[NT] Politically Correct

[two cents]

Um, were you under the impression that people don't have the right to be racist? Because they totally do. At least as far as the legal definition -- you will NOT go to jail for being racist, or saying racist things (i.e. my race is better than your race).

There's a legal gray area when you start advocating things like killing "undesirables" on sight, because that is an incitement to violence and does not fall under legally protected speech.

Still, racism is rather frowned upon in most circles, so you can look forward to backlash from people when you show yourself to be racist -- anything from people telling you off and/or distancing themselves from you up to and including losing your job (especially if you are in a position to affect the public "face" of the company, because you better believe that a company's public relations are far more important than ANY single employee).

There's a difference between a legal right to do something and what most people consider to be acceptable behavior, and people are frequently confused about that. The litmus test is to ask yourself whether you can go to jail or be fined for doing something, and whether that's applicable only to a narrow set of circumstances or across the board. If you won't get into legal trouble for it, you have the right to do it. It just may be inadvisable to do so.

 

[danseen]

Um, were you under the impression that people don't have the right to be racist? Because they totally do. At least as far as the legal definition -- you will NOT go to jail for being racist, or saying racist things (i.e. my race is better than your race).

There's a legal gray area when you start advocating things like killing "undesirables" on sight, because that is an incitement to violence and does not fall under legally protected speech.

Still, racism is rather frowned upon in most circles, so you can look forward to backlash from people when you show yourself to be racist -- anything from people telling you off and/or distancing themselves from you up to and including losing your job (especially if you are in a position to affect the public "face" of the company, because you better believe that a company's public relations are far more important than ANY single employee).

There's a difference between a legal right to do something and what most people consider to be acceptable behavior, and people are frequently confused about that. The litmus test is to ask yourself whether you can go to jail or be fined for doing something, and whether that's applicable only to a narrow set of circumstances or across the board. If you won't get into legal trouble for it, you have the right to do it. It just may be inadvisable to do so.

which circles? PC liberals.

Acceptable behaviour doesn't exist, the world is a free for all.

 

[two cents]

which circles? PC liberals.

Not exactly true, the only circle that doesn't shrink away from overt/blatant racism is white supremacists. Nobody else is cool with someone going around proclaiming that all people of color are inferior to whites, for instance. It's not black and white, either: some people are more ok with more expressions of racism. Ultimately, we are all prejudiced to some degree (and if you'd like to claim otherwise, go take an implicit association test). Different circles have different standards on how overt and explicit your racism is.

Acceptable behaviour doesn't exist, the world is a free for all.

That's patently untrue. There are A LOT of rules, imposed by different groups, for what they consider to be appropriate behavior. Now, whether what people consider acceptable is "right" or "just" by some other, more objective standard, is very questionable. But that doesn't mean anybody gets to do anything with no consequences. If you actually believe that, and act accordingly, you will find the consequences of your behavior to be very unpleasant.

 

[Mal12345]

Um, were you under the impression that people don't have the right to be racist? Because they totally do. At least as far as the legal definition -- you will NOT go to jail for being racist, or saying racist things (i.e. my race is better than your race).

Yes, but on another level: who exactly is saying that one has the right to be racist?

 

[two cents]

Yes, but on another level: who exactly is saying that one has the right to be racist?

This is another area where definitions are important.

The most easily agreed upon and tested definition of "right" is legal right. You have the legal right to be racist. This is a factually true statement, and can be tested.

There are other concepts of "rights", for instance, "natural right", or "moral right". The definitions of those are much more fuzzy and contested. There's no single recognized objective authority that can settle the question of whether, for instance, you have the moral right to be racist, and no way to test this assumption in practice. At this level, all you can rely on is prevailing public opinion, which is hardly infallible. In fact, the prevailing public opinion was not just pro-racist, but actually overtly racist, not too long ago, before it gradually changed to frown upon (at least overt) racism.

 

[Mal12345]

This is another area where definitions are important.

