(Due to the recent debate regarding the use and abuse of the term ‘political correctness,’ I thought I would write a diary rather than answer the multitude of points I thought needed addressing from the comments.)
“The interdependence of thought and speech makes it clear that languages are not so much a means of expressing truth that has already been established, but are a means of discovering truth that was previously unknown. Their diversity is a diversity not of sounds and signs but of ways of looking at the world.” ~ Karl Kerenyi
Referential Language
‘Political correctness’ falls into the realm of language. For this reason, it becomes difficult to discuss unless we tackle the ‘nature’ of linguistics and how language shapes, or, at the very least, helps shape our reality. Much of our use of language is taken for granted, and we begin to think that language is referential instead of constitutive and differential. What I mean by this is that we think that we see an objective universe before us and we just attach ‘names,’ ‘labels,’ or ‘terms’ to what is already objectively present in front of us. This idea started with Plato. Plato’s forms present the idea of the referential view of reality. Plato argues that there are forms (think of these as ultimate or archetypal concepts of individual things) that exists independent of our mind and we just have to discover them, though they are already there. All the worldly forms are imitations of those otherworldly forms. That view of language and reality does not hold much weight. Referentialism is equivalent to ‘universals’ in linguistics—never changing.
Differential and Constitutive Language
Most linguists now accept that language is differential instead of referential. What is the difference between differential and referential? Differential treats the world like one big nameless mush of matter. What we then do with this mush is differentiate things from other things in order to create order from the flux of chaos before our eyes. Once we are able to separate one thing from another, we then can differentiate it from the surrounding matter by giving it a name. Thus, only a small number of things before our eyes actually have names and are differentiated from what surround them. This idea works at the linguistic level as well. We differentiate the sounds of ‘t’ and ‘d’ for example to make the two separate terms ‘dot’ and ‘tot’, though they are extremely closely related (but are a small example of the untouched possibilities of verbal sounds. Interesting side note: most Asians languages do not separate the sounds of ‘l’ and ‘r’ which causes the mispronunciation of many English words that depend on the differences in these sounds). Differential is the equivalent to relativism in linguistics—various cultures see the world differently based on their language (Whorf [see below] did extensive studies on the differences between Native American languages and English to show that we ‘think’ and ‘perceive’ the world differently due to language. Ender, you might see untranslatable things between Russian and English to show that the speakers of these two languages view the world differently). Thus language is constitutive (constructs reality) because it shapes the way we receive the world since we are dealing with ready-made concepts that are differential.
Language Shapes Reality
“What in the hell does differentiation have to do with ‘political correctness’?” you ask at this point. Everything. I’m trying to show that in many ways we have a ‘selective’ reality, and language helps to shape it. In fact, since we (as in me writing this and you reading this) did not create many of the words we use today, our reality has been shaped for us through the language given to us. Many of these ideas about differentiation come from Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (pay attention to the section on ‘difference’) and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
, which states:
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language... all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated."
— (Language, Thought and Reality pp. 212–214).
Since we have come to the conclusion that language shapes our reality, we must now examine how language is used in society to further understand ‘political correctness’.
Power Structures
Although there are some on this site that may think differently, I do not believe we live in a perfectly egalitarian society. Rather, I think there are power dynamics at work in our society that give preferential treatment to some members of our society compared to others. For example, I believe we live in a patriarchal society. Evidence for this argument comes from multiple sources. One source is our names. Our lineage stems from patronyms. If you’ve ever done genealogy, you know that tracing the mother’s line is much more difficult than the father’s. Women also make 70 cents to the dollar for the same work that men do . I do not wish to focus my attention on this issue other than to show that we live in a society where some groups have privileges in this country for various historical reasons. Those with privilege are young, straight, white, middle-to-upper class males. (Please do not take this as a criticism of any of these traits. For all intents and purposes, I am all of these traits also, and none of us chose to have this privilege. We just happened to win the luck of the draw.) As you can see, these privileges are based on sex, age, race, class, and sexual orientation. (Other factors exist in the periphery such as height, weight, and ability.) As I stated previously, for various and for the most part random historical reasons, we have a ‘norm’ in our society. People that do not fit this norm are seen as ‘other’. For example, when discussing events, people usually point out race only if it is not white. (A reverse example may be in order to illustrate this for us white folks who do not pay attention to such things: we only discuss ‘white’ people if we are in the minority or the ‘other’ in a certain context, for example basketball. We say Larry Bird was a good ‘white’ basketball player, but for Michael Jordan we just say he is a good basketball player, because the assumption is that he is already ‘black’. For anything else though, we usually point out the minority race.) Another example would be Danica Patrick who is always referred to as a ‘female’ IRL driver. I’ve never heard the term ‘male IRL or NASCAR driver’ used before to describe a driver. It was assumed ahead of time.
Political Correctness
Let’s review: 1) Language shapes our reality. 2) There are power dynamics at work that give privilege to some groups over others (no puppet master controlling this situation, but that’s just the way it is).
