On some level, I believe it's important to discourage the use of words such as n****r and fa***t as they are only used on certain groups of people to demean and disrespect and it encourages bigotry. But it starts to fall apart for me when people will call you a sexist for saying to a woman when it's not necessarily a gendered slur or call you a racist when you call somebody black instead of African American. Why should I change my speech when I am talking to certain people or overhaul my vocabulary to appease a person who assumes ill intention on my part?
I know the idea is to leave it up to individual groups to decide what offends them because only they can really know how it makes them feel; how much it hurts them. For pro-PC people, it comes down to being respectful, nice, and caring especially when its about what groups of people get offended at. But I really don't give a about those things: not being pointlessly disrespectful and mean I can see (and I actively try to do these things), but one shouldn't have to go out of their way to be nice and caring to not be seen as a bigot. For example: If I am walking through a scary looking neighborhood at night should I not say "it's a spooky neighborhood" just because it is a predominantly black area? Should I refrain from saying to a woman because she could take it as a gendered slur even if that's not what I meant? Why is it not a problem if I say to a man (or is it?) Should I just remove it from my vocabulary in case a woman might be in the area? How does one justify this double standard (if you think calling a woman a is a problem but calling a man a is not and don't think that's a double standard, please explain it to me.)? And why is it that non-minorities don't/can't claim that there are things that offend them without being seen as a closet racist or their concerns be excused as being said from a privileged position/reverse racism complaints (and then dismissed); example: why aren't Southern Americans calls to not be referred to as rednecks not treated as seriously as black peoples calls to not be called thugs even though redneck is used exclusively for white people and thug is not.
This is not a attempt to criticize or belittle anybody who is pro PC. I'm asking because I'm willing to be convinced of the merits of being PC and to spark discussion along the lines of Trump's so called bigotry.
Sure, but I think people are over the top with it these days. I think the recent south Park season hit the nail on the head.
But then you have morons like trump and his supporters who just use "political correctness" as a derogatory term to give them an excuse or free pass to just be in assholes
Not that I disagree with what you said, but why do you think Trump supporters (for example) view political correctness and PC culture as bad?
Looks like we agree on something
Political correctness is tainted with bias, tbh.
You'll likely be criticized for talking about about men's rights, for instance, because it's somehow sexist despite men having many disadvantages in issues such as child custody or divorce settlements and told to feel guilty about an imaginary wage gap.
Women's rights, though? Say what you want, you will be protected. How can you be sexist to assume women should have an easier path for the same work if most women end up choosing less rewarding careers?
I think there's a context for anything, tbh. For example, if you're at your job or your company, not being PC is generally bad for business. You might not gain anything from being PC, but you certainly can lose (your job/clientele) if you're non-PC.
If you're in the privacy of your home, or having a few beers with friends, I don't see the problem if people want to be whatever...
I mean, ultimately, you're free to express yourself in whatever way you want, but there's always consequences... if you can assume them and move on, then, there's no problem.
pretty much.
I think that It can be overblown but I can see some good in it too, if it means treating people with respect even if its in words only. I find that people that have issues it are the same morons that cry "race card" and "race baiter" when someone brings up an issue of race even when there are merit to the accusations.
Rudy Giuliani blaming PC for the San Berandino shooters not being stopped before the attacks seem ridiculous to me. He's basically saying that because they are Muslims that the neighbors were afraid of being viewed as racist. It could be that they didn't have any su ions or did but had other reasons for not calling it in.
Whats the opposite of being PC is the 1960's and before. If people are complaining about being overly PC, do they want the freedom to use slurs that were prevalent during that time?
great post
They resent being scolded for using language deemed racist or misogynistic.
However there is merit in their being upset for Democrats not using "radical Islamic terrorism"... and that's an example of the left using PC as a shield to win politic points
Obama's refusal to use that phrase is EXACTLY like your lover boy dubya, who CREATED Ms of terrorists for which the Repugs take NO responsibility, saying US is at war with terrorism, not at war with Islam.
Repugs and you rightwingnuts trashing Obama for the not saying "Islamic terrorism", is the Repug strategy, seen blatantly in all ugliness with the Repug asshole politicians, to criminalize ALL Muslims and the entire religion, to say Christian America is at war with Islam. iow, it's just the anke-biting, trivial bag Repugs reflexively trashing, blaming that Knitter for everything. and you rightwingnuts fall right in line.
Instant outrage culture
Lol, "microagressions"
How is specifying "RADICAL Islamic terrorism" criminalizing ALL Muslims when in fact it separates radicals from the vast majority
This is way too subtle for You People, but Obama, as President also of 6M Muslims, rather ranting in the hating horde of Repug bags with no responsibility, doesn't want to criminalize even RADICAL Islam, preferring to distinguish terrorism from Islam completely.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-26-2016 at 05:02 PM.
Instant outrage culture perfectly described by Bill Burr
You can always have something perfectly understandable and rational and some people might take it way too far though... IMO, when you get to things like "microagressions" then it fits that category...
It's really no different from you complaining about Christian taliban
boutons accuses me of being a right-winger too, it's ok man
I just laugh at people inside who demand political correctness, and exclude them from my circle of friends.
not at all, but I appreciate your lack of perception.It's really no different from you complaining about Christian taliban
Christian Taliban are the major faction of American Christians, not a tiny slice.
The "context for anything" is correct. However, for me that's what makes defining "PC" apart from context impossible. PC isn't neccessarilly the same thing for everybody, based on the different environments we are a part of.
The he most recent example I can think of was Trump's unwillingness to separate himself from David Duke, or even address some of the racism that fuels his popularity with. In doing so he'd perhaps be opposing the sensibilities of his followers. In his political space, he was being "PC". In the greater political space, he wasn't being PC since most people don't hold his followers' views on that particular issue.
What I'm trying to get at, and what troubles me with the word, is that because it can mean different things for different people, it's a stupid word. Folk who claim to be PC are probably not PC in certain environments. At the same time, folk who claim not to be for PC, no doubt are PC in certain environments. That's fine. As you said, people need to know the consequences of what they're saying in certain situations (i.e. work). But there's a word for that already. It's called being respectful, or mindful, or courteous or whatever. But when people start using "PC" in absolute terms & like it's something you can either be for or against, it allows people to delude themselves into thinking they're more respectful, less judgemental on the one hand, and on the other hand more truthful and more liberated to express what they really think.
If a word's meaning is derived from who/when uses it, but then gets used politically as having one meaning, then there's a problem.
I think avoiding the term at all times is unnecessary.
On the other hand, you have those who believe calling it "Radical Islamic Terrorism" at every opportunity is, somehow, going to have any positive effect towards the war on terror. They force it into conversation and cry PC anytime you don't describe terrorism with the label. That's worse.
Um no. Prove it. That would require data, not moonbat blog posts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
