Poll: Politicly Correct my A**

[Sparcrypt]

Context is important.

If I go 'hey you have a black eye' after you got punched in the face, fine. If I say to a black person 'hahaha! Couple black eyes there mate! Who hit you?' when they don't actually have an injury then that's a problem.

If a black guy has a black eye and I comment on it, if they got offended about me saying 'black' to them I would be telling them to grow the hell up.

 

[skeliton112]

No. I never got how politically correct statements every did anything outside of politics...

For teachers, it's important to be politically correct so that none of the students feel outcast (at least at a young age).

Yeah but...
There is also...
Ok you win.

 

[Isolda Sage]

I think all this political correctness garbage has really set us back long term. I do not see how people can come to understand each other without clarity. To me me political correctness is the absence of clarity and honesty. Say what you mean and mean what you say. It is only than that we can decide how to get along with one another.

 

[Infernai]

Political Correctness can go fuck itself right up the fucking ass, i don't care what the fuck you think or who the fuck you are..but NOONE will take away my right to say the word FUCK i mean..For Fuck sakes, whats the fucking point? As far as I'm concerned, If you don't want to expose your fucking children to stuff then DON'T LET THEM FUCKING NEAR IT. Isn't that just so much more fucking Simple then suing every fucking organism that so much as breaths a fucking syllable threateningly? This is why i Fucking miss the Motherfucking Early Ancient Roman Empire..

And yes, i was attempting to fit the word "Fuck" and its variants in there as many times as i was able to...anyone else is free to give the "Fuck" challenge a go to! xD

 

[theultimateend]

PC is bad, the people supporting it should feel bad and in fact the people supporting it are bad.

Every word in every language offends someone somewhere.

The better idea would be to start helping folks grow a spine and enjoying who they are and enjoying the very fact that they are alive.

I support common decency towards each other.
I also support your right to ignore that decency.
And I support society's right to treat you like a dick when do ignore it.

This works for me.

In other words you are a sensible human being following the logical (and frankly only) option.

Kudos on not being a troglodyte .

 

[thedoclc]

*snip*
*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Okay, I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe in freedom of speech either (which I think was your point, but it is late and you use big words)
I believe morality should be separate from state, and don't believe that state should prohibit any speech, apart from copyright stuff.
As for the tyranny of the majority, classic fallacy which Mill himself counter argued by distinguishing between types of pleasure. Eg, even if a woman was gang raped by 100 men, the pleasure of the men could never outweigh the trauma suffered by the woman.
If I have misunderstood you, it is only because you are using latin to describe the fallacies, which makes it real hard to argue against you if the guy you're arguing against doesn't read latin.

Mill argued that the desires of the majority cannot and do not trump the rights of the individual, going so far as to state that if one person believes something, and all the world is against him, the world has no more right to silence him than the individual has to silence the world. His idea was pretty much unlimited free speech, which I can't support. It's -too- loose. An example of "tyranny of the majority," in the US would be something like how many people would vote to make Christianity the official religion of the US. They may even get 51% of the vote. If they did, then "tyranny of the majority," certainly applies as the majority would choose to vote out the rights of the minority. Or, imagine a vote to make simply being gay illegal. I'm sure in quite a few states it would be voted up by a majority of the population.

It's pretty easy to take Mill to task on his "types of pleasure," argument. Who is Mill to say he knows what high and low pleasures are and that man should progress in such and such a way?

For the most part, I agree with almost unlimited free speech, and the limits the US places are pretty reasonable. No speech designed to incite immediate violence, no speech which presents a clear danger to national security, etc. I'd rather have a market solution to the obscenity issue, like a (working) v-chip for parents to use to make their own decisions, but that's just my opinion and I'm not a legal expert.

If you say a certain type of speech (let's make it concrete: a Klansman's anti-Semitic Holocaust denial) is morally wrong, I agree. However, the second you say the government should -not- regulate the Klansman's speech, you've necessarily said he has the -right- to say it. It's still morally -wrong-, but at the same time, it's legally protected speech (in the US; some countries ban Holocaust denials.) To the extent you believe government should not prohibit speech, you are endorsing free speech. To say you think it's wrong of some people to say what they mean to say (a point you made) is not the same thing as saying it should be illegal for them to say it. I think that's where the confusion lies. Free speech doesn't protect just your right to be nice; it protects your right to be controversial, even to be a downright offensive douchebag, from government interference. It protects someone's right to be a racist, ignorant moron just as much as it does your right to call your leaders out on their errors, to champion good causes, and to publish art as you see fit.

