".
This may not be exactly taught in school (in those words) but, I bet most of the stories kids hear and read have that 'background' as 'understood'.
Look at most films from the USA - the story may not be anything to do with this, but the 'background' is fairly sure to include competition between people at work. The hero (or heroine's husband) trying to 'outdo' the people he works with and take work from them - to get "the big contract" away from someone else. That's not the story - but it's "how life always is" as shown to kids - you have to fight everyone off and grab what you can before someone else gets to it.

It shows in vocabulary. In Britain, you have workmates - they're your mates, friends.
I've never heard such a word from an American - they have 'co-workers' or some such. I've never known a UK firm have to have "team-building" weekends to TRY to make people who work together become friends and cooperate. It's unnecessary. It's natural for someone with a normal British upbringing to cooperate. It seems natural for someone with an American background to compete.

So I can understand - someone who is brought up to "be individual and look after yourself, not anyone else" could easily see "progressive" as meaning "communist".
Anyone who puts any importance on society rather than self is "socialist" at best and probably a soviet spy, and obviously evil . . .

************
But it's the same the opposite way round - some of the stories I grew up with were 'totally group' things "Famous Five", "The Secret Seven". But others had a "high class, educated, rather aristocratic" hero assisted by a group of 'ordinary folk' - "the team behind the leader".
The only 'competitors' they had to deal with were the evil, self-centred, dictatorial "enemy" and bureaucratic, nit-picking, pen-pushing administrators who let red-tape prevent the team from operating properly.

From the viewpoint of that upbringing, anyone who tries to push for individual 'glory' or 'power' is obviously self-centred. Therefore they are dictatorial and evil . . .

************
On the PC thing - I'm sure it's both.

There are the people - not many of them, but noisy - who go to ridiculous lengths to find things to be horrified about.
Romany has never met anyone quite like this, but I have (mainly among the ultra-conservative, "upper middle-class, trying to be aristocratic", "got to be totally proper and speak proper" - shopping at Harrods so they can be seen carrying the bag - type). (The link is a parody TV show).
Any mention of someone's hair-colour, gender, nationality, age or whatever is met by frowns and loud whispers (for your own good, of course) of "You can't say that, it's just not DONE!"

Then there are the ones (probably about as many at the first group above) who insist on deliberately being offensive (who get on the train and start screaming at some poor Portuguese holidaymaker to "Get back to Turkey where you belong and stop taking seats and jobs meant for white people".

Then there are ninety percent of the population at various stages between the two, depending on which media-outlet they favour.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2018 1:01:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,906
Neurons: 47,764
DragOnspeaker wrote:

Hi FounDit.

Yes - If you apply your definition of political correctness (the insulting, derogatory one of "Too often, a common, ordinary word will have it's meaning changed by the PC crowd, and folks who mean no harm at all will suddenly find themselves the target of hate. Or a speaker who holds a differing opinion finds his home and family targeted with death threats for simply wanting to voice a different opinion.") then my post seems self-contradictory.

If you apply the definition of PC which I mean ("the name of an effort to change a society by means of wide-ranging but often small-scale cultural reform - I'd like to change the culture a little for the better and reduce the hate which is evident in some areas") then it is not.

This is my major point.
Arguments (even what would normally be very sane discussions) go to pieces when one person gives 'facts' which are perfectly true if you apply "meaning A" but ludicrous if you apply "Meaning B".
These facts are then 'sneered at' by the person using a different definition. This (second) person then gives facts which are perfectly true using "meaning B" but ludicrous when looked at using "meaning A".

Then it goes round and round with each side thinking the other side is being totally obtuse.

I say I try to be politically correct. I mean I try (bit-by-bit, by small changes) to improve society.

You say it was political correctness which got the Google employee fired for sending out his memo - no, it was disagreements between him, his message and his management. Nothing to do with improving society.
I agree it had nothing to do with improving society. But that was not the reason for his employment, nor his function as an employee at Google; therefore, firing him for expressing his opinion, even when backed with links to studies that may, or may not, have been sufficient, should not have been done.

