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

On Political Correctness Options
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 9:04:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
The term "Political Correctness" or "PC" has become a weapon in the US and is used against those who try to call out racism, bigotry and institutionalized inequality. Anecdotes, misdirection and the constant misuse of the phrase "political correctness" in their ongoing attempt to redefine the phrase are tools that they use to try to control the narrative.

When they push the narrative that calling a racist a racist is racist, you can use your own sense of the logic, morality and ethics to decide for yourself if that is true. But in my case, I tend to agree with Lee Papa (the Rude Pundit). I will not post a link or quote very much of him here, quite simply because he is rude. But he nails it here:

Calling you "racist" isn't political correctness run amok. It isn't an attempt to shut down debate. It isn't even really meant as an insult (even though, yes, it is one). It's a way of defining your beliefs. If you think that people should be treated differently because of the color of their skin or if you voted for leaders who believe that and act on it, then what else should you be called? I mean, "Republican" works, too, except that there are still one or two Republicans who aren't motivated by hatred of non-whites. So "racist" is just a shorthand way to describe an ideology. And, yeah, I do think racists are bad people because, well, they're racists. But that's not racism on my part.

One thing here I will expand on is the "motivated by hatred of non-whites". In the US political system, that does not even have to be socially motivated because in the US political system, money and power are the primary drivers. Hatred of non-whites in this political theater is simply the belief that those who are not like me will not send money to me or my political party and will not support my political career.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 1:30:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Proggy, it always comes down to money, doesn't it?

I saw a TV interview (forget the man's name) but he basically said what I've said before about racism except he separated it into two terms.

I have said we are all racists because it is in the human condition to belong to tribes to survive. We all secretly have our own pet peeves and prejudices and some are not even connected to race/culture. Anybody who says they don't is lying.

But he called that being a bigot. I wish there was a better term because that term already has baggage. It can mean intolerant and that is not always the case. Anyone with a better term?

I said racism was how you acted in spite of your prejudice but he says it is an altogether different attitude:

Not his exact words, just the meaning - Racism presumes one person (or group) has access to the power and thinks they have the right to relegate other vulnerable lives to oppression, and maybe even slavery.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2018 4:33:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,176
Neurons: 177,168
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
The word I thought of for the "normal, natural favouring of one's own family, clan or nation" was 'bias' - but even 'bias' has "irrational" and "prejudice" in the definition.

Of the synonyms:
prejudice, leaning, bent, tendency, inclination, penchant, intolerance, bigotry, propensity, favouritism, predisposition, nepotism, unfairness, predilection, proclivity, partiality, narrow-mindedness, proneness, one-sidedness,
probably "partiality", "predisposition" are the least derogatory-sounding, I suppose.

I don't feel "bigot" really fits. That was an old French insult for the Normans (even before the English started insulting them), but it implies total intolerance, not just 'national pride'.

I joke about, and sometimes deliberately exaggerate, my own 'culturally implanted bias' - the normal family- and peer-taught ideas (life-long memes, I suppose) - "UK is better than USA", "UK is better than EU", "Lancashire will beat Yorkshire, anytime", even "my school's better than yours" - but they are there. There is nothing in them like the vehemence and hatred which there was early in the 20th century, or is shown between many Republicans and Democrats in the US now, or some 'whites' and 'coloureds' (in both directions) but there is a 'partiality'.

If I were to divide 'racism' into two extremes, I think I would use
- "bigotry" for the extreme "they have the right to relegate other vulnerable lives to oppression, and maybe even slavery" idea and
- "predilection" or "predisposition" for the one which one recognises (in oneself) and can be seen as being merely preference without intolerance.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:20:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
DragOnspeaker wrote:

I joke about, and sometimes deliberately exaggerate, my own 'culturally implanted bias' - the normal family- and peer-taught ideas (life-long memes, I suppose) - "UK is better than USA", "UK is better than EU", "Lancashire will beat Yorkshire, anytime", even "my school's better than yours" - but they are there. There is nothing in them like the vehemence and hatred which there was early in the 20th century, or is shown between many Republicans and Democrats in the US now, or some 'whites' and 'coloureds' (in both directions) but there is a 'partiality'.