The most easily agreed upon and tested definition of "right" is legal right. You have the legal right to be racist. This is a factually true statement, and can be tested.

There are other concepts of "rights", for instance, "natural right", or "moral right". The definitions of those are much more fuzzy and contested. There's no single recognized objective authority that can settle the question of whether, for instance, you have the moral right to be racist, and no way to test this assumption in practice. At this level, all you can rely on is prevailing public opinion, which is hardly infallible. In fact, the prevailing public opinion was not just pro-racist, but actually overtly racist, not too long ago, before it gradually changed to frown upon (at least overt) racism.

Public opinion depends on where you live.

 

[Coriolis]

Most societies make a distinction among thoughts, words, and actions in limiting behavior. Generally, people can think what they want. Speech is limited as when it slanders another, or incites illegal actions like violence. Actions are the most heavily sanctioned, through laws prohibiting everything from murder and arson to fair hiring laws and public access requirements.

When it comes to matters of racial prejudice, people can think what they want, and can generally speak their minds as long as it doesn't incite violence. What they may not do in most Western societies is translate these beliefs into actions that negatively impact the target group.

 

[garbage]

"Politically correct" is most often used as a term that people can point to and say that they're not that. Because that's just badass.

Some people can and will be offended by some things. It matters when you absolutely need to convey a message to someone, to have them hear exactly what you're thinking and nothing more. It doesn't matter in almost every other circumstance.

Black people are black--they aren't all African Americans.

I do love when people try to scramble for a term to describe, say, Nigerian and Ghanan immigrants. "African-Amer-- er, blac-- uhm hold on.."

 

[Coriolis]

I do love when people try to scramble for a term to describe, say, Nigerian and Ghanan immigrants. "African-Amer-- er, blac-- uhm hold on.."

So would a white from South Africa or Zimbabwe, for instance (and I know some of these, whose families have lived there many generations) also be "African-American"??

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

 

[anticlimatic]

Political correctness is a Te/Fi thing. Unless something is directly hurting people's feelings in front of us, Ti/Fe users couldn't care less. It's basically a Te system that was created to guard the ever-so-easily butthurt Fi.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

the ever-so-easily butthurt Fi.

rofl

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Political correctness is a Te/Fi thing. Unless something is directly hurting people's feelings in front of us, Ti/Fe users couldn't care less. It's basically a Te system that was created to guard the ever-so-easily butthurt Fi.

It's also a band-aid. One of those shitty ones that falls off if you break a sweat.

 

[Coriolis]

Political correctness is a Te/Fi thing. Unless something is directly hurting people's feelings in front of us, Ti/Fe users couldn't care less. It's basically a Te system that was created to guard the ever-so-easily butthurt Fi.

To me, it looks quite the opposite. It is Fe enforcement of ensuring others aren't made to feel bad. My Te, at least, asks whether the terminology is accurate or not, and considers the rest much ado about nothing most of the time.

 

[garbage]

One of the two Je functions is explicitly concerned with social protocol and niceities, pretty much by definition. And it ain't Te.

Has anyone ever seen an ENTJ pussyfoot around anything? Ever?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Has anyone ever seen an ENTJ pussyfoot around anything? Ever?

I'm not sure that I know any IRL. But you have a point.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not sure that I know any IRL. But you have a point.

I know a couple, and they don't. Sometimes the more mature ones realize they might have given offense, and can be charitable enough to qualify their statement or even apologise, but they almost cannot pussyfoot when they first open their mouths.

 

[Evo]

Not really. I think there's a scale sort of like that:

Politically correct ----------- Polite ----------- Cheeky ---------- Impolite ----------- Asshole

Even though that's highly subjective, try not to surpass cheeky and you should be fine.


FJs, perhaps, but not FPs.

I'm definitely cheeky.

I naturally relate to what this guy is saying in the vid.

Note that I'm not doing it for the same reasons though.

I think he's right at 2:00 mins into it about the gd twilight movies, polygamy, and not actually hurting people.

