"Political correctness" was originally (going back to the 1930s) a technical term used within Communist circles to signify conformity to Party doctrine. See the history provided by L.D. Burnett.
3
The idea of "political correctness" is a victim of 'reductio ad absurdum' in two directions. To the left, it is too easily used as a means to stifle honest discourse or to berate and silence people who mean no offense. To the right, the reaction to PC is too easily used to sanctimoniously disregard the humanity of others under pretense of one's right to free speech.
In the middle, it's really just the age-old Golden Rule. We should try to understand and be decent to one another. It's not actually that hard to communicate clearly and honestly while being mindful enough to abandon language that belittles or demeans others. On the other side, it's also not that hard to consider the context and the speaker and not automatically take offense when none was intended.
In the end, it's not being "politically correct" that's important; being decent to one another is.
In the middle, it's really just the age-old Golden Rule. We should try to understand and be decent to one another. It's not actually that hard to communicate clearly and honestly while being mindful enough to abandon language that belittles or demeans others. On the other side, it's also not that hard to consider the context and the speaker and not automatically take offense when none was intended.
In the end, it's not being "politically correct" that's important; being decent to one another is.
7
Ah yes the PC boogeyman that provides the conservative right with its claims to victimization and "oppression", ironically making conservatives simply the other side of the coin from the liberals/minority identity groups who they regularly accuse of over-sensitivity and "bullying" language. As a liberal myself I would be the first to admit that there are certainly cases of PC "run amok" in some of the dialogue and behaviors on some college campuses but these hardly represent some broader and daily experience by the majority of white conservatives. This belief that conservative viewpoints are being "silenced" is laughable considering conservative leaning outlets abound across the Internet, radio and TV. No jackbooted troops have shut down Fox News or talk radio. Conservative Christian churches continue to preach the strictures of their faith while receiving tax breaks and are 100% free of any state or secular interference into their private beliefs and dealings. Conservative leaning individuals in society are free to speak their minds in pretty much any private or public setting. No one has been jailed for voicing "politically incorrect" words or thoughts.
6
This was a good article, a very good article, I have been wondering about the origin of PC. The revelation that it came from Doonesbury is mind altering, what was once a pin prick of the left to the left is now a mighty sword (maybe an ax, maybe a chain saw) of the right against--well just about everybody but mostly me because I feel like Dr Ben Carson and Donald Tump are coming after me. Now trigger warnings and micro-aggressions aside for the moment, the best writing about PC and its discontents comes from VOX.COM and especially Amada Taub. I do not have enough characters to do justice to Ms Taub but I will try leave you with one report from her of a New Zealand programmer who modified his browser to replace Politcal Correctness with "treating people with respect" as in Ben Carson line "Black lives matter is PC run amok!" replace with "BLM movement is Treating People With Respect (TPWR) run amok!". VOX.Com also shows the logical end of the rage against PC in the internet Trolls who gleefully threaten rape and death (especially to women)--see Milo and Daddy, you cannot make this stuff up. The NYT writer has suggested another substitution for PC as AV (Ambient Viciousness). Are trigger warnings (PC run amok?) shutting down free speech in classrooms? Depending on how you define trigger warnings then that should be exposed and resisted. Threatening women with rape then death with the home address of your Twitter victim? Lives have been lost. Delete Milo's account.
1
Politically correct debate tries to limit what Bertrand Russell called "irregular verb" conjugations: "I am firm; you are obstinate; he is a pig-headed fool." "Obstinate" and "pig headed fool" obviously imply demeaning evaluations--which must be proven/justified--not admitted as facts; but being "firm" is a virtue--also loading the dice.
But that those who wrongfully discriminate often object to language implying precisely that. Those who treat blacks, Jews, women, gays and lesbians as second class citizens object to being called out for "racism", "antisemitism", "misogynism", "homophobia".
Individual blacks, Jews, women can be guilty of wrongful behavior. Calling them out need not be discrimination--letting irrelevant factors count is decision making. But that is not the issue--which is prejudice.
Trump--as usual--can't tell the difference. He thinks it's political correct language that prevents the US from treating ISIS followers as they treat Americans and Europeans. He thinks we should torture them as they torture us. Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth.
But it's the Constitution--Eighth Amendment--that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment;" i.e. torture. Americans--at least at one time--chose a more civilized ethic.
Lex Talionis is an barbaric conception of just treatment of wrongdoers, merely creating more blind toothless people. The least harmful deterrent is what we are after--as well as rehab, if possible.
But that those who wrongfully discriminate often object to language implying precisely that. Those who treat blacks, Jews, women, gays and lesbians as second class citizens object to being called out for "racism", "antisemitism", "misogynism", "homophobia".
Individual blacks, Jews, women can be guilty of wrongful behavior. Calling them out need not be discrimination--letting irrelevant factors count is decision making. But that is not the issue--which is prejudice.
Trump--as usual--can't tell the difference. He thinks it's political correct language that prevents the US from treating ISIS followers as they treat Americans and Europeans. He thinks we should torture them as they torture us. Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth.
But it's the Constitution--Eighth Amendment--that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment;" i.e. torture. Americans--at least at one time--chose a more civilized ethic.
Lex Talionis is an barbaric conception of just treatment of wrongdoers, merely creating more blind toothless people. The least harmful deterrent is what we are after--as well as rehab, if possible.
3
Liberals who support discrimination against whites and Asians in college admissions, corporate and government employment don't like being called racists. Weird
3
The author openly decries coming demise of political correctness.
Political correctness is a tool to control masses of people.
So far, it has been used mostly in fascist and communist countries.
Now, also in the US, for the same purpose, mainly by the political establishment and the "intelligentsia". We have to rid ourselves of this evil.
Go Trump!
Political correctness is a tool to control masses of people.
So far, it has been used mostly in fascist and communist countries.
Now, also in the US, for the same purpose, mainly by the political establishment and the "intelligentsia". We have to rid ourselves of this evil.
Go Trump!
1
Talk about your "dog Whistles". Sometimes a sheriff's star is just a sheriff's star and not a "star of David". Do you really think that Trump hates his Orthodox Jewish daughter and grandchildren?
3
Imagine going to your doctor because you are sick, very sick and want to know what is wrong and how to fix it. Now imagine your doctor agrees that you are very sick, but he won't tell you what illness you have. Now think about the term, "radical Islamist terrorist". Don't you want to know you have cancer? Don't you want to know whether it is pancreatic cancer or liver cancer? Won't it make a difference in how you react and treat it? Of course it will. Radical Islamic terrorist is a very exact and precise description of the enemy we face. It does NOT in any way, shape, form or fashion describe ALL Muslims. The danger of PC is being so afraid of a word that you can't even acknowledge the problem you face. It's absurd that this administration can't bring themselves to call our enemy by name. Imagine FDR choosing not to use the term Nazi in describing our enemy.
4
Please identify a single policy or strategy that would change under the uttering of "Radical Islam" to describe terrorism (a term that has been used by this POTUS, BTW to describe the ideology). Under Obama, we have been targeting and air striking, along with ground presence, locations where ISIS and Al Queda leadership and critical centers exist. What different approach would be taken with the magical words? Unless the words "Radical Islam" comes backed with an opposing and defined set of policies then it is semantics only. And if you think ISIS would suddenly switch course because a Republican President says the magic words and shakes their fist harder and with a menacing gaze then you are truly fooling yourself. In fact, ISIS ideology is predicated on a Western War on Islam, so any shift in that direction that specifically states that we are at *war* with Islam will only bump up the recruitment numbers and radicalizing opportunities. And particularly if a Republican president claims the backing of Christianity in this War.
2
Obama not saying "Radical Islam" is the new political correctness? Ludicrous! We are supposed to be able to criticize our politicians. The PC movement is revolting in large part because it is used against ordinary people who should never be subject to such an assault. Moreover, Obama's refusal to recognize who is trying to kill us matters a great deal. While Radical Islam continues its slaughter of the innocent, Obama thinks the real concern is "Islamophobia," falsely suggesting that the threat of Radical Islam is irrational, like being afraid to fly. It is like the British police in the 1888 telling people that Jack the Ripper was a myth.
2
This, from the article, is correct:
"Politically correct” was born as a lefty in-joke, an insidery nod to the smugness of holier-than-thou liberals. As Gloria Steinem put it: “ ‘Politically correct’ was invented by people in social-justice movements to make fun of ourselves.”"
The blurb, though, below the headline in the app is flat out wrong!
"Political correctness went from a punch line to panic." "It used to be a conservative joke."
Sorry, it never was that and certainly didn't began that way.
It went from
1. being a liberal in-group tease, to a
2. conservative put down, to an
3. outright excuse for justifying racism, sexism, homophobia, and then a way of
4. demeaning anyone who pointed out the problems out, and, finally,
5. an instrument of denying the problems even exist!
"Politically correct” was born as a lefty in-joke, an insidery nod to the smugness of holier-than-thou liberals. As Gloria Steinem put it: “ ‘Politically correct’ was invented by people in social-justice movements to make fun of ourselves.”"
The blurb, though, below the headline in the app is flat out wrong!
"Political correctness went from a punch line to panic." "It used to be a conservative joke."
Sorry, it never was that and certainly didn't began that way.
It went from
1. being a liberal in-group tease, to a
2. conservative put down, to an
3. outright excuse for justifying racism, sexism, homophobia, and then a way of
4. demeaning anyone who pointed out the problems out, and, finally,
5. an instrument of denying the problems even exist!
3
I still think that at heart people misunderstand the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, thinking that language determines thought and that if you can control someone's language, then you can control someone's mind and what they can do with it. It simply doesn't work like that. Language is organic and dynamic. The best you can hope to be is descriptive, not proscriptive. And anyone who disagrees can bite me.
2
Political correctness has reached the point where it actively destroys political discourse, corrodes individual liberty and classical liberalism, and creates an environment where people are afraid to put forward thoughts or ideas in the political, business and social circles, least someone, no matter how irrationally, take or feign offense. In their rush to label others as racist, sexist bigots, the current politically correct crowd has themselves become those who see things only in terms of sex and race and make decisions about others based on those superficial observations, which constitutes bigotry. They literally become what they hunt, and project their blinders onto everyone else. People in the western world now know that having your door knocked down by police for having a political opinion, having the state watch you or tap into your communication without due process, having laws are created by unelected councils or officials, and having your life ruined, criminal charges brought against you, and even having the police raid for what is perceived by someone as a thoughtcrime, once orwellian fictions, are now a reality. And yet we trivialize these everyday occurrences and let logic and reason slowly die.
2
"People in the western world now know that having your door knocked down by police for having a political opinion, having the state watch you or tap into your communication without due process, having laws are created by unelected councils or officials, and having your life ruined, criminal charges brought against you, and even having the police raid for what is perceived by someone as a thoughtcrime, once orwellian fictions, are now a reality. "
Please provide some examples of people being arrested for non-PC speech and words, or of unelected "councils and officials" making laws. But I will point out to you that many conservatives are very much in favor of police and government surveilling Muslims in America..