Very true, and has always been true for as long as there have been humans on the Earth. All of us recognize the similarity of groups, whether that is color, language, religion, customs, or the differences in those things. And like it or not, people tend to group themselves together along those lines.

What “Political Correctness” does is insist there is only one way to view those differences, and that if one does not agree to that view, then that person is to be vilified.

“Political Correctness” is really nothing more than Correct Appearances. It doesn’t matter what the truth is, only what appears to be truth as defined by the group seemingly holding power at any given time.

That is how some groups come to see themselves as “civilized” and other groups are “savages”; how some people are “human”, while others aren’t quite there yet. Those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country.

The “White Privilege” meme is just one of those views, and it is not to be challenged. All can read what happens when that is done by simply reading the posts here in response to my OP. The purpose is to prevent anyone else from speaking out against the “correct” view. This has been the practice and purpose throughout history whenever the status quo is questioned, so it isn’t a surprise.

I’m old enough to have seen this song and dance before in the 1950’s and 60’s. We survived that, and we’ll survive this, but it does make for living in interesting times.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:30:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,176
Neurons: 177,168
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
I’m old enough to have seen this song and dance before in the 1950’s and 60’s. We survived that, and we’ll survive this, but it does make for living in interesting times.

Yes - I remember the "Red Under the Bed". Anyone who disagreed with the status-quo was a "Communist" or "Leftist" or "Red". Then later they were all 'leftie hippies'.

As this article in The Spectator says "We now take it for granted that organic carrot juice, psychedelic drugs and virulently left-wing politics go hand in hand . . ."

In the 50s, the same 'groups' as currently are accused of "political correctness" (Hollywood and the Universities, even much of Washington) were accused of being Communist hotbeds passing arms and military information to Russia . . .



***********
Yes -
Quote:
That is how some groups come to see themselves as “civilized” and other groups are “savages”; how some people are “human”, while others aren’t quite there yet. Those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country.




Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
progpen
Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:26:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Drag0's post shows that those who were speaking out or seen as a threat to the status quo were the ones being vilified. Unfortunately, it wasn't until many years later that those doing the vilifying were finally themselves vilified. We are just repeating that pattern today by vilifying talk of political correctness.

Aggressors have always tried to make themselves out to be the victim, I think that is more human nature than anything.

It is interesting to see that political correctness is also under attack elsewhere though.
How did the right, traditional supporters of censorship, become the enemies of political correctness? The answer requires a detour through cultural history
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/political-correctness-has-no-meaning-thats-the-main-appeal

What is this all-powerful doctrine that deters Peter Dutton from his carolling? What, precisely, does “political correctness” mean? The short answer is: almost nothing, and thus pretty much anything you like. The long answer entails a detour through recent cultural history.


Until quite recently, the Australian state was notorious for banning books, films, plays and anything much else that transgressed against traditional Christian morality. In 1941, the Postmaster-General described James Joyce’s Ulysses as “a filthy book that should not only be banned but burnt”. As late as 1972, Australia prohibited novels by William S Burroughs, Jean Genet, Henry Miller and Gore Vidal.

Today, conservatives decry “political correctness” for imposing a gag on ordinary people on behalf of a cultural elite. Yet that was pretty much exactly the logic of the old censorship regime that they backed: wealthy connoisseurs could ogle “artistic” nudes, while police ruthlessly suppressed racy magazines aimed at a mass audience.



So it seems that political correctness is quite a lot like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder. And quite dependent upon how the political winds blow.


And here is a quote that really brings it home.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump
There is an obvious contradiction involved in complaining at length, to an audience of hundreds of millions of people, that you are being silenced.

The term is what Ancient Greek rhetoricians would have called an “exonym”: a term for another group, which signals that the speaker does not belong to it. Nobody ever describes themselves as “politically correct”. The phrase is only ever an accusation.


Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:07:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Drago, I like your definitions. Bigotry for the worse definition and predisposition for the human condition. Will I be accused of being "politically correct" for trying to find definitions that fit the best, do you think? Whistle

:::

Proggy, I enjoyed the articles on your links. Especially the definitions: "What, precisely, does “political correctness” mean? The short answer is: almost nothing, and thus pretty much anything you like." And: "The term is what Ancient Greek rhetoricians would have called an “exonym”: a term for another group, which signals that the speaker does not belong to it. Nobody ever describes themselves as “politically correct”. The phrase is only ever an accusation."

An accusation that it is the Left that 'enforces' it. I've never quite figured out how anyone "enforces" it. I've never heard of language police. (Well, maybe in Quebec where they actually do enforce French by law. But that's a different scenario.)

And a couple of quotes from the Australian article:"The old fashioned university has largely disappeared – destroyed by the right’s enthusiasm for the market, not by the machination of radical academics."

"In any case, the rhetoric once used to defend high culture against leftist barbarians now studs the speeches of men who have never read a book in their life. Think of Donald Trump: when he decries political correctness, he’s not urging a return to Plato but defending calling women “dogs” and “pigs”."

An Anti-PC conspiracy theory has paved the way for the populist authoritarianism now spreading everywhere.

:::

FounDit wrote: "Hmm, it only took 4 hours for this post to disappear. Interesting, but not too surprising." (It had not disappeared, obviously.)

There is no conspiracy against you by TFD nor by posters conspiring to shut you down. That is your perception. Perhaps that incorrect POV could be transferred to how you view it happening in overwhelming numbers in life in general. (In fact, people who "speak out" are often the ones credited with effecting change.)

It is when an argument is being lost and there is no refutation available that those in a debate/ discussion/argument tend to fall back on the accusation that someone is trying to "shut them down, when in fact opinions were just backed up with facts.

In this case the opposite is true. Your oft repeated statement is an attempt to "shut down" any opposition to your claims here on the Forum, implying we were wrong to challenge you just because we happen to believe with the majority of people right now, and the majority here on the Forum. What if your opinion was in the majority? Would you still be applying that logic? I think not.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, June 8, 2018 3:05:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 981
Neurons: 479,507
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country.

[...]

The purpose is to prevent anyone else from speaking out against the “correct” view. This has been the practice and purpose throughout history whenever the status quo is questioned, so it isn’t a surprise.



You can speak out as much as you like - freedom of speech and all. The flipside that you seem to forget about is that the rest also have the freedom to speak out against your views.

Political correctness, pointing out that "mankind" can be seen as offensive, raising awareness by pointing out white privilege... To me, that's questioning the status quo, questioning that particular view that is promoted by Hollywood, the Media and Washington. It's a healthy practice to ask questions. Particularly if the status quo leaves large groups of people out of the picture.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, June 8, 2018 4:04:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country.

[...]

The purpose is to prevent anyone else from speaking out against the “correct” view. This has been the practice and purpose throughout history whenever the status quo is questioned, so it isn’t a surprise.



You can speak out as much as you like - freedom of speech and all. The flipside that you seem to forget about is that the rest also have the freedom to speak out against your views.

Political correctness, pointing out that "mankind" can be seen as offensive, raising awareness by pointing out white privilege... To me, that's questioning the status quo, questioning that particular view that is promoted by Hollywood, the Media and Washington. It's a healthy practice to ask questions. Particularly if the status quo leaves large groups of people out of the picture.


I know very well the rest of you have the freedom to speak out, and you do. Simply look at any cable news channel, or look at all the topics posted by Oscar D. Grouch, progpen, Hope, Romany, yourself, Will, et al. The difference is, I don't get angry and call you names, or impugn your character by calling you derogatory names as so many on the Progressive Left do with us.

