I saw this cartoon the other day that did a pretty accurate job of summing up my feelings about "Political Correctness".
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/01/toles01062016.jpg&w=1484)
And then I read this blog, which elaborates further: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2015/10/14/politically-correct/
Quote"Warning — I'm going to say some things here that aren't politically correct."
Or, "Oh, I'd better be careful, I might upset the PC police."
Or, in response to a complaint about bigotry and discrimination and dehumanization, "They're just being politically correct, I'm so sick of all that PC nonsense."
I hear this a lot. I hear it from writers, speakers, politicians, commentators, comedians. And I don't just hear it from overtly douchey asshats. I also hear it from people who are generally smart, thoughtful, decent, and clearly wanting to do good.
I hear this a lot. And whenever I hear it, it's like a red flag. It's like a red flag attached to sirens and klaxons and flashing red lights. It's like a guy on the side of the road jumping around with a giant sign — a sign that says, "This person is about to say something incredibly screwed-up."
When you use the phrase "politically correct," here's what you're saying.
You're saying, "I want to be able to say things that are damaging — and I don't want to be held accountable for it."
You're saying, "I don't want to have to think very carefully about the things that I'm saying. I want to say whatever pops into my head — and I don't want to think about whether it's unfair, inaccurate, bigoted, or otherwise harmful."
You're saying, "I want to say whatever pops into my head — and I don't want to think about whether it perpetuates harmful tropes or stereotypes."
You're saying, "In particular, I want to say whatever pops into my head about people who've gotten the short end of the stick for centuries — and I don't want to think about whether the things I say are bashing them with that stick one more goddamn time."
You're saying, "When people speak up about bigotry and discrimination and dehumanization, I don't want to have to think about the actual content of what they're saying."
You're saying, "When people speak up about bigotry and discrimination and dehumanization, I'm not going to engage with the content of what they're saying — I'm just going to dismiss it wholesale."
You're saying, "When people speak up about bigotry and discrimination and dehumanization, I'm not only going to dismiss what they're saying — I'm going to trivialize the very idea of them speaking about it and asking people to change."
Alty and I were talking about this the other day; those who demonize "political correctness" are essentially dinosaurs who are angry that their day of glory has passed. They don't want to have to THINK before they speak, and they resent being
made to feel bad because they want to call people retarded as an insult. I get it; I grew up in the 80's. Some shitty habits are hard to break, but that doesn't mean they aren't shitty.
The thing is, these people are basically already dead, they just don't realize it. They are clinging with the last of their strength to a time past when they didn't have to think about how their own privilege colors their perception, or why they can't make decisions for everyone. They are intellectually stultified, and can't grasp the idea that other people have other perspectives which can be different from theirs without being
inherently wrong. Because they can't comprehend that simple concept, they find any differing perspective a direct attack on themselves. The consider being told that they can't be the decider for other people's lives as offensive as being told that they can't be the decider for their own lives. It makes them feel...
irrelevant. Because they are.
Its too late for them. Their time has passed, and they are simply digging in their heels and trying to screech us back into the 20th century, when women were chicks, blacks were grateful, and retards were retards. Almost all of their objections to what they hatefully label political correctness are just different ways of saying "I DON'T WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW". "I DON'T WANT TO SEE OTHER PERSPECTIVES". "I DON'T WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND".
They are already dead, because living things can change.
Great post Nigel. This is something that I see a lot, particularly at work. Which is a very old, white male dominated environment.
I think that the blog you quoted hit on an interesting point that I hadn't considered before:
"I want to say whatever pops into my head..."
I think that everyone, to varying extents, believes that the thoughts they have are right/true/good because, well they're having them and they're good people right?
Having to confront the idea that your thoughts are not necessarily right/true/good is a difficult process.
