Political Correctness

Essentially, all political correctness is about is trying to avoid words and phrases that are offensive because you know, offending people is mean. All that dumb stuff about Baa Baa Black Sheep was all balls. Most of it was made up by the Sun in an attempt to discredit the whole idea. Funny thing is, because the Sun ran all these stories, people believed them and actually went along with it (The Sun, inadvertently, probably did more than any other paper to PROMOTE political correctness)

When people say "political correctness gone mad" they are never ever referring to political correctness. Usually, they're referring to some strange quirk of a piece of (otherwise quite reasonable) legislation/bureaucracy - like Health & Safety regulations on levels of noise at work affecting the Armed Forces (guns make loud bangs). This is nothing to do with political correctness, but seeing as Daily Mail readers already know political correctness is A Bad Thing, the writers figure it's easier to call it that rather than having to think of a new word.

Generally, I think being considerate = classic; making people aware that something might offend = classic; forcing people to avoid offensive thought and language = dud. You should use language to fight language, not anything else.

??? Doesn't follow. The 'forcing' is presumably done through... language.

Quite frankly, I'm in the mood today to just sit around and be ultra- offensive to see how far I can take it before the unoffended get offended.

(PS Anthony, I am so sorry that both examples I used are from you. I swear to god I don't think you're trying to do anything wrong here :)

On a related topic, what do you people think of 'affirmitive action' legislation?

But Turner, this is precisely my point above. Precisely what piece of "legislation" requires anyone to say "African American?" These "anti-PC" arguments all seem to conflate large-scale cultural changes with some use of force against people -- but the only "force" being exerted is the standard cultural force, that others might be annoyed with you for not following along. There's no law against going around calling people niggers. It just so happens that other people will impose societal consequences on you if you do - - the same way people will impose societal consequences on you for wearing a bathrobe to work or shouting annoyingly about Jesus on streetcorners.

And note that as far as terms of address go, what gets called "PC" today has actually been around through the whole of the last three centuries -- witness the evolution of terms like "moron" or "colored." On some level, these sorts of things are useful, in that they offer clear linguistic evidence of people's politics; when I was a kid, I knew enough to be suspicious of anyone who referred to me as "colored" or a "Negro," even if I wasn't taking offense to it.

What it comes down to, to me, is that there are now a lot of people who are horrified and angry that something they say might be interpreted as racist or sexist or what-have-you. And to those people, I say: deal with it -- if you really believe your opinion is valid and reasonable, you should have very little trouble defending it, and if those labelling you racist or sexist or whatever else are just jerking their knees, then make a coherent argument pointing that out.

Best-ever example of this: David Horowitz's anti-reparations ad, which was essentially a publicity stunt to uncover some "liberal PC conspiracy" on college campuses. Problem with his argument: (a) as much as he wanted to pretend that he was somehow being censored, the ad's rejection was in each case an editorial decision by groups of people who just didn't feel that Horowitz's viewpoints were worth publishing, in much the same sense as NBC wouldn't sell prime-time ad space to Louis Farrakhan -- and (b) as much as he tried to claim that the ad wasn't racist because he doesn't have anything against black people, that couldn't change the fact that much of the logic employed in his argument essentially assumed black people to be less capable than whites. This point is, I think, urgent and key to the PC debate: many people assume that pointing out that their arguments rest on, say, racist principles equates to accusing them of KKK membership and lynching activities -- whereas in truth, it's perfectly possible for a person to love and befriend and have no ill intentions toward blacks or women or Jews or homosexuals and still employ political arguments that make improper and derogatory assumptions about those groups.

In Australia the classic example is the argument that Aborigines don't need apologising to and asylum seekers deserve no sympathy - saying either of these things in a mainstream newspaper and then pretending that it's somehow "dangerous" or "individual" is similar to a sports commentator complaining that there are people in the community who don't much like sport - yes, it's true, but a) the opposition to sport is so pathetically insignificant that pointing it out serves no purpose but to gain unwarranted sympathy for the sports commentator's "outspoken" position; and b) even if the anti-sports people were on a rampage, the sports program (which = mainstream newspaper) isn't the sort of forum in which they can air their opposing views anyway.

My analogy may have muddied the water a bit, but I think the point stands that the overwhelming majority of writers who "defy" the edicts of PC do so from a position, within a context and to an audience that supports and encourages such defiance, which means it ain't really defiance at all.

