Originally Posted By Dabob2 I just happened to find this on the web today, and I liked it. Discuss. "As it’s commonly used, “PC” is a deliberately imprecise expression (just try finding or writing a terse, precise definition) because its objective isn’t to communicate a substantive idea, but simply to sneer and snivel about the linguistic and cultural burdens of treating all people with the respect and sensitivity with which they wish to be treated. Thus, the Herculean effort required to call me “Asian American” rather than “chink” is seen as a concession to “the PC police”, an unsettling infringement on the free-wheeling conversation of, I suppose, “non-chinks”. Having to refer to black folks as “African Americans” rather than various historically-prevalent epithets surely strikes some red-blooded blue-balled white-men as a form of cultural oppression. Having to refer to “women” rather than “bitches” lays a violent buzzkill on the bar-room banter of men preoccupied with beating on their chests and off other body parts. Obviously these examples fall on the simplistic side of things, but I think they illustrate the shaky philosophical foundation of today’s usage. Underlying every complaint of “PC” is the absurd notion that members of dominant mainstream society have been victimized by an arbitrarily hypersensitive prohibition against linguistic and cultural constructions that are considered historical manifestations of bigotry. It’s no coincidence that “PC”-snivelers are for the most part white men who are essentially saying, “Who the hell do these marginalized groups think they are to tell me how I should or shouldn’t portray them? I’m not going to say ‘mentally challenged’ when it’s my right to say ‘retard’, goshdarnit there’s only so much abuse I’ll take!” In this context, the conceit that “political correctness” constitutes a violation of free speech is particularly zany; as though society’s marginalized groups wield oppressive power over the dominant mainstream. Actually, as far as I’m concerned you’re free to call me “chink” and I’m free to call you “moronic racist loser” (and more if necessary, but I’ll leave that aside for now in the interest of false civility). Free speech is the straw man of choice for intellectual bums of all stripes too fragile and vacuous for critical engagement. Calling someone who says or does bigoted things “a bigot” isn’t censorious, it’s descriptively accurate, like calling a bad movie “a bad movie”, even if the bigot didn’t intend to come off as bigoted and the movie didn’t intend to come off as bad. " - Kai Chang, “The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propoganda of ‘Political Correctness’”
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Makes sense to me. Like I always say, whenever someone prefaces a statement with "I know it's not PC to say this, but..." better hold onto your hat, because something offensive is coming.
Originally Posted By Tony C Exactly but I never have to worry about being PC because I love all people of all races, genders and backgrounds, well except the bloody Dutch.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >well except the bloody Dutch.< There are two people I hate in this world. Those who can't respect other peoples differences, and the Dutch.
Originally Posted By ecdc Very interesting. On a different take, Bill Maher defined PC as "worrying more about feelings than truth." Obviously Maher would not agree that using racial epithets is a form of "truth," but I do think he has something of a point when it comes to certain topics. Charles Pierce in his book, "Idiot America" talks about the American culture of fairness. The idea is that no matter how absurd the proposition, in America you've "gotta respect people's opinions!" While we absolutely have these two polarized sides to the country, we also have this so-called "moderate" middle that's really a huge group of people who just think both sides are crazy or both sides have a point or are the same or whatever. If they paid attention, they'd realize that this is not accurate. So Maher or Pierce's definition (and they aren't exactly conservative) would be more the equation of ideas: the Harvard Ph.D in biology's statements on evolution are just as valid as the southern baptist preacher's. We're worried about taking sides or telling the truth for fear of offending.
Originally Posted By barboy2 Hey Chang, I'll meet you in the middle. I won't call you 'chink' or 'Asian American' since I don't like either one---- I'll just go with 'Oriental' and call it a day.
Originally Posted By barboy2 I'm just waiting for the next identifier for 13% of the US's population? First it was 'savage' during the rounding up and capturing days on the African west coast. Then came the debasing name 'Boy'---to keep slaves in a perpetual state of childhood--- followed by the disgusting 'nigger'. Then we see 'Colored'(which I have always found silly) then 'Black'. And now we're left with this strange label, 'African American'. So what are they called in Paris or London? 'African European'? I think that I will stick with 'Black' until something better comes along.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>On a different take, Bill Maher defined PC as "worrying more about feelings than truth."<< Well, that's the problem. Since the definition of "politically correct" is wide open to interpretation, who knows what it truly means. Is it politically correct to say that birthers have a valid point? I don't think so. It is incorrect and their "concerns" have been addressed time and again. Facts don't generally have two sides. What is "politically correct" about not using offensive or antiquated racial terms? There's really nothing political about that, unless a person is a hardcore racist and simply trying to sound nicer for personal or political gain. And the author's key point is spot on as far as I'm concerned: >>Underlying every complaint of “PC” is the absurd notion that members of dominant mainstream society have been victimized by an arbitrarily hypersensitive prohibition against linguistic and cultural constructions that are considered historical manifestations of bigotry.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>While we absolutely have these two polarized sides to the country, we also have this so-called "moderate" middle that's really a huge group of people who just think both sides are crazy or both sides have a point or are the same or whatever. If they paid attention, they'd realize that this is not accurate.<< That isn't my definition of a moderate. A moderate is someone who is capable of looking at an issue, weighing facts and evidence, and going with what seems the right answer, hopefully in the best interest of the country as a whole, regardless of whether or not it lines up lockstep with one of the two major parties. There are many people who don't engage in politics, don't bother to vote regularly or even follow the news in depth. I don't think that automatically makes them a moderate as that definition seems to suggest.
Originally Posted By John3K <<whenever someone prefaces a statement with "I know it's not PC to say this, but..." better hold onto your hat, because something offensive is coming.<< Exactly. Just like when someone says, "I'm sorry, but..." it's an automatic signal that: 1) The statement will be highly rude/insensitive/inflammatory 2) The person speaking is not even remotely sorry.
Originally Posted By hopemax Dr Phil says, "But means, 'ignore everything I just said, now I'm going to tell you how I really feel.'"
Originally Posted By Labuda "Facts don't generally have two sides." I think I'm adding that to my favorite quotes area on FB, 2oony. I LOVE it!
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >whenever someone prefaces a statement with "I know it's not PC to say this, but..." better hold onto your hat, because something offensive is coming< That's why I just say the offensive stuff without warning. Keeps people on there toes.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That isn't my definition of a moderate.<< It's not mine either, but unfortunately it's the label many give themselves when, in reality, they just plop themselves in between the two parties without understanding the issues. This has two problems: 1) These people end up advocating right-leaning positions because the left is more moderate and the right is more extreme, making "the middle" actually more to the right. 2) These people end up equating the left and the right as just two sides of the same coin. But when you look at the individual issues and responses, no reasonable person can make this conclusion. I brought up the Bill Maher quote because he hosted "Political Incorrect" for so many years and he, a left-wing guy, has just as much distaste for what he considers to be "PC" behavior as many on the right. I think this "middle group" might fall under the umbrella of "PC." These are the people - we all know them - when you're arguing with a Birther, they chime in and say, "Well shucks, we all have our opinions," as if to be a peacemaker by suggesting there's really no way to know who is right and who is wrong.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >by suggesting there's really no way to know who is right and who is wrong.< But there is a way. I'm right and they are wrong.