Discordianism and/or philosophies that encourage the differentiation of one and one's thoughts seem to encourage this kind of self-scrutiny. It's something that attracted me to Discordianism in the first place. Recently I have been reading into Buddhist philosophies that riff on the same idea. I guess that's where Mal & Omar got a lot of their ideas from in the first place - Zen for roundeyes, after all.
Political correctness is shallow. It treats how you talk to people as being as important as how you treat them. It says "never mind poverty and corruption in the justice system, the most important issue affecting black people is that people are being 'impolite' to them", where 'impolite' is defined as not using whatever artificially constructed term is in vogue at the time (I think currently it's begininning to shift from "african american" to "people of color", which is of course not under any circumstances to be confused with the term "colored people", which is offensive - despite being part of the name of the NAACP)
(And if that's not the kind of thing you mean when you say "political correctness" then you're using the wrong word. That's what the term "political correctness" is generally taken to mean.)
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 03:19:36 PMretards were retards.
"retard" actually started out as a politically correct term you know. Long story short it was introduced because the term "imbecile" had become pejorative (which puts "retard" ahead of "african american", "asian american" and "little person" in terms of legitimacy of origin I have never in my life heard or heard of the words "black" [as it pertains to skin color], "oriental", or "midget" used as pejorative terms. They've appeared as discriptive terms in larger rants, but never as insults in their own right, unlike the terms "imbecile" and "idiot")
EDIT;
And yes, I am aware that by the reasoning above replacing the word "retard" is legitimate too. I'll agree to that. Not that it will matter, as whichever of the terms devised to replace it eventually sticks will probably eventually become an insult too, if history is any guide.
The real problem, as I see it, is that we don't have any really biting slur for white people. "Honky" just doesn't cut it and "Cracker" and "WASP" only apply to subsets. If there was a good generic slur for white people that would restore the balance of the language much more smoothly and flowingly than political correctness.
Quote from: Xaz on February 14, 2016, 03:39:01 PM
Great post Nigel. This is something that I see a lot, particularly at work. Which is a very old, white male dominated environment.
I think that the blog you quoted hit on an interesting point that I hadn't considered before:
"I want to say whatever pops into my head..."
I think that everyone, to varying extents, believes that the thoughts they have are right/true/good because, well they're having them and they're good people right?
Having to confront the idea that your thoughts are not necessarily right/true/good is a difficult process.
That's a good point I hadn't considered, simply because I think horrible badwrong thoughts all the time and I'm constantly afraid that one will leak out before I catch it.
For Shandor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 07:29:15 PM
That's a good point I hadn't considered, simply because I think horrible badwrong thoughts all the time and I'm constantly afraid that one will leak out before I catch it.
:lulz:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 07:31:37 PM
For Shandor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
I've read that article before. What of it?
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 14, 2016, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 07:31:37 PM
For Shandor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
I've read that article before. What of it?
Never mind, I don't know what I was thinking. You're basically a case study for what I was talking about. Carry on.
I think you're seeing false dichotomies.
Suppose it's December and I'm looking to buy a TV. The greeter at Store A tells everyone "Merry Christmas", the greeter at Store B tells everyone "Happy Holidays". If you think from what I've said before that I'm going to go to Store A you're wrong. In fact I'm not going to either of them, because there's more that 2 electronics stores in the world, so I'm going to go to Store C, where the greeter tells me to "Go to Hell" and mocks me for being overweight (fun fact: I weigh more than Homer Simpson) but they sell my TV slightly cheaper.
For a while I ascribed to the "people shouldn't be politically correct because it's a shallow way of masking their prejudices while continuing to be assholes who don't give a fuck" theory, but then I met someone who was really racist and it took me months to realize he wasn't just being an edgelord. It's kinda like the romantic anarchists who want to believe that coercing people into not murdering each other with government force is shitty because we should just not murder each other. Sweet in principle, and I would rather spend my time with voluntary non-murderers than involuntary ones, but at the same time murder is way worse than stopping people from murder.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 03:19:36 PM
and can't grasp the idea that other people have other perspectives which can be different from theirs without being inherently wrong.