Why the anger? Has a point been reached whereby no one is allowed to have an opinion you don't agree with? When did the opinions of the Political Left achieve supremacy such that no dissent it to be tolerated? I'd really like to know. All of you seem to be angry and incapable of calmly discussing any political topic without getting snarky about it. Why is that?


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2018 5:34:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 540
Neurons: 3,489
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

Why the anger? Has a point been reached whereby no one is allowed to have an opinion you don't agree with? When did the opinions of the Political Left achieve supremacy such that no dissent it to be tolerated? I'd really like to know. All of you seem to be angry and incapable of calmly discussing any political topic without getting snarky about it. Why is that?


Speaking only for myself
, I'd say:

Many of those of us who hold different opinions from you are not angry - disagreement is not necessarily anger.

The idea of me/us being incapable of calmly discussing any political topic without getting snarky about it appears to me to be pretty snarky itself - disagreement is not necessarily snarkiness.

You, FD, (I am speaking to the individual) like some who disagree with certain viewpoints, have a tendency to lump all of those who disagree with you on some points as being 'Liberal', of the 'Political Left', 'Politically Correct', etc. I am very strongly in favour of complete equality for all humans, regardless of skin colour, gender, physical/mental powers, sexual orientation/identification, creed, etc. That does not mean that I hold exactly the same opinions as others who disagree with you on some points. I happen to be a committed socialist; even in my rather right-wing youth, I still held similar views on humans. I don't find it reasonable to be grouped as a member of some amorphous trendy group. If I respond to something you have written here, I don't think of you as one of a vague group of right-wingers, fascists, sexists, etc. I accept that the people whose views I disagree with are a very varied group.

Quote:
FounDit wrote:
Those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country.


That's what some think. Others think that some of those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country, and that that view is, to crudely overs-simplify, right-wing. . The very strong anti-Obama and anti-Clinton views put out by some parts of the media over the years hardly show that the institutions are dominated by those whose views you dislike, and the success of Trump and the Republicans in the last election show that those who wield power whose views you disagree with are far from all-powerful.

Some people at both ends of the political and other spectra make wild, generalised and (sometimes) deliberately untrue claims about people who disagree with them. Some people at neither end make such claims.

Romany
Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2018 6:10:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,406
Neurons: 44,866
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Bob - Applause Applause Applause

...and so say all of us.

(btw - being a-political, I don't think I've ever posted a thread in Politics or, if so it was one that wasn't particularly contentious.)
progpen
Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2018 8:23:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
The difference is, I don't get angry and call you names, or impugn your character by calling you derogatory names


That is not even remotely correct or realistic.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2018 10:50:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:

Why the anger? Has a point been reached whereby no one is allowed to have an opinion you don't agree with? When did the opinions of the Political Left achieve supremacy such that no dissent it to be tolerated? I'd really like to know. All of you seem to be angry and incapable of calmly discussing any political topic without getting snarky about it. Why is that?


Speaking only for myself
, I'd say:

Many of those of us who hold different opinions from you are not angry - disagreement is not necessarily anger.

The idea of me/us being incapable of calmly discussing any political topic without getting snarky about it appears to me to be pretty snarky itself - disagreement is not necessarily snarkiness.
Accusing someone of racist comments as was done to my questioning is, IMO, "snarky". So too is altering the meaning of what I say to state something opposite of what I said.

You, FD, (I am speaking to the individual) like some who disagree with certain viewpoints, have a tendency to lump all of those who disagree with you on some points as being 'Liberal', of the 'Political Left', 'Politically Correct', etc. I am very strongly in favour of complete equality for all humans, regardless of skin colour, gender, physical/mental powers, sexual orientation/identification, creed, etc. That does not mean that I hold exactly the same opinions as others who disagree with you on some points. I happen to be a committed socialist; even in my rather right-wing youth, I still held similar views on humans. I don't find it reasonable to be grouped as a member of some amorphous trendy group. If I respond to something you have written here, I don't think of you as one of a vague group of right-wingers, fascists, sexists, etc. I accept that the people whose views I disagree with are a very varied group.
And yet you admit to being a member of the "general" socialist group, and previously of a "rather right-wing" group. You disagree with generalizations, yet commit to them. And that is fine because there are general groups and political ideologies. So when I spoke of Political Correctness as being part of the Political Left, no insult was intended, just a statement of fact which can be recognized by any reasonable person, IMO.