Please provide some examples of people being arrested for non-PC speech and words, or of unelected "councils and officials" making laws. But I will point out to you that many conservatives are very much in favor of police and government surveilling Muslims in America..
3
I think the article correctly points out the excesses of PC. When liberal professors are being attacked by their own students for not being radial enough, it appears that even liberals are realizing the potential danger of the situation. However, I'm not sure I agree that there is a "right-wing verve" that "has emerged as its own form of speech policing."
Sure there is. The insistence of using certain terms like "Islamic Terrorism" to describe events as some sort of magic bullet that will stop ISIS in tracks, for example. The "All Lives Matter" meme which does two things: misrepresents the "Black Lives Matter" slogan as intentionally stating that *Only* Black Lives Matter, where what it really means is Black Lives Matter *Too*. This misrepresentation makes it easy to slander the movement and dismiss its legitimacy. It also covers over the meaning of BLM, it's not some "kumbaya" movement to celebrate "human life", it's a protest movement targeting a very specific problem: racial bias in the criminal justice system. "All Lives Matter" papers over that target with some blurry, "feel good" mantra that has no relevance to the issue BLM represents.
"Political Correctness" itself is also a version of right wing PC, in a backwards way. It's used to dismiss any debate that makes conservatives uncomfortable. There are some cases of PC "run amok" as they say, but increasingly conservatives use PC as a defense against any POV or policy they disagree with. It's becoming as meaningless as they claim "racism" charges are from the left..
"Political Correctness" itself is also a version of right wing PC, in a backwards way. It's used to dismiss any debate that makes conservatives uncomfortable. There are some cases of PC "run amok" as they say, but increasingly conservatives use PC as a defense against any POV or policy they disagree with. It's becoming as meaningless as they claim "racism" charges are from the left..
3
I'm tired of the equivalency Ms. Hess and others draw between "smug" college students criticizing hateful (or even unintentionally offensive) comments and the statements Mr. Trump, his party, and his supporters make. These students may all be as Ms. Hess characterizes them - young elites with incredible privilege punching down in a misguided desire to see themselves as "woke". Even if this is true, they remain students with a long road of learning ahead. They have a long time to deepen their understanding. If they are indeed all elites, we should at least credit their willingness to question the institutional racism that has enabled their elevated status.
On the other side is Mr. Trump, who has enormous power and an incredible platform. His rhetoric is hateful and ignorant, and delivered with unseemly smugness. His life story is one of unearned privilege and exploitation of those without power. His reach is far greater than any student's, and his language not merely offensive but violent.
We cannot pretend that the overzealously politically correct are anywhere near as dangerous as the modern Republican party. Nor should they be blamed for the wealthy and powerful, like Mr. Trump, who choose to spew hate.
On the other side is Mr. Trump, who has enormous power and an incredible platform. His rhetoric is hateful and ignorant, and delivered with unseemly smugness. His life story is one of unearned privilege and exploitation of those without power. His reach is far greater than any student's, and his language not merely offensive but violent.
We cannot pretend that the overzealously politically correct are anywhere near as dangerous as the modern Republican party. Nor should they be blamed for the wealthy and powerful, like Mr. Trump, who choose to spew hate.
4
It's interesting that Ms Hess didn't mention Mrs Clinton's use of the phrase "super predators" to describe black youth. The smug, self-anointed sanctimony of the DNC media is boundless.
Thank you for pointing out that some of the worst P.C. practitioners are political conservatives who insist that there is only one right way to say something, e.g., "radical Islamic terrorism", and show no tolerance for the diversity of ideas and speech that arise in response to a complex world.
3
Speaking of racist aggressions - is it true that blacks are 10 times more likely to murder non-Hispanic whites than the other way around?
2
Political correctness is and has always been about controlling the dialogue. If certain words, phrases, or even thoughts are made taboo, then many ideas and concepts simply cannot be expressed. Those who seek to prohibit speech in the name of sensitivity are actually just assuming the role of censor for ideas that do not comport with a particular worldview, nothing more. Political correctness is not some progressive concept moving society forward. Quite to the contrary it's a mechanism for control and stifling free and open debate in what once was the Marketplace of Ideas. The real victim of PC: the truth.
7
Political correctness is more than just word games. Policies also flow from the same smug self-satisfied sources. Policies that attempt to limit and constrain and redirect behavior to something more agreeable to liberal sensibilities - and over the objections of dissident conservative and traditionally minded citizens.
Much as NYT writers would like for it to be so, the appeal of Trump cannot be dismissed simply as a reflection of white racist America's hatefulness. The more that liberals project their cartoonishly self serving slander onto their political opponents, the more people are mobilized to put a stop to it at the ballot box. People have had enough of it.
Much as NYT writers would like for it to be so, the appeal of Trump cannot be dismissed simply as a reflection of white racist America's hatefulness. The more that liberals project their cartoonishly self serving slander onto their political opponents, the more people are mobilized to put a stop to it at the ballot box. People have had enough of it.
3
PC had obviously gone too far when, in 1999, David Howard was fired by the Mayor of Washington, DC, a supposedly educated man, over his use of the word niggardly. It has not retreated from this level, in my opinion, to this day.
3
Political correctness is a higher order form of ideological correctness (an ideology is a value system)--assuming pluralism.
Politics is the art of compromise--the art of "e pluribus unum" creating one from many value systems. How is that possible?
It relies on a "meta-ideology"--one dispute resolution system can permit value pluralism--provided people "agree to disagree."
"Agreement" can mean (a) same beliefs--about facts or values; or (b) a settling of a dispute. You may accept--"live with"--the resolution while not accepting that it is best, right or just.
Agreements can be negotiated contracts or imposed by courts. Parties can grumble about the decision but agree to abide by it.
But such settlements must presume procedural codes of conduct--or the dispute can go on forever. The codes limit what can be disputed--"put on the table." In court you can't sue for damages to an illegal business.
The legislature determines which businesses are legal. But in debating that, they can't discriminate wrongfully--due to prejudice, bias, conflict of interest and so on. That would be politically incorrect.
Often language hides systemic discrimination. "Covert value words" may seem mere classifications, while hiding an underlying evaluation--and are thus inadmissible in fair procedures. One party can't be a "lady" while the other is a "whore"--and so on.
Political correctness tries to undercut "loaded" disputes and resolutions--to give everyone a fair shake.
Politics is the art of compromise--the art of "e pluribus unum" creating one from many value systems. How is that possible?
It relies on a "meta-ideology"--one dispute resolution system can permit value pluralism--provided people "agree to disagree."
"Agreement" can mean (a) same beliefs--about facts or values; or (b) a settling of a dispute. You may accept--"live with"--the resolution while not accepting that it is best, right or just.
Agreements can be negotiated contracts or imposed by courts. Parties can grumble about the decision but agree to abide by it.
But such settlements must presume procedural codes of conduct--or the dispute can go on forever. The codes limit what can be disputed--"put on the table." In court you can't sue for damages to an illegal business.
The legislature determines which businesses are legal. But in debating that, they can't discriminate wrongfully--due to prejudice, bias, conflict of interest and so on. That would be politically incorrect.
Often language hides systemic discrimination. "Covert value words" may seem mere classifications, while hiding an underlying evaluation--and are thus inadmissible in fair procedures. One party can't be a "lady" while the other is a "whore"--and so on.
Political correctness tries to undercut "loaded" disputes and resolutions--to give everyone a fair shake.
2
The original PC was actually in China and had to do with party members being in line with Maoist doctrine. In America political correctness was a sarcastic joke used by liberals against other liberals who were way too rigid.
In Republican propaganda, "PC" is used as a spear and a shield to defend against reasonable arguments from the left by denying to liberals the right to protest and all the other political rights and privileges which the Right feels that only they are allowed to own.
In Republican propaganda, "PC" is used as a spear and a shield to defend against reasonable arguments from the left by denying to liberals the right to protest and all the other political rights and privileges which the Right feels that only they are allowed to own.
3
And what of the 2 male Vermont delegates purged from the convention because the "Progressive" left needed "balance"???
It's about that log in your eye....
It's about that log in your eye....
1
We have two political parties and either one is for middle class hard working Americans citizens that love their country as a beacon of light and see the policies of both parties destroying their nation and letting it slide into third world status.
The Democrat party openly despise the men and women that work hard, obey the laws, pay the taxes, fight the wars and built this Nation and cannot wait to give away what they worked and built to every illegal alien and lazy worthless bum they can find,
The repubs pretend they care while supporting the rich, open borders, globalization, big government, and are only slightly less worthless then the socialist American hating Democrat party.
This Nation needs a American party we have two parties to represent the rich, globalization, illegals, Muslims, welfare bums and the rest of the world.
Can Trump be the Start of a American party for Law abiding American citizens?
The Democrat party openly despise the men and women that work hard, obey the laws, pay the taxes, fight the wars and built this Nation and cannot wait to give away what they worked and built to every illegal alien and lazy worthless bum they can find,
The repubs pretend they care while supporting the rich, open borders, globalization, big government, and are only slightly less worthless then the socialist American hating Democrat party.
This Nation needs a American party we have two parties to represent the rich, globalization, illegals, Muslims, welfare bums and the rest of the world.
Can Trump be the Start of a American party for Law abiding American citizens?
1
PC is an Orwellian system designed to (1) make certain ideas impossible to express in the English language and (2) give an excuse to scold people and so shut them up.
As an example of (1) we have the PC "immigrant" instead of the precise term "illegal alien", since "alien" means a non-citizen resident. Immigrants may or may not be aliens and may or not be illegal. For instance Melania Trump is an immigrant but is not an alien and has never been illegal. She is in a totally different category than someone who jumped the border illegally.
For (2) the PC terms keep changing to keep you off-guard. For instance calling someone a "colored person" used to be perfectly polite (e.g. NAACP) but will now get you a scolding. Instead you must say "person of color". See the difference? Of course not.
Even if you follow all the rules you may be accused of a "dog whistle", as evidenced by this article. That is when the SJW hears something that you did not say. Then she wants you to apologize for the voices in her head.
Now you needn't say or do anything at all. Your "white privelege" makes the color of your skin a form of Original Sin, and the PC crowd will scold you for it.
As an example of (1) we have the PC "immigrant" instead of the precise term "illegal alien", since "alien" means a non-citizen resident. Immigrants may or may not be aliens and may or not be illegal. For instance Melania Trump is an immigrant but is not an alien and has never been illegal. She is in a totally different category than someone who jumped the border illegally.
For (2) the PC terms keep changing to keep you off-guard. For instance calling someone a "colored person" used to be perfectly polite (e.g. NAACP) but will now get you a scolding. Instead you must say "person of color". See the difference? Of course not.
Even if you follow all the rules you may be accused of a "dog whistle", as evidenced by this article. That is when the SJW hears something that you did not say. Then she wants you to apologize for the voices in her head.
Now you needn't say or do anything at all. Your "white privelege" makes the color of your skin a form of Original Sin, and the PC crowd will scold you for it.
