• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Politically Correct

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's amazing how many people seem to equate being "politically correct" to being "polite" or even just not being a raging asshole to other people. So, if we are talking about political correctness, let's define our terms first, shall we?

Being "politically correct" means not saying derogatory things about traditionally persecuted groups, because doing so is a type of persecution. That's why there's the word "political" in there. Because if you are dealing with an individual and you say derogatory things about a group this individual belongs to and/or indicate that the individual in question is not even an individual to you, but merely a representative of that group, and that you despise that group, what you are doing is a political act. You might be being an asshole too, but you are doing something distinctly different from (for example) telling someone they are ugly. What you are doing is contributing to the persecution of a group.

To that end, not being politically correct makes you an even bigger asshole. But sure, if you want to be one, that's your choice. That's the other thing about being "politically correct" is, it's not legally enforced. I.E. you can't go to jail for being politically incorrect. You might want to brace yourself for social consequences, however, i.e. being criticized and being called an asshole. That's freedom of speech at work.

As for "everybody needing to be offended from time to time"... do you honestly believe that people who belong to persecuted minorities somehow lack reasons/opportunities to be offended in their lives? And even if you did believe such a preposterous thing, how does it make it your job to offend them, or give them a dose of "reality"? In addition, even if you believe that and also believe it's your job to offend people, why do you think it's important for you to offend them in specifically the way that makes the offense politically incorrect, i.e. by invoking and participating in the persecution of the group(s) this person belongs to? Can you not just be offensive in any of a million other ways? It really doesn't take that much effort or imagination...

It seems to me that people who love to bash "political correctness" are people who are somewhat deficient in social graces and can't seem to avoid offending people whether they meant to or not, but don't want to face social consequences (i.e. being criticized and disliked) for this. That's why they like to conflate "political correctness" to politeness or not offending people. That's a neat little straw man, but it doesn't actually get you off the hook for offensive behavior. Granted, it's almost impossible to go through life without ever offending somebody, but the correct response to "accidentally" giving offense is not by doubling down on being an inconsiderate asshole. Also, I realize that public opinion is not even remotely infallible, but maybe if something you are doing is consistently offensive to a lot of people, it's worth re-considering your position every once in a while (even if you keep coming to the same conclusion), just, you know, to see if you might think of new reasons why everybody is on your case about it.
The working definition of "political correctness" has evolved to include holding back from speaking truth to power, as when one admires the naked emperor's new "clothes". It also includes euphemisms, like the trend in schools to call unit tests "summative assessments". Apple carts like these, and those who peddle from them, deserve to be upset as they do not serve the common good. Rudeness may always be inappropriate, but the politeness many people demand often obscures realities that are far from polite, and often downright harmful. The middle road of unvarnished candor is needed to expose them so they have a hope of being meaningfully addressed.
 

rogue350

New member
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
67
As for "everybody needing to be offended from time to time"... do you honestly believe that people who belong to persecuted minorities somehow lack reasons/opportunities to be offended in their lives? And even if you did believe such a preposterous thing, how does it make it your job to offend them, or give them a dose of "reality"? In addition, even if you believe that and also believe it's your job to offend people, why do you think it's important for you to offend them in specifically the way that makes the offense politically incorrect, i.e. by invoking and participating in the persecution of the group(s) this person belongs to? Can you not just be offensive in any of a million other ways? It really doesn't take that much effort or imagination...

It seems to me that people who love to bash "political correctness" are people who are somewhat deficient in social graces and can't seem to avoid offending people whether they meant to or not, but don't want to face social consequences (i.e. being criticized and disliked) for this. That's why they like to conflate "political correctness" to politeness or not offending people. That's a neat little straw man, but it doesn't actually get you off the hook for offensive behavior. Granted, it's almost impossible to go through life without ever offending somebody, but the correct response to "accidentally" giving offense is not by doubling down on being an inconsiderate asshole. Also, I realize that public opinion is not even remotely infallible, but maybe if something you are doing is consistently offensive to a lot of people, it's worth re-considering your position every once in a while (even if you keep coming to the same conclusion), just, you know, to see if you might think of new reasons why everybody is on your case about it.
First off, I'm glad you got to project your irrational emotions on me rather than someone who cares. I'm not saying that it's right for people to slam and diss every horribly put-down minority but things often need to be said bluntly rather than beating around the bush. I don't care about the specifics on what to call each group. People can get so butt hurt and offended by stupid stuff. Being offended... THAT'S CALLED LIFE! A homeless person is a person without a home (hobo for short) and a homosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to the same sex. I infer that the only reason "homo" became a no-no is because people kept saying "no homo". Does it offend straight people that you call them hetero? No, it does not. I don't think bisexual people get offended if they're called bi.

You can only take so many precautions to avoid "hurting feelings" or saying what society deems wrong or taboo before your words become meaningless all together. I'm going to say "Merry Christmas". I really don't care if you say Happy Hanukkah. I'm not going to call a blackboard a "chalkboard" in order to not offend black people because that is stupid. And people get so offended from certain protests and stuff when people just need to realize that we all have freedom of speech and are allowed to express our ideas. I don't think that should be limited and especially not by something as subjective as public opinion.