With these two things in mind, we are ready to see why ‘political correctness’ is important. We can consciously try to reshape our language to create new modes of thinking that change reality. The article on ‘political correctness ’ says this better than I do:
The goal of changing language and terminology consists of several points, including:
1. Certain people have their rights, opportunities, or freedoms restricted due to their categorization as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype.
2. This categorization is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology.
3. By making the labeling terminology problematic, people are made to think consciously about how they describe someone.
4. Once labeling is a conscious activity, individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership in a group, become more apparent.
In other words, we can take the terms that give power to one group and diffuse that power to make things on a more equal footing (don’t worry Ender, I’m talking about linguistics, not collectivism or redistribution of wealth). Isn’t that what we want in this society to make things fair for everybody? The system only works if we all start out with the same opportunities. Racial bias, sexism, homophobia, etc make it so some start out without the same opportunity. To help eradicate these thoughts and the subsequent actions that stem from these thoughts, we must help change the reality (perception) that leads to them. A real world example is the tendency toward gender neutral terms. Instead of saying fireman which excludes the idea of a woman fulfilling this occupation, we now use the neutral term firefighter so that reality (through language) tells aspiring females that they are not excluded. Simple enough and no big deal right?
I should also note that PC is inclusive rather than exclusive, though the majority term is often not noted (as discussed above with the ‘male’ NASCAR driver etc.). The minority term is not supposed to exclude the majority; it is only to make it apparent that it includes the minority as well. This discussion pertains to our ‘Happy Holiday’ debate. For example, bathrooms are now ‘wheel-chair accessible’. Does that mean it impairs the ability of able-bodied users to use the restroom? No, it just makes it clear that those who may need extra help have it. Another example is the term ‘hearing-impaired. This is an umbrella term which covers deafness, those partially deaf, or even those in an area too loud to focus in on one audio source (such as a TV in a bar). Again, it is unnecessary to state that those with properly functioning hearing can listen because it is assumed. This is comparable to ‘Merry Christmas’ in that ‘Happy Holidays’ already covers Christmas (Christmas is the majority holiday), but sometimes we find it necessary to make the minority term overt to make it clear we also include the minority too. If we found it necessary to include the majority terms always, for every NASCAR driver we would go through a ridiculous and redundant list of assumptions (straight, middle-aged, male, etc).
Tlaloc says this is mind control and newspeak. In a way he is right: political correctness is attempting to change thoughts and behaviors. These changes are for the better in my view, since they help dissipate the reality that leads to an unjust society. What he does not understand is that the language we use now is not more neutral than the ‘politically correct’ terminology. It is just as loaded and creates its own version of reality and newspeak. The only difference is that one leads to positive results and a more equal society, while the other traps groups in negative connotations (thus subjected to a less-empowered reality).
GoRight stated that political correctness does not change behavior. If you did not follow my argument about how language shapes reality, here is a good book for you to read to further understand these points: Language, Thought, and Reality 
For these reasons, I believe ‘political correctness’ is valuable. If you also value a society that embraces the American ideal that anyone can make it because we all have the same opportunity, then I hope you find a new appreciation for ‘politically correct.’ If not, then I think you are hindering American ideals in favor of aristocratic beliefs in which established classes or categories have structured favor. I do not expect everyone to agree with this argument. I’m aware there are excesses and it is impossible to accommodate everyone. But that does not mean PC is entirely worthless. Perhaps if you do not agree, at the very least my argument will create more understanding on the topic.
__________________________
This would've
been up earlier but I could not get through to the site. Did it crash overnight and earlier this morning?
I went through some of the parts a little too quickly, but it is already long as it is. There are semester long courses on just the difference between referential and differential language, so I apologize for the overly simplistic (and perhaps not very clear) overview. If anyone has any questions, I will be happy to elaborate.
I keep getting weird html code
error messages and stuff that says it looks like the server is down.
The top post is all in red and messed up.
The site has been off and on strange.
I don't know how you can make it through the day without my brilliant insights!!!
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
yeah the server was down
earlier. Not sure what the problem was but since I was out, I wasn't even aware of it. Thanks for the diary, I'll comment tomorrow because I really need to rest up :)
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
First, a nit
Our lineage stems from patronyms. If you’ve ever done genealogy, you know that tracing the mother’s line is much more difficult than the father’s.
While you always know for a fact who the mother was, the father's identity can't be known for a certainty (other than to the mother of course). So you may trace the familial line through the father, the genetic line is more easily traced through the mother (the reason, I believe that 'Jewishness' is inherited from the mother)
Unfortunately, I think you are going to run into the 'moral relatvism vs objective good vs evil' issue here. Use of language is certainly used to indoctrinate others (I use the term in a neutral manner). However, take not that there are people on this site who think that torturing our enemies is OK (because we are fighting for GOOD dang it!) Likewise, they aren't against using language to influence world views, they are against the world view that is being pushed. 'PC' is the word they use to describe language changes that influence a 'liberal' world view.