3
Political Correctness was a term invented by Lenin to command that what was important was not physical reality but the political idea. Political Correctness is a rejection of the real world. That is why political corectness is bad in all ways. Colleges have become ruled by PC which means instead of creating critical thinkers to take us to the future we have legions of perpetual children needing a safe space to hide from reality. Freedom of speech is the right to say things that are not politically correct and that many might dislike. You cannot have Freedom and political correctness and I choose freedom.
1
Actually, the term "politically correct" was first used by Joseph Stalin, and he used it to mean exactly what it sounds like: truth was to be determined by power and the interests of those with power, irrespective of any actual facts existing in the universe. And that is exactly how it is used today. The left, for all its self-congratulatory nonsense about "speaking truth to power", attempts constantly to use its cultural hegemony to determine truth irrespective of facts, and to execrate or silence anyone who has the temerity to speak the actual truth, by, for example, insisting that anyone who speaks the blindingly obvious truth that terrorism has a lot to do with Islam is a racist (even though Islam is not a race).
2
" for people who live free from the fear of… racist aggression…"
The fact that you believe that whites cannot be the victims of racist aggression is astounding. It's astonishing! The vast majority of us find it not only ridiculous, but vexing, and those of us who have been the victims of racist aggression (that supposedly cannot happen) are gravitating to Donald Trump in ever greater numbers.
The leftist media can demonize and denounce and lie about Donald Trump all they want. We are onto you and we can see through your lies and most of us believe that virtually everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie. Donald Trump is going to win a huge victory over Hillary. The reason? Your arrogance and condescension and lies. You'll blame it on the stupidity of the great unwashed, of course, and as they say, until you admit you have a problem, you will not be able to recover from it. So for the sake of America I hope that you continue to keep your head in the sand and continue to believe that you are the smart ones. Keep doing exactly as you are doing, please.
The fact that you believe that whites cannot be the victims of racist aggression is astounding. It's astonishing! The vast majority of us find it not only ridiculous, but vexing, and those of us who have been the victims of racist aggression (that supposedly cannot happen) are gravitating to Donald Trump in ever greater numbers.
The leftist media can demonize and denounce and lie about Donald Trump all they want. We are onto you and we can see through your lies and most of us believe that virtually everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie. Donald Trump is going to win a huge victory over Hillary. The reason? Your arrogance and condescension and lies. You'll blame it on the stupidity of the great unwashed, of course, and as they say, until you admit you have a problem, you will not be able to recover from it. So for the sake of America I hope that you continue to keep your head in the sand and continue to believe that you are the smart ones. Keep doing exactly as you are doing, please.
1
A very good observatory article. Political correctness has morphed into a number of things, far removed from simple guidelines on polite terminology (if only).
PC now comes disguised as tolerance wherein moving ideological goal posts are hard for even the most dedicated adherents of this sanctimonious, self-referencing religion to follow. We're regularly held to public account on random standards of thought by a pandering ruling class, where ignorance is no excuse. And you will be punished. And there will be video.
Middle America, as implied, is the breeding ground for 'hate' (a convenient catch-all for the mind of anyone not quite on board with this week's dogmatic revisions). Flyover country is hopelessly caught in a time when lesser things - making an honest living, trying to raise good kids, etc. - are frustratingly mundane and one dimensional compared to the intellectual challenges of where best to discharge our unneeded bodily waste.
Political correctness is about avoiding labels - unless you're a 'denier', perhaps or a 'white guy'. And the 'hater' distinction is helpful - if only to separate the sheep from the goats (pardon the Christian phraseology - hoping that doesn't trigger).
At no point is free speech ever rushed at in full-frontal attack mode; it's always flanked and eventually surrounded. We cherish free speech, however when it gets uncomfortable we need to throttle it back a bit. And therein lies the problem.
PC now comes disguised as tolerance wherein moving ideological goal posts are hard for even the most dedicated adherents of this sanctimonious, self-referencing religion to follow. We're regularly held to public account on random standards of thought by a pandering ruling class, where ignorance is no excuse. And you will be punished. And there will be video.
Middle America, as implied, is the breeding ground for 'hate' (a convenient catch-all for the mind of anyone not quite on board with this week's dogmatic revisions). Flyover country is hopelessly caught in a time when lesser things - making an honest living, trying to raise good kids, etc. - are frustratingly mundane and one dimensional compared to the intellectual challenges of where best to discharge our unneeded bodily waste.
Political correctness is about avoiding labels - unless you're a 'denier', perhaps or a 'white guy'. And the 'hater' distinction is helpful - if only to separate the sheep from the goats (pardon the Christian phraseology - hoping that doesn't trigger).
At no point is free speech ever rushed at in full-frontal attack mode; it's always flanked and eventually surrounded. We cherish free speech, however when it gets uncomfortable we need to throttle it back a bit. And therein lies the problem.
1
Political correctness goes way beyond what the author describes. It's not merely aimed people who inadvertently say things that aren't "sensitive" - it's meant to prevent people from stating irrefutable truths that aren't convenient to the left.
Don't believe me? Watch this.
The plight of black people in this country is deplorable. Many white people of good will are want to do something tangible to help them. It's obvious to us things will never get better for them so long as large numbers of black children are born into families without a father.
No problem can be solved if it can't be discussed openly and candidly. But the idea of personal responsibility is not PC, and can't be talked about.
And who benefits from the lack of discussion? Not black people, but those on the left, for whom impoverished blacks are a sure, steady stream of votes year after year, generation after generation. Even if the left doesn't do it deliberately (just my opinion, but they know exactly what they're doing), there's no denying they benefit from things staying the way they are.
The responses to this will largely be something along the lines of calling me stupid or racist. No one, however, can say it just isn't true!
...one among many irrefutable truths that according to PC dogma just cannot be discussed honestly.
Don't believe me? Watch this.
The plight of black people in this country is deplorable. Many white people of good will are want to do something tangible to help them. It's obvious to us things will never get better for them so long as large numbers of black children are born into families without a father.
No problem can be solved if it can't be discussed openly and candidly. But the idea of personal responsibility is not PC, and can't be talked about.
And who benefits from the lack of discussion? Not black people, but those on the left, for whom impoverished blacks are a sure, steady stream of votes year after year, generation after generation. Even if the left doesn't do it deliberately (just my opinion, but they know exactly what they're doing), there's no denying they benefit from things staying the way they are.
The responses to this will largely be something along the lines of calling me stupid or racist. No one, however, can say it just isn't true!
...one among many irrefutable truths that according to PC dogma just cannot be discussed honestly.
2
Political correctness is used to attempt to hide reality, like describing a crime suspect without revealing his race. PC perhaps shows its most extreme and ridiculous incarnation when it does not characterize a person as male or female. These genderless people do not like being called "it" so they refer to themselves as "they."
1
There's this book by this guy named Orwell you should read. Might give you some insight into what "political correctness" means when the left goes all the way with it.
1
The author still doesn't get it - PC was invented by the left not to make fun of themselves but to bully and cudgel their opponents, and the whole country for that matter, with their ideological totalitarianism. The reason Trump is resonating with so many is that so many are tired of being called racist and other names every time they have an opinion that differs from liberal dogma. Advice to the left - drop PC, starting with Black Lives Matter. In other words, start acting like true liberals!
2
The P.C. movement is used to stifle all non-approved speech.
Liberals never quite understand that their position is naturally authoritarian because it places the good of the collective over the good of the individual.
They are happy to regulate every aspect of life excepting only abortions and recreational drugs, then complain that the conservatives are totalitarian.
The party for which big-government is the answer to everything is not at all liberal...it IS totalitarian, and it's policed in schools and on the net using P.C. tactics and backed by the weapons of the government.
Whatever liberals think they are, they are not for personal liberty.
Liberals never quite understand that their position is naturally authoritarian because it places the good of the collective over the good of the individual.
They are happy to regulate every aspect of life excepting only abortions and recreational drugs, then complain that the conservatives are totalitarian.
The party for which big-government is the answer to everything is not at all liberal...it IS totalitarian, and it's policed in schools and on the net using P.C. tactics and backed by the weapons of the government.
Whatever liberals think they are, they are not for personal liberty.
1
PC is the attempt to muzzle Americans' ability o speak the truth as crypto Marxists and crooks of all stripes raid the public treasury and hold a fire sale of the prosperity that previous generations built up for us.
The left uses PC to beat down opposition as the infiltrate and infest centers of power using Saul Alinsky's tactics. The grifting statism of the left can hold power for only so long because, inevitably these parasites begin to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and poverty forces the people to root them out and sent them howling into the wilderness.
That is why Trump won the Republican primary and Bernie Sanders almost sees the Republican Party primary. Good luck with Hillary, I don't think she's going to win because she is being exposed for the parasite that she is.
The left uses PC to beat down opposition as the infiltrate and infest centers of power using Saul Alinsky's tactics. The grifting statism of the left can hold power for only so long because, inevitably these parasites begin to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and poverty forces the people to root them out and sent them howling into the wilderness.
That is why Trump won the Republican primary and Bernie Sanders almost sees the Republican Party primary. Good luck with Hillary, I don't think she's going to win because she is being exposed for the parasite that she is.
This article is the example of "the smugness that ’80s liberals detected in their ranks". We should all be sensitive, yes. But when you tell me what that sensitivity looks like you go too far. PC becomes a barometer not for sensitivity, but for seeking to force me to agree with you. Its not that my words are insensitive, when they disagree with someone, it is the notion that you can now define my character (e.g. I am racist) because I disagree with you and don't use your jargon. Read this article, note the tone. "He has seized on the insecurity of people who are being called out by cultural elites for racism and insensitivity when what they may really be is genuinely uninformed." And I am an Ivy League graduated African American!
1
Political correctness goes way beyond what the author describes. It's not merely aimed people who inadvertently say things that aren't "sensitive" - it's meant to prevent people from stating irrefutable truths that aren't convenient to the left.
Don't believe me? Watch this.
The plight of black people in this country is deplorable. Many white people of good will would be willing to do something tangible to help them. It's obvious to us things will never get better for them so long as large numbers of black children are born into a family without a father.
No problem can be solved if it can't be discussed openly and candidly. But the idea of personal responsibility is not PC, and can't be talked about. And who benefits from the lack of discussion? Not black people, but those on the left, for whom impoverished blacks are a sure, steady stream of votes year after year, generation after generation.
If the NYT even publishes this (it might be too un-PC), the responses will largely be something along the lines of calling me stupid or racist. No one will say that what I've said is not true!
One among many irrefutable truths that according to PC dogma cannot even be discussed honestly.
Don't believe me? Watch this.
The plight of black people in this country is deplorable. Many white people of good will would be willing to do something tangible to help them. It's obvious to us things will never get better for them so long as large numbers of black children are born into a family without a father.
No problem can be solved if it can't be discussed openly and candidly. But the idea of personal responsibility is not PC, and can't be talked about. And who benefits from the lack of discussion? Not black people, but those on the left, for whom impoverished blacks are a sure, steady stream of votes year after year, generation after generation.