Quote:
FounDit wrote:
Those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country.


That's what some think. It is what nearly everyone thinks, including the political Left, who are proud of that fact. And that is all it is, a fact.

Others think that some of those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country, and that that view is, to crudely overs-simplify, right-wing. Thank you. This answers my question on why the anger.

The very strong anti-Obama and anti-Clinton views put out by some parts of the media over the years hardly show that the institutions are dominated by those whose views you dislike, and the success of Trump and the Republicans in the last election show that those who wield power whose views you disagree with are far from all-powerful.
Exactly. And this, too, is part of the answer as to the anger issue. This explains some of the comments and actions by folks such as Stephen Colbert, Samantha ee, Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, and numerous politicians, inter alia.

Some people at both ends of the political and other spectra make wild, generalised and (sometimes) deliberately untrue claims about people who disagree with them. Some people at neither end make such claims.
True. And I wish that were true here on the forum, also.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2018 11:11:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
BobSchilling is correct of course that disagreement is not anger nor is it snark. But what really tends to draw out these "discussions" and get them going down innumerable rat holes is the idea that disagreement with a group, political party or ideology is the same as a personal insult. We've seen numerous statements that a certain commenter has personally insulted the accuser. When looking back we will see that the statement was directed against the republican party or NRA or some other group. On the flip side, if someone would bring the same accusation up with that accuser the excuse is always, "I didn't call you personally a name, but just leftys, librls, commies, socialists, etc." So two sets of rules apply.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2018 11:14:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: "Why is that?"

These are MY honest feelings and they are meant to be constructive, not derogatory. I was not angry nor am I angry now.

Any feeling of anger you got in this thread was because of a misinterpretation. An opportunity to explain was lost when Drago's "be careful with your language" was ignored.

Although you felt your words were straightforward, instead of allowing that perhaps your words were somewhat ambiguous, you indignantly claim posters "can't read".

"Repeating many times (you said "give you a laugh" in this thread) that you find posters comments "laughable" does not "win friends and influence people". Do you like it when people laugh at you?

I have asked you to no avail in three recent previous threads to stop making personal comments about me and guessing my motivations putting words into my mouth when I had carefully made my posts from a purely academic standpoint. You made it personal when it was not. This post IS personal - answering your "Why is that?" question.

Apologize instead of ignoring my request for a quote of where I said "Please copy and paste the line where I said I presented you with facts and you don't listen". Because I never said it.

As Bob says in his excellent post, continuously lumping people into groups and then attacking them - such as liberals, refusing to recognize that conservatives are just as culpable, and all the while knowing that those you are talking to ARE social liberals - makes it hard for me, and probably others, not to respond in kind. Yet we have never called you a "Trumpist" when we give our negative opinions about him.

It is not the group you belong to, it is that you don't recognize your own angry inflammatory passive-aggressive labels such as "Social Justice Warriors" directed at all liberals. i.e, other posters here. Or passing off put-downs as a joke or "just having a little fun".

I agree with Progpen's comment as I remember some name calling of him and others by you.

The judgmental tone and accusations about posters in general is not conducive to reasoned debate. We HAD started the thread off in a new academic tangent when you repeated your usual accusations that we try to shut you down with our opinions backed up with facts, bringing the thread back to this disruptive status.

FounDit wrote: The “White Privilege” meme is just one of those views, and it is not to be challenged. All can read what happens when that is done by simply reading the posts here in response to my OP...

"...no one is allowed to have an opinion you don't agree with".