Agreed about the biology
but once you get past your maternal grandma and are dealing only with documents, it becomes extremely frustrating. The only way you can find these records are through marriage certificates to find out what the maiden name was. But I get your point.
I understand the wall I'm up against with the relativism vs universals, but I think the meritocracy vs aristocracy point will maybe stick. Perhaps Ender reflecting on the structural differences between Russian and English to see that language helps form reality. Perhaps I am just blowing in the wind and will not make much ground, but I had to get this off my chest.
Well written, an inspiration to the choir
I don't disagree with what you wrote (certainly not the theory).
Unfortunately, the aristocracy never sees meritocracy as distinct from the aristrocracy. They believe that the rewards of meritocracy are inheritable (at least those rewards that they receive. ;-) and that this inheritence is what helps drive the meritocracy. It goes like this: That layabout who inherits a billion dollars might not have earned it, but their parent earned the right to give the billion to who they wanted. Thus, interfering with the aristocracy would damage the meritocracy by removing the big bonus of being ridiculously successful (generations of wealthy progeny)
Thanks
To fight an aristocracy, democrats want to tax that 'unearned income'. Here we find another battle of terms to help shape thoughts into a preferred reality: the democrats call it an 'Estate Tax' to show that these wealthy estates should be taxed when they switch hands, while the republicans call it a 'death tax' to say that democrats are trying to tax death. Which is the reality? This is a situation where the reality is formed by the words and whose side you agree with.
Yes, how come we don't see the PC bashers
... going after the Frank Luntz rhetorical flim-flamming like "Clear Skies Initiative" which allows more air pollution, or "Healthy Forests Initiative" which permits the logging of old-growth forests?
And for GoRight to claim that language doesn't matter... How disingenuous.
__________________________If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I had to update to fix a few mistakes
I was a little excited to post this while I could get on the site, so I put it up with a few errors.
Well done!
This is a topic that fascinates me, in part because of how quickly - and wrongly - it's been neutered in public discussion. The spectre (ha!) of PC causes immediate vomiting, but it's such a rich topic that we haven't begun to explore.
For one thing, even though I'm more or less a proponent of PC, there are negatives associated with it - and it's related to GoRight's claim that PC doesn't change behavior. To an extent, he's right, but even more perniciously: PC replaces spoken platitudes for genuine engagement. I think the reason is that it's so knee-jerk on the part of people who adopt it - how many people stop and think, "the term 'visually impaired' refers to a broader class of people than 'blind,' so in fact when I'm interacting with people who seem to me to be blind, I should keep in mind that there's a whole range of possibilities there"? More often than not, it's just a replacement of one label with another, without an understanding of the reasons or implications of that change. I agree with you that langauge does shape thought, but PC is only one piece of a much larger puzzle that often gets overlooked because people feel like they're using the "correct" terms.
And there are times when it gets abused. The case of the businessman fired for using the word "niggardly" is a case study in PC gone awry.
But for the most part, I think it's a pretty benign and important process. If anything, it's the natural result of a population trying to understand itself via language.
Back in June I did a diary
on one piece of the giant puzzle, during one of dailykos' periodic kerfuffles over language and inclusion. Since my goal was to talk about PC as a form of etiquette, and since I was trying to put out some flames, I took a slightly different tack than you did. If anything, it's less interesting for the text than for the discussion that follows.
Again: excellent diary.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Great points and thanks
About people feeling like they are using the 'correct' terms (as your diary at DKos discusses), this topic gets into the mess of context, speaker, and receiver. Most who study language for any time knows that none of these are the final stop for interpretation, but rather it is a relational process, with an emphasis on the receiver for the final interpretation. I got into a long, but mostly unfruitful, debate with Tlaloc about this a while back, but I agree with your conclusions (even if it uses smurfs and fraggles for examples [remember the snorks?]).
I thought this discussion might be too much of a tangent for what I wanted to cover in my diary, but I think it may be worthwhile to discuss either in the comments or as a new diary.
A most excellent post
However the whole framing thing has created a new framing frame, that needs to be addressed.
By creating and beating to death the frame of PC conservatives quite disingenuously set up the frame that it is all a liberal only plot, even as they use it to push their own version of political correctness, to define the world as their , often bizzare reality.
Like "the Liberal media" by getting the first strike, when they are criticized, for really overt propaganda, or just outright sliming, they can resort to "its not a big thing because everybody does it". What Liberals say is reality is just their opinion, while the made up stuff conservatives pedal is just their (more correct) reality.
By insisting on accuracy, and noting the baggage (usually old frames) that words can have, the whole argument goes to Republican PC that add baggage, and are deliberately inaccurate, and are only real in their fantasy world.
Deny them their fantasy world, and force the discussion to stay about real stuff, and arguing actual ideology rather than POV, and their evil is fully exposed.
__________________________The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Good diary.
Let me start off by saying that this is a very good description of your side of this discussion and the rationale that goes into it. I appreciate your effort in putting this together because I believe it will help us to dissect the discussion a bit.