If the NYT even publishes this (it might be too un-PC), the responses will largely be something along the lines of calling me stupid or racist. No one will say that what I've said is not true!
One among many irrefutable truths that according to PC dogma cannot even be discussed honestly.
1
The problem, I think, goes something like this: We live in a society where white privilege is a real thing and where racism, sexism, and heterosexism raise major justice issues that are embodied in our language and culture. So there is transformational work to be done so that all of us can be fully and equally free.
But justice is concerned with race, gender, and *class*, and affluent, well-educated white people can be way too willing to use language and concepts that reflect a pejorative, caricatured stereotype of working-class white people.
Plus, white privilege and institutionalized racism can run deep in liberal strongholds where anti-bigotry runs strong (which is good) but where class segregation has devastating impacts on low-income minority groups.
The focus on group-based identity politics frames things in terms of a cultural contestation between people of color and the white working class. That's a barrier to looking at how white privilege is tied to a model that pits the winners of globalization -- the socially liberal affluent professional class -- against the poor, the working class, and the middle class.
Because of intersectionality, people of color bear the brunt of the resulting social problems. But we can't address these problems in a narrative that suppresses the issue of class and that views the white working class as an "other" that can assigned blame.
But justice is concerned with race, gender, and *class*, and affluent, well-educated white people can be way too willing to use language and concepts that reflect a pejorative, caricatured stereotype of working-class white people.
Plus, white privilege and institutionalized racism can run deep in liberal strongholds where anti-bigotry runs strong (which is good) but where class segregation has devastating impacts on low-income minority groups.
The focus on group-based identity politics frames things in terms of a cultural contestation between people of color and the white working class. That's a barrier to looking at how white privilege is tied to a model that pits the winners of globalization -- the socially liberal affluent professional class -- against the poor, the working class, and the middle class.
Because of intersectionality, people of color bear the brunt of the resulting social problems. But we can't address these problems in a narrative that suppresses the issue of class and that views the white working class as an "other" that can assigned blame.
1
Ms. Hess conveniently fails to mention that there are actual Political Correctness Police -- the officially empowered censors in American universities who call in professors and students for silencing and intimidation sessions when they try to have intellectual debates with evidence in classrooms and on student newspaper pages (University of Oregon, Colby, Wayne State University, and on and on); the university administrators who created "free speech zones" in distant, windswept Siberias far from campus centers; the Title IX administrators and their student activist "allies" who terrorize faculty at Northwestern University and Marquette among many others; the sociology and anthropology departments whose members boast when asked that they would blackball any graduate student or job applicant who holds libertarian or market-economy views; the special committee created by Twitter and peopled by left-wing extremists who permanently ban speakers they don't approve of, even when no words were written, and refuse to say why or provide evidence when asked.
And with all this officially-enforced censorship and thought-policing Ms. Hess appears to be quite comfortable.
And with all this officially-enforced censorship and thought-policing Ms. Hess appears to be quite comfortable.
2
How long can the dead end left simmer this slow cooker of toxic multi cultural stew before somebody notices they are allergic to the recipe??
What do Gays have in Common with Syrian refugees?
What do Catholic Latinos have in common with Gays?
What do Black youth have in common with waves of illegals who over supply a shrinking jobs pool?
What do Syrians have in common with Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow? -- that's a tough one, but I wouldn't miss that cage match for anything.
What do feminists have in common with a religion that mutilates their bodies, sells their daughters into pre pubescent matrimony and orders them to cover their heads? - actually that cage match might be better than coop and maddow
This is a toxic recipe for Progressive Family Values.... I guess the spit and glue that holds them together is a mutual hatred for real family values on display for the last 3 nights.
What do Gays have in Common with Syrian refugees?
What do Catholic Latinos have in common with Gays?
What do Black youth have in common with waves of illegals who over supply a shrinking jobs pool?
What do Syrians have in common with Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow? -- that's a tough one, but I wouldn't miss that cage match for anything.
What do feminists have in common with a religion that mutilates their bodies, sells their daughters into pre pubescent matrimony and orders them to cover their heads? - actually that cage match might be better than coop and maddow
This is a toxic recipe for Progressive Family Values.... I guess the spit and glue that holds them together is a mutual hatred for real family values on display for the last 3 nights.
1
The main problem with PC which the author missed, and the reason folks rail against 'PC Police', is the tendency towards instant condemnation of anything which does not conform. That aspect shuts down all discussion and discourse and is extremely damaging to society in the long run (ever wonder why we are incapable of having that elusive 'discourse on race'...)
2
Of course words hurt, and sometimes that hurt is deserved and just. Trump's words are mostly hyperbole, taken to far to illustrate points, then taken back but keeping the point. Clinton's words are partial truths, used to mislead. It is the PC way, and I prefer the blunt overstatement to the sly partial truths.
1
"Political correctness" is just the most recent name for trying to force people into the current compulsory groupthink. Once, the attitude was derided with the phrase "holier-than-thou;" the specifics may changed, but the intended intimidation hasn't. It's thought-shaming.
1
Basically, Hess is saying that if only those poorly educated white Trump supporters knew about racism and bigotry, they would start to appreciate political correctness. Well I have a news flash for you: it ain't going to work and it ain't happening.
As Thomas Edsall noted in his column last week, poor white Americans have a household wealth of $0 which is the same as the household wealth of poor black Americans. So when poor whites hear about white privilege, they raise an eyebrow and say (in more colorful language) "What are you talking about? I don't have anything."
As Thomas Edsall noted in his column last week, poor white Americans have a household wealth of $0 which is the same as the household wealth of poor black Americans. So when poor whites hear about white privilege, they raise an eyebrow and say (in more colorful language) "What are you talking about? I don't have anything."
1
One problem with forcing everyone to be PC is that we now have a situation where people in every marginalized group assume that everyone is racist\sexist and are simply pretending that they aren't. It was much easier to identify bigots when they acted like Archie Bunker.
When I was a young white male in the 90s, everyone automatically thought I was not racist\sexist. Now that I'm older - I'm the same guy - but everyone assumes I am racist\sexist simply because of my age.
When I was a young white male in the 90s, everyone automatically thought I was not racist\sexist. Now that I'm older - I'm the same guy - but everyone assumes I am racist\sexist simply because of my age.
The use of "politically correct" is simply a whine from people who (a) have enjoyed enormous privilege due to some combination of their race, gender, sexual orientation, class, or religion, (b) are now realizing that they may have to treat less privileged people with the same respect and dignity that they themselves have always been able to take for granted, and (c) are being forced to think about WHY they must now give that respect and dignity.
It's the (c) that's the real sticking point for most of them.
It's the (c) that's the real sticking point for most of them.
2
It is very interesting that PC started as folks poking fun at themselves. Borrowing from Ben Carson it took Lucifer and his henchmen to turn it into a cultural weapon. And sadly, Mr. Trump has chosen to add it to the long line of excuses why the ruling cultural tribe is upset.
The quote of the white nationalist Mr. Spencer is so insightful. He understands the psyche of the Trump campers just as Trump does, there is total avoidance of the 2 centuries of white privilege.
And to think these cretins never have the sense to spend their time investing in themselves vs. tinkling into the wind.
Can't fix stupid.
The quote of the white nationalist Mr. Spencer is so insightful. He understands the psyche of the Trump campers just as Trump does, there is total avoidance of the 2 centuries of white privilege.
And to think these cretins never have the sense to spend their time investing in themselves vs. tinkling into the wind.
Can't fix stupid.
1
Those who desire to take offense will find a way no matter how carefully you parse your words.
Those who "consider the source" may be temporarily upset at what you say or how you said it, but they will understand that in many instances no offense was intended, and that in those instances where offense was intended it is the "source" that has the problem, not themselves.
Those who "consider the source" may be temporarily upset at what you say or how you said it, but they will understand that in many instances no offense was intended, and that in those instances where offense was intended it is the "source" that has the problem, not themselves.
A few weeks, me and 8 other members of the man we work for were introduced to his new boss. He introduced himself, and then had everyone else spend a few minutes doing the same. Then a discussion ensued about the company and short term objectives. So far so good. Then, the new boss used foul language, including "GD" and "JC" in derogatory terms not giving a lick that me and one other member in the group are Christians. That is accepted speech today but in spite of diversity training, this secularist imposition on the rest of us goes unchecked. If one of us Christians says anything publicly about same-sex marriage, abortion, the nonsense about global warming, we are told to stop offending others. If an Atlanta fireman writes a book about Christianity and receives compensation for it (an endeavor completely unrelated to his firefighting), he is fired for the offensive nature of the Christian gospel.
That is what has happened. That is what is wrong today in America.
That is what has happened. That is what is wrong today in America.
3
There's no such word as "insidery". Such use is annoying and detracts from your legitimacy.
The phrase "too much of a good thing" comes to mind. What started as a push-back against racial slurs and hate speech morphed and evolved into application of political correctness to any perceived or potential form of political incorrectness, no matter how obscure. A few simple words became convoluted attempts at neutral non-judgmental description, and there were dozens of them. Free speech was considered to be verbal aggression that needed to be pushed to the side.
Political correctness has become an example of the fallacy of "if a little is good, more must be better." Too many college students now misuse and abuse the term "micro-aggression" in the misguided belief they are making the world a better place...but they are not. They are making it more intolerant while denying the humanity of human beings. When comedians stop booking appearances on college campuses because of the hostility of audience members who perceive micro-aggressions, it's time to rethink was is worthy of political correctness and what really isn't.
The irreverence and absurdity of humor are antithetical to political correctness. Free speech rightfully includes discussion/disagreement about the limits of and value of political correctness. Those who assert universal political correctness have given conservatives a valid grievance. It's time to rebalance political correctness.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Political correctness has become an example of the fallacy of "if a little is good, more must be better." Too many college students now misuse and abuse the term "micro-aggression" in the misguided belief they are making the world a better place...but they are not. They are making it more intolerant while denying the humanity of human beings. When comedians stop booking appearances on college campuses because of the hostility of audience members who perceive micro-aggressions, it's time to rethink was is worthy of political correctness and what really isn't.
The irreverence and absurdity of humor are antithetical to political correctness. Free speech rightfully includes discussion/disagreement about the limits of and value of political correctness. Those who assert universal political correctness have given conservatives a valid grievance. It's time to rebalance political correctness.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
5
Here is why PC has received such a big backslash.
When a decade ago a term like "blind" was replaced by the kinder,gentler "Visually Impared", or retarded with "Individual with cognitive disabilities" most everyone agreed. Why be unnecessarily mean to others? The fact was that even if kinder and gentler, the description was still truthful and accurate to the condition and facts. That isn't the case when you rename an ILLEGAL immigrant and call it "undocumented migrant". You are in this case, PURPOSELY hiding the truth.
Then the microagression stupidity. If you ask someone who looks foreigner, for example an Asian "where you from"? There are many posibilities to that: the guy is indeed from Asia, is a visitor, is an immigrant, is a citizen or is a us born citizen. Of all possible answers, only in one can he be "offended" (if US born). But PC now demands the "microagressor" not only be a claireboyant to know the answer, but to refrain from asking the question it all together, because the person may feel "microagressed".