What exactly do you want? Us to say we agree when we don't? It sounds like an accusatory demand of some kind. I tell you when I agree or as Drago says he often agrees partly. I also tell you when I don't agree. I can't help it that we disagree very frequently or that your opinions are in the minority in the Politics sub forum.

Lotje had a perfectly good explanation as to our reasoning - that WE ARE questioning the status quo. Did that not resonate with you that she was answering your status quo statement? You might have said that you could see her point. I certainly do.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
BobShilling
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2018 4:45:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 540
Neurons: 3,489
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
yet you admit to being a member of the "general" socialist group, and previously of a "rather right-wing" group. You disagree with generalizations, yet commit to them. And that is fine because there are general groups and political ideologies. So when I spoke of Political Correctness as being part of the Political Left, no insult was intended, just a statement of fact which can be recognized by any reasonable person,


I mentioned my political leanings and specifically said that they did not affect my views on some things such as racism and sexism. It is possible to be a right-wing or a left-wing person with racist/anti-racist and/or sexist/anti-sexist views.

Associating political correctness with the political left is not a fact. There are people on the right who are pretty sensitive about their language and the way they speak to and of other groups. There are people on the left who have some fairly non-PC views and/or who appear to me (a socialist) to pervert the idea of political correctness in some rather unpleasant ways.

You appear to be still lumping together people with very differing views on many things.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2018 10:51:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
yet you admit to being a member of the "general" socialist group, and previously of a "rather right-wing" group. You disagree with generalizations, yet commit to them. And that is fine because there are general groups and political ideologies. So when I spoke of Political Correctness as being part of the Political Left, no insult was intended, just a statement of fact which can be recognized by any reasonable person,


I mentioned my political leanings and specifically said that they did not affect my views on some things such as racism and sexism. It is possible to be a right-wing or a left-wing person with racist/anti-racist and/or sexist/anti-sexist views.
That is true, and we see it demonstrated daily on cable news shows. And when avowed Leftists adopt the attitude that "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler", or is racist, xenophobic, or misogynists, they fall into that category. And there are racists on the Right, and those who fit the other categories, but they definitely are NOT in positions of influence over the society by virtue of their roles in Hollywood, the Media (social,TV,print, etc.), or Washington, D.C. I think anyone unaware of that fact simply isn't paying attention.

Associating political correctness with the political left is not a fact.
Really? Really!? You say that with a straight face? And then admit in the next sentence that it is "people on the left who...pervert the idea of political correctness". I really don't intend to insult you, but it is difficult to take you seriously when you contradict yourself and misstate the most obvious facts.

There are people on the right who are pretty sensitive about their language and the way they speak to and of other groups. There are people on the left who have some fairly non-PC views and/or who appear to me (a socialist) to pervert the idea of political correctness in some rather unpleasant ways.

You appear to be still lumping together people with very differing views on many things.
Under a common belief that their view is the only view that is to be acceptable for a host of topics. One has only to watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or any number of cable news outlets to discover what those topics are, ranging from the President, to immigration, to trade, to whatever inanity pops into their heads at any given moment. I watch in amazement at the evanescent acumen on display daily from such outlets.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2018 12:27:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,176
Neurons: 177,168
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
Really? Really!? You say that with a straight face? And then admit in the next sentence that it is "people on the left who...pervert the idea of political correctness".

You mis-quote by omission.
BobShilling wrote:
Associating political correctness with the political left is not a fact. There are people on the right who are pretty sensitive about their language and the way they speak to and of other groups. There are people on the left who have some fairly non-PC views and/or who appear to me (a socialist) to pervert the idea of political correctness in some rather unpleasant ways.


Not "It is people on the left . . ." but "There are people on the right who are pretty sensitive about their language" (i.e. Some on the right adhere to political correctness) and "There are people on the left who have some fairly non-PC views and/or who appear to me (a socialist) to pervert the idea of political correctness in some rather unpleasant ways." (i.e. Some on the left do not adhere to political correctness, but pervert it).

This is true - as always. There are some on both sides who do . . . and some who don't . . ..