"And in a gutless act of political correctness, 'Pizza Day' will now be known as 'Italian-American Sauced Bread Day.'"
— Principal Seymour Skinner, The Simpsons
 

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
First off, I'm glad you got to project your irrational emotions on me rather than someone who cares. I'm not saying that it's right for people to slam and diss every horribly put-down minority but things often need to be said bluntly rather than beating around the bush. I don't care about the specifics on what to call each group. People can get so butt hurt and offended by stupid stuff. Being offended... THAT'S CALLED LIFE! A homeless person is a person without a home (hobo for short) and a homosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to the same sex. I infer that the only reason "homo" became a no-no is because people kept saying "no homo". Does it offend straight people that you call them hetero? No, it does not. I don't think bisexual people get offended if they're called bi.

You can only take so many precautions to avoid "hurting feelings" or saying what society deems wrong or taboo before your words become meaningless all together. I'm going to say "Merry Christmas". I really don't care if you say Happy Hanukkah. I'm not going to call a blackboard a "chalkboard" in order to not offend black people because that is stupid. And people get so offended from certain protests and stuff when people just need to realize that we all have freedom of speech and are allowed to express our ideas. I don't think that should be limited and especially not by something as subjective as public opinion.

"And in a gutless act of political correctness, 'Pizza Day' will now be known as 'Italian-American Sauced Bread Day.'"
— Principal Seymour Skinner, The Simpsons

It seems to me that you are exactly the person who finds it convenient not to have a specific definition for "political correctness". Maybe that's why you skipped it, why take issue with something that can be pinned down when you can just move the goalposts whenever you feel like. So you are back to equating being blunt and/or rude and having no regard for people's feelings to being politically incorrect.

What I'm curious about is why you are acting so hurt and self-righteous about this "political correctness" thing? Even if one accepted your premise that being politically correct (or even polite) is useless and counterproductive, what exactly are you advocating? You already have the right to be as much of an asshole as you want to anyone in any way. Neither political correctness nor politeness are enforced by law. You are not going to jail no matter what you say (unless you spill government secrets, but even you will probably agree THAT is beyond the scope of this discussion). So what else do you want?

Are you, perhaps, mad that when you say things to people that they don't like they then turn around and give you a piece of their mind? Do you not like being condemned for acting like an asshole? Do you not like being criticized, or told that your behavior is unacceptable? That's a little strange, don't you think? Shouldn't turnabout be fair play? If your "bluntness" upsets somebody, don't they have the right to turn around and say "blunt" things to you? So what if your feelings get hurt -- you've just wasted a lot of text saying that you don't care about how things you say make people feel. Why are your feelings of being persecuted for being "blunt", and "straightforward", and "telling it like it is" get priority treatment?
 

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
The working definition of "political correctness" has evolved to include holding back from speaking truth to power, as when one admires the naked emperor's new "clothes". It also includes euphemisms, like the trend in schools to call unit tests "summative assessments". Apple carts like these, and those who peddle from them, deserve to be upset as they do not serve the common good. Rudeness may always be inappropriate, but the politeness many people demand often obscures realities that are far from polite, and often downright harmful. The middle road of unvarnished candor is needed to expose them so they have a hope of being meaningfully addressed.

Ok, so maybe the definition of political correctness in common use has become diluted (generally by people who don't understand the point, or would rather not understand the point). No reason to get on the bandwagon.

Just to be clear though, speaking truth to power is the exact OPPOSITE of what political correctness means. Political correctness is about refraining from adding to the persecution of groups that are already persecuted. By definition, persecuted groups are NOT in power. When have the people in power become a persecuted minority, exactly?

Now, that's not saying you don't have good reasons to watch what you say to people in power... like the fact that if you piss them off they can make consequences for you. Telling the emperor he is naked might mean your head ends up on the chopping block. If you are ok with the consequences, by all means, speak truth to power. If you choose to do so, you could be called a lot of things from incautious to impertinent (or rude, if that's how you choose to go about it), but you aren't being politically incorrect.

Yes, you are right, euphemisms that obscure the reality of the situation are usually not just stupid but also harmful. Yes, some people's definition of politeness and demands for being inoffensive are completely overblown and unreasonable. Yes, sometimes reality makes people extremely uncomfortable, and they call it "offensive" and act like you are the problem for bringing it up. None of this has anything to do with not using slurs for marginalized groups, or not treating people who belong to those groups badly because you don't like the group as a whole. Amazingly enough, the content of the thing in question actually matters. If someone thinks that the word "test" is offensive and you need to use "summative assessment" they are being an idiot. It is also not even remotely the same thing as referring to a Jewish person as a "kike", and if someone doesn't get that difference, well, they are also an idiot.
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ok, so maybe the definition of political correctness in common use has become diluted (generally by people who don't understand the point, or would rather not understand the point). No reason to get on the bandwagon.