 

[agentironman]

People tend to forget that there was a time when we could express how we feel without the person next to feeling like it was a personal attack. People are too damn sensitive these days. Grow a backbone and keep your chin up. Not every kid that plays a sport needs a trophy, trophies are for winners.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

you have to use common sense when you talk to people if your talking to a friend then they wont care but if you are going to call people retards in front of their parents your going to get in trouble I'm tired of extremeists on both sides they are both wrong the left is wrong because you shouldnt be restricted in what you say but the right side is also wrong you shouldnt be able to say hurtful things just for the sake of saying them im not in favor of censorship because you should be aloud to read or watch what you want but within reason i think its alright to not show someone being gutted on national television but you shouldnt keep someone from saying something like hes the black sheep of the group its fucking annoying to listen to both sides and im tired of it the problem is that most people know what boundries they can and cant cross but then politicions come in and decide that we all have to either be robots all saying the same thing with no indivuduality or have no limits at all and have people do whatever they want.
what if a cop pulled you over would you insult him or kiss his ass?
these are the options political correct or incorrectness give us whereas most people will cooperate and be respectful without being a suck up or a pain in the ass

sorry for the wall of text but i have been hearing this for a week and had to vent

 

[baconated]

I think PC is a bunch of shit.

In one of George Carlin's HBO specials, he attacks this movement. He notes how over time disabled people have gone from being called 'crippled', 'disabled', 'differently-abled', to finally 'handicapped'. He then jokes saying, "Some of these people have gone so far as to say, 'I'm not handicapped; I'm handy-capable!' as if changing the name of the condition, changes the condition." This shows what is probably the most notable problem with PC: over time the new term becomes as offensive as the old term. The same is true for blacks. They've gone from being called '******' to 'colored' or 'black' to 'African-American'. It's not the words themselves that are hurtful, it is the intention of the person saying the word. If I made fun of you for being differently-sized, you would, and should, be just as offended as if I were to make fun of you for being fat. Either way you can clearly tell I am trying to assert that you are inferior due to your body shape.

Now you could say that if you are trying to make fun of someone, you probably don't care about PC in the first place. Lets look at something seemingly more innocent. Let's say you are trying to point out someone in a group of people. Perhaps you are pointing out the boss to a new guy, and the boss is fat. You could say, "That's our boss there. Not her, the fat lady." or "That's our boss there. Not her, the differently-sized lady." According to the PC movement the former is bad while the latter is good (or perhaps neutral). In either case, your intent is to say "the most distinguishing characteristics of our boss is she is female and weighs more than she should".

I would argue that that the intention of you speech matters much more than the specific words you use. I would argue that if you are going belittle someone for being stupid is the same thing as belittling them for being 'minimally exceptional' or whatever the current euphemism is this week.


However, I can see the case for say the removal of masculine dominance in our language. To quote Carlin "We do think in language. So the quality of our thoughts can only be as good as the quality of our language." Now I, and probably every living deaf person, would call bullshit on the first part of that premise, he does make a strong point. Years of a language that subtly asserts dominance of a group will predispose you to thinking that group is dominant. Now don't think I have immediately contradicted my last 3 paragraphs. In this case I would say your intent is different in the two case, even if it is subtle and likely subconscious. The type of thinking I was previous attacking is that fireman should be changed to fire-male-gendered-person or fire-personoide-who-happens-to-have-a-Y-chromosome. We should switch to a language that is inclusive instead of exclusive. As the OP's author seemingly asserts, this isn't the same thing as pretending that different genders (or race, weight sizes, etc) don't exist. Avoiding the gendered pronouns completely does seem silly to me, but I would reserve their use for when you already know the gender of whom it is referring to.

 

[yamitami]

If it's something directly insulting then yes, we should make an effort to remove it from our language. The 'N' word, retard, and to a certain extent handicapped since that word actually references crippled veterans begging on the streets. But instead of handicapped I use disabled, because there is an ability that isn't working. I do not use 'differently abled' because everyone has a different ability set. I'm willing to bet that I'm differently abled from everyone here because I know how to weave cloth.