While I think I understood most of this to be the general thinking that has gone into the discussion thus far from your side, I also feel that it does make some of the points more crisp and well defined which is always a good thing when discussing such abstract concepts.
Needless to say I can agree with some, but not all, of the perspectives that you present and I fear that some of the ones with which I disagree are so fundamental to your argument as to leave it unconvincing.
Rather than try to address these points in totality in this one reply, I will endeavor to discuss my thoughts and observations about these points in separate replies so that we can have a more focused discussion thread on each. Hopefully this will prevent the usual flitting back and forth between threads that inevitably occurs in these discussions.
So, look for a number of replies from me as direct comments to this diary to start the individual threads.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Opening Quote
I have no idea who Karl Kerenyi is. I assume he is some appropriately accredited linguist. Is this correct?
Assuming that it is I will, for your benefit in understanding my perspective on such things, say that I will be happy to acknowledge that he is someone who has spent (perhaps large amounts of) time thinking about and forming views on how language and thought are inter-related. I will not, however, simply accept his opinion as fact or even as being correct without some critical analysis thereof.
In other words, the mere fact that he may or may not have written entire volumes on the subject does not (necessarily) make him correct and thus that fact does not carry, in and of itself, any particular weight with me. Others are free to weigh such respect according to their own personal satisfactions.
Let me begin by dissecting this quote and giving you some insight into my views of its meaning to help judge whether we are in agreement or not.
To be honest I am not exactly sure what the author is trying to say here, especially with respect to the word "truth". Given the context of our PC discussion, I will interpret the word "truth" to be a synonym for "ideas, perceptions, and concepts".
Given this interpretation of the word "truth" I would state the following:
interdependence between thought and speech.
I claim that the whole point of speech (language) is to give short-hand labels to complex ideas, perceptions, and concepts which have already been (or are currently being) developed within a particular society.
What comes first, the concept or the label?
I argue the concept does and in that sense the label merely becomes a means of expressing a concept that was pre-existing (not in Plato's sense but rather from the perspective of a given society). The concept may be a totally new concept which was devised solely out of the pre-existing set of concepts already found within that society, but clearly the concept precedes the label.
I assert that this should be obvious because a society does not just dream up new words and then look for concepts to attach to them. It goes the other way around. Society develops some new concept and then coins a new word or phrase to reference it.
For example, take the words "wingnut" and "moonbat". These are relatively new words in our societal lexicon, correct? Did these terms spontaneously come into being and then we as a society sought concepts to attach to them? Of course not. We in the blogosphere had groups of pre-existing concepts that we wished to have a short-hand means of referring to for simplicity.
So the concepts (i.e. the things that people associate with these words) came first, and then the labels were attached to them. Note that the choice of what labels to use was completely arbitrary, we as a sub-culture could just as easily have started using "foo" and "bar" without changing the thinking that goes behind them one bit. Note also that this is an illustration of what I mean by the separation of the underlying concepts (i.e. those attributes that people associate with these terms) from the words themselves.
Is this not correct in your estimation of recent history?
[As an aside, both of these terms are used in a manner similar to how "nigger" was used in its day, would you not agree? So are these not both terms which are born of hate and bigotry and, in that sense, just as bad as "nigger" (at least from a PC perspective)?]
Not in the sense that Plato expressed where the concepts are universally pre-existing, but rather in the sense that new ideas, perceptions, and concepts are outgrowths of the existing body of ideas, perceptions, and concepts held by society as a whole as well as those which are held only within specific sub-cultures.
Whenever a society or sub-culture develops a new concept, they then coin a new label to assign to it and at that point in time the new label takes on its assigned "meaning" (i.e. it is recognized as a reference to the concept in question) but not before.
Given the context of the original quote, I assume that "Their" is a reference to "languages"? Is that correct?
If so, then it should be OK to rephrase this sentence as follows: "The diversity [of languages] is a diversity not of sounds and signs but of ways of looking at the world." Is that a fair interpretation?
From my perspective there is a nugget of truth here but I disagree with the statement's current (re)phrasing (which is intended to have an identical meaning to the original).
If I were to rephrase it yet again so that I preserved the nugget of truth while making it more consistent with my world view, it would become: The diversity of languages is a diversity not of words but of ways of looking at the world (i.e. of societal concepts).
I will have to be away from the keyboard for a while and may not be able to continue until tomorrow, but there is enough here to get started.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sofar so good, but there is a difference
Perhaps only a quibble as far as you have gone, but a wild boulder in the overall.
If the PC crowd (the liberal one) changed the word from firemen to firefighters, it did not change what they did or denigrate either the men or the women. If anything it solved the Fahrenheit 441 issue by making it plain that they were not arsonists!
By comparison the Neocon word Conservative is wholly disingenuous to the point that the man who (if anyone did) owned the trademark on it, called them fraud almost literally to his dying breath.