Just to be clear though, speaking truth to power is the exact OPPOSITE of what political correctness means. Political correctness is about refraining from adding to the persecution of groups that are already persecuted. By definition, persecuted groups are NOT in power. When have the people in power become a persecuted minority, exactly?

Now, that's not saying you don't have good reasons to watch what you say to people in power... like the fact that if you piss them off they can make consequences for you. Telling the emperor he is naked might mean your head ends up on the chopping block. If you are ok with the consequences, by all means, speak truth to power. If you choose to do so, you could be called a lot of things from incautious to impertinent (or rude, if that's how you choose to go about it), but you aren't being politically incorrect.

Yes, you are right, euphemisms that obscure the reality of the situation are usually not just stupid but also harmful. Yes, some people's definition of politeness and demands for being inoffensive are completely overblown and unreasonable. Yes, sometimes reality makes people extremely uncomfortable, and they call it "offensive" and act like you are the problem for bringing it up. None of this has anything to do with not using slurs for marginalized groups, or not treating people who belong to those groups badly because you don't like the group as a whole. Amazingly enough, the content of the thing in question actually matters. If someone thinks that the word "test" is offensive and you need to use "summative assessment" they are being an idiot. It is also not even remotely the same thing as referring to a Jewish person as a "kike", and if someone doesn't get that difference, well, they are also an idiot.

Have a look at South Africa...

I totally expected INFJ to get all wound up for political correctness. They always do.
 

rogue350

New member
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
67
I'm not trying to be insensitive or spiteful. I understand that minorities need protection but too much of a "good" thing can be "bad". We go so far to please everyone when it just isn't possible. We all need to be accepting of each other and it isn't like I try to offend people or use incorrect descriptions of certain minorities. I don't use racial slurs and I'm not an asshole all the time. I respect minorities. I call homeless people homeless people and don't criticize certain social groups. I'm a very accepting and open-minded person.

I see no reason to say "chairperson" instead of chairman. I address groups of women as "guys". I say fireman sometimes rather than "firefighter". I don't think it really offends anyone unless they are an extreme feminist. I don't say retarded because I think it is mean. I talk about people more in terms of the continent they come from rather than the country. I don't know how to determine whether a person is Chinese or Japanese so I say "Asian". I don't think white people care if you call them white rather than "German" or "French" because they don't care! I will say "God Bless" and I don't really care who it offends because I believe in God! You can say "Allah bless" or "Buddha bless". That wouldn't offend me. I wouldn't really care.

If you tell me "I'm Japanese" or i prefer to be called "Blah blah blah" , I will try and remember. I'm respectful. I just don't think that a lot of stuff matters because I don't find it offensive. I understand that you want everyone to be happy and not be offended but in this world everything is offensive to some people.
 

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
Have a look at South Africa...

I totally expected INFJ to get all wound up for political correctness. They always do.

Um, what about South Africa? Are you saying the ruling class are a minority? Ok, what of it, being a minority doesn't mean being a PERSECUTED minority. If the minority is in power, they are not being persecuted. If, on the other hand, people in power are deposed and face persecution for what they did while in power... well, they are persecuted, but they are NO LONGER IN POWER. See how that works? You can't have a group that is both in power and a persecuted minority.

Oh, and nice Ad Hominem. Being an INFJ automatically means I get my panties in a was about people's feeeeeeelings and just want everyone to get together and sing Kumba-Ya. No chance I could make a rational argument about that giant straw man everyone is bashing, so no need to actually read anything I said.
 
Last edited:

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
I'm not trying to be insensitive or spiteful. I understand that minorities need protection but too much of a "good" thing can be "bad". We go so far to please everyone when it just isn't possible. We all need to be accepting of each other and it isn't like I try to offend people or use incorrect descriptions of certain minorities. I don't use racial slurs and I'm not an asshole all the time. I respect minorities. I call homeless people homeless people and don't criticize certain social groups. I'm a very accepting and open-minded person.

I see no reason to say "chairperson" instead of chairman. I address groups of women as "guys". I say fireman sometimes rather than "firefighter". I don't think it really offends anyone unless they are an extreme feminist. I don't say retarded because I think it is mean. I talk about people more in terms of the continent they come from rather than the country. I don't know how to determine whether a person is Chinese or Japanese so I say "Asian". I don't think white people care if you call them white rather than "German" or "French" because they don't care! I will say "God Bless" and I don't really care who it offends because I believe in God! You can say "Allah bless" or "Buddha bless". That wouldn't offend me. I wouldn't really care.

If you tell me "I'm Japanese" or i prefer to be called "Blah blah blah" , I will try and remember. I'm respectful. I just don't think that a lot of stuff matters because I don't find it offensive. I understand that you want everyone to be happy and not be offended but in this world everything is offensive to some people.

You seem to think I have some kind of personal stake in whether or not you are nice or polite to people. I don't. I'm pretty damn hard to offend. If you want to be blunt, be my guest. If you want to be an asshole, well, you are free to do so too. Your ability (or lack thereof) to get along with people primarily affects you.