I don't agree with us having to grow thicker skin, or bigger middle fingers though...cause that is losing sight of the big picture. I'm disappointed he ended it that way. That's not the point of having freedoms. You have freedoms to be happier, not act angrier.

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.

You bring up a point here. I can see what you are saying. I just don't know how much truth it has anymore though. That definition cannot just hold true for some ppl and not for others. That's not fair. The thing is....if someone calls someone else ugly...who's to say ugly ppl are not a group that has been persecuted (If by persecuted we are going by the definition of ill treatment). Ugly people are treated differently all the time, just cause they're ugly. Is it cause we have not definitively divided ugly ppl from good looking ppl? Fat people are constantly objectified....is objectification not a form of persecution? To me it's either one or the other. Either everyone gets to pull the offended/persecuted card or nobody does.

I guess what I'm asking is...what is your running definition of persecuted? What qualifies an action as persecution to you/others?

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?

Yea, I don't like that.

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.

This was a seriously hard lesson to learn.

I was never any good at, nor did I like political correctness.

I still have to work on it. It's not natural for me to care what comes out of my mouth, as long as the message is being conveyed.

All offensive words were the same to me. If I said homo, I meant homosexual, if I said other derogatory words....in my mind I still meant homosexual, etc.

I did not like that I wasn't "allowed" to say a certain word if I wanted to. I still kinda don't like the idea...but I at least get it now.

It took me about 2 years just to eliminate "that's gay" from my vocabulary. My friend is gay, and it was not until he was able to sit down with me and explain why the hell it was so bad, that I really started trying to modify what I said.

Ha ha, needless to say, I've now become extremely aware of this type of stuff since then.

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.

Pretty much what I did, and changed from it.

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.

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?

Again, not to stand up for anyone, but from my experience, it can be considerably hard to contemplate feelings, especially of others, when you have a feeling function that's underdeveloped.

It hit me kinda hard when I said something I didn't know was going to be taken with such offense, where I didn't intend it.

I don't put that much emphasis on words, let alone emotional connotation of the words' meaning.

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.

Yea, see here's that thing again.

The part I don't like.

I think once you start saying "You shouldn't say this cause it harms this group," the line drawn between where these groups are or are not, gets kinda blurred to me.

I don't like saying it's fair for one group an not the other.

Maybe you have some insight on this?

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.

I agree with this. 100%

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".

Well I kinda relate to Coriolis on this. I'm not under the same impression that "black" is an acceptable term...

 

[anticlimatic]

To me, it looks quite the opposite. It is Fe enforcement of ensuring others aren't made to feel bad. My Te, at least, asks whether the terminology is accurate or not, and considers the rest much ado about nothing most of the time.

Misconception with how Fe/Ti works, and what offends it. It's not specific language, but the circumstantial intent behind it (insults vs political correctness, I believe it was you who pointed out the distinction)-- whereas with Te/Fi types, contextual intent is seldom gauged, and it's always simply the literal language, and the universal validity of statements (independent of context), which are measured-- another side effect of this aspect is an irrational irritation with spelling errors, which you're no doubt familiar. Fe/Ti types typically jump straight to what people intended to spell, and they generally don't even notice the error.

For instance, many aspects of political correctness are about neutralizing gender. "Server" instead of "waitress and waiter," and "person" instead of "man and woman." And gender sensitivity is dominantly the realm of the introverted feeler. Extroverted feelers almost get off on those kinds of inherent contrasts.

If that still isn't enough evidence, just compare the amount of people in this thread that can empathize/sympathize with political correctness, and which direction their judging functions point.

 

[Salomé]

^Gah. The stupidity of the term "Fe/Ti type" laid bare. As if an ESFJ and an INTP would ever view political correctness in the same way...

It is related Fe, as others have said.
Which is why a Ti dom/aux will often attempt to subvert it. The Ti user is only interested in the degree of actual correctness, irrespective of polite conventions. The Fe user, by contrast, cares far more about the "political" part. To suggest they are motivated by the same driver is absurd.