What are your thoughts on "political correctness"?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm afraid I don't grasp what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that people pretend to be decent; I'm arguing that people should actually be decent -- by attempting understand why they hold the positions they hold and say the things they say, and by considering what effects their assumptions have on those around them.

Again, that is the very thing being argued. If you don't question why our language is structured the way it is, then you will never understand why some people want to change it. This is why you see other people as just "trying to be offended."

I disagree with the OP, though he'd probably consider me one of those just brushing off what I see as harmless without taking into the account the feelings of others.

From my perspective, it's the opposite. INTENT of the speaker is key. For the listener, getting offended over a terminology or statement that isn't meant to cause offense is no justification to attack the speaker.

Walking on eggshells for the feelings of others, especially when one isn't even trying to offend, doesn't seem like a justification for faulting them with being politically incorrect or insensitive.

Regarding the argument about why both male and female firefighters should be called "firemen":

In the not too distant past, there were people who wanted to change the language in the opposite direction. Mankind (including both men and women) was seen as to male-centric, so humankind was supposed to be the proper replacement. Some took it to the next level by removing "man" from the word woman (i.e. womin or womyn).

Now, you're saying it's supposed to be the opposite. Firemen should also include females. But what about those former individuals who felt mankind was inappropriate to use to include females?

See, while it's fascinating to understand the history of the constructs of language, there isn't a consensus on what the "correct" terminologies should be. Moreover, I don't believe language can be deliberately altered by the wishes of a few.

It's like a flowing river. Would you say the river is flowing in the "wrong" direction, or not taking the "right" course? We can examine what caused the creation of the river, but its development happens naturally.

Let's explore this with a concrete example.

A says, "I hate this shirt. It's ugly and gay."

B, who is gay, asks, "How can your shirt be gay?"

A says, "When I say gay, I just mean that it's stupid. I don't mean anything bad by gay people."

B says, "Oh." He ponders this for a while.

After a moment, B says, "I know you didn't mean anything personal by it, but why is the term 'gay' synonymous with 'stupid' for you? It just seems to me that, on some level, it must mean that you consider gayness to be an undesirable trait."

All I'm saying is that, as this point, person A should reflect on why she decided to use the word in that manner. I don't fault people right away for making these kinds of mistakes, because I know that people pick up things unconsciously and uncritically from the cultural background noise. But I do feel that, once pointed out, it is a subject worthy of inspection. Acting out of ignorance is one thing, but knowingly using a word or phrase you know to be harmful to some people without considering why it makes them feel that way is insensitive.

Intent matters up to a certain point, but language doesn't exist in a vacuum -- words carry with them history and context. They shouldn't be used carelessly.

I understand completely what he's saying about political correctness being like skin deep respect. I'll give a couple of examples. People saying Merry Christmas around christmas time doesn't offend me in the least (I'm jewish). In fact one of my favourite things in primary school was singing christmas carols and I like to see christmas trees and the pretty shiny lights on them. Now there are people who hate jews, blame Israel for all of the world's strife and deny the holocaust happened. Those people offend me. Racism is hatred against a race and a lack of respect for people belonging to that race as human beings...that's what should be prevented. I don't care what kind of language they use to refer to jews though and I don't care if people have christmas trees. Most people in the country are Christian. In Israel there would be more Chanukah decorations than Christmas , in a Muslim nation there would be preparations for Ramadan and Ede but not (or atleast not as many for Christmas. It makes sense.

Similarly as a woman I don't mind people using the generic masculine pronoun "he". In fact I find it extremely tiresome to have to say he/she and then she/he every other time I want to refer to a hypothetical third person singular. Men who defend rape , which mostly affects women, for example, would offend me but not the use of the masculine generic pronoun.

Also some people who really are sexist or racist and don't respect X group of people follow the rules of political correctness if they have enough guile to do so but it's only superficial "respect". I get what he's saying.

Edit-adding- I think nit picking about these little things actually trivializes real hatred (racism, sexism ect).

Last edited by daydreamer84 on 26 Feb 2013, 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Person A should respond: "Yes, for some the term gay has negative connotations, and may have contributed to its evolution to mean something bad or stupid. However, despite its origins, my intent was not to imply homosexuality is bad, but that "gay" is not necessarily synonymous with homosexuality. It may be the most common usage today, but the word has other meanings.