That is the type of excesses that have people fuming over PC, myself included.
When a decade ago a term like "blind" was replaced by the kinder,gentler "Visually Impared", or retarded with "Individual with cognitive disabilities" most everyone agreed. Why be unnecessarily mean to others? The fact was that even if kinder and gentler, the description was still truthful and accurate to the condition and facts. That isn't the case when you rename an ILLEGAL immigrant and call it "undocumented migrant". You are in this case, PURPOSELY hiding the truth.
Then the microagression stupidity. If you ask someone who looks foreigner, for example an Asian "where you from"? There are many posibilities to that: the guy is indeed from Asia, is a visitor, is an immigrant, is a citizen or is a us born citizen. Of all possible answers, only in one can he be "offended" (if US born). But PC now demands the "microagressor" not only be a claireboyant to know the answer, but to refrain from asking the question it all together, because the person may feel "microagressed".
That is the type of excesses that have people fuming over PC, myself included.
29
I agree but I think what made it worse is that liberals started to use it to attack those who did not agree with them in lieu of civil discourse. The tide of history ebbs and flows and for PC it is ebbing and those who benefiting the most from PC won't go quietly
1
So what's the solution? While the term PC is taking a beating, are there forms of it that, moving forward, are still desirable?
How about that we should try to be sensitive to others' feelings before using certain terms. Is it possible to mostly agree with that?
If someone gets it wrong, they should be given the benefit of the doubt the first time that they didn't know, and educated.
It is also possible, as we have seen, that words have different meanings, can be acceptable or not depending on their context (including who is using them and how), and change over time.
There are probably other guidelines that can help distinguish good PC (the origin of it in the article was funny and revealing) from bad.
How about that we should try to be sensitive to others' feelings before using certain terms. Is it possible to mostly agree with that?
If someone gets it wrong, they should be given the benefit of the doubt the first time that they didn't know, and educated.
It is also possible, as we have seen, that words have different meanings, can be acceptable or not depending on their context (including who is using them and how), and change over time.
There are probably other guidelines that can help distinguish good PC (the origin of it in the article was funny and revealing) from bad.
6
"He hurt my feelings!" is such a childish attitude!
"How about that we should try to be sensitive to others' feelings before using certain terms. Is it possible to mostly agree with that?"
Nope. Appealing to "hurt feelings" are the left's favourite method of stifling dissent to their narrative.
Nope. Appealing to "hurt feelings" are the left's favourite method of stifling dissent to their narrative.
1
you say "if someone gets it wrong, they should have the benefit of the doubt the first time and be educated." To me, that sounds an awful lot like political correctness because you are assuming that everyone agrees 100% on the meanings of every word and everyone is either offended or not offended by the exact same things. Just because person A is offended by a certain phrase does not mean it's offensive to person B. If we have to go to the lowest common denominator in terms of the not offending anyone, how are we any different than we are now?
Political Correctness makes complete sense if it is used with a dose of common sense and in moderation. e.g., to not call someone names, e.g. a fat slob. But it serves no purpose when it is turned on its head and is counterintuitive, e.g. to not identify and call Islamic terrorism by its name or to ignore that the West has a little problem with Islamic jihad and to ignore the warning signs and still accept migration from this demographic, in the name of inclusion and diversity, knowing that there is a security risk to westerners in doing so.
This is why Trump has gained traction, he is calling out liberals to their blind spot.
This is why Trump has gained traction, he is calling out liberals to their blind spot.
37
What you describe is what my mother taught me as being considerate, polite and rspectful of others. Where has our society and parenting gone that we need this.
1
When applying politically correct standards to speech, it is worth distinguishing between two groups. One group, usually highlighted in these discussions, are the bigots who take offense at being called out for their hateful remarks.
A second, much larger, group is comprised of people who seldom, if ever, make PC-inappropriate comments, but resent their everyday speech being monitored and subject to criticism -- often with no personal discussion, or opportunity to explain themselves. That treatment is disrespectful. If PC instruction were delivered by a well-intentioned and broad-minded friend, it would gain more traction than it does now, when it is often used to stereotype strangers and divide society.
Those with PC messages to deliver would do everyone a favor by putting away their haughty attitudes. Not the message; the attitude. The goal of PC is a more highly evolved society, and everyone can contribute to that -- even after personally reaching a state of perfection.
A second, much larger, group is comprised of people who seldom, if ever, make PC-inappropriate comments, but resent their everyday speech being monitored and subject to criticism -- often with no personal discussion, or opportunity to explain themselves. That treatment is disrespectful. If PC instruction were delivered by a well-intentioned and broad-minded friend, it would gain more traction than it does now, when it is often used to stereotype strangers and divide society.
Those with PC messages to deliver would do everyone a favor by putting away their haughty attitudes. Not the message; the attitude. The goal of PC is a more highly evolved society, and everyone can contribute to that -- even after personally reaching a state of perfection.
18
You make some reasonably good points; however, you betray yourself with phraseology such as "PC instruction." Many - if not most - adults feel they have passed the stage of "instruction," with the exception being an employer.
A better attitude would be to ask questions regarding the opinions underlying the words the would-be "instructor" feels are less than optimal. And, if the opinions are reasonably grounded, ask why the wording was chosen. I.e., open a dialogue, don't lay down the PC law from your supposedly exalted vantage. The latter approach is disrespectful, condescending, arrogant, and nauseatingly self-congratulatory.
BTW, no-one ever reaches a state of perfection. Read Browning for the reason.
A better attitude would be to ask questions regarding the opinions underlying the words the would-be "instructor" feels are less than optimal. And, if the opinions are reasonably grounded, ask why the wording was chosen. I.e., open a dialogue, don't lay down the PC law from your supposedly exalted vantage. The latter approach is disrespectful, condescending, arrogant, and nauseatingly self-congratulatory.
BTW, no-one ever reaches a state of perfection. Read Browning for the reason.
I am seeing a pattern among comments to this article about what PC means: "haughty attitudes" in the above comment says it well.
I would like to point out that what is being perceived as "haughty" is simply what is right and accurate. People don't like to be told that they are wrong. And they certainly don't like to be told that they are insensitive or even racist.
So, what is the answer? As an English professor at a community college, I face this dilemma every day. How do I correct my students' un-PC language and express that it is not acceptable (in our classroom or anywhere) and give them an accurate alternative without being labeled (and inevitably dismissed) as too PC?
My classroom is a microcosm of our society. If we could answer this question and correct our practice, I think we'd be on to something big.
I would like to point out that what is being perceived as "haughty" is simply what is right and accurate. People don't like to be told that they are wrong. And they certainly don't like to be told that they are insensitive or even racist.
So, what is the answer? As an English professor at a community college, I face this dilemma every day. How do I correct my students' un-PC language and express that it is not acceptable (in our classroom or anywhere) and give them an accurate alternative without being labeled (and inevitably dismissed) as too PC?
My classroom is a microcosm of our society. If we could answer this question and correct our practice, I think we'd be on to something big.
1
Just tell your students that they will never have highly paid jobs on the coast if they don't work on forgetting the dialect of an ordinary person. They are still free to think what they want, they just have to express their concerns in a new code.
If you really want to convince them of the importance of an elite code, explain the history of Marxist theory and practice: an elite will continue to use the coercive institutions of the state against the ordinary man, but they must justify it in the language of proletarian struggle. Likewise, your students can inwardly aspire to benefit from an economy globalized by Republicans, but they must justify economic stratification in the difference-celebrating language of French philosophers.
If you really want to convince them of the importance of an elite code, explain the history of Marxist theory and practice: an elite will continue to use the coercive institutions of the state against the ordinary man, but they must justify it in the language of proletarian struggle. Likewise, your students can inwardly aspire to benefit from an economy globalized by Republicans, but they must justify economic stratification in the difference-celebrating language of French philosophers.
Amanda IS aware that not saying "radical Islam" is another form of political correctness i hope
seriously, that was a plot twist only m night shyamalan could take seriously
seriously, that was a plot twist only m night shyamalan could take seriously
3
"He has seized on the insecurity of people who are being called out by cultural elites for racism and insensitivity when what they may really be is genuinely uninformed."
How do you know they're uninformed? This is the kind of condescension that drives people mad. This idea you must have the "right" opinions or you're uninformed or uneducated. Perhaps their fears and opinions are perfectly legitimate their point of view.
How do you know they're uninformed? This is the kind of condescension that drives people mad. This idea you must have the "right" opinions or you're uninformed or uneducated. Perhaps their fears and opinions are perfectly legitimate their point of view.
52
It is easier to call someone who disagrees with you "uninformed" or "less educated" or perhaps even a "racist" than it is to force yourself to listen rationally to their side of the discussion and be willing to discuss it on it's merit.
1
Yep, and there's the rub. Saul Alinsky was adamant about de-legitimatizing your opponent, and labeling contrarian thought as 'uninformed' is quick, dirty and effective.
2
I think that is the point of the first amendment as long your actions do not curtail others rights.
1
My heart bleeds for all the people who are being told that their jokes and speech (and ideas) are racist.
Yes, it does hurt to be called a racist (or sexist, or homophobe, or bigot). It really does. And yes, usually people aren't trying to hurt others but are merely ignorant. But you know what? So what. If you don't like being called out on what you say, take the hurt and anger and realize you provoked more than that in your listeners. Take the hurt and anger and use it to learn more about why what you said was wrong. In the Internet era, ignorance is no excuse! Say something stupid, get called out on it, do some research, apologize and do better in the future. Don't double down on ignorance; if being called a racist hurts, how much more does your racism hurt others?
Yes, it does hurt to be called a racist (or sexist, or homophobe, or bigot). It really does. And yes, usually people aren't trying to hurt others but are merely ignorant. But you know what? So what. If you don't like being called out on what you say, take the hurt and anger and realize you provoked more than that in your listeners. Take the hurt and anger and use it to learn more about why what you said was wrong. In the Internet era, ignorance is no excuse! Say something stupid, get called out on it, do some research, apologize and do better in the future. Don't double down on ignorance; if being called a racist hurts, how much more does your racism hurt others?
9
Your comment assumes that each and every accusation of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other form of bigotry is 100% accurate. Surely you cannot believe that.
Do you really believe it is racist to state that one believes "all lives matter?" That one believes America to be the land of equal opportunity? That it is sexist to believe men and women have some areas of difference? That one cannot support both the right of individuals to marry an individual of their choosing, and the right of Christian bakers and florists to refuse to participate in a ceremony their faith tells them is wrong - so long as there are other bakers and florists conveniently situated and willing to accommodate the couple?
And, if the PC SJWs resent being called out on their arrogance and their own bigotry against those who may, merely, express themselves in less "PC terms," goose-sauce works for the ganders as well.
Do you really believe it is racist to state that one believes "all lives matter?" That one believes America to be the land of equal opportunity? That it is sexist to believe men and women have some areas of difference? That one cannot support both the right of individuals to marry an individual of their choosing, and the right of Christian bakers and florists to refuse to participate in a ceremony their faith tells them is wrong - so long as there are other bakers and florists conveniently situated and willing to accommodate the couple?