In this country, one is supposed to have the freedom to express one’s opinions, even if unpopular. He was fired for being in violation of your first definition. In this case, he expressed the idea that women and men might choose different career paths because of biological, or gender differences, and that this might explain why there were more male techs at Google than female techs. Apparently, Google couldn’t tolerate such an opinion being expressed, even if it might be true (and it demonstrably was/is true).

You say it is Political Correctness that accuses people of racism for wanting to verify the citizenship of voters. No, it's sheer stupidity on the part of a few. They are not trying to produce cultural reform, and improve society.
Of course citizens should have a vote (all of them) and non-citizens should not have a vote. All citizens should be issued with photo-ID with their National Insurance number (or whatever it is called in the USA). This could easily be done on a county-by-county basis. I'm sure it can't be done on a Federal basis, it's just too complex. Here, it is the town council which does it.
I agree that it is stupid to accuse someone of racism for wanting to verify the citizenship of voters, but this is exactly what is happening here in the U.S. anytime such an idea is suggested. And this is a prime example of Political Correctness. Verification of voter identity and citizenship is described by the PC crowd as ‘voter suppression’, when it is no such thing.

I don't really know enough about the Trump Ban question or the student/professor one. I can't say what the actual cause of the problem was. However, it was not "small-scale cultural reform". It was not actual political correctness. It may have been prejudice against white people or christians for all I know.
I can’t find the story now, but here is one I just read about:
A professor at College of the Canyons in Colorado handed out her syllabus to her class, on which it is stated that any student stereotyping someone “based on race, gender, ability, nationality, sexuality, or any other identity” is considered an interruption and will a) be barred from participating in class, b) lose all participation points for the day, and c) referred to the Dean of Students.”

Accompanying the syllabus was a White Privilege Checklist the students were to fill out. Apparently, this professor doesn’t see the irony in punishing students who reference stereotypes while simultaneously stereotyping every white individual through the White Privilege Checklist.

This is so stupid, I wish I could say I was making this up, but it’s real.

On the Trump issue:
Trump issued an executive order that sought to ban entry to the U.S. of people from several Muslim-majority countries until such time as they could be vetted properly. He did not ban all Muslims from entering the country, but that was the way the media covered it.

The judge who blocked his order was Hispanic, and Trump questioned whether the judge was biased, given Trump’s desire to build a wall on the Southern border, and the mischaracterization of his comments on Hispanic immigrants by the press. They reported he said all immigrants were criminals, and he simply did not say that. I think Trump’s comment on the judge was an effort on his part to direct attention to that judge, and try to impel him to rule objectively, but it didn’t work. Rather than use legal thinking, the judge used conversation from Trump during his run for the Presidency as the basis for blocking the order.

**************
Of course people have a right to feel offended by what I say. People have "buttons" on all sorts of things - some people don't like certain words because they have bad earlier connotations. If they are offended and they tell me, I'll try to change what I say to them.
If they change their minds and decide to be offended at my new phrasing, well, they have a right to continue feeling offended for as long as they wish.
It would be nice if that’s the way it was here, and at one time, it was that way. But today, a student can be expelled from a class, or the University itself for disagreeing with the opinions of a professor, and saying so publicly.

And people have legal charges brought against them in some cases for what someone thinks is “hate speech” when it is no such thing. It’s just becoming ridiculous, often as not.

People so easily take offense at the slightest things nowadays. If you go back and look at some of my posts, this one, for example, you’ll see that I’m merely observing and reporting what I see happening here in my country, and presenting my opinions on it at times. And because they don’t match the popular view, offense it taken by some and the sharp knives are brought to the fore. But that’s okay. I really don’t mind. But if insults are directed my way, I may reciprocate, but always nicely…*ahem*.