Aside from the phrases like differently abled that make no sense anyway, things like trying to remove the word 'black' from describing things that are the color black, that's dumb. Like I said at the start the 'N' word is something that is specifically derogatory towards people with dark skin. 'Black sheep' is not in the same category.

Cliffnotes: if something is specifically derogatory then it should be removed from the language. If it's people overreacting then they can be quiet about it.

 

[EHKOS]

Look. I'm white. I expect to be called white because that is what I am. If I were black I would expect to be called black. If I'm drunk then I am drunk. If people really want to get offended so easily then whatever, I will prolly just avoid you. Now, if it were intentionally used to be hurtful, then we may have a different argument.

 

[bz316]

It's important that we, as a society, become more objective and less prejudicial in our analysis of varying different perspectives and other people. Forcibly changing our language to achieve this goal, however, is both impractical and stupid. If our culture becomes, on the whole, less concerned with largely unimportant differences between people to focus more on the genuine merits and flaws of each individual person, than our way of speaking and thinking will naturally change in accordance to that change in attitude. Trying to manually inject changes into everyday language and speech will not only not solve the problem, it will make it worst by focusing attention on what the words supposedly mean.

 

[Gigano]

No harm in being polite, as long as it does not in any way or form interfere with the verbal accuracy of what you say, and the level of firmness with which you wish to argue it. Usually a more effective communicative strategy anyway.

 

[yamitami]

As the OP's author seemingly asserts, this isn't the same thing as pretending that different genders (or race, weight sizes, etc) don't exist. Avoiding the gendered pronouns completely does seem silly to me, but I would reserve their use for when you already know the gender of whom it is referring to.

The problem is that in English there have been several attempts to introduce a new gender neutral pronoun set and it's never worked. I believe the list is up to about 15 or 20 by this point. Forcing yourself to use them feels unnatural because it's not what you have lived with your whole life, and trying to teach from birth doesn't really work since everyone around them won't use those pronouns. So since the feminist movement has made using the male pronoun set incorrect (just replacing it with the female in most cases which is just as sexist) we're generally left with the grammatically incorrect 'they'.

So basically the only practical way to have complete gender neutrality in a language is to start out with it, like in Japanese. There are specifically male and female pronouns in Japanese but they're never used in normal conversation, so any knowledge of gender has to come from context and occasionally honorifics with gender attached like okaasan/mother. If you don't start with it being gender neutral then it's not going to happen.

Personally I have no problem using the male pronouns as gender neutral since 'they' is grammatically incorrect in the singular sense, except that with the feminazis making 'she' the new deal the male pronouns aren't assumed as being neutral anymore. So I'm stuck with 'they'.

 

[iblis666]

discriminating against a person based on sex, orientation, race, or handicap should never be allowed unless of course the person cant do the job but you should be able to say any damn thing you want in moderation such as fighting words still shouldnt be allowed.

 

[Abengoshis]

Absolutely disgusting. I hate this nonsense. Since when does "exceptional" mean the exact opposite of what its supposed to mean. Oh yeah that happened with "special" already didn't it. *sigh* When will it end.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Here is how politically correctness works... If your a white guy, and speak to a person of the other race that might be mildly insulting, your racist... The same goes for if you argue with someone of the other race, it's because you hate their race and not the individual..


Honestly these days, racism is thought as "Insulting someone of the other race" instead of "Insulting someone BECAUSE they're the other race."

Oh, it is only just insulting someone. It hasn't happened in awhile, but when I say I disagree with Obama on everything, I get called a racist. On top of that, when I say I am for a stronger border defense, and describe my idea for the perfect border wall. I get called racist or told that I hate Mexicans, even though I never mention a race or Mexicans.

Granted that all these things have happened on forums other than the Escapist.

-------------------------

Political correctness is bullshit. I don't remember where it was just that it was in one of the eastern states. In a government assembly area (state level) there was an old painting of representatives debating. Some woman that worked there petitioned to have the painting taken down because it wasn't politically correct, that there were no women in the painting. I can't remember if the painting was taken down or not, but seriously, complaining about a harmless painting, a historical painting no less.

It is at times like these that I wish there was a legal service called a smack-a-gram. You hire the service and they go smack people for you.