All perspectives are inherently wrong. Even my own is merely a persistent delusion.
I dunno. I think forcing people not to say shitty things is worse than saying shitty things. Political correctness is not forcing anything though, it's social pressure. Disapproving of people saying shitty things, and judging them for it is not a bad thing at all, except for people who say shitty things.
PC is a bandaid, and it can hide a lot of foulness, but it is still a far better default than open bigotry.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 14, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
The real problem, as I see it, is that we don't have any really biting slur for white people. "Honky" just doesn't cut it and "Cracker" and "WASP" only apply to subsets. If there was a good generic slur for white people that would restore the balance of the language much more smoothly and flowingly than political correctness.
Why try to add more hate speech into the world? Also, I don't think there's any slur that would sting white people on their own turf. In a country where white people are the minority words that would seem innocuous in America/Europe could start to have a bit of bite to them. I mean, fuck that noise wherever you are, but adding to it doesn't help.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 03:19:36 PM
Its too late for them. Their time has passed, and they are simply digging in their heels and trying to screech us back into the 20th century, when women were chicks, blacks were grateful, and retards were retards.
Who do you mean by retards?
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 14, 2016, 05:30:32 PM
Political correctness is shallow. It treats how you talk to people as being as important as how you treat them.[snip]
This couldn't be further from the truth. It isn't about how you talk "TO" people it is about how you talk "ABOUT" people; and consequently how you
"THINK" about them.
Something of an aside, but I suspect the value of PC relates directly to the industry you're dealing with. I would imagine you get far fewer blatant racists in the halls of academia than compared to building sites and wrecking yards.
For me, the irony here is that you find that humans can adapt to PC rather quickly once they understand that it relates to their ability to gain money. The further irony being that once so adapted, they will actually teach and enforce the behavior in others.
I suppose the point is that you deal with as much racist (and such) bullshit as you allow around you. I tolerate very little, because why the fuck should you? If the people you're working with aren't at least smart enough to shut the fuck up, they're probably fucking useless at their job too. It's anecdotal, but I've yet to encounter a guy throwing out racist shit who was actually good at their job. I've found that to be true in many industries. I suspect it's some combination of fear for their own continued employment mixed with a dash of the other and ignorance.
Unfortunately, I don't think such people are as in the past or dying off as we'd like to think. Social media's a difficult way to guage such things, but for instance, the other day, someone posted a harmless, inoffensive Kanye meme with Caitlyn Jenner in it, from one of those popular FB meme factories.
I clicked to look more closely at the picture, and so the comments came up. Truly shocking amounts of transphobia, all the way down the comments. And that's not uncommon, where Caitlyn Jenner is mentioned.
The term "PC" seems to have been mostly replaced at this point by "SJW", with anyone espousing any kind of left of centre or liberal viewpoint on social media, unless they carefully curate their content and friends, with a barrage of "go back to tumblr", "you PC bro?" and "shut up SJW cuck". And sometimes this can even be in response to things that aren't even political but just basic courtesy - such as referring to someone by their preferred gender.
And the desire to not be bombarded by a gaggle of idiots is now seen in and of itself as censorship. As in, people have the right to subject you to their endless shitty opinions on any given topic.
I don't think its as bad In Reality as it is online, but online definitely shows there are people out there who are willing to espouse and argue for some very shitty positions, so long as there is no reputational cost. More worryingly, it appears to have been picked up upon by a younger generation and political operatives - look at the wholesale takeoever of Gamergate (which was pretty shitty in the first place) by Breitbart and TheRedPill advocates, and repackaged into a culture war plot taken directly from the early 90s.
I'd guess that part of the reason for social media being such a shitheap would be in part due to the fact that these people are somewhat censored through the day. Imagine: Going 8 hours not being able to shout your stupid mouth off or you can't pay rent. So what do you do? Make a great big noise on facebook and the like about how it's VERY UNFAIR that you are oppressed by THEM. This would explain how people are (still) losing jobs due to whatever crap they posted on facebook, etc.