One version of the "Golden Rules" which I like a lot is:
"Try to cause only those effects which others can easily have, and be able to confront anything."
A good plan, and a good idea. One of the reasons I like responding to your posts is because you discuss the ideas, and you don’t seem to take offense by an opinion from another person that may differ. It’s always a refreshing change of pace for me. And it is precisely that characteristic that is the difference between a discussion and debate, and Political Correctness. Under Political Correctness, it is anger that comes to the fore, followed by insults, rather than the exchange of ideas and opinions; and that’s why Political Correctness is so offensive. It divides, rather than unifies.

One final point concerning the divergence mentioned by Hope, I think this came about because of what I mentioned in another thread about certain people in all political systems who want to cause disruption and disunity for political power purposes. But because they hide their true intentions, people get sucked into what they think are positive, unifying goals, but which really divide and disrupt a society. It is my opinion that we are in the throes of just such turmoil at present. I’ve no doubt it will be worked out, but just as the Civil War left a lot of anger and hurt feelings for decades afterwards, this political war will do the same, unfortunately.

I didn’t meant for this to be so long, but I’ve been travelling and couldn’t respond right away to succeeding posts.





A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2018 1:35:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 28,793
Neurons: 164,316
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Nope! You're wrong!!!! Silenced

Sorry, got carried away there. . .

The real disagreement we have is still there and is not likely to change much really - because we are in different societies.

The way it is understood here, none of those examples you have in this post are anything to do with political correctness.

OK, Google couldn’t tolerate such an opinion being expressed, what's that got to do with minor adjustments changing society? It doesn't improve society, it's not political correctness, it's bias and an offence against freedom of speech. (OK, I agree the technician was a bit stupid, too).

"Verification of voter identity and citizenship is described by the PC crowd as ‘voter suppression’" - these people are not a "PC Crowd" - just by their actions they show that they are not interested in political correctness. They are interested in making it easy for criminals and people who want to falsify votes. That is the exact opposite of being politically correct. Criminality is never correct. Why do you say they are?

That professor it College of the Canyons in Colorado has shown herself to be highly discriminatory - definitely not politically correct.

And so on. NONE of the examples show any signs of political correctness.
Yet you continue to say that these negative points are because of political correctness and that anyone who is correct is wrong . . .d'oh! d'oh!

***********
I think you're right about there being certain people (on ALL sides) who really just want to cause disruption - it's not easy spotting them sometimes, and it's not always easy to handle.

PS Do take a look at the link (a you-tube excerpt of a TV parody) in the last post I sent before this one.
Maybe it's not quite so funny to someone with an American background (you won't have ALL the cultural references) but I think you'll find it hilarious.

It's not really about PC or discrimination of various sorts - but it is about 'fixed ideas' and educational stereotyping.
The kid actors are quite brilliant.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2018 3:46:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,906
Neurons: 47,764
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Nope! You're wrong!!!! Silenced

Sorry, got carried away there. . .


Yikes!!!!

The real disagreement we have is still there and is not likely to change much really - because we are in different societies.

The way it is understood here, none of those examples you have in this post are anything to do with political correctness.
Ah, so we do have very different definitions of Political Correctness. On this side of the pond, it is used to force conformity to certain ideas that have gradually come into vogue over the last several decades.

All the examples I used would be considered political correctness here because the effect is to compel only a particular type of thought, or speech.

OK, Google couldn’t tolerate such an opinion being expressed, what's that got to do with minor adjustments changing society? It doesn't improve society, it's not political correctness, it's bias and an offence against freedom of speech. (OK, I agree the technician was a bit stupid, too).

"Verification of voter identity and citizenship is described by the PC crowd as ‘voter suppression’" - these people are not a "PC Crowd" - just by their actions they show that they are not interested in political correctness. They are interested in making it easy for criminals and people who want to falsify votes. That is the exact opposite of being politically correct. Criminality is never correct. Why do you say they are?

That professor it College of the Canyons in Colorado has shown herself to be highly discriminatory - definitely not politically correct.

And so on. NONE of the examples show any signs of political correctness.
Yet you continue to say that these negative points are because of political correctness and that anyone who is correct is wrong . . .d'oh! d'oh!

