Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just What is (and what is wrong with) Political Correctness?
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 1 of 302 (341926)
08-21-2006 12:15 PM


In the "On Judging Others" thread, I asked robinrohan to tell me what he meant when he described something as PC. His response was:
robinrohan writes:
The term "politically correct" was originally a joke among liberals having to do mostly with race, gender, and groups of various sorts that might be discriminated against, such as people in wheelchairs. So the liberals had to be real careful not to offend anybody, such as calling a disabled person a "cripple" or something of that sort. The joke consisted of taking this agenda to the extreme. Through the years, the term "political correctness" came to stand for this agenda of not discriminating against anybody. In other words, we must not judge, for if we do we might offend somebody or some group.
Another slogan of political correctness is being "inclusive." Exclusivity is evil; inclusiveness is good.
Traditional Christianity, for example, is exclusive and therefore evil by politically correct standards.
New Age Christianity, such as Jar's religion, is inclusive and therefore good by politically correct standards.
Political correctness is a pretense.
Wikipedia defines it thusly:
Wikipedia writes:
Political correctness (also politically correct, P.C. or PC) is a term used to describe language that is calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described. The concept typically refers to the English language, but is not exclusive to it. A text that conforms to the ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct.
I would agree that classifying something as "PC" means it is language that is phrased in the least offensive way possible. Are there any differing opinions? And is there anything wrong with something being "politically correct"?
My own poorly-thought out opinion: attempting to minimize offense is good, but I think it is unreasonable for people to expect that they won't be offended by things as they move about the world.

The American Drivel Review

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-21-2006 12:38 PM docpotato has not replied
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:07 PM docpotato has replied
 Message 23 by mick, posted 08-21-2006 4:08 PM docpotato has not replied
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 9:47 PM docpotato has not replied
 Message 108 by ikabod, posted 08-22-2006 4:11 AM docpotato has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2 of 302 (341939)
08-21-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by docpotato
08-21-2006 12:15 PM


My own poorly-thought out opinion: attempting to minimize offense is good, but I think it is unreasonable for people to expect that they won't be offended by things as they move about the world.
I would likely be placed in the anti-PC category in many ways. I think that one of the high points of civilization was Vaudeville, where nothing was held sacred, where the judge or beat cop, the businessman or politician was treated in the same way as the whore or crook or hod carrier or tanner. It was the great equalizer where jew or gentile, protestant or catholic, rich or poor, weak or powerful were held up to the light so that all could see their own weaknesses. It was the ultimate laugh at oneself medium.
However, language should be used wisely if possible and with consideration. A Gentleman (or Lady) should try to never offend unintentionally. That is simply good manners.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by docpotato, posted 08-21-2006 12:15 PM docpotato has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 302 (341972)
08-21-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by docpotato
08-21-2006 12:15 PM


I would agree that classifying something as "PC" means it is language that is phrased in the least offensive way possible. Are there any differing opinions?
I think there's a lot more to it than just how one words something.
It's a moral system. It's also a political agenda.
My problem with it is that it seems to try to dictate feelings. We are supposed to go around feeling nice, politically correct feelings all the time. But people aren't that way. Thus they sometimes PRETEND to have such feelings. That's why I call it a pretense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by docpotato, posted 08-21-2006 12:15 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by docpotato, posted 08-21-2006 2:16 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 5 by Heathen, posted 08-21-2006 2:20 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 08-21-2006 3:08 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 08-21-2006 3:23 PM robinrohan has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 4 of 302 (341978)
08-21-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 2:07 PM


It's a moral system. It's also a political agenda.
I'd love it if you could explain this further. I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you mean or why you think this.
My problem with it is that it seems to try to dictate feelings. We are supposed to go around feeling nice, politically correct feelings all the time. But people aren't that way. Thus they sometimes PRETEND to have such feelings. That's why I call it a pretense.
Well this seems to describe a problem with the people using it as a moral system more so than the concept itself. I would agree with you that people shouldn't be expected to go around having nice, politically correct feelings. I do wonder what is wrong in attempting to be inoffensive to others around you even if you're having politically incorrect feelings.