And, if the PC SJWs resent being called out on their arrogance and their own bigotry against those who may, merely, express themselves in less "PC terms," goose-sauce works for the ganders as well.
2
The point is, we were being Falsley called racist. Racism means one believes another race is genetically inferior; very, very few folks believe this. What we're really discussing are cultural differences and values.
1
You make a rather startling assumption that every person who was called "Racist" is actually a racist. That's ignorance. I call you out for being so uninformed.
2
Who is surprised that the right appropriated a creation joke of the left and made it a shibboleth? Sort of like voodoo (er, supply side) economics.
2
Political Correctness makes complete sense if it is used with a dose of common sense and in moderation. e.g., to not call someone names, e.g. a fat slob.
But it serves no purpose when it is turned on its head and handicaps you, e.g. to not identify and call Islamic terrorism by its name.
e.g. Many liberals painted the Orlando mass murderer as an internalized homophobic mentally deranged person with an assault weapon, which was true, but it was not the complete description; he also claimed allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS claimed him, which of course also made him an Islamic terrorist on a jihad. To ignore that aspect is PC run amok.
Another example is when the NYT recently asked, 'In the Age of ISIS, Who’s a Terrorist, and Who’s Simply Deranged?', as if these perpetrators could not possibly be both. This is why Trump has gained traction, he is calling out liberals to their blind spot. It is hard to fight an enemy if you only use a euphemism to identify him.
But it serves no purpose when it is turned on its head and handicaps you, e.g. to not identify and call Islamic terrorism by its name.
e.g. Many liberals painted the Orlando mass murderer as an internalized homophobic mentally deranged person with an assault weapon, which was true, but it was not the complete description; he also claimed allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS claimed him, which of course also made him an Islamic terrorist on a jihad. To ignore that aspect is PC run amok.
Another example is when the NYT recently asked, 'In the Age of ISIS, Who’s a Terrorist, and Who’s Simply Deranged?', as if these perpetrators could not possibly be both. This is why Trump has gained traction, he is calling out liberals to their blind spot. It is hard to fight an enemy if you only use a euphemism to identify him.
23
In discourse and debate, the definition of words matter. Liberals figured that out the in the 70's when they learned that putting "ist" or "obic" at the end of a noun obviates the need for definition and reasoning: "ist" or "obic" are bad by definition. So long as this holds there can be no dialogue on issues in this country. So rather than than discussing the causes and containment of "Islamic State Terrorists", our Secretary of State has given us, "Non-state Violent Actors". Now THAT is PC in action.
20
PC is leftwing fascism and thought control and suppression of dialogue or dissent
Which is why Trump wins
Which is why Trump wins
32
I think he wins more because the average person after the last ten years has more concern for their economic security and physical security than ever before and Hillary supports actions on TPP and immigration that could be perceived as detrimential to these issues.
1
Hess argues that many whites disdain political correctness because they “live free of the threat of police brutality and racist aggression,” and libsplains Trump supporters as “people who are being called out by cultural elites for racism and insensitivity when what they may really be is genuinely uninformed.” Besides the condescension, Hess misses the point of the anti-P.C. movement: Political correctness comes from abstract ideals like “All beliefs are valid” and “Treat everyone equally” and “Don’t hurt people’s feelings,” yet the world is a complicated place with many inconvenient truths and exceptions to those ideals, and turning away from reality by mindlessly repeating those naïve mantras can seriously harm society. Refusing to acknowledge Islam’s role in the Islamic State’s reign of terror will only lead to more self-radicalized, lone-wolf terrorists. Europe accepting even more refugees will cause social instability at home and give rise to rightist politicians like Marine Le Pen. And staying silent on Black Lives Matter’s white-and-blue-hate-spewing will create more racial tension and violence, and cause police to double down on protecting themselves with force. Ms. Hess, I am not ignorant. I am not a bigot. All I am is someone who wants to make the world a better place and understands why so many people see political correctness as an obstacle in achieving that goal.
29
Police brutality is another P.C. Narrative used to change the discussion away from the criminal or suspicion of ciminial activity the person of interest was conducting (exception is Minnasota) prior to the encounter. The real problem is not racists cops ( yes there are some bad apples in every demographic) but fear for their lives and the events of the last three weeks will only lead to more shootings.
People lose their jobs for telling the scientific truth: e.g., James D. Watson, Larry Summers, Jason Richwine. Political correctness cripples the quality of our intellectual discourse.
24
"Not politically correct" is the new "politically correct"
5
It's the hypocrisy that I think people object to the most about political correctness. I don't like the nasty language about women and minority groups that has been flung around by a certain politician. But I also find it tiresome when someone lambastes some poor soul for a careless remark and relentlessly tries to get them fired or censored or torn apart by the media wolves. All too often, the righteously indignant then turns around and starts making jokes about the Catholic Church and its recent scandals or rural hillbillies in flyover country, without seeing the irony. If it's offensive for one group, it most certainly is for another.
39
Railing against liberals' political correctness is pretty much conservatism's political correctness. And vice versa. Regardless of your political persuasion, you should feel free to express yourself, but not expect that your views will go unchallenged. For myself, I'd prefer to see less talk about P.C. and more about C.C. -- common courtesy.
5
"But the new anti-P.C. isn’t so gloriously liberating as it purports to be. The right-wing verve for pointing out political correctness has emerged as its own form of speech policing."
What I've been saying all along. Trump is a creation of the Emily-Posters.
What I've been saying all along. Trump is a creation of the Emily-Posters.
1
"[Trump] has seized on the insecurity of people who are being called out by cultural elites for racism and insensitivity when what they may really be is genuinely uninformed."
Let's call a spade a spade. A lot of these Trump supporters are simply ignorant. I'd argue that labeling them "genuinely uninformed" is being PC. Which is why even though I cannot stand him, I am glad that Trump has ended the so-called dog whistling of bigotry.
I'm tired of giving GOP voters the benefit of the doubt. I like to know where people stand. Perhaps they weren't being prejudiced in the 80s when listening to Reagan's frustrations with 'welfare queens'. Maybe welfare reform and voter ID laws are race-neutral to many of these people, I used to think naively.
Trump has done so well precisely because 30-40% of our country loves what he says and how he says it. It's not because of his wealth, 'outsider status', or business acumen; he is the GOP nominee because of his language with respect to immigrants and Muslims.
Let's call a spade a spade. A lot of these Trump supporters are simply ignorant. I'd argue that labeling them "genuinely uninformed" is being PC. Which is why even though I cannot stand him, I am glad that Trump has ended the so-called dog whistling of bigotry.
I'm tired of giving GOP voters the benefit of the doubt. I like to know where people stand. Perhaps they weren't being prejudiced in the 80s when listening to Reagan's frustrations with 'welfare queens'. Maybe welfare reform and voter ID laws are race-neutral to many of these people, I used to think naively.
Trump has done so well precisely because 30-40% of our country loves what he says and how he says it. It's not because of his wealth, 'outsider status', or business acumen; he is the GOP nominee because of his language with respect to immigrants and Muslims.
4
Trump treats Moslems with same respect that liberals treat the Tea Party. What difference at this point does it make?
To call out boorish behavior is not PC. It's called having social standards & responsibility. Something that many White Americans abdicated long ago while claiming it was embedded in the Flag.
"That many experience being told not to use certain words as a kind of violence...(as well as) The discussion that white Americans never want to have is this question of identity...” This is the cruxes of the problem.
Not everything that is said, created, imagined or discussed is made just for White America. It has always been this way amongst POC. Only now do they perceive the reality of it; & they find it an incredibly bitter pill.
Further, they need to ask themselves who they are, since being American ≠ White. That too has been a fact for longer than they knew.
America is taking its blinders off and the light is blinding.
Not being invited to participate (or meddle) in everyone else's subculture is a tactic used as workaround to being excluded. Granted, it makes White folks as angry as a 3 y.o. not getting their way. They can't possibly conceive not be included in whatever they choose. The idea that you are entitled to have access to everything on demand & given willingly; whilst denying the same access to others is the epitome of clueless privilege.
Welcome to your new minority status. Getting a dose of one's own medicine may ultimately heal the patient but no one promised it was going to go down with a pleasant taste.
"That many experience being told not to use certain words as a kind of violence...(as well as) The discussion that white Americans never want to have is this question of identity...” This is the cruxes of the problem.
Not everything that is said, created, imagined or discussed is made just for White America. It has always been this way amongst POC. Only now do they perceive the reality of it; & they find it an incredibly bitter pill.
Further, they need to ask themselves who they are, since being American ≠ White. That too has been a fact for longer than they knew.
America is taking its blinders off and the light is blinding.
Not being invited to participate (or meddle) in everyone else's subculture is a tactic used as workaround to being excluded. Granted, it makes White folks as angry as a 3 y.o. not getting their way. They can't possibly conceive not be included in whatever they choose. The idea that you are entitled to have access to everything on demand & given willingly; whilst denying the same access to others is the epitome of clueless privilege.
Welcome to your new minority status. Getting a dose of one's own medicine may ultimately heal the patient but no one promised it was going to go down with a pleasant taste.
1
Your behavior is boorish, and I am calling you on it. Your message is bigoted.
1
The real problem is that there is a dumbing down of intelligence these days when the concept "PC" has become sacrosanct irrespective of context.
The liberals thinking it is a conservative problem or vice versa are missing the contextual basis. For didactic reason, a teacher uses certain words has been branded as the transgressor but in fact s/he is trying to let the next generation understand the nuances
On the flip side is also true when coded-words are brandied about. They sound nice but in truth are just the opposite.
To paraphrase William Blake, the truth told with bad intent is a thousand times more poisonous.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be nice to each other; but seriously, one has to wonder if movies like "Blading Saddles" can be made these days without both the conservative or the liberal taking aim at it
The liberals thinking it is a conservative problem or vice versa are missing the contextual basis. For didactic reason, a teacher uses certain words has been branded as the transgressor but in fact s/he is trying to let the next generation understand the nuances
On the flip side is also true when coded-words are brandied about. They sound nice but in truth are just the opposite.
To paraphrase William Blake, the truth told with bad intent is a thousand times more poisonous.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be nice to each other; but seriously, one has to wonder if movies like "Blading Saddles" can be made these days without both the conservative or the liberal taking aim at it
1
Conservative distaste for "political correctness" isn't about words. It's about equality. One did not have to be politically correct back when all those "others" could be called names and it was okay to put someone down in order to express one's 'superiority.'
That's why a mob can go gaga over a speech by a Slavic immigrant that was hated/panned/dissed when it originated with a free woman of color from Chicago.
That's why a mob can go gaga over a speech by a Slavic immigrant that was hated/panned/dissed when it originated with a free woman of color from Chicago.
23
The free woman of color in Chicago let everyone know that "this was the first time she'd ever been proud of her country". The immigrant let everyone know that she was honored merely to receive the privilege to enter America and was proud of her country no matter what.
That might have some slight something to do with why people's reactions to the two speeches were different. But I guess that's just the right-wing conspiracy talking, right?
That might have some slight something to do with why people's reactions to the two speeches were different. But I guess that's just the right-wing conspiracy talking, right?
13
Of course Mrs Trump is grateful for the privilege. Drop out of college, come to America, marry a rich guy - 20 years later, you're practically on the steps of the White House!
Or another path: your ancestors dragged here in chains, forced to literally build the country, raped by white masters, denied full equality for hundreds of years; go to Princeton and Harvard, meet a guy, marry him and boom, you're in the White House!
Wotta country!
Or another path: your ancestors dragged here in chains, forced to literally build the country, raped by white masters, denied full equality for hundreds of years; go to Princeton and Harvard, meet a guy, marry him and boom, you're in the White House!
Wotta country!
so why then is it fair to demean and insult those who are religious Christians? Or those who live between the mountain ranges as simple backwoods folk from flyover land? There are other opinions in this country than those held by the folks in the I95 corridor and the Bay area.
I first heard the term used in the early 70s by leftists for whom it meant holding the proper ideological perspective on often abstruse matters. Was the Polisario Front a genuine revolutionary wedge, or were they a puppet organization funded by the CIA? The politically correct view could be one or the other, depending on which grouplet you adhered to.
5
@ Earl I heard "politically correct" first in the 70s as a term of good-humored self-mockery. I do not recall hearing it used seriously -- but it must have been at some point. In my mind I associate it with Maoism. I wonder if someone can point to the phrase's origin.
2
To Earl and John Plotz: I, too, heard "politically correct" back in the 1970s. Both Maoists and Marxists used that expression--usually among themselves and without a trace of irony, let alone humor--in connection with people who promoted orthodox doctrines. Not surprisingly, they used "politically incorrect" in connection with those who promoted heretical doctrines. Only later did their "conservative" adversaries reverse the meaning by applying this expression to their own "liberal" or "progressive" adversaries. The latter, they say (with good reason) foster the same smug, self-righteous, sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Trump is the ultimate comeuppance for those who have been advocating for decades what we now call "political correctness." Unfortunately, his solution is no solution at all. Instead of supporting the freedom of everyone to think clearly and cogently or to argue honestly and openly about controversial topics, he supports the freedom of everyone to indulge in revenge and hostility.
Both sides endorse this folly. A pox on both their houses.
Trump is the ultimate comeuppance for those who have been advocating for decades what we now call "political correctness." Unfortunately, his solution is no solution at all. Instead of supporting the freedom of everyone to think clearly and cogently or to argue honestly and openly about controversial topics, he supports the freedom of everyone to indulge in revenge and hostility.
Both sides endorse this folly. A pox on both their houses.
People who complain about political correctness are just trying to deprive others of their right to a rebuttal. But that's not how free speech works. If you say something hateful or tell a racist "joke," you should expect a response.
People of a certain political bent love to be offended about how easily offended they imagine modern Americans are. It's absurd. As if hating racist speech were more offensive than uttering it.
People of a certain political bent love to be offended about how easily offended they imagine modern Americans are. It's absurd. As if hating racist speech were more offensive than uttering it.
42
In the old days, liberals argued that even offensive speech deserved protection. Of course, that was when the right was trying to shut up the left.
Now liberals argue that offensive speech requires threats, shaming and safe rooms, replete with teddy bears and the sounds of the seashore. And only liberals, and protected groups, are to define what is offensive, much less racist, sexist or speciesist.
No thanks. That's dreck. I'll continue to call out this infection of the body politic when I see it.
Now liberals argue that offensive speech requires threats, shaming and safe rooms, replete with teddy bears and the sounds of the seashore. And only liberals, and protected groups, are to define what is offensive, much less racist, sexist or speciesist.
No thanks. That's dreck. I'll continue to call out this infection of the body politic when I see it.
8
I think the issue is when some individuals decide that the only proper "rebuttal" to a politically incorrect remark is professional censure. It's of course much easier to anonymously report someone for a hurtful remark than it is to confront them about it, so the bureaucracy--the bluntest of instruments--ends up being the only remedy against prejudice.
9
It all depends on how you define racist speech.
2
Just another cultural elite blathering on. So smug. Missing the whole point that there is serious legitimacy in the issues being raised by white people and ignoring or dissing their grievances is only going to make the problem much, much worse.
45
Why do conservatives refer to anyone with progressive political views as part of an "elite" even when the vast majority of those people don't possess a lot of money or power?
Funny how you never hear a Limbaugh Lover or Fox "News" zombie refer to the Bush family, or Rupert Murdoch or the Koch Brothers as elitists, when, in reality, they are the very epitome of what constitutes an "elite."
Stop distorting and manipulating the English language in some blatant neo-Orwellian attempt to create mass confusion and ignorance.
Funny how you never hear a Limbaugh Lover or Fox "News" zombie refer to the Bush family, or Rupert Murdoch or the Koch Brothers as elitists, when, in reality, they are the very epitome of what constitutes an "elite."
Stop distorting and manipulating the English language in some blatant neo-Orwellian attempt to create mass confusion and ignorance.
10
The problem has been for far too long "white people" ignored the "serious legitimacy in the issues being raised by" non-white people. Sometimes it is your turn - as a group - to listen, to stop talking about yourself. It isn't smugness or elitism to want everyone to be heard or taken seriously, it is quite the opposite.
4
?
the key difference is what's called "elitism".
Now you can go ahead and cite George Bush's faults, they number in the hundreds, but he very purposely cultivated an image of "just like you". Rupert Murdoch barely cultivates an image at all, because he barely speaks; now that I think about it, he probably does fit the definition, and he might well be an elitist, but I don't know because he hasn't made a big issue of it, despite having the media power to broadcast any editorial he'd want to put out to the world. As to the Koch brothers...I've read a bit of what they say, but they don't come off as especially elitist.
ultimately, a liberal like you (and me, but that's another point) might recognize the power of self-identification. If I can identify as a woman despite having a shaft and a pair of testicles, then why can't George Bush identify as a salt of the earth down home country boy? Or would me calling myself a woman qualify as a neo-Orwellian attempt to create mass confusion and ignorance :) ?
(not that I literally do identify as a woman, to be clear. just that I could.)
the key difference is what's called "elitism".
Now you can go ahead and cite George Bush's faults, they number in the hundreds, but he very purposely cultivated an image of "just like you". Rupert Murdoch barely cultivates an image at all, because he barely speaks; now that I think about it, he probably does fit the definition, and he might well be an elitist, but I don't know because he hasn't made a big issue of it, despite having the media power to broadcast any editorial he'd want to put out to the world. As to the Koch brothers...I've read a bit of what they say, but they don't come off as especially elitist.
ultimately, a liberal like you (and me, but that's another point) might recognize the power of self-identification. If I can identify as a woman despite having a shaft and a pair of testicles, then why can't George Bush identify as a salt of the earth down home country boy? Or would me calling myself a woman qualify as a neo-Orwellian attempt to create mass confusion and ignorance :) ?
(not that I literally do identify as a woman, to be clear. just that I could.)
Politically correct, from the progressive's point of view, is shorthand for consideration, tolerance, and civility, all qualities that are completely foreign to right wing regressives.
41
It is, in fact, shorthand for contempt, arrogance, sanctimony and utter disregard for different views held by others, all qualities that are intrinsic to left wing so-called "progressives".
1
I don't think this is quite true, at least in some progressive circles (although it may well be true in others). I read, for professional purposes, quite a bit of "leftist" academic discourse, and am exposed to many of the online debates amongst people engaged in that discourse. One can be called out quite quickly, and sometimes quite viciously, for not using the "approved" language, regardless of one's intent (and regardless of how long the approved language has been approved, and the standards for this can change quite quickly.) For instance, in some circles describing someone as 'biologically male' or 'biologically female' is considered an act of aggression and thus beyond the pale. Indeed, even the common practice of determining at birth what gender the newborn child is considered beyond the pale. "Transgender" is okay, but "transgendered" is not. Etc. If you call a non-white person a racist, well, that means that you are a racist too (for failing to recognize that since 'racism' is a matter of institutional oppression, non-white people can't be racist). Whether or not one supports transgender issues, whether or not one is interested in engaging in anti-racist work, whether or not one's misuse of language is just a slip matters not. The incessant, merciless, non-compassionate language policing gets quite tiresome. (And I say this as a lifelong progressive.)
25
No, it's shorthand for over-prioritizing consideration, tolerance, and civility.
For example, a survey was taken of Native Americans, and fully 90% of them felt that the Washington Redskins, as a team name, did not offend them in the slightest. Moreover, the team was emphatically not trying to give offense, and neither were the fans. Did that stop action from being taken? No, because the first hallmark of political correctness is that it is enforced by white people who assume the reactions of others.
Of course, your rebuttal will probably be that 10% DID find it offensive and, since no one taking offense could ever be wrong, and anyone taking offense should be accomodated at any expense, any action is therefore justified. That's political correctness.
For example, a survey was taken of Native Americans, and fully 90% of them felt that the Washington Redskins, as a team name, did not offend them in the slightest. Moreover, the team was emphatically not trying to give offense, and neither were the fans. Did that stop action from being taken? No, because the first hallmark of political correctness is that it is enforced by white people who assume the reactions of others.
Of course, your rebuttal will probably be that 10% DID find it offensive and, since no one taking offense could ever be wrong, and anyone taking offense should be accomodated at any expense, any action is therefore justified. That's political correctness.
16
The fight against "political correctness" is a dog whistle itself. Translated it means, "We insist on maintaining and asserting our privilege. And we don't want to hear any complaints from the rest of you."
Speech matters. If you are black and not allowed to say that your young men are being killed and incarcerated, if you are a young woman and not allowed to say you were raped, if you are a Palestinian and not allowed to say you have been under military occupation for decades, etc. --- you and your story being erased.
Speech matters. If you are black and not allowed to say that your young men are being killed and incarcerated, if you are a young woman and not allowed to say you were raped, if you are a Palestinian and not allowed to say you have been under military occupation for decades, etc. --- you and your story being erased.
36
Yes, speech matters. Including the speech of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose voice is deemed unworthy of a hearing at PC universities. Why is it acceptable to erase her story?
2
If you're black and killed, odds are that it was by another black male aged 15-34 (sorry, that's simply statistically true). If you're a woman and say you were raped, if you're in college, that male may be expelled without ever being asked a single question. If you live in Gaza, you would need to acknowledge that Israel completely left that territory, but there have not been any benefits for you, only for the Hamas dictators that you allow to lead you.
This post is exactly what so many have issues with. You misrepresent the facts to push an agenda and say "anyone who doesn't agree with me is racist" and while you didn't say it that clearly, that's exactly what you are indicating and no other points of view are to be tolerated.
This post is exactly what so many have issues with. You misrepresent the facts to push an agenda and say "anyone who doesn't agree with me is racist" and while you didn't say it that clearly, that's exactly what you are indicating and no other points of view are to be tolerated.
1
Within any acknowledgement of sensibility lays a fringe of fundamentalism. However the single issue rants and abuse are far rarer than some would lead us to believe. Practical and substantive PC evolved as we did from a world where once anyone other than a heterosexual white protestant was hung with a stereotypical slur. As a nation we are getting well past that. Some still feel nostalgic for the day when anyone different provided an opportunity to deride someone and thus feel better about yourself. Ironically people who refuse to pay fair market price for things and flock to Walmart to shop, have seen their own fair wages fly to China. They dare not chide the politicians they themselves voted into office for facilitating that flight. So, blame immigrants for taking jobs away. Lots of opportunity to be politically incorrect there. The new globally competitive marketplace demands skills not just the correct surname or skin color. The days of entitled bigotry are fading and it leaves a segment of the population without the right to scapegoat.
Thank God they are, because I am sure some people would be hurt if they were referred to as a bunch of inbred, camo wearing meth-heads!
Thank God they are, because I am sure some people would be hurt if they were referred to as a bunch of inbred, camo wearing meth-heads!
8
Real liberalism is so much more than political correctness.
By real liberalism, I mean the liberalism espoused in John Stuart Mill's stirring essay On Liberty, published in 1859, that few so-called liberals or so-called conservatives in the USA appear even to have heard of, let alone read and understood.
Being politically correct Is no substitute for being well read.
By real liberalism, I mean the liberalism espoused in John Stuart Mill's stirring essay On Liberty, published in 1859, that few so-called liberals or so-called conservatives in the USA appear even to have heard of, let alone read and understood.
Being politically correct Is no substitute for being well read.
18
I have my doubts about the origin story of "politically correct" presented here. I'd be interested to learn more about Jeff Shesol's "Thatch" cartoon, specifically regarding when it debuted and and how it was conveyed beyond Brown.
I first heard a view criticized without irony as "not P.C." in early 1987, while at a New England college. The sense was that views deemed not "politically correct" were beyond the pale of discussion and that those who held them were fundamentally messed up and must be opposed by those who know what is actually politically correct.
"Political correctness" was a discussion killer from the start. It expressed an orthodoxy from which dissent was not just error, but sin. "Not P.C." was a cudgel used by those who believed in the orthodoxy and expressed their fervor through rejection of rational discussion with those of differing views. The use of this ill-conceived strategy helped to make ordinary American liberalism, in spite of some profoundly valuable ideas, into a dogma.
And we wonder why political life in our country is so sick.
I first heard a view criticized without irony as "not P.C." in early 1987, while at a New England college. The sense was that views deemed not "politically correct" were beyond the pale of discussion and that those who held them were fundamentally messed up and must be opposed by those who know what is actually politically correct.
"Political correctness" was a discussion killer from the start. It expressed an orthodoxy from which dissent was not just error, but sin. "Not P.C." was a cudgel used by those who believed in the orthodoxy and expressed their fervor through rejection of rational discussion with those of differing views. The use of this ill-conceived strategy helped to make ordinary American liberalism, in spite of some profoundly valuable ideas, into a dogma.
And we wonder why political life in our country is so sick.
27
Yes, and the original PC was in Maoist China where all your arguments make sense because only one line of thinking was allowed and it had to be "politically correct."
In the West the arguments about too PC or not PC make no sense at all and leave both sides claiming victimhood and victory at the same time.
In the West the arguments about too PC or not PC make no sense at all and leave both sides claiming victimhood and victory at the same time.
Articulately thought out and written. And correct, to use the word appropriately--in my mind.
Trump is an ignorant menace. But he was indeed created by political correctness, which is not just censoriousness, but real censorship.
People have lost their jobs on college campuses just for using a word that isn't preferred in full sympathy with those who then chose to be offended.
The Constitution has a Bill of Rights, whose very first amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech.
But past Congresses created the EEOC and the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, whose strongly left-leaning, heavily minority staff are not sympathetic to the idea that even conservatives should have free-speech rights. To them, frank discussion of charged political issues of race and sex can be hostile-environment "harassment", and a university that does not treat it as such may lose its funding. Until this is fixed, the sense that political correctness is a violation of rights will not just be a perception but actual reality. Trump was created by the American left.
People have lost their jobs on college campuses just for using a word that isn't preferred in full sympathy with those who then chose to be offended.
The Constitution has a Bill of Rights, whose very first amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech.
But past Congresses created the EEOC and the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, whose strongly left-leaning, heavily minority staff are not sympathetic to the idea that even conservatives should have free-speech rights. To them, frank discussion of charged political issues of race and sex can be hostile-environment "harassment", and a university that does not treat it as such may lose its funding. Until this is fixed, the sense that political correctness is a violation of rights will not just be a perception but actual reality. Trump was created by the American left.
37
See, you almost had a point, and then you went and ruined it by arguing that the EEOC and Office of Civil Rights are bad institutions. Free speech is not without consequence- if you harass the women in your office, you are infringing on their liberty, and you deserve to lose your job. Period. "Conservative speech" in the form of rape jokes, "make me a sammich" faux commands, leering and commenting on women's bodies, racist statements, and so forth, is simply inappropriate in the workplace. It's protected speech- you won't get arrested, detained, or otherwise persecuted by the government for it. You'll just lose your job. That seems a fair balance of your right to have your say and others' right to live their lives free of your BS.
2
Amanda, This is an example of being perfectly Republican PC and, as ever, claiming victory/victimhood simultaneously! Brava!
1
To understand why Trump (and many of his supporters) rally against "PC police", one needs to look no further how Trump's phrase that says that disproportionate amount of rapists originate in Mexico is turned on its head and presented as "[h]e calls Mexicans rapists". There's no discussion of the problem, there's just name calling.
22
"...He calls Mexicans rapists and Muslims terrorists..."
It is taken out of context, but that does not stop the Left from endlessly repeating it.
It is taken out of context, but that does not stop the Left from endlessly repeating it.
8
Just as how the Tea Party. A movement started out of the opposition of using tax payer dollars to bail out General Motors become tagged as rascist because the originator of the policy happened to be black
If you don't believe political correctness is a plague, try to say something contrary to the party line in a college classroom. Threats of violence will follow.
47
"If you don't believe political correctness is a plague, try to say something contrary to the party line in a college classroom. Threats of violence will follow."
Sounds to me like the plague is made of bullies, not something called "political correctness".
Sounds to me like the plague is made of bullies, not something called "political correctness".
3
that's like if I said "try saying Jews are allright and the threats of violence from the Nazis will follow"
and you said "sounds to me like a plague of bullies"
now not to say political correctness is Nazism, but surely there must be some culpability for the ideology that fuels violence?
and you said "sounds to me like a plague of bullies"
now not to say political correctness is Nazism, but surely there must be some culpability for the ideology that fuels violence?
All lines and meanings blur as tyranny, repression and discrimination are now features and practices of both the political Left and Right, regardless of education or the lack of it. We should be gratefulfor still having the right to vote and should work to ensure that option and responsibility for every citizen.
1
PC is connected to identity politics: black, Latino, gay, women's. Identity politics is stridently assertive of group rights, real and claimed. Whites experienced PC as someone else's strident claims made at their expense and honored in the polity. PC encouraged whites to wonder where was their identity politics. Trump offers them white identity politics, and, thus, in a way, PC created Trump. Moreover, Trump still needs PC to hold his constituency together and lashes out at it for this purpose. So PC strengthens and nourishes his campaign today.
18
“And “political correctness,” the decade’s shorthand for liberal politics, has returned as something more menacing.”
It is not shorthand for “liberal”. That false definition is itself a politically correct invention. The concept began with good intentions; the name indicates that it failed from the start.
It is the name of the movement to police grammar in an unreasonable way to remove words from the lexicon and/or force the use of other words in their place. There is no proper grammatical standard by which this is done. In the main it is done by emotive process.
The acceptable words often obscure or skew the meaning that would be clear if the correct word were used. It redefines the correct for the purpose words regardless of fact as some kind of abuse.
In its essence it is the other side of the coin of “conservative” tendencies in the same direction (ex; war fighter, warrior, homeland, liberal) and that coin is the misinterpreting of ones feelings on hearing X word or phrase as being intent of and caused by the person who said the word. It also involves imposing a false definition emoted from the feeling on the word.
People whom adhere to these silly “standards” are in general immature and unable to discern or differentiate reality from their inner processes.
7
Of course charging racism--the most promiscuously overused term in the language--wounds. It is intended to wound. It is the equivalent of calling someone a Communist in the 1950s. In the liberal blogosphere, it is not a descriptor, but a tactic, to silence, to disorient and to shame. Its companion is the refusal to highlight race when confronting reprehensible behavior by a member of a protected class, or refusal to address that behavior at all. This very newspaper delayed announcing the race of the Baton Rouge shooter and--to this day, I believe--refuses to report that he was a member of the Nation of Islam.
The movement against PC is long overdue and should be welcomed by all who are not members of the Times' Editorial Board.
The movement against PC is long overdue and should be welcomed by all who are not members of the Times' Editorial Board.
50
It sounds to me like you're one of those "dudes" who are just really angry that you can't use the "N Word" and other racial, ethnic and gender-related slurs with impunity anymore. Is that really what's going on?
Free speech works both ways. You have every right to say it---however ignorant, obtuse and deliberately harmful it is---and others have the right to criticize you for it. You apparently don't like people who disapprove of your name calling and slurs directed at human beings you don't like.
Grow up and take responsibility. No person has the "right" to say whatever they want, wherever they want and then absolutely insist that no one can respond in any way that might hurt your feelings by disagreeing with your antipathy and ridicule of those you detest.
Free speech works both ways. You have every right to say it---however ignorant, obtuse and deliberately harmful it is---and others have the right to criticize you for it. You apparently don't like people who disapprove of your name calling and slurs directed at human beings you don't like.
Grow up and take responsibility. No person has the "right" to say whatever they want, wherever they want and then absolutely insist that no one can respond in any way that might hurt your feelings by disagreeing with your antipathy and ridicule of those you detest.
5
It's astonishing how whenever I read one of these posts - yes, your post is hardly original - the poster always seems to be focused on the lack of a "right". And yet, somehow, the original poster never touched on the idea of rights at all.
Steve, you have the right to say whatever you like - however ignorant, obtuse, and deliberately harmful it is - and others have the right to criticize you for it. You apparently don't like people who disapprove of your name calling and slurs directed at human beings you don't like.
Steve, you have the right to say whatever you like - however ignorant, obtuse, and deliberately harmful it is - and others have the right to criticize you for it. You apparently don't like people who disapprove of your name calling and slurs directed at human beings you don't like.
Well said, wine country dude. And as for you, Steve from Seattle, you brilliantly made our point for us. Thank you
When do you stop allowing the right to set the agenda and set the terms?
The right has its own pc.
Obama not wearing a flag lapel pin, flag burning, the war on Christmas, left-wing main-streem media, et al is just so much right-wing pc.
Stop already.
Or if you can't stop talking about irrelevant wastes of time, at least think up some original jargon for it instead of handing the game to the right.