What I take issue with is making "political correctness" into a straw man and then bashing it, and that has more to do with my dislike of straw men than my love for political correctness. Conflating all kinds of crap that doesn't actually belong together has never helped an argument or solved a problem. You want to bitch about people who get their feelings hurt over nothing all the time and make it your problem? Go for it. I'll even join in, because god they are annoying! If those people want to tell you that you are not allowed to offend them because political correctness, then they are also being morons and they don't understand what they are talking about. And if you want to hop on that bandwagon, I'll tell you the same thing.

Now, I do happen to think that members of powerful majorities should think before they say something about persecuted minorities. Political correctness or not, I think fairness is important, and so is critical thinking. So applying the latter to your position might help you not be an asshole to people who did nothing to deserve it.

Whatever your position, however, I think it's the height of hypocricy to demand some kind of immunity from criticism for being rude/obnoxious/insensitive OR politically incorrect. If you can dish it out then you need to be able to take it. Your feelings are no more special or important or sacred then everyone else's.
 
S

Stansmith

Guest
I find the influence of White privilege, as well as the idea that people are a 'product of their own environment' a bit overrated, especially when it's used to excuse self destructive, even immoral behavior as some sort of reasonable reaction to it. It's certainly a factor, but you have to do your own part regardless.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ok, so maybe the definition of political correctness in common use has become diluted (generally by people who don't understand the point, or would rather not understand the point). No reason to get on the bandwagon.
Language evolves. In this case, I think the expansion is useful. What the broader range of "politically correct" statements have in common is that they are made with the primary goal of not offending someone else, whether that sacrifices truth, accuracy, and benefit or not. In general, it is good not to offend people, but that cannot trump all other concerns the way it often does.

Just to be clear though, speaking truth to power is the exact OPPOSITE of what political correctness means. Political correctness is about refraining from adding to the persecution of groups that are already persecuted. By definition, persecuted groups are NOT in power. When have the people in power become a persecuted minority, exactly?

Now, that's not saying you don't have good reasons to watch what you say to people in power... like the fact that if you piss them off they can make consequences for you. Telling the emperor he is naked might mean your head ends up on the chopping block. If you are ok with the consequences, by all means, speak truth to power. If you choose to do so, you could be called a lot of things from incautious to impertinent (or rude, if that's how you choose to go about it), but you aren't being politically incorrect.
I equated political correctness with holding back from speaking truth to power. You seem to have misunderstood it as the opposite.

Yes, you are right, euphemisms that obscure the reality of the situation are usually not just stupid but also harmful. Yes, some people's definition of politeness and demands for being inoffensive are completely overblown and unreasonable. Yes, sometimes reality makes people extremely uncomfortable, and they call it "offensive" and act like you are the problem for bringing it up. None of this has anything to do with not using slurs for marginalized groups, or not treating people who belong to those groups badly because you don't like the group as a whole. Amazingly enough, the content of the thing in question actually matters. If someone thinks that the word "test" is offensive and you need to use "summative assessment" they are being an idiot. It is also not even remotely the same thing as referring to a Jewish person as a "kike", and if someone doesn't get that difference, well, they are also an idiot.
What the two have in common is the emphasis on avoiding offense at all costs, and above all goals. This usually fixates on what specific words you use rather than the meaning you have to convey, let alone how you actually act toward the affected group. The words don't even have to be slurs. After all, insults are insults, whether based on someone's membership in a marginalized group, or any other quality. Many people, for instance, consider "African American" the only "correct" way to refer to Americans of African heritage. Never mind "nigger" - generally regarded as a slur - even black, colored, and negro are off-limits. But which is more offensive:

"Negroes have been sorely oppressed throughout much of American History."

"African-Americans are just lazy, and predisposed to rely on welfare and handouts."


I'm not trying to be insensitive or spiteful. I understand that minorities need protection but too much of a "good" thing can be "bad". We go so far to please everyone when it just isn't possible. We all need to be accepting of each other and it isn't like I try to offend people or use incorrect descriptions of certain minorities. I don't use racial slurs and I'm not an asshole all the time. I respect minorities. I call homeless people homeless people and don't criticize certain social groups. I'm a very accepting and open-minded person.

I see no reason to say "chairperson" instead of chairman. I address groups of women as "guys". I say fireman sometimes rather than "firefighter". I don't think it really offends anyone unless they are an extreme feminist.
With some words, it's not so much a matter of political correctness as factual correctness. A woman working for the fire dept simply isn't a fireMAN. I don't put "guys" in the same category since it is colloquial and casual, but words like fireman, policeman, chairman are not. They are easily replaced by words that accurately reflect whomever might be fulfilling the function. This is the same reality test that confirms it's OK to talk about the homeless - they don't have homes, after all. I actually call the aboriginal people in the U.S. "Native Americans" rather than Indians for the same reason: Indians are people from India. That can get confusing.