And remember, B, years ago gay didn't mean bad or homosexual, it meant happy/merry."

Thank you for your post, I appreciate your input.

Nothing in your first paragraph contradicts what I am saying here. I think I am being misunderstood in this respect, because people see me making certain arguments and then assume that I am also making other arguments which are sometimes closely related. This is not the case.

I don't care that people celebrate Christmas publicly; in fact, I love a lot of Christmas traditions. I recognize and accept that most people in my country are Christians who will engage in these traditions. So long as the separation of church and state remains intact, this is not the thing I have an issue with.

I was merely defending the use of "Happy Holidays," and explaining why it has a practical use.

Then replace "gay" with "homosexual," whose meaning is unambiguous. Or alter the conversation in such a way that A remarks that B is "acting like a Black person" after doing something perceived as stupid or primitive.

I feel like you mostly wiggled out of that one due to my use of the specific term, "gay."

This is nonsense. If your intent is truly not to cause harm, then being told you are inadvertently causing harm should prompt the only rational, logical response: To stop doing it, to not justify it or make excuses for it, and possibly to apologize. If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot and they loudly demanded you move off of said foot, would you say "Well, I didn't intend to hurt you so you shouldn't be in pain?" No, because that's utter rubbish. I don't see how words are particularly different.

Also, no one can read your intent because it is all in your head. All they have is your actions. Why should you only be judged on what you think you're doing and never experience any consequences for what you actually are doing?

Well I think in a similar vein if people say "Merry Christmas" instead of Happy Holidays in a predominately Christian country that makes sense. Again in Israel people would tend to say (in Hebrew) Happy Pesach or Channukah or whatever Jewish holiday in happened to be. The thing is happy holidays does have a practical use in some areas that are very multicultural. I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with people making a big deal (getting offended) by people saying Merry Christmas in a prodominatley Christian country around Christmas time.

The thing about the Christmas tree-here in Toronto some jewish guy complained about having a christmas tree outside a public community centre and not channukah or Ramadan ect decorations. I think that;s just ridiculous and trivializes real anti-Semitism or racism. Sorry I know you didn't mention that it's just another example I think of nit picky political correctness.

Singular "they" is grammatically correct. No one has to use "he/she."



A lot of these things are not "little" things. Many of them are microaggressions(link). Actually reducing objections to nitpicking and calling them "little things" can itself be a form of microaggression.

People post a lot of microaggressions on WP even on the best of days. I would go so far as to suggest that whinging about "political correctness" is itself a form of microaggression, hinging as it does on trivializing others' feelings or suggesting that one's metaphorical right to swing's one "fist" does not in fact end before striking anyone else's "face." In this case, that because "no one has a right to not be offended" then there is nothing wrong with offending them as much as possible (as the poster who said that earlier in this thread said, he likes to offend them more - such behavior strikes me as irrational and bullying).

Also I definitely think using gay as a synonym for bad or stupid is just wrong. That is disrespectful because well, calling someone bad or stupid is actually disrespectful not nit picky. You're putting down a whole group of people of a particular sexual orientation when calling something stupid..that's not cool. Yes the usage of the world in the English language has changed but we have to deal with what it means now.

I'm not quite sure how this relates to the idea of political correctness, at least not as how I understand it. That's just a guy complaining about holiday decorations.

Didn't someone once write that political correctness is just a polite form of tyranny?
I have nothing against being conscious of someone's sensitivity to obvious and not so obvious derogatory descriptions, but it definitely unnerves me when I'm using scientific terminology and someone objects to it on the grounds of the possibility of themselves or someone else being offended (as a rather twisted type of an example I had a white racist person object to calling Abyssinian people Caucasoid, while on the other hand a native American objected to being called Paleo-Mongoloid and so on, even though I was explaining anthropological similarities and differences).
Ignorance, stupidity and malice are the shadow passengers on the train called "Political Correctness".

I didn't wiggle out of anything.

If person A said "this shirt is so homosexual," it would have a different meaning entirely. That he thought the shirt was something a homosexual would stereotypically wear. Which could indeed cause offense. Same thing if replaced with black person.

You see, gay and homosexual are not always synonymous. Saying a shirt "looks gay," doesn't necessarily mean it "looks homosexual" in the modern parlance.

And you don't like my rationale, so you accuse me of "wiggling out." Seriously?

Last edited by ezbzbfcg2 on 26 Feb 2013, 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.