For me it means just not being a tosser.

An example: there's a somewhat intimidating radical feminist at my university who, along with her compatriots, insists that a) males are inherently sexist, and b) sexism of any type should be met with formal punishment from university authorities. Either of these premises alone seems plausible, but placed together become obviously unworkable from an administrative point of view. The thing is, as much as I duck my head when she walks past for fear of being glared at for being male, I also know that because of her views she'll never gain the sort of political power and authority or social status to actually make a difference one way or the other to the official or unofficial treatment of sexism within society (in fact AFAIK she finds it difficult to hold down a job). I don't think it's unreasonable for people at university to complain about how she intimidates them, but if I became a journalist and wrote articles still complaining about her, that would be a gross exagerration of the power she weilds.

Toraneko - the fact that I was totally unaware of (or, at least, hadn't really thought about) the political nature of the aborigine/aboriginal distinction says a lot about the actual ignorance of PC in Australian society, including myself; the fact that I could have gone on for many years without being informed that I was potentially being politically incorrect demonstrates how relatively weak a form of social coercion it is. If I was working with Aboriginal communities I'm sure I would have found out very quickly, but the percentage of the population who find themselves in such a position is very small.

Exactly my point.

Then there are the right-wingers who use the term "politically correct" to refer to anyone or anything that takes issue with racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, gay-bashing or the various other forms of hate and bigotry that they openly embrace. These people are pigs, and "politically correct" is, ironically, a popular term that they've adopted in their defense.

"Correctness," like most everything else, needs to find a happy medium.

political correctness gone mad!

I miss intimidating radical feminists.

do you miss

intimidating 'radical feminists'

or

'intimidating radical feminists'?

The second.

I just popped over to Have Your Say to see what to-days use of 'PC Brigade', etc was. Apparently they (the aforementioned brigade) are 1) trying to ban computer games 2) responsible for all those prisoners getting released and 3) don't understand comedy or at least Bernard Manning.

It's used so much on there that it has really become meaningless.

It's "It's Political Correctness Gone Mad" Gone Mad.

I think every grouping, in whichever social stratum you choose to look, uses derogatory terms: partly to strengthen the group's bounds and partly because it's great fun. To embrace political correctness is to realize that this means that if the dominant social groups were to be allowed to behave without restrictions they would strengthen their internal bounds at the expense of other groups' well-being. Thus, the use of the word "wetback" is not only offensive because it's insensitive, it's offensive because using it is insensitivity as a means to improve the well-being of a group at the expense of others - consciously or not.

just use it back at these people whenever they say something

just use it back at these people whenever they say something

whenever anyone goes off on one of these i never EVER say things that will reinforce, i just go the other way. i just say why do you care so much, why are you wringing your hands about this, stop being so bloody pc

Most of us are either immigrants (or the children of immigrants) who came here either straight fom Africa - in which case you refer to yourself by your country of origin ie Nigerian, Sudanese etc. ; or from the West Indies - in which case you're Afro-Carribean.

It's pretty much the flipside of that in the U.S. Instead of referring to someone as "Afro-Caribbean", you'd call them by their nationality: Dominican, Cuban, Jamaican, whatever. And the whole "Afro" prefix isn't highly regarded over here either.

Nor here in the UK sometimes. I remember a police officer stuident of mine being taken to task by an elderly man from Trinidad years ago for saying 'afro-caribbean' - "Do I look like a haircut to you, son?" were his exact words.

hang on isn't 'afro' the equivalent of 'franco' or 'anglo' here?

Lewis Hamilton: Black British - Afro-Caribbean is what he'd tick on the EEO form.

-- suzy, Wednesday, June 20, 2007 6:59 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

yeah, i think he'd rather make his own choice there?

"do i look like a fascist dictator to you, son?"

I really hope that this doesn't start a clusterfuck, but there are some good minds on ILX, and some people who are able to express political and cultural sensitivity in ways that I'm too clumsy to articulate. Please could you unpick this quote from an email I've recently received, and how (if?) to respond.

You see this kind of tactic in Islam, where it wants everybody to be politically correct when that works in its favour, but then once it has power, it wants everybody to be Muslims, with no tolerance of dissent.