If you tell me "I'm Japanese" or i prefer to be called "Blah blah blah" , I will try and remember. I'm respectful. I just don't think that a lot of stuff matters because I don't find it offensive. I understand that you want everyone to be happy and not be offended but in this world everything is offensive to some people.
This is the bottom line. If a name or an adjective bothers you, state your preference simply, without accusation or assuming malintent. Similarly, if someone makes a courteous request along these lines, respect it much as you would call someone by the name they prefer.
 

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
Language evolves. In this case, I think the expansion is useful. What the broader range of "politically correct" statements have in common is that they are made with the primary goal of not offending someone else, whether that sacrifices truth, accuracy, and benefit or not. In general, it is good not to offend people, but that cannot trump all other concerns the way it often does.

I equated political correctness with holding back from speaking truth to power. You seem to have misunderstood it as the opposite.

What the two have in common is the emphasis on avoiding offense at all costs, and above all goals. This usually fixates on what specific words you use rather than the meaning you have to convey, let alone how you actually act toward the affected group. The words don't even have to be slurs. After all, insults are insults, whether based on someone's membership in a marginalized group, or any other quality. Many people, for instance, consider "African American" the only "correct" way to refer to Americans of African heritage. Never mind "nigger" - generally regarded as a slur - even black, colored, and negro are off-limits. But which is more offensive:

"Negroes have been sorely oppressed throughout much of American History."

"African-Americans are just lazy, and predisposed to rely on welfare and handouts."


No, this expansion is not useful. It's like expanding the use of the word "bread" to include bananas. You still need a word for bananas, because while both are starchy, they are nothing alike in other ways, and the distinction is useful. Words DO mean things, and misusing them alters your meaning.

So, people collectively agreed that it's a bad thing to marginalize and persecute individuals based not on their personal qualities or actions but on membership in a persecuted minority. They came up with a term "political correctness" to designate avoiding doing that in everyday speech.

The reason this is a useful term is because it designates a specific category of speech/action which people have collectively decided is NEVER OK. This is different from offending people in general. People can get offended at just about anything you do or say, or even at something you are. That doesn't make their feelings of offense automatically reasonable or put you automatically in the wrong / make you worthy of condemnation.

So inflating the term "political correctness" to mean "never offending people for any reason whatsoever" is not useful or reasonable. You are building a straw man and raging against it. People who rope in political correctness to demand a right to never be offended are doing the exact same thing, just from the opposite side. The point is, nobody has the right to never be offended, not even members of persecuted minorities (for instance, you can feel free to insult a black person so long as you refrain from using racial slurs, because doing so points to you having a problem with them personally rather than their race in general, so you are being politically correct while doing it). That doesn't mean it's acceptable to join in on the persecution of minorities. If you insist on conflating these things, you basically undermine your own ability to argue against stupid and entitled individuals because you've already conceded that they are apparently asking for the exact same thing as persecuted minorities who don't want you to use slurs against them.

Yeah, I missed the word NOT in there. Excuse me, what I meant was "NOT speaking truth to power is the exact OPPOSITE of what political correctness means". But thank you for carefully avoiding my point that speaking truth to power has nothing to do with political correctness or lack thereof. Powerful people are not a persecuted minority, therefore you can offend them to your heart's content without being politically incorrect.

Now, I'm not sure which USA you live in, but the one I'm living in still considers "black" to be an acceptable term to designate people of African descent. There is even a voiciferous opposition AMONG blacks against the term "African-American" as othering, condescending, and an example of "euphemism treadmill".

The examples you give, however, "Negroes have been sorely oppressed throughout much of American History." and "African-Americans are just lazy, and predisposed to rely on welfare and handouts." are BOTH politically incorrect. One because it uses the word "Negro", which is considered a slur because of its historical use, and the other because you are using a harmful and untrue stereotype in order to vilify an entire group of people regardless of their personal merit.

This is the bottom line. If a name or an adjective bothers you, state your preference simply, without accusation or assuming malintent. Similarly, if someone makes a courteous request along these lines, respect it much as you would call someone by the name they prefer.

It's funny to hear you say this in the same post as railing against political correctness. Apparently, on the one hand, you are willing to respect a person's preference for how to refer to them if they state it to you personally. However, if you have it on good authority that an entire group of people has a preference on how members of that group DON'T want to be addressed, you considers this an invalid/unreasonable demand. Somehow I doubt that you are actually so obtuse that every black person needs to march up to you and request that you don't refer to them as "nigger".
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I find the influence of White privilege, as well as the idea that people are a 'product of their own environment' a bit overrated, especially when it's used to excuse self destructive, even immoral behavior as some sort of reasonable reaction to it. It's certainly a factor, but you have to do your own part regardless.

Would you mind expanding on this, in particular to do with white privilege?
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
No, this expansion is not useful. It's like expanding the use of the word "bread" to include bananas. You still need a word for bananas, because while both are starchy, they are nothing alike in other ways, and the distinction is useful. Words DO mean things, and misusing them alters your meaning.