I'm open to other theories but I suspect that this or something close has a part in it.
Quote from: Sung Low on February 15, 2016, 06:49:41 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 14, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
The real problem, as I see it, is that we don't have any really biting slur for white people. "Honky" just doesn't cut it and "Cracker" and "WASP" only apply to subsets. If there was a good generic slur for white people that would restore the balance of the language much more smoothly and flowingly than political correctness.
Why try to add more hate speech into the world? Also, I don't think there's any slur that would sting white people on their own turf. In a country where white people are the minority words that would seem innocuous in America/Europe could start to have a bit of bite to them. I mean, fuck that noise wherever you are, but adding to it doesn't help.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 03:19:36 PM
Its too late for them. Their time has passed, and they are simply digging in their heels and trying to screech us back into the 20th century, when women were chicks, blacks were grateful, and retards were retards.
Who do you mean by retards?
I mean that in the 80's it was totally socially acceptable in some "edgy" circles to call people with cognitive disabilities "retards", and using it as an insult was commonplace. Very trashy, but commonplace nonetheless.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
I suppose the point is that you deal with as much racist (and such) bullshit as you allow around you.
I am not giving your post justice at the moment because I should really be getting ready to go to those academic halls, but this jumped out at me and I wanted to mention that it's only true, in our society, if you're white.
More later, that was a good post and I want to spend more time responding to it.
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2016, 10:22:03 AM
Unfortunately, I don't think such people are as in the past or dying off as we'd like to think. Social media's a difficult way to guage such things, but for instance, the other day, someone posted a harmless, inoffensive Kanye meme with Caitlyn Jenner in it, from one of those popular FB meme factories.
I clicked to look more closely at the picture, and so the comments came up. Truly shocking amounts of transphobia, all the way down the comments. And that's not uncommon, where Caitlyn Jenner is mentioned.
The term "PC" seems to have been mostly replaced at this point by "SJW", with anyone espousing any kind of left of centre or liberal viewpoint on social media, unless they carefully curate their content and friends, with a barrage of "go back to tumblr", "you PC bro?" and "shut up SJW cuck". And sometimes this can even be in response to things that aren't even political but just basic courtesy - such as referring to someone by their preferred gender.
And the desire to not be bombarded by a gaggle of idiots is now seen in and of itself as censorship. As in, people have the right to subject you to their endless shitty opinions on any given topic.
I don't think its as bad In Reality as it is online, but online definitely shows there are people out there who are willing to espouse and argue for some very shitty positions, so long as there is no reputational cost. More worryingly, it appears to have been picked up upon by a younger generation and political operatives - look at the wholesale takeoever of Gamergate (which was pretty shitty in the first place) by Breitbart and TheRedPill advocates, and repackaged into a culture war plot taken directly from the early 90s.
They're not dying off YET, because the bulk of them are relatively young. But I think they can feel the pressure of change coming down the turnpike, and that's why they're screeching about it.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
Something of an aside, but I suspect the value of PC relates directly to the industry you're dealing with. I would imagine you get far fewer blatant racists in the halls of academia than compared to building sites and wrecking yards.
For me, the irony here is that you find that humans can adapt to PC rather quickly once they understand that it relates to their ability to gain money. The further irony being that once so adapted, they will actually teach and enforce the behavior in others.
I suppose the point is that you deal with as much racist (and such) bullshit as you allow around you. I tolerate very little, because why the fuck should you? If the people you're working with aren't at least smart enough to shut the fuck up, they're probably fucking useless at their job too. It's anecdotal, but I've yet to encounter a guy throwing out racist shit who was actually good at their job. I've found that to be true in many industries. I suspect it's some combination of fear for their own continued employment mixed with a dash of the other and ignorance.