The American Drivel Review

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:07 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:36 PM docpotato has replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 5 of 302 (341979)
08-21-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 2:07 PM


robinrohan writes:
We are supposed to go around feeling nice, politically correct feelings all the time
I really don't think PC-ness expects or commands you to feel a certain way, but rather requires that you perhaps express those feelings with a little thought for who will be affected.
For me a lot of it is referring to people in such a way as to be descriptive without being derogatory.
When we get into the realms of phrases like 'vertically challenged' as opposed to 'short' I agree, it becomes utterly ridiculous,
however I think situations such as that are merely a right wing characature of political correctness and not any real, living value system.
Edited by Creavolution, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:07 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 302 (341987)
08-21-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by docpotato
08-21-2006 2:16 PM


I do wonder what is wrong in attempting to be inoffensive to others around you even if you're having politically incorrect feelings.
Nothing wrong with it in most cases, as long as we realize that's what we are doing. In fact, it's necessary.
"PC" is rather hard to pin down, but we can make a start: It came out of the Civil Rights movement and the feminist movement. The idea is to get rid of prejudice, to eradicate it completely--any prejudice, all prejudice. The problem with this is that people are naturally prejudiced and tribal by nature.
There's an essay called "In Defense of Prejudice," by Jonathan Rauch which has some interesting points. In this essay, the author's term for "political correctness" is "purism." He says at one point, "stamping out prejudice really means forcing everyone to share the same prejudice, namely that of whoever is in authority."
Another comment from the essay: "Like earlier crusades against antisocial ideas, the mission [of purism or pc] is fueled by good (if cocksure) intentions and a genuine sense of urgency. Some kinds of error are held to be intolerable . . . Like their forebears of another stripe--the Church in its campaigns against heretics, the Mycarthyites in their campaigns against Communists--the modern anti-racist and anti-sexist and ant-homophobic campaigners are totalists, demanding not that misguided ideas and ugly expressions be corrected or criticized but that they be eradicated."
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by docpotato, posted 08-21-2006 2:16 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:52 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 08-21-2006 3:03 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 12 by docpotato, posted 08-21-2006 3:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 302 (341997)
08-21-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 2:36 PM


Faith's definition from other thread
This seems insightful to me:
I suppose there's a need here for a stab at a definition -- which may be acceptable providing nobody takes first efforts as final.
In my experience it has something to do with an angry moralistic response to normal innocent human behavior. In its purest form it has a Marxist framework that defines an Oppressor and an Oppressed, a Victim and his Victimizer. The Victim in the Marxist version may be a veteran in a wheelchair or any race other than white, or a female as opposed to a male and the like, but it varies quite a bit depending on context.
The Oppressor or Victimizer is treated as unmitigated evil, denounced in the most venomous indignant tones, described as a Nazi quite frequently, although he may have done nothing more than blunder out onto a patio where some sad-looking veterans were sitting, feel sorry for them in the privacy of his own mind and leave after a few minutes.
It's moralism extended into arenas it has no right to be, attacking people for merely being human with all their faults and bumblings, or attacking people for thoughtful opinions that happen to clash with the PC opinion. This happens a lot. It's not just a disagreement, it's an attack on the person.
It's risky to attempt an abstract definition of this, but that's all that occurs to me at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 302 (342006)
08-21-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 2:36 PM


He says at one point, "stamping out prejudice really means forcing everyone to share the same prejudice, namely that of whoever is in authority."
EXACTLY! It's just another kind of conformism enforced by power, or among us plebes, by huffy ridicule, tones of indignant opprobrium etc. Lockstep mindless marching to the PC drummer is the objective, not true freedom from prejudice if even that were possible, and it isn't.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2006 3:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 14 by Heathen, posted 08-21-2006 3:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 18 by nator, posted 08-21-2006 3:45 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 302 (342009)
08-21-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 2:07 PM