So, people collectively agreed that it's a bad thing to marginalize and persecute individuals based not on their personal qualities or actions but on membership in a persecuted minority. They came up with a term "political correctness" to designate avoiding doing that in everyday speech.
Expansion of the term as I described is more like expanding the term "bread" to include more than Wonder Bread. The kind of marginalizing and persecution you describe already has many words that refer to it: discrimination, and the more specific sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, gay-bashing, and so forth. "Political correctness", as I have seen it in actual usage, refers mainly to speech, with a focus on perceived offense vs. actual content, which I why I presented the examples I did.

The reason this is a useful term is because it designates a specific category of speech/action which people have collectively decided is NEVER OK. This is different from offending people in general. People can get offended at just about anything you do or say, or even at something you are. That doesn't make their feelings of offense automatically reasonable or put you automatically in the wrong / make you worthy of condemnation.

So inflating the term "political correctness" to mean "never offending people for any reason whatsoever" is not useful or reasonable. You are building a straw man and raging against it. People who rope in political correctness to demand a right to never be offended are doing the exact same thing, just from the opposite side. The point is, nobody has the right to never be offended, not even members of persecuted minorities (for instance, you can feel free to insult a black person so long as you refrain from using racial slurs, because doing so points to you having a problem with them personally rather than their race in general, so you are being politically correct while doing it). That doesn't mean it's acceptable to join in on the persecution of minorities. If you insist on conflating these things, you basically undermine your own ability to argue against stupid and entitled individuals because you've already conceded that they are apparently asking for the exact same thing as persecuted minorities who don't want you to use slurs against them.
The collective decision you refer to is hardly universal. Substantive discrimination persists in many forms and settings, and the consensus on proper terminology is limited, tenuous, and often localized at best. Political correctness does not cover every form of offense; it focuses on the offense taken by (or often on behalf of) people in marginalized groups due to matters of speech and reference. This interpretation of the definition may be unfamiliar to you, but prevails in the three US regions where I have lived. This just goes to show how little consensus there really is on definitions, however much most of us may agree on the need to promote equality.

Now, I'm not sure which USA you live in, but the one I'm living in still considers "black" to be an acceptable term to designate people of African descent. There is even a voiciferous opposition AMONG blacks against the term "African-American" as othering, condescending, and an example of "euphemism treadmill".

The examples you give, however, "Negroes have been sorely oppressed throughout much of American History." and "African-Americans are just lazy, and predisposed to rely on welfare and handouts." are BOTH politically incorrect. One because it uses the word "Negro", which is considered a slur because of its historical use, and the other because you are using a harmful and untrue stereotype in order to vilify an entire group of people regardless of their personal merit.
In "the USA I live in" as you put it, many people do consider "African-American" as the only acceptable term, though actual black folks are rarely put out by being called "black". When the topic comes up, those espousing "African-American" are often criticized as putting political correctness over effecting substantive change: IOW, arguing over superficialities instead of making a real difference. The second of my examples is not politically incorrect, it is factually incorrect. The first contains the term "negro", which now is considered politically incorrect. These examples highlight the distinction I am trying to make, between superficiality and substance, feeling and fact.

It's funny to hear you say this in the same post as railing against political correctness. Apparently, on the one hand, you are willing to respect a person's preference for how to refer to them if they state it to you personally. However, if you have it on good authority that an entire group of people has a preference on how members of that group DON'T want to be addressed, you considers this an invalid/unreasonable demand. Somehow I doubt that you are actually so obtuse that every black person needs to march up to you and request that you don't refer to them as "nigger".
It is simply viewing people as individuals, and recognizing that words have no meaning other than what we infuse them with. You wouldn't want me to make other blanket assumptions about blacks, for instance: that they are less intelligent, or like fried chicken, or are good at basketball; even though at least some will have these qualities (just like whites). Yet you want me to assume they all prefer to be referred to in the same way. If every "Robert" I ever met wanted to be called "Bob", I might reasonably expect the same of the next Robert I meet. If he wants to be called "Robert", however, I will go along as a matter of personal courtesy. That's the only right or wrong here: whether you respect an individual's preferences, or not. You can assume you know this based on trends, or other people you know, but it is exactly that: an assumption.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
There can be a 1000 and 1 ways of saying something. The one that you choose, says something, too.
 

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
Expansion of the term as I described is more like expanding the term "bread" to include more than Wonder Bread. The kind of marginalizing and persecution you describe already has many words that refer to it: discrimination, and the more specific sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, gay-bashing, and so forth. "Political correctness", as I have seen it in actual usage, refers mainly to speech, with a focus on perceived offense vs. actual content, which I why I presented the examples I did.

What you have seen in "actual usage" is people misunderstanding the term. They are the exact same people you have a problem with, the ones who misinterpret a variety of cues like the use of politically correct language, or anti-discrimination laws, or efforts by companies and politicians to not alienate potential customers or voters in any way, to mean that they have a right to never be offended. They are, of course, incorrect. Instead of pointing out to them that they are incorrect, you instead concede that their mis-interpreted observations are correct. From there the argument devolves into "It's ok to offend people!" - "It's not ok to offend people!". This will never be a productive argument because it is sometimes ok and sometimes not ok and it mainly depends on how and why you are offending them and why they feel offended, and there are some gray areas in there. It's the particulars of a situation that matter. Otherwise you'll just be throwing anecdotal evidence at each other all day and never come any closer to understanding or agreement or change of any sort.