See, this quote doesn't come from (what I thought was) a slathering inhabitant of Daily Mail Island, it comes from someone with whom I'd been quite reasonably discussing marginalisation and its discontents with regards to gender and sexuality. So to see this kind of display of ignorance and generalisation was a bit o_0.

Do I 1) attempt to have some kind of dialogue about this (I suspect this will fail, as they are a dogmatic atheist who refuses to recognise anything except the most negative aspects of any religion) or just 2) back away slowly trying not to make any sudden moves?

Sorry, clumsy and ill-formed sentence there. What I meant to say is that, this person didn't come across as an inhabitant of Daily Mail Island, so I was surprised to see such statements issuing from their mouth.

it's hard to work out what they're saying. basically (im guessing) that new legislation makes it harder to criticize people on religious grounds (ie liberalism pushed to a point where free speech is curtailed); but the beneficiaries of same liberal legislation are not liberal and, if given the power, wouldn't allow that kind of freedom to others?

You can't have a nuanced conversation about Islam with a dogmatic atheist, I just wouldn't bother. It's like trying to discuss economics with a student SWP member.

Has the ring of Pim Fortuyn/ Geert Wilders about it

I'm kinda hearing what Matt DC is saying here - I'm just trying to figure out if it's a "OK, we just shouldn't discuss any kind of religion" or if this is kind of a red flag that other kinds of hateful nuttiness is shortly to follow, and I should steer clear.

You should probably point out that there have been Jews and Christians living in Muslim countries for hundreds of years, and that pre-Israel Jews were tolerated a hell of a lot more than there were in much of Europe. Also even now, Morocco? Indonesia? Little place called Dubai?

The generalisation doesn't make sense in the first place. Even assuming we're dealing with very hardline Islam here then "it wants everybody to be politically correct when that works in its favour" doesn't hold any water, unless you're equating "politially corect" solely with "not being anti-Muslim".

I don't think that kind of approach is gonna work - I've already tried to approach of talking about how Islamism is as much of political response as a religious one, and hit blank walls where they just reply with these blanket generalisations about "Abrahamic religions drive like this..."

It's like... I'm talk quite happy to talk about "the Abrahamic Religions" when talking with theologists and linguistics students, but to try and lump a hugely heterogeneous group together in this sense just smacks of ignorance and small-mindedness as much as anything else.

And the term "political correctness" in this sense just flags up all kinds of red flags for me, in terms of what kind of nuttiness is gonna come out next.

It's just really disappointing how someone who can insist that being sensitive WRT to their own particular subdivision of humanity isn't "PC" but then turn around and say extending the same kind of courtesy to another subdivision. (Though I'm probably guilty of this myself, with my own blind spots.)

(Also, the repeated statements that apply "wants" and "needs" (in another conversation) to abstract entities like "Islam" as if that abstract entity had motives separate from the people that comprise it... lots of philosophical wooliness which says to me that this person is pretty lazy intellectually)

I've already tried to approach of talking about how Islamism is as much of political response as a religious one, and hit blank walls where they just reply with these blanket generalisations about "Abrahamic religions drive like this..."

i don't understand why your blanket generalisation is better than theirs here

That's a specific comment about a specific person though?

"it wants everybody to be politically correct" I THINK means =

"minority Muslims want pluralism, but once they get the upper hand they become totalitarian" - an accusation of intellectual cynicism and bad faith applied to an entire religion!! which yeah, cf Matt DC above for counterexamples to this spectre

but yeah to kate's question, this would make the hairs on my neck stand up too - not sure how i would proceed without knowing the person

Which blanket generalisation? OK, I think I actually said "can be" rather than "is".

And I'm really not exaggerating with the "Abrahamic religions drive like this" joke. This is how they respond, when I try to point out that that covers a huge amount of ground - they respond "Abrahamic religions believe X" without even admitting the possibility that, say, Quakers and Shi'ite Muslims might be in any way different from one another.

Unless you're referring to another generalisation I've missed? x-post to History Mayne.

no, that was the one i meant

all of these discussions inevitably involve generalizations. it's true that jews had a rougher time in medieval spain than in, say, 18th century persia. but jews were "tolerated" in "muslim countries"? these are odd constructions -- i'd use them too, well, not "tolerated", but you get my point. jews actually often were treated as second-class citizens in the middle east, even before the twentieth century expulsions, though again not on an eastern european level.

it's obviously fair enough to not want to generalize about "what muslims want", but you both have to respect that rule, and im not sure you are.