The problem is that a lot of it
isn't racist but has been labeled as such anyway. "Oriental" was never a slur, and neither was "black" or even "colored" for that matter. They certainly appeared in racially charged tirates made by racist people, but you could just as easily slot in any more modern synonyms and he tirade would be just as offensive.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 15, 2016, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Sung Low on February 15, 2016, 06:49:41 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 14, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
The real problem, as I see it, is that we don't have any really biting slur for white people. "Honky" just doesn't cut it and "Cracker" and "WASP" only apply to subsets. If there was a good generic slur for white people that would restore the balance of the language much more smoothly and flowingly than political correctness.
Why try to add more hate speech into the world? Also, I don't think there's any slur that would sting white people on their own turf. In a country where white people are the minority words that would seem innocuous in America/Europe could start to have a bit of bite to them. I mean, fuck that noise wherever you are, but adding to it doesn't help.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 14, 2016, 03:19:36 PM
Its too late for them. Their time has passed, and they are simply digging in their heels and trying to screech us back into the 20th century, when women were chicks, blacks were grateful, and retards were retards.
Who do you mean by retards?
I mean that in the 80's it was totally socially acceptable in some "edgy" circles to call people with cognitive disabilities "retards", and using it as an insult was commonplace. Very trashy, but commonplace nonetheless.
In he 80's it was acceptable in
psychiatry to say that people with intellectual disabilities were "retarded".
That's the fucking technical term!
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2016, 10:22:03 AMAnd sometimes this can even be in response to things that aren't even political but just basic courtesy - such as referring to someone by their preferred gender.
How you identify doesn't define your identity.
Only an emotionally unattached outside observer making empirical measurements can tell you who you are.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 15, 2016, 03:54:10 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
I suppose the point is that you deal with as much racist (and such) bullshit as you allow around you.
I am not giving your post justice at the moment because I should really be getting ready to go to those academic halls, but this jumped out at me and I wanted to mention that it's only true, in our society, if you're white.
More later, that was a good post and I want to spend more time responding to it.
Yeah, obviously the bias is from a pretty privileged position, generally. And also substitute Academia for any other relatively progressive-ish/ white collar environment. Or at least environments where you'd expect a general higher level of education/literacy/liberal(whatever that is) thinking. Interested to hear more, your perspective is quite helpful.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 15, 2016, 06:45:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2016, 10:22:03 AMAnd sometimes this can even be in response to things that aren't even political but just basic courtesy - such as referring to someone by their preferred gender.
How you identify doesn't define your identity.
Only an emotionally unattached outside observer making empirical measurements can tell you who you are.
:roll:
Plus, if you really buy into how we talk about people influencing equality, then we should give "he" and "she" a pass and refer to everyone using singular "they". That's equality.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 15, 2016, 08:43:07 PM
Plus, if you really buy into how we talk about people influencing equality, then we should give "he" and "she" a pass and refer to everyone using singular "they". That's equality.
And Esperanto should be the universal language, what's your point? Besides that you're being a colossal toolbag in this thread?
Because you're half-assing this. If you're already gonna change how you use pronouns to promote equality that's the change you should be making.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 16, 2016, 04:35:59 PM
Because you're half-assing this. If you're already gonna change how you use pronouns to promote equality that's the change you should be making.
Has anyone ever explained to you that when members of the oppressing class show up to tell the oppressed how they're doing the struggle wrong, it does not end well?
Common courtesy is not FULL COMMUNISM, comrade.
Contemplating asking for a thread split just to clear out all the Shandor.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
Something of an aside, but I suspect the value of PC relates directly to the industry you're dealing with. I would imagine you get far fewer blatant racists in the halls of academia than compared to building sites and wrecking yards.
For me, the irony here is that you find that humans can adapt to PC rather quickly once they understand that it relates to their ability to gain money. The further irony being that once so adapted, they will actually teach and enforce the behavior in others.
