On Political Correctness

[ck4829]

Wouldn't banning books that Conservatives object to, such as Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn, amount to Political Correctness, which many of the Pro-Censorship Conservatives always rail against?

[Lex]

1. Political Correctness is a term that right-wing nuts made up

to condemn people who don't say the n-word or call people offensive names based on their sexual orientation or religion, etc.

But yes, they never think it applies to their own thin-skin about things like Harry Potter, etc.

[Lucky Luciano]

3. Although political correctness can run amok sometimes.

For example, "womyn."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. it your opinion that is amok. in my opinion womyn is a great word.

[Lucky Luciano]

12. Suit yourself, but there are better methods

for promoting the interests of women as opposed to promoting a war between the sexes. In Spanish there are hombres and mujeres, but there is way more sexism in Latin America. I assume Arabic is quite similar.

[ThomCat]

14. Yes, but picking on spelling is not one of those better methods.

[omega minimo]

23. and men impose what those "better methods" are

[ThomCat]

13. Oh Please!

If you spend all your time worrying about "Womyn," how about putting some time into fighting actual prejudice? There are so many bigger issues than sniping at feminists over spelling. Feminists have done great things, and if some of it ends of up being unsuccessful or marginally successful, so what? No movement is 100% successful. Help the movement as a whole move forward.

[Lucky Luciano]

17. All I'm saying is that

when feminist spend their time worrying about "Womyn," it leads to cynicsim and :eyes: from others...so, it is not productive. In fact, it is counterproductive because it downplays any real problems. I do agree with not using "he" when referring to a general person. I usually say "they" or "he or she" or, when writing, (s)he. I can definitely see how the use of "he" implies that only a man should do certain things and that it can oppress.

[ThomCat]

19. The difference is

they're changing their own use of language, not yours. You're attempting to change their use of language.

And, they're doing it is one of many strategies for confronting and opposing sexism and patriarchy. What are you attempting to accomplish by attacking them for it?

[omega minimo]

25. dominance

[ThomCat]

26. Agreed.

:(

[omega minimo]

24. again imposing male judgements about what's "productive".........

:evilfrown:

[Pithlet]

37. Exactly. And it's not like we all insist on womyn

and jump down anyone's throats for using "woman/women". In fact, I've never seen anyone do that, even on DU. The times I see womyn used it's usually by someone mocking feminists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. I;'ve learnt something today - I always thought "womyn" was satire

I had no idea anyone used it seriously.

[omega minimo]

21. yeah, at least that's what the Dittoheads say

:evilfrown:

[Pithlet]

38. And how often do you see anyone use the word womyn, honestly?

Like I just said in another post, it's usually by people mocking feminists and not feminists themselves. I've never once seen anyone get flamed for typing woman. And if it happened and I missed it, it's not representative of a vast majority of feminists I've known.

[omega minimo]

18. well said

:thumbsup:

[slj0101]

2. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as political correctness.

Total fabrication by the Right. There is no, nor was there ever, any PC agenda. Words are just words- it's the context that's important.

[ThomCat]

15. Yes, and no.

Yes, the right fabricated political correctness. But they did it to exagerate and negate a legitimate concern.

I'm going to get upset at anyone who calls me a fag, cripple, gimp, or kike. Language is important.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. political correctness is just being not homophobic/ sexist/ racist/ elitist.

its not about censorship.

the right wing try to pretend that these are synonymous but they are not.

just like being a feminist is not equal to manhater.

[thoughtanarchist]

6. Having to avoid topics of conversation is PC

If you cannot talk about income inequity because it's "communist", that's political correctness run amok.
If you cannot talk about universal health care because it's "socialist", that's political correctness run amok.
If you cannot criticize the actions of torture or extraordinary rendition because you need to "support the troops", that's political correctness run amok.

R/W concept of PC basically seeks to make taboo ideas that they do not wish to leave open to debate.

[Lucky Luciano]

20. haha! I love it.

With some people, if you bring up universal healthcare, they do say things in a knee-jerk fashion, "but that's socialist!" As if it were taboo for discussion. Excellent point. We should rub the right's nose in this. The best way to do it would be with a stand up comic like Carlin or Jon Stewart etc.

[underpants]

7. Some other examples

Transients -->Hobos/Bums-->Homeless
Old person-->Elderly (became Senior Citizen)
Navy Dept./War Department -->Department of Defense (this implies that the US does not intiate wars)
Alms-->poor relief--> Welfare
Terrorist-->Militant-->Insurgent
Dept. of Prisons-->Department of Corrections
Family Values (who knows?)
Compassionate Conservative (who knows?)
Civilian Deaths-->Collateral Damage
Fat person-->heavy set -->Large-->Overweight
Cripple -->Invalid-->Disabled
Cripple -->Invalid-->Handicapped
Crazy-->Mentally Ill
Bachelorette (from “The Dating Game” female version of bachelor)
Person with religious beliefs-->Person of Faith

[Lucky Luciano]

8. As per George Carlin....

(the rockstar of stuff like this....I subscribe exactly to Carlin's feelings on the subject.)

ShellShock-->Battle Fatigue-->Operational Exhaustion-->Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[unpossibles]

22. starving = food insecure

killing innocent civilians = fighting them there so we don't have to look at it... I mean... fight them here

[ThomCat]

33. There is a big difference

between

A) a group insisting on naming themselves so that they aren't degraded by their own name.

and

B) a name imposed by people with an outside agenda.

[ThomCat]

27. I don't like people deciding what they'll call me.

Nobody does. So I like to decide what lables I'm going to wear. That's the root reason for name changes.

Handicapped literally meant "with cap in hand" i.e. begging for help to survive. I'm not a begger, so I'm not handicapped. Crippled implies total helplessness. I'm not helpless. "Disabled" isn't much better, but it's a little better. That's why language evolves.

Unfortunately, the people who like to use words as insults insist they have the perfect right to throw insults, and supposed progressives agree with them. So they insist that we're just being too sensitive when we're constantly insulted.

imagine if everyone but you was able to decide what you'd be called, and they insisted that it would be an insult, and they had the right to act on that insult by following it with prejudice and discrimination. You'd probably change your mind about language pretty quickly.

[Lucky Luciano]

29. Then what would you prefer people call you based on

your condition? I never heard of people being offended by "disabled." Are you offended by people always throwing in your condition as a qualifier to describe you?

[ThomCat]

31. Referring to me.

I don't mind if people refer to be as disabled, or as a person with a disability. If someone clearly doesn't mean to be crude I don't get offended by handicapped either, but I sometimes tell them what the word means and stear them elsewhere.

If people constantly refer to me by my disabilty, or as if my disability is all that's important about me then, yes, I get upset by it. That shows a lack of respect, and a certain amount of prejudice against people with disabilities. But I don't get upset if people refer to my disability on occasion. I accept that it's my most obvious feature so it's going to come up in descriptions and discussions.

My point in the earlier post isn't just about how I like to be addressed, but also that nobody else has the right to decide for us as a group that we should be happy to be called cripples. Straight people don't have the right to decide that it's all right to call gay people fags. white people don't have the right to tell black people that it's all right to be called niggers. Each group defines themselves and decides what lables are okay. Even if there isn't concensus (because there never is) there is always a best choice.

Anyone that doesn't give each group the right to name themselves doesn't have any respect for that group, and probably has some prejudices against that group.

[Lucky Luciano]

35. That is not unreasonable at all.

If someone does not know you, they will refer to you as "handicapped," or "disabled," or even "crippled." However, once they have gotten to know you, then they should be able to separate your condition from who you are as a person. If they cannot do that, they are clearly not seeing you for who you are and they cannot get past teh condition - that is a lack of respect.

I must admit though, that i still don't get the womyn thing. It is a very miniscule and undefined set of people that use this word since not all feminists are ardent about it. I steered clear of it above and avoided continuation because people were wayyyy more passionate than I was.

[The Deacon]

9. "Political Correctness" Is Really Nothing More Or Less Than Calling People By A Name

They themselves would use. In other guises it goes by the name of "good manners." So obviously it would be something that most neo-conservative commentators would find offensive.

[Lucky Luciano]

11. Well, that is not exactly true.

Sometimes people in one group call themselves by names in an affectionate manner that an outgroup person absolutely should never do. For example, black people calling other black people by the N word.

[The Deacon]

16. My Comment Still Stands

With the modification (which was implied to me) that what Neo-Cons object to as "PC" is using names people would PREFER to be called (intra-ethnic humor aside.)
Naming is a powerful thing - you can use it to show respect or disrepect. As with Neo-Cons & other Publicans refering to us as "The Democrat Party" rather than the Democratic Party.

[ThomCat]

28. It is exactly true.

What you're referring to is how people choose to refer to themselves AMONG thgemselves. But that doesn't give you the intimate privilage to do the same. Least of all because you don't share the humor, sarcasm or irony they have when referring to each other in some way.

As an outsider, it's only polite that you call people by name they choose as their polite public name.

[Lucky Luciano]

30. So you are just mincing words since we agree.

[ThomCat]

32. Only if you agree with the post

that said it's just good manners to refer to people in the way they'd prefer.

I am not just mincing words. I'm saying that they there is a big difference between what people can politely call themselves and what you can politely call them.

[Lucky Luciano]

34. yes, I thought that is what I had said.

[quinnox]

10. there are always extremes

where pc is taking too far. But in other instances it is appropriate, for example not using the n-word.

But as long as nothing is required by force of law, where everyone still has freedom to say anything they want.

[treestar]

36. PC is something the right wing made up to turn themselves into

victims. It is their shield against charges of racism, etc. They want to be able to be racist and get patted on the back and agreed with. Responding to their racism in any way that makes them uncomfortable is to insist upon PC and annoy the poor conservative, which is unfair - he should be allowed to be a racist in peace, without being called one.

Which kinds of shows a consciousness of wrong - conservatives often exhibit a sort of emotional, underlying awareness that they are in the wrong, thus these defensive responses.

[Dedalus]

40. I wish it were true...

...that P.C. was wholly made up by the right to make themselves look like Free Speech martyrs. Yes, this is what they do when they try to recast, say, a homophobic essay as "the student's opinion is being banned by the Professor" instead of the more accurate "the student is wrong, and the Professor is correcting them, because, you know, this is what EDUCATION means, duh."

It is, of course, ALSO true that the right is way more into "banning" things that "offend" them than any liberal ever was (e.g. I don't give a shit if someone says "God Dammit" on TV, but it still gets bleeped).

BUT it is not always a question of simple sexism, racism, homophobia, etc...

The biggest P.C. hotbeds were colleges that had virtually no real conservatives at them anyway, so the opinions that were getting shouted down by the "P.C. Police" weren't far-right ones NEARLY as much as they were **moderate-left** ones. Look at social constructivism vs. biological determinism, for example. The biggest sin you could commit at college in the '90s was arguing in support of the idea that ANYTHING about human behavior is genetic as opposed to "constructed" by "the media," especially when it came to issues of gender. And someone hardly has to be a Repub to believe that, say, there's a genetic explanation for why big boobs are considered attractive. There was a vein of P.C. that was just as anti-scientific-fact as right-wing evangelism was/is, and it really hurt us because we ended up looking like hypocrites on the "scientific fact" front.

I got called a conservative every 10 minutes in college, even though I am extremely liberal, just because I have a background in science and tended to favor biological explanations for social phenomena over "media" ones. And this WAS a BIG problem.

I think the division of opinion in this thread may be based on age--i.e. when we all were or weren't in college. Anyone who was in school in the '90s definitely knows that P.C. was not just a Repub persecution fantasy.

Speaking of which, that's what this website is about: www.the1585.com

[treestar]

42. Interesting and shows things are relative

I never had the experience of the left being too much in control, but I see it could happen.

I was in college in the late 70s and early 80s and realize the liberals were sort of in charge there, then, but lived young adulthood in the 80s when the conservatives seemed to run the show. But that was the real world, and the colleges may have a different timeline. I found the 90s rather liberal (being in the working world rather than college) but the conservatives were getting stronger and stronger - naturally after 911 it seems as if all those issues of the left (feminism, racism, etc.) were drowned out by "terra."

[Pithlet]

39. Well, see, it's different when *they* do it.

It is indeed pretty hypocritical for anyone to rail about PC Liberals while demanding a children's book be banned so no one can read it.