The collective decision you refer to is hardly universal. Substantive discrimination persists in many forms and settings, and the consensus on proper terminology is limited, tenuous, and often localized at best. Political correctness does not cover every form of offense; it focuses on the offense taken by (or often on behalf of) people in marginalized groups due to matters of speech and reference. This interpretation of the definition may be unfamiliar to you, but prevails in the three US regions where I have lived. This just goes to show how little consensus there really is on definitions, however much most of us may agree on the need to promote equality.

Wait, so apparently there IS a specific, agreed upon, definition of political correctness (and you are apparently aware of it). Even more interestingly, you agree with the need to promote equality, which is the point of the exercise.

No, it's not universal (otherwise there'd be no racists, sexists, homophobes, etc). It's pretty close, however: you will face a lot more and worse social pushback for using racist slurs than you would for calling any given person an asshole. It goes with the promotion of equality thing.

Also, having specific terms for people who are chauvinist against a specific group is not the same as having a blanket term for instances of such chauvinism.

In "the USA I live in" as you put it, many people do consider "African-American" as the only acceptable term, though actual black folks are rarely put out by being called "black". When the topic comes up, those espousing "African-American" are often criticized as putting political correctness over effecting substantive change: IOW, arguing over superficialities instead of making a real difference.

Yeah, you mean the same folks who misuse "political correctness" to insist that no one should ever offend anyone are the ones getting their panties in a twist about using a term to refer to a group that the members of that group themselves don't mind? Imagine that. Maybe someone should spell things out to them. They'll be the same ones throwing around racial slurs if you persuade them political correctness is a bad thing, since they clearly can't tell the difference between discrimination/persecution and hurting someone's feelings.

The second of my examples is not politically incorrect, it is factually incorrect. The first contains the term "negro", which now is considered politically incorrect. These examples highlight the distinction I am trying to make, between superficiality and substance, feeling and fact.

Things can be incorrect in many ways. The second statement's factual correctness is beside the point -- of course it's factually incorrect. It also invokes a racist stereotype, which makes it politically incorrect. If you said that all black people had wings, well, that would be factually incorrect and politically neutral. You are trying to create a distinction where none exists. Being politically correct does not require ignoring facts or saying outright falsehoods. Saying that blacks make up only 12% of the population of the US but 37% of the prison population is factually correct and therefore also politically neutral, whether or not it seems to imply an extra-high prevalence of criminality among black people.


It is simply viewing people as individuals, and recognizing that words have no meaning other than what we infuse them with. You wouldn't want me to make other blanket assumptions about blacks, for instance: that they are less intelligent, or like fried chicken, or are good at basketball; even though at least some will have these qualities (just like whites).

It doesn't quite work that way. Treating people as individuals IS the intended point of political correctness. NO, words have meaning outside of what you PERSONALLY infuse them with -- there is a consensus of word use by populations, it's called language. That's how you know "water" means that wet stuff coming out of your tap. Political correctness is intended to alter word use and the use of stereotypes, such as the ones you have just trotted out, in order to alter the cultural landscape at large to the point where no one thinks these things. The idea is that when everybody keeps saying these things they keep being reinforced. So they need to stop being repeated like a broken record. That is the ultimate purpose of political correctness (sparing some people's feelings in certain ways is only a slice of the pie).

Yet you want me to assume they all prefer to be referred to in the same way.

They do. Or, rather, they don't want you to call them "Negroes" or "Niggers" or "Coloreds". Furthermore, they want you to stop trotting out that fried chicken crap. How do I know this? Well, I've discussed it with some black people personally. I've heard and read many other black people state the same thing. I can also imagine how sick each and every one of them is of every dude thinking he is being witty and trotting that shit out. Since they are a persecuted minority (and I am not), I think it's fair that I assume that the people telling me these things know of what it's like to belong to that minority (while I don't) and tell me how not to perpetuate the problems they deal with every day.

If every "Robert" I ever met wanted to be called "Bob", I might reasonably expect the same of the next Robert I meet. If he wants to be called "Robert", however, I will go along as a matter of personal courtesy. That's the only right or wrong here: whether you respect an individual's preferences, or not. You can assume you know this based on trends, or other people you know, but it is exactly that: an assumption.

Here's the problem with your example: being called "Robert" is a completely neutral fact and has never been cause for persecution. So, no, you can't make any assumptions about any given Robert's preferences for the form of their diminutive name. I'm willing to bet that if every single Robert you ran into was mistreated for being called "Robert", and if, furthermore, that mistreatment involved referring to "Roberts" as "Bobs", things would be very different. And since this persecution would uniformly apply to any Robert, it would also change how every Robert feels about being called Bob. So no, not all assumptions are equal: some are much more likely to be true.
 
S

Stansmith

Guest
Would you mind expanding on this, in particular to do with white privilege?