***********
I think you're right about there being certain people (on ALL sides) who really just want to cause disruption - it's not easy spotting them sometimes, and it's not always easy to handle.

PS Do take a look at the link (a you-tube excerpt of a TV parody) in the last post I sent before this one.
Maybe it's not quite so funny to someone with an American background (you won't have ALL the cultural references) but I think you'll find it hilarious.

It's not really about PC or discrimination of various sorts - but it is about 'fixed ideas' and educational stereotyping.
The kid actors are quite brilliant.
I did view the video and it is hilarious. I would describe it more as an example of elitism, the mind-set that sees itself as superior to, better than, and distanced from ordinary citizens. It puts me in mind of Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment, or what many on the East and West coast refer to as "fly-over country", meaning the rest of us.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2018 10:23:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,660
Neurons: 44,241
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Drago, the video is hilarious! The boy singing at the end has a lovely voice.

:::

"Words Really are Important, Mr. Blunkett" Will Hutton 2001

I agree with UK's Hutton that Political Correctness has become a political weapon in the US since the 80's when conservatives hit upon the goldmine idea to attack liberals for Political Correctness, thus making that the focus and undermining and promoting attack on the whole liberal programme of helping the weakest, as that's considered to be communism/socialism/progressive. From there the attack has travelled around the world. BTW - What happened to the conservative concept that "Justice does not come from coercive rules...it comes from moral individuals."?? Emphasis mine.

Often sound bites or over simplifications from the side to which loyalty is felt are believed, either without checking facts or with willingness to ignore them. I have a problem with both of those. This is only one example, but it shows how it is done to effectively attack the other side. That's why I have decided to answer the double down.

What Damore actually said

BUT while reading what he said pretend you are the owner, CEO, CFO, or shareholder of a company with these policies - "The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking."

Damore said a heck of a lot more than "men and women might choose different career paths because of gender differences". In fact it was ten pages long. I read it.

All companies are in the business of keeping customers and making a profit for their investments and efforts, and are responsible to their share holders, consumers and staff who are female and minorities, and males who support them. Companies can't condone the attitudes of male superiority Damore espoused if they want to stay in business. They also have to follow anti discrimination laws. Damore said, "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.” Google is actually under attack for the very opposite.

After I read it, what stuck out in my mind was that his motivation for writing it was to attack Google for being too liberal, for silencing conservative views, (shades of this forum?) as he wanted more conservative views. Well then go work for a company with a conservative viewpoint. (He's been offered a job by Julian Assange.)


Anyhow, he said some general truths about the differences in men and women. Somehow he twisted those traits to make women inferior, less qualified, and less able to handle tech jobs. Among other things he says they are not career focused like men, are too agreeable, have too much anxiety and can't handle stress - the old standby - women are neurotic. All stereotypes.

Ten top tech jobs are: software developer, Info security analyst, IT manager, computer systems analyst, computer network architect, computer systems administrator, database administrator, web developer, computer support specialist, computer programmer. What two major qualities do these jobs require in common? Why, intelligence and creativity, no less! His reference to IQ was slightly ambiguous - guess he figured that was one step too far.

Readers: No matter your definition of PC, do you still think he was fired for being politcally incorrect? Google handled it internally at first but after it was leaked the company had a problem. Do you think freedom of expression obligates a company to let one individual undermine the company's policy and integrity by espousing male superiority? What about responsibility to the other thousands of employees and millions of customers? After all it is their money on the line.

The flaw in my argument of course, is that people still do believe in male superiority. Apparently that concept is alive and well in Silicon Valley, according to reports. And I'm sure elsewhere.

::::

Hypocrisy on Both Sides

Any conservative who makes fun of liberal students demanding safe spaces, but then turns around and says people who question the troops should lose their jobs, is being awfully hypocritical. This controversy is the Mirror Universe twin of the Amy Wax kerfuffle, in which conservatives defended an educator who was accused of saying racially insensitive things, and liberals called for her head. Political correctness afflicts both sides of the political spectrum. Emphasis mine.

Pretending it is all one sided is just well, one sided.


A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.