Yeah my history is shaky here but I was trying to point out that a) Islam doesn't have the monopoly on religious intolerance (which he probably agrees with) and b) there are several Islamic countries in the world where his assertion is patently untrue.

"Tolerated" is kind of a poor word to use, I mean, I mostly "tolerate" people I dislike but can't get rid of.

No, what I was trying to express was that there was no hard and fast rule as to what "Islam" wants. Individual Muslims, and even groups of Muslims have their own motives (some religious, some political) and you have to address these, and tease out the various strands and the cultural and political forces that created them, rather than drawing overly reductive conclusions about what "Islam" or even "Abrahamic religion" wants.

"Politically correct" in this sense that this person is using it has that negative connotation of "they are creating arbitrary rules to suppress our free speech in order to gain their evil ends!" rather than the "pls can you not be deliberately offensive, culturally insensitive and outright racist" sense that I (and this thread) would seem to read the term. <---this, to me, is a red flag.

Yeah my history is shaky here but I was trying to point out that a) Islam doesn't have the monopoly on religious intolerance (which she probably agrees with) and b) there are several Islamic countries in the world where her assertion is patently untrue.

(I'm trying to use non-gendered language, which English is particularly bad at but...)

This is the approach I probably should be taking, in providing specific counterexamples, even if they are disregarded (as they have been up to this point.)

However, I'm too busy trying to figure out if this (and other things which have given me pause) are simply the result of ignorance, naivite, ideological blindness or the kind of pig-headed smallmindedness that makes me want to not carry on having conversations.

I mean, this quote was the result of my calling her on projecting her own beliefs about "religious people" onto me in the course of an unrelated conversation - she replied "I'm intolerant of intolerance" and put that quote as explanation. So I'm cautious.

Anyway, the actual solution, as always on ILX, is to talk to the person in question, rather than talk to ILX about them. Or break off the conversation, as the case may be.

More than anything, I was just trying to figure out what on earth she *meant* by the quote. Which I think Tracer probably explained, so thanks.

I'm just trying to figure out if it's a "OK, we just shouldn't discuss any kind of religion" or if this is kind of a red flag that other kinds of hateful nuttiness is shortly to follow, and I should steer clear.

― Cow Bingo (Masonic Boom), Thursday, July 8, 2010 3:00 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

buried in the ongoing conversation, but YES. the statement in question is an unequivocal declaration that "other kinds of hateful nuttiness" are shortly to follow. no two ways about it. this has nothing to do with a responsible atheist's antipathy towards autocratic religiosity. it's just angry nutjob crypto-racist bullshit. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.

Was watching Real Housewives Of NJ and they ****** the hell out of the word "ret*rded."

Can't comment on the above, but re: the general topic, I think the meaninglessness with which the term "PC" is used is increasing. If you disagree with something, you can call it "PC", which is self-evidently a bad thing, and thus the argument requires no further elaboration.

Do you think there's been a resurgence in political correctness over the past few years?

check ur privilege NA

I guess with Twitter tumbler ~calling out in general more voices are being heard that make ppl a little more careful about who they may be hurting & while this is not & never has been a substitute for actual politics it is surely a net gain although I know there are ppl around here who would disagree

oops that reads a bit like I'm saying identity politics aren't worth much, which I'm not (although some round here &c) to be clear its the thinking twice that is no substitute for actual

I mean I have old fashioned tendencies, we're talking about basic fucking decency really

Basic fucking decency GONE MAD

don't worry there is still plenty racism left, people calling out sterling and bundy notwithstanding

Well "political correctness" was always more about speech than action though, right?

ya I should have said SOME ppl a little more careful, if there is a pc resurgence I'm under no illusions that it's major xp

agree with wins' "PC = basic human decency" analysis

GONE MAD

an excess of solicitousness

sibilance gone mad

my regrettable slips into the Clarkson article comments threads have made it feel like the good old GONE MAD tropes are what's resurgent.

Pissed me off when The Comedy Network began showing "Kids In The Hall" repeats a coupla years ago with the word "fag" and "faggot" bleeped out of every one of the Buddy Cole sketches.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMUCK I TELLS YA

runninnng freeeeeeee