I'm swallowing my words here a bit. As an ethnic minority, I'm well aware of the fact that I have much more opportunities at my disposal than the vast majority of people living in my parents' country do, and although there is a disparity between what a White middle class person can do and what a minority of a lower socioeconomic class can do, I don't think it's an excuse for the destructive, self-perpetuating behavior that a small portion of the latter population exhibits. A lot of it is completely self-ascribed, although some would prefer to blame it on 'the system'. Then again, I can acknowledge the severity of things like racial profiling, which can certainly make many people feel as if the system is against them...there are better ways to deal with that though.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm swallowing my words here a bit. As an ethnic minority, I'm well aware of the fact that I have much more opportunities at my disposal than the vast majority of people living in my parents' country do, and although there is a disparity between what a White middle class person can do and what a minority of a lower socioeconomic class can do, I don't think it's an excuse for the destructive, self-perpetuating behavior that a small portion of the latter population exhibits. A lot of it is completely self-ascribed, although some would prefer to blame it on 'the system'. Then again, I can acknowledge the severity of things like racial profiling, which can certainly make many people feel as if the system is against them...there are better ways to deal with that though.

I'm slightly (read:very) intoxicated, so please forgive me if this sounds ridiculous. But ~

That's quite all right. I feel much the same as a female. There are some opportunities that are more open to women and some longstanding prejudices that are limiting and hard to address. More and more often lately I am feeling like the "sins of the father" fall on the son and the son has to choose to overcome it. It's almost like you have to make a self-sacrifice to heal the world. It's not fair but it's how progress is made. There's something poetic about it.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What you have seen in "actual usage" is people misunderstanding the term. They are the exact same people you have a problem with, the ones who misinterpret a variety of cues like the use of politically correct language, or anti-discrimination laws, or efforts by companies and politicians to not alienate potential customers or voters in any way, to mean that they have a right to never be offended. They are, of course, incorrect. Instead of pointing out to them that they are incorrect, you instead concede that their mis-interpreted observations are correct. From there the argument devolves into "It's ok to offend people!" - "It's not ok to offend people!". This will never be a productive argument because it is sometimes ok and sometimes not ok and it mainly depends on how and why you are offending them and why they feel offended, and there are some gray areas in there. It's the particulars of a situation that matter. Otherwise you'll just be throwing anecdotal evidence at each other all day and never come any closer to understanding or agreement or change of any sort.
I disagree with any kind of discrimination and prejudicial action. I have no patience, however, with people who get wrapped around the axle about relatively trivial and superficial concerns, when there are far more serious related matters requiring attention. This seems to be at the root of our disagreement. You are defining political correctness to include everything people do to combat discrimination and prejudice. I am defining it, based on my experience of its usage, in a much more limited way as I already explained. This more limited definition focuses on what I consider a minor part of the problem relative to the other much more serious aspects of discrimination that remain.

Things can be incorrect in many ways. The second statement's factual correctness is beside the point -- of course it's factually incorrect. It also invokes a racist stereotype, which makes it politically incorrect. If you said that all black people had wings, well, that would be factually incorrect and politically neutral. You are trying to create a distinction where none exists. Being politically correct does not require ignoring facts or saying outright falsehoods. Saying that blacks make up only 12% of the population of the US but 37% of the prison population is factually correct and therefore also politically neutral, whether or not it seems to imply an extra-high prevalence of criminality among black people.
I am calling this out specifically because the factual correctness of statements is never beside the point. It always is the most important part of the point. Ideally statements are both factually correct and courteous. If something is factually incorrect, no amount of polite language or conciliatory expressions will compensate. If it is correct, the language, whether offensive or not, does not change that truth. In either case, the form of expression is secondary to the content.

It doesn't quite work that way. Treating people as individuals IS the intended point of political correctness. NO, words have meaning outside of what you PERSONALLY infuse them with -- there is a consensus of word use by populations, it's called language. That's how you know "water" means that wet stuff coming out of your tap. Political correctness is intended to alter word use and the use of stereotypes, such as the ones you have just trotted out, in order to alter the cultural landscape at large to the point where no one thinks these things. The idea is that when everybody keeps saying these things they keep being reinforced. So they need to stop being repeated like a broken record. That is the ultimate purpose of political correctness (sparing some people's feelings in certain ways is only a slice of the pie).
By your own explanation here, political correctness tells us NOT to use the commonly accepted term for something, because that is offensive to (presumably a majority of) the target group. Changing attitudes and debunking stereotypes through this sort of linguistic engineering just doesn't work, however, and tends to create resentment and confusion. Definitions, and more importantly connotations, will evolve over time as more people adopt a new usage, but this cannot be forced. Stereotypes change by showing people how they fail to correpond to reality. This happens best through direct encounters with people in the subject group who provide living evidence of the stereotype's falseness.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
It really depends on what is meant by that term. Usually when people use it, it's because they want to have a free pass to be careless and insulting without dealing with the social stigma their assholery deserves.
 

Azure Flame

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
2,317
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
pretty sure the only people on this planet who give a shit about political correctness are xxFP's
 
Top