My problem with it is that it seems to try to dictate feelings. We are supposed to go around feeling nice, politically correct feelings all the time. But people aren't that way. Thus they sometimes PRETEND to have such feelings. That's why I call it a pretense.
Yes. DICTATES. The Thought Police as it has also been called.
It encourages the opposite of freedom of thought, it encourages anxiety about having the right feelings, which is a level about which nobody should ever have to have anxiety, unless as a Christian you refer all your thoughts and feelings to God and ask Him to change them. Not your fellow man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:07 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Heathen, posted 08-21-2006 4:18 PM Faith has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 302 (342011)
08-21-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
08-21-2006 3:03 PM


EXACTLY! It's just another kind of conformism enforced by power, or among us plebes, by huffy ridicule, tones of indignant opprobrium etc. Lockstep mindless marching to the PC drummer is the objective, not true freedom from prejudice if even that were possible, and it isn't.
Last I checked, the objective of PC was that people not be dicks. If anyone really feels the need to stand up and proclaim that they will not be forced to march lockstep with semi-decent behavior, that's their prerogative, I suppose.
Of course, the righteous indignation here is kind of undermined by the fact that anyone who wants to still has the right to call a black guy a nigger, or call gay guys faggots, or what-have-you. And, of course, everyone else has the right to respond by saying, "Geez, what a dick."
Since the latter part of this equation is, as far as I know, the absolute limits of the power PC has over society, I'm not really sure where all this business about those in power enforcing their conformism comes from.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 08-21-2006 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 302 (342013)
08-21-2006 3:21 PM


PC rules--just a stab at it
1. Be inclusive, not exclusive.
2. don't make assumptions about people
3. don't pity people: this is dehumanizing to them
4. don't judge people
5. recognize that America is racist through and through
6. recognize that American society is sexist through and through
7. don't steretype people or anything else
8. love yourself (have "self-esteem")

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Heathen, posted 08-21-2006 3:37 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 30 by docpotato, posted 08-21-2006 4:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 12 of 302 (342014)
08-21-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 2:36 PM


"PC" is rather hard to pin down, but we can make a start: It came out of the Civil Rights movement and the feminist movement. The idea is to get rid of prejudice, to eradicate it completely--any prejudice, all prejudice. The problem with this is that people are naturally prejudiced and tribal by nature.
Well, I'm not sure the goal is to eradicate all prejudice. But I'll go along. I agree that people are naturally prejudiced/tribal by nature.
People are "naturally" a lot of things. This, of course, does not mean it necessarily has to remain this way. I'm sure tribalism and prejudice can be both beneficial and damaging. From what I know, PC language exists to help structure people's thinking so that they have both the language and the mental structures to aid them in negotiating those tribal/prejuidical urges that they or others find damaging.
Oh and I like this a lot:
"Like earlier crusades against antisocial ideas, the mission [of purism or pc] is fueled by good (if cocksure) intentions and a genuine sense of urgency. Some kinds of error are held to be intolerable . . .
I think the urgency and intolerable aspects are both flaws in the way people use the concept of political correctness.

The American Drivel Review

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 302 (342015)
08-21-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 2:07 PM


We are supposed to go around feeling nice, politically correct feelings all the time.
According to whom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 2:07 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 3:38 PM Modulous has replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 14 of 302 (342020)
08-21-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
08-21-2006 3:03 PM


faith writes:
huffy ridicule, tones of indignant opprobrium etc. Lockstep mindless marching to the PC drummer is the objective,
I think you are mistaken here. This seems to be your projection of your feelings toward the PC person. You feel that they are inhibiting your right to think a certain way. this is not true. this is exactly the Characature of PC i was talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 08-21-2006 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 15 of 302 (342024)
08-21-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by robinrohan
08-21-2006 3:21 PM


Re: PC rules--just a stab at it
My changes in bold
1. Be inclusive, not exclusive.
2. don't make assumptions about people
3. Don't pity...I'd like to remove this one, I don't think it has anything to do with PC
4. don't judge people
5. recognize that modern society still is quite a racist society
6. recognize that modern society is still sexist in many ways
7. don't stereotype people.
8. have "self-esteem"
I fail to see what is wrong with these sentiments.
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 3:21 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 08-21-2006 3:42 PM Heathen has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024