I suppose the point is that you deal with as much racist (and such) bullshit as you allow around you. I tolerate very little, because why the fuck should you? If the people you're working with aren't at least smart enough to shut the fuck up, they're probably fucking useless at their job too. It's anecdotal, but I've yet to encounter a guy throwing out racist shit who was actually good at their job. I've found that to be true in many industries. I suspect it's some combination of fear for their own continued employment mixed with a dash of the other and ignorance.
So basically I wanted to say that you have made a couple of really good points here. One is that it's not actually that hard to be a considerate human being who takes into account the perspectives and feelings of those around you, as evidenced by the fact that, as you say, people seem to manage it if their jobs depend on it.
The other is that if you happen to be in a position of authority, you do get to make the rules about acceptable behavior. So, if you are an executive, you get to say "I won't tolerate the word faggot in my office". However, if you are a cleaning lady, you don't get to say "I won't tolerate being referred to as 'girl' in my workplace".
What you often end up with is people who are used to making the decisions, who think they have a right to make the decisions, feeling angry because they are being told "don't call the cleaning lady 'girl', it's sexist and rude". But they KNOW deep inside that they are good people, so something that comes easily to them, that they don't even think about, can't possibly be sexist and rude. On top of that, they feel like they're taking orders from below. This is what happens when common courtesy and basic decency butt heads with privilege.
Shandor, with his insistence that he should get to define other people's feelings and identity, exemplifies this.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 11:24:05 AM
I'd guess that part of the reason for social media being such a shitheap would be in part due to the fact that these people are somewhat censored through the day. Imagine: Going 8 hours not being able to shout your stupid mouth off or you can't pay rent. So what do you do? Make a great big noise on facebook and the like about how it's VERY UNFAIR that you are oppressed by THEM. This would explain how people are (still) losing jobs due to whatever crap they posted on facebook, etc.
I'm open to other theories but I suspect that this or something close has a part in it.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. It's essentially the same impulse that leads to Ayn Rand Libertarianism: "I AM better than everyone else, but Those People won't LET me be better. It's THEIR FAULT."
I didn't say that I should get to define other people. I said that they are defined, as we all are, by an unfeeling external reality
And, on top of that, there is the common inability to separate the concept of behaving badly from the concept of being a bad person. Unfortunately, if you can't separate those two things, if every single time someone tells you that your behavior is bad you interpret that as them YOU are bad, that if they tell you that you said something kind of racist it means they are saying YOU ARE A GODDAMN NAZI, it becomes almost impossible to simply accept criticism, let alone change behaviors.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 16, 2016, 06:10:33 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
Something of an aside, but I suspect the value of PC relates directly to the industry you're dealing with. I would imagine you get far fewer blatant racists in the halls of academia than compared to building sites and wrecking yards.
For me, the irony here is that you find that humans can adapt to PC rather quickly once they understand that it relates to their ability to gain money. The further irony being that once so adapted, they will actually teach and enforce the behavior in others.
I suppose the point is that you deal with as much racist (and such) bullshit as you allow around you. I tolerate very little, because why the fuck should you? If the people you're working with aren't at least smart enough to shut the fuck up, they're probably fucking useless at their job too. It's anecdotal, but I've yet to encounter a guy throwing out racist shit who was actually good at their job. I've found that to be true in many industries. I suspect it's some combination of fear for their own continued employment mixed with a dash of the other and ignorance.
So basically I wanted to say that you have made a couple of really good points here. One is that it's not actually that hard to be a considerate human being who takes into account the perspectives and feelings of those around you, as evidenced by the fact that, as you say, people seem to manage it if their jobs depend on it.
The other is that if you happen to be in a position of authority, you do get to make the rules about acceptable behavior. So, if you are an executive, you get to say "I won't tolerate the word faggot in my office". However, if you are a cleaning lady, you don't get to say "I won't tolerate being referred to as 'girl' in my workplace".