I agree about the news media - "I watch in amazement at the evanescent acumen on display daily from such outlets." (Well, to be honest, I don't watch daily, but I know what you mean). The same applies to Fox News, The Drudge Report, Breitbart.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Listening . . .
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2018 11:12:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 962
Neurons: 3,940
Hello, All! This discussion on political correctness is long but very, very interesting and worth the watch. https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/Political-Correctness
I thought 3 of the 4 presenters are excellent - curious if you agree or disagree on this point. (Stephen Fry, in particular, is outstanding!)
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2018 6:11:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 981
Neurons: 479,507
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Hey Listening, thanks for the link! That was a really interesting debate to follow and I agree wholeheartedly, Stephen Fry was outstanding - particularly because he seemed the only one who actually debated political correctness. I was hoping the talk would shine a light on the different definitions and interpretations, but sadly that only started happening about an hour into the video. Before that there was a lot of talk about identities, discrimination and cultural issues, but not on what political correctness is and how it manifests itself and, most importantly, how effective it is or isn't. For example, I would have loved to hear more about those people who are afraid to speak because they fear the shame of being labeled politically incorrect and how that limits open debate.
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 9:38:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
Proggy, it always comes down to money, doesn't it?

I saw a TV interview (forget the man's name) but he basically said what I've said before about racism except he separated it into two terms.

I have said we are all racists because it is in the human condition to belong to tribes to survive. We all secretly have our own pet peeves and prejudices and some are not even connected to race/culture. Anybody who says they don't is lying.

But he called that being a bigot. I wish there was a better term because that term already has baggage. It can mean intolerant and that is not always the case. Anyone with a better term?

I said racism was how you acted in spite of your prejudice but he says it is an altogether different attitude:

Not his exact words, just the meaning - Racism presumes one person (or group) has access to the power and thinks they have the right to relegate other vulnerable lives to oppression, and maybe even slavery.



I your post touches on the foundation of what we are discussing. The separation of thought from word and action. The fact that everyone harbors some prejudices does not mean that those thoughts must manifest themselves in word or action. That is a choice made by each of us individually and it happens many times a day in our interactions with others. And if we decide to put words and actions into play, those words and actions don't have to be damaging to be true to your thoughts. We all have the ability to think our way through words and actions that do not cause harm or damage to others.

What political correctness tries to address is the damage and harm done by words and actions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech or anyone's Constipational God Given Right to do whatever the hell they want because their 'Murrican Dammit. This is simply about manners, courtesy and the grease that can free up the gears of societal interaction and help it run quietly and efficiently.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Priscilla86
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2018 1:05:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/28/2014
Posts: 912
Neurons: 4,054
Location: Lavender, Singapore
Hi FounDit,

Just my two cents here. I think political correctness falls afoul when it is brought to the extreme (as with everything) but maybe the extreme period is a natural progression in the course of growth. There's a complacency and when we are awakened from that, we first try to course-correct, a little bit extremely perhaps at the beginning before it gains momentum and strikes a balance.

For example, another highly-charged word which I believe transcends political, sexual, or religious beliefs is 'fat'. The word itself is a very simple, neutral, innocent word to describe someone's physical appearance, yet I would never use it on anybody, at least for now. It's a very useful word for someone with limited entries in their vocabulary to describe someone who visually has abundance of excess flesh. Yet it feels wrong and insensitive to describe someone as 'fat', even when they are in fact, fat. We'd rather use the term overweight, bigger, curvy, etc. We are still in the process of reclaiming the word back. It started with the many body positive movements and then it got slightly uncomfortable when some outspoken celebrities (albeit well-meaning) took it to the extreme (I remember Jennifer Lawrence proposing that it should be illegal to call someone fat on TV). I disagree as outlawing it is not the issue here but maybe it had to be said to shock people's belief system into rebooting the meaning of the word so that progress can move along.

So I guess my view is that political correctness is just a tool for growth in society, we just have to know how to use it.


The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
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 | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.