I would use Republican for all who would call themselves so, but the "base" and particularly the leadership of that base, that is not specifically Neocon or Straussian, is therefore left without a legitimate name.
I think winger is less inflammatory, than the more specific and descriptive Theofascist, if you believe that we need a totalitarian social agenda (that all folk need to believe that a human exists before the structures exist fr'instance) and a Corporatist, anti-free-enterprise economic agenda, then the description would fit, but I try and save "wingnut" for the extreme, extreme, who dress up in actual Nazi uniforms, and march around, but have small credibility even in Republican circles. (though the bedsheet crowd seem to be gaining acceptance)
I do not find moonbat insulting, I find it petty and ignorant but not like the "n" word.
What they did to the L word on the other hand was a real insult and crime. I swore that if I heard Newt talk about what liberals were thinking one more time (always without challenge from anywhere) I would scream. They presented a total fraud, that I would guess that to this day most on the right here still believe is at least is a hidden agenda
You can find that actual Liberal Agenda in most Roget's Thesaurus under liberal, at least in mine from 30 years ago.
While people with different opinions, can discover the realities, people with different realities, can only see opinions
__________________________The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
The Chicken or the Egg
Because this could drag into a long debate, I shied away from getting into linguistic technicalities. It looks like you do wish to get into some of these finer points, so I will attempt to explain as best I can.
This is called nomenclature, which is attaching names to pre-existing things. This understanding seems to be the commonsense version, but as we learn more and more about our strange universe, the commonsense answers are hardly the correct ones. You are partially correct, but it gets a little more complicated than this.
Ferdinand de Saussure
, the author of Course in General Linguistics 
explains this much better than I can, so I will defer to some quotes from this book as well as Saussure for Beginners:
In other words, you are partially correct that an individual can come up with a concept, but to define that concept and to communicate the concept to another person, he must create a label. So for all intents and purposes, the label usually comes first (except for the person who came up with the concept). So when it is passed on to the rest of us, we learn it as a label instead of as a concept. They are interdependent. Of course, since linguistics like any academic field is a game of one-upping, variations and degrees exist on the spectrum of interdependence. Some say the concept does not exist without labels (can we think without words) and others say the labels take on a life of their own leaving the concepts behind and creating new concepts that the original concept never intended such as may be the case for the word ‘negro’ or ‘mouse’.
This account does not take into consideration that language is differential also. You seem stuck in the prison of referentialism. If you look at biological taxonomy for instance, names are given to different sub-species depending on difference. This difference must come first before the name. So we don’t just point and say, “beetle forever more, because that is the concept in my head when I look at this” but we differentiate first according to specificities of the subspecies and then label. So the difference is dependent on an observer and not necessarily objectively there. Here is another example. The center stretch of a wall does not have a name at this point in time in English (that I know of). This is because we don’t differentiate it from the rest of the wall. It is just the wall. Let’s say we decided that it was the utmost importance to hang pictures only from the center of the wall. We then would create a name for it because we then decide to differentiate it. So differentiation comes before any objective nomenclature.
So some ways you are partially correct that we create concepts first, but I have a problem with the idea of a ready-made objective world for us to just apply names to. (I know there is a physical, objective world, and that if you throw a rock at my head it will hurt and probably knock me out. I’m not denying this type of objective world. What I am saying is that the way we process and discuss the non-physical objects [categorizations of people based on arbitrary differences] and to a lesser extent even the physical world) helps frame the way we look at the world.)
I think this is what the quote was also getting at. As much as I enjoy these long discussions, I have a hard time finding time for them between chasing a 1 year old around the house and tending to my pregnant wife. If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, read a book on this topic (especially Language, Thought, and Reality) which does a much better job of explaining these ideas than I do.
Let's just keep going down this path
for a bit as time permits. This can continue in this diary for some time, correct. I too have a hard time finding the time and I, sadly, am neglecting other chores at times to blog.
I believe that I understand the points you are trying to make based on your pre-existing reading and background in this area. I accept that background as a valuable source of information but I reserve the right to pick away at it where I believe that it is not so much outright wrong, but let's say where it is inaccurate or viewing things from an inappropriate perspective, IMHO.
I get the sense that we are getting to a level of thinking where we can at least come to an understanding of each others perspectives and can perhaps identify those points where we have fundamental disagreements on the nature of language and thought, which is core to the concept of PC. I believe that by identifying some of these points we can at least gain a better understanding of each others fundamental belief in the value, or lack thereof, of PC.
In any event, we will both be richer for the effort I think. Agreed?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Courtesy and Political Correctness
Let me start this off by saying that I am a fan of diversity and inclusiveness in society, and I have a deep preference for civility in social discourse. For example, I do not "attack" liberal or conservative posters on this site simply because I believe everyone has a right to hold and express their own POV. Much of what goes under the name of political correctness I would simply label as common courtesy and good manners. Making remarks about someone's person (color, shape, form, structure, attire, job, etc.) has never been considered polite.
But there is an aspect of PC that we're glossing over here, and I think it's the real thorn. The average person really does not desire a return to routine use of racist or sexist terminology in the public sphere and it is disingenuous to suggest that is the root of the disagreement with political correctness. Instead, what people are often reacting to is the the "Mother Scold" aspect of PC (h/t to cheney ;}).
Let's turn this sentence's voice around and tidy up its intentional ambiguity:
"By criticizing word choice, the politically correct person intends to force the speaker to prove to the politically correct person that the speaker has consciously thought about how they describe someone."
In other words, it's a way to say "prove to me that you are not thinking what I think you're thinking"
That's where PC goes overboard. Well-intentioned adults tend to feel insulted when someone too-readily implies that they are something they are not. If you really want to believe something negative about me, there is very little that I can do to change your mind, so PC is a trap as well; I cannot absolutely prove anything to you about my thoughts or my character, unless you are willing to believe it.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Excellent summation!
I agree that this describes a significant proportion of why people (at least those that do) who object to PC are doing so.
The Christians simply say, "We want to say Merry Christmas and don't mind if others use whatever greetings they want to."
Then the PC police say "LIARS! You are disgusting filth and a scourge on humanity and the only reason you don't want to say Happy Holidays is because you hate, Hate, HATE everyone and everything that is NOT a Christian."
And if the Christians refuse to comply (i.e. they don't prove that they aren't hate mongers by adopting Happy Holidays) well, then the PC police feel all justified and self-satisfied that they have once again exposed some hate group for who they really are.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I agree on the summation.
Well done purple!
But not so much with your example. Your bias is glaring but not surprising. The PC police? Who are they in this case? It seems the Christians are the one manufacturing this fake war on Christmas. That the White House uses Happy Holidays, shows a diplomatic effort not to offend. Why don't they say, Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays? Why? Because our country is a diverse mix.
Just asking the question, Are you a Christian or a Jew or a Muslem seems offesnvie? Is that PC?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
The PC Police
Are those who are demanding/arguing in favor of Happy Holidays.
I assure you that over on DailyKos you would be able to find examples of the PC Police reaction just as offensive as the one I made up. Obviously I am aiming to give an extreme example for effect here, but such responses do exist.
As a public service I will highlight some examples gleaned from last Wednesday's Open Thread
that started this recent PC discussion and provide my version of how these posts are likely to be received by their intended targets:
In other words, Christians are visious lying hate mongers.
The "lyrics" basically try to make the point that the Christians are hate mongers who basically say "F**k You" to every other religion on earth.
This just mocks the Christians in general, basically saying that they are idiots for believing in Mary and Jesus, I guess.
In other words, Christians are idiots who are making the whole thing up (i.e. they're LYING about being offended).
In other words, Christians are LYING about this whole being offended thing and they just want to claim America for themselves. I'm not really clear on whether there is an intent here to smear the Christians with the whole "Nice tits, nigger dyke!" meme or not, but given the context I can understand how some might see it that way.
In other words, the Christians are LYING about being offended and they are making the whole thing up.
In other words, Christians are LYING WHINERS who are making the whole thing up.
Now that I read the underlined statement more closely, it doesn't even make sense. O'Reilly's point about the Merry Christmas flap us NOT to support PC but rather to denounce it, so the last part of the comment which tries to portray O'Reilly as some sort of PC hipocrit is just wrong.
In other words, the Christians are a bunch of lame LIARS.
In other words, the Christians are intolerant bigots who want to be the only ones recognized during the holiday season and they actively want to exclude any mention of any other religion.
Note also, that this post tries to (falsely as following posts revealed) imply that the World Net Daily article was a fabrication. I am not sure if this accusation was being directed at Christians or just the source.
In other words, the Christians are LYING about being offended and just using boycotts (a typically liberal inspired technique unless I am mistaken) to enforce their discrimination against all other forms of religion. This is nothing more than a diversionary issue on the part of the Republican leadership, completely unfounded and disingenuous.
In other words, Christians are analogous to "top order predators" with a "middle-school boy mentality". They feel that they absolutely need to dominate everyone and everything around them to the exclusion of all others.
In other words the Christians are in complete control of our public schools and are successfully indoctrinating innocent children into their evil religion on a daily basis, and have successfully excluded even a mention of other religions. Oh yea, and did I forget to mention that Christians are evil?
Is this enough to make my point? I hope so because I am not going to waste more time following other threads.
Gee, those stupid hate mongering whacko Christians, why do they insist that people are out to get them? You know, they're not crazy if it's true ... which even this small collection suggests that it is.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What would you make of people who accused those who
... criticized the war of being "unamerican," unpatriotic" and "not supporting the troops?"
What is the intention of such accusations? To try and silence the war's critics?
See, PC comes in all flavors...
__________________________If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Not the same thing at all.
Those on right have never claimed that critics of the war don't have a right to speak their minds on the subject. We have not tried to silence them at all. But more to the point, we have not tried to change their lexicon at all.
In this context, the PC equivalent from our side would be something more akin to saying "Quagmire is sort of an offensive term. It is offending some people on our side of the aisle. Please use words like 'progressively challenged' instead." Or how about, "Please don't say 'torture' because it reminds us all of bad things in the world, try something like 'made uncomfortable' instead."
What we ARE doing is exercising OUR right to say what WE think about those critics of the war and the troops. Something the silent majority hasn't done for a long time. Those times are changing.
For example, Bush praised rather than denigrated John Murtha for his comments
on the war:
Now obviously Bush needs to play the statesman more so than us mind-numbed minions as your side likes to refer to us. I suspect your reference to words like "unamerican," unpatriotic" and "not supporting the troops" are coming from people who are actually able to more freely and accurately describe their feelings on the subject than the President is.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Bush praised John Murtha?
How about the posters at RedState? They called him all sorts of names.
Gee, this is hard:
RedState search on "Murtha"
Get off it.
And now you're the "silent majority" again? That's not what the past elections suggested. Or current public opinion polls.
And there you go again:
You pull the same rhetorical scumbucket trick of claiming those who don't support the war are also criticizing the troops.
Are you claiming Murtha does not support the military or our forces?
So quit your phony whining about PC. It is just as bad if not worse from the conservative side.
__________________________If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Touchy.
I only included "war" and "the troops" in my reference to the critics because those were both in your list of offending comments (e.g criticized the war of being "unamerican," unpatriotic" and "not supporting the troops?").
Anyway, this is a digression from the discussion on PC. As I said, in either case we did not attempt to change your lexicon which is what PC is all about, by my understanding.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Attempting to change the lexicon
I recall Howard Dean being asked if we were safer with Saddam Huessien out of power, and the PC police, if that's who they are went completely NUTS. It was seen as very unPC to say that the world is not safer with Hussein gone. Everyone wasn't saying it.
Too bad so many people bought into that little fairy tale.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
um...
You mean other than repeatedly calling for them to be killed? Cause to my mind suggesting someone should be hung does kind of infringe on their free speaking.
Extraordinary Rendition
Stress positions
Temperature variation
Extreme wakefulness
Aggressive information gathering techniques
And so on. There has been a huge amount of PC-esque euphemisms for torture from the right and from Bush in particular.
Majority? Didn't the GOP just lose a national election by a huge margin?
Silent? Doesn't the GOP own a major media corporation?
"I come here not to praise ceasar but to bury him..."
Bush absolutely denigrated Murtha for his comments by consistently referring to him (either directly or indirectly) as advocating "cut and run," something that Bush considers a perjorative.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Christian control and the desire for total control
There is a very powerful totalitarian stream in the rightwing fundamentalist movement that has a stated agenda to remove the wall between Church and State and a more hidden but still well documented plan to make this country a theocracy, that even many religious Christians claim is UnChristian.
But to claim that Freedom and democracy are an affront to the rule of God, and the work of the devil, that sounds like both hate and evil, and UnAmerican to me.
Added - I will believe that Christians are not in control of the public schools when they have as many Pagan pageants as Christian ones. Even if that is zero.
__________________________The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Oops, forgot one ...
My post above speaks well enough to whether I am exhibiting a "bias" or not. Even your post here is basically saying that the Christians are making the whole thing up (i.e. LYING by manufacturing the fake war on Christmas). What do the Christians have to do to prove to you that they actually are offended and not just perpetrating some massively large cover-up for the purposes of religious world domination?
And again, as I have stated in many many posts in this thread, the Christians are NOT upset about saying Happy Holidays, they are upset that they are the only ones required by the PC Police to use Happy Holidays. They don't like having their holiday being singled out for special treatment.
See the World Net Daily references in my previous posts for more details.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What group of Christians care about the "Merry Christmas" flap?
All Christians?
I don't know any Christians who give a sh**, frankly.
But the same crowd of jingoists brings it up every year as a way to stir the pot and score political points.
Is Bill O'Reilly really that religious? Is he a (married) God-fearing Christian who tries to bang his young assistants?
Yeah, he's a hypocrite.
We're all wrong when we say "Christians this..." or "Christians that..."
That goes for you, me and everyone else who uses this generalized tone.
I'm guess the Christians who want to bemon the whole "Happy holidays" thing are the same ones who want to ban the teaching of evolution and who want to tell you and me what we can do with our family members who may be in a vegetative state.
They're just as guilty as PC-style behavior as anyone from the other side.
__________________________If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
the poor persecuted Christians
what a crock.
You have free speech. Have the courage of your convictions as would Jesus. Say Merry Christmas whenever and wherever you want.
This manufactured fake conspiracy against Christians is just a little too much for me to buy into.
Take your war on Christmas and export it to Israel, our other US friendly ally that is sympathetic to Judeo-Christian values.
Asking me to read World Net Daily, is like asking you to read the New York Times.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
What about the Christians on the Kansas Board of Education?
You ignore the very real "PC-ness" of the other side.
How does this
rate in your book?
Banning the teaching of evolution?
How much more (rightist) PC can you get?
__________________________If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I call BS
Wrong. It's the Christians who are boycotting stores for saying "Happy Holidays," not the reverse. Find me one example of a similar boycott for saying "Merry Christmas".
Wrong. The only arena the so-called "PC police" are involved in is government. Atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and everyone else are perfectly happy and supportive of Christians' wishing Merry Christmas to their hearts' desire. In fact, the evil ACLU has consistently defended the rights of Christians to wish people a Merry Christmas, even *gasp* at official functions, so long as they're representing themselves and not the state.
You've got it all upside down.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
My understanding is not that way
I have not seen , or heard of anyone being scolded for saying "Merry Christmas". Bill O said so but his points were disproved quite soundly. Most notably in the case of the school play where the situation was the opposite of B.O.'s speech.
Now you can make a hate crime out of pointing that out, but I have always felt that reality should have the final say, as with my sig.
__________________________The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Here's the problem:
Can you give me a strong argument that calling women "womyn" will fix this? As far as I can tell there is no such argument beyond mere handwaving that "once labeling is a conscious activity, individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership in a group, become more apparent."
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Womyn
is not PC according to my above explanation. It is separatist; thus, it's not inclusive.
I already gave an example: fireman to firefighter. By definition, fireman excludes women. The neutral term bases the job on merit, fighting fires, instead of gender.
But you are arbitrarily...
... excluding the bulk of what is PC from your description of PC then!
I guarantee you that "womyn" is very much a PC term. As is "african-american." As is "differently abled." And so on...
Furthermore the "fireman" example is simply wrong because in english the masculine pronoun also doubles as the generic. The term "fireman" in no way excludes women. Neither does "mankind." Neither does "human."
This is a perfect example of PC: the arbitrary decision that some term is offensive based on nothing except a gut reaction. See the "niggardly" example.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No,
PC is always inclusive. When did I state otherwise? It may be part of your definition, but since you refuse to define it, it is hard to say.
All those terms you bring up are sexist and what PC aims to change. Using a majority term for a generic is making a structured favored term and reality.
Did you read anything in my post? This is why I find it so frustrating to discuss this with you. 1) Read. 2) Process. 3) Reply. You are skipping step two.
'Niggardly' is not PC, it is a combination of ignorance of the audience and tactlessness on the user.
theory vs reality
No. Your theory of what PC is is always inclusive. But your thoery has no connection at all with what PC actually is. It is a nice theory and while I think it still fails it at least has a rational basis. there is no such reason to what PC is in practice.
You are getting stuck like a student who reads marx and thinks that's what communism actually is. It isn't. The theory and the practice deviate significantly. So while you talk about the marxist ideals I'm pointing you at the politburo and you then declare they aren't communists because they don't match your reading of Marx. Neat. But they exist and they are the ones who are called "communists."
You have a theory of PC. Now let me point you at the womynists. They say they are PC. And there are a great many of them.
There isn't a definition because there is no underlying purpose or structure. PC is merely an association based on a name. It has no real meaning or depth beyond a voluntary association. And I am telling you from direct experience what that association tries to do, and how they do it.
They are not sexist, they merely correct. And the objection to them is based on an ignorance of the language. Again see the "niggardly" example.
I did read, and I did process and in the process I realized that you had, I'm sorry to be so blunt, no idea what you are talking about. You've got an idea in your head completely divorced from reality and when i point out how it is so removed you simply say "well that isn't PC" as if you were the arbiter of that rather than the millions of people who actually call themselves "PC."
I'm sorry, Specter, but you don't just get to decide what PC is. It would be better for the world if you did because your idea of what it should be is better than what it is. Still the term is already in use, too late for you to redefine it into something good.
The reaction of the audience was EXACTLY what PC is. You don't realize that because you aren't looking at reality but a personal fantasy.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just wondering....
So who does decide? You! That is what you seem to be saying.
Is it PC to say "stupid"? Or is it just rude?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
So who does decide? You!
No the people who claim the mantle of PC are the ones who decide what PC is by virtue of their membership in the "club." PC lacks any coherent basis or rationale, hence its only identity is the amalgamation of its constituents and their actions in the name of "PC."
I think you mean is it un-PC to say stupid. But in either case it would seem to depend. That is, the PC police certainly would step in if you were saying it to someone who actually was "mentally challenged," but not so much were you saying it to say a white male oppressor. Like I said: no rational basis.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The PC Police?
Who are they? Where do they come from? And do they have a brochure.
Golly, I sure wouldn't won't to violate the PC rules.
I would guess the words, nazi, nigger and cunt are on that list of words that are un-PC. If you use them make sure you are in a private club that has an agreed secrecy pact so that you won't be in danger.
And where do nipples come in on your scale of PC. I agree, in every case it seems to depend. In your circle certain words might be okay, but definitely not made for TV.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.