What you often end up with is people who are used to making the decisions, who think they have a right to make the decisions, feeling angry because they are being told "don't call the cleaning lady 'girl', it's sexist and rude". But they KNOW deep inside that they are good people, so something that comes easily to them, that they don't even think about, can't possibly be sexist and rude. On top of that, they feel like they're taking orders from below. This is what happens when common courtesy and basic decency butt heads with privilege.
Shandor, with his insistence that he should get to define other people's feelings and identity, exemplifies this.
Bit of a tangent, but if the cleaning lady is part of a union, or even just a sizeable company like merry maids, then that organization does have the power to insist that their members not be called girl.
What differentiates talk about "privelege" from sour grapes? I genuinely don't understand this . It all seems to carry the distinct (though usually not explicitly spoken) implication that just because Fortuna has shit on someone else a little bit less than she's shit on you that that somehow makes them a bad or ignorant person.
I hate you more than hangnails.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 16, 2016, 08:16:04 PM
What differentiates talk about "privelege" from sour grapes? I genuinely don't understand this . It all seems to carry the distinct (though usually not explicitly spoken) implication that just because Fortuna has shit on someone else a little bit less than she's shit on you that that somehow makes them a bad or ignorant person.
You know, the two reasons why I view the privilege discussion as relevant are embodied by people like you.
First, you won't listen because you
can't listen, but I'm going to try once to get this across, the same way it was finally made plain to me: Privilege isn't something you do or a quality of your personality, it is something that
happens to you. If you have any control over it, it's not privilege.
Second, because you take the time out of your day to make sure everyone knows that you have nothing but contempt for their situation. This is why you are a shitneck. This is why you will continue to bleat your outrage over other peoples' outrage. You are the reason mommy drinks, son.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2016, 08:29:50 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 16, 2016, 08:16:04 PM
What differentiates talk about "privelege" from sour grapes? I genuinely don't understand this . It all seems to carry the distinct (though usually not explicitly spoken) implication that just because Fortuna has shit on someone else a little bit less than she's shit on you that that somehow makes them a bad or ignorant person.
You know, the two reasons why I view the privilege discussion as relevant are embodied by people like you.
First, you won't listen because you can't listen, but I'm going to try once to get this across, the same way it was finally made plain to me: Privilege isn't something you do or a quality of your personality, it is something that happens to you. If you have any control over it, it's not privilege.
I understand that. That is precisely the crux of why I take issue to the fact that people (at least seem to) judge people for it. It's a pejorative synonym for "luck"
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 16, 2016, 09:10:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2016, 08:29:50 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 16, 2016, 08:16:04 PM
What differentiates talk about "privelege" from sour grapes? I genuinely don't understand this . It all seems to carry the distinct (though usually not explicitly spoken) implication that just because Fortuna has shit on someone else a little bit less than she's shit on you that that somehow makes them a bad or ignorant person.
You know, the two reasons why I view the privilege discussion as relevant are embodied by people like you.
First, you won't listen because you can't listen, but I'm going to try once to get this across, the same way it was finally made plain to me: Privilege isn't something you do or a quality of your personality, it is something that happens to you. If you have any control over it, it's not privilege.
I understand that. That is precisely the crux of why I take issue to the fact that people (at least seem to) judge people for it. It's a pejorative synonym for "luck"
No, what you took issue with was the OP, in which it was fairly clearly explained that political correctness is merely "not being a bigot". It was a very simple notion, yet you were compelled to argue the point. Why?
Because that's far from the usual definition of the term, if that's all he was trying to say than I suppose I was confused
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 16, 2016, 10:11:24 PM
Because that's not the usual definition of the term
It is very much the usual definition of the term. There is only one definition for the term. To be politically correct is to avoid using terms that are unnecessarily offensive to people. That's all it ever meant.
In any case, I'm done arguing with you. I live in Arizona, there are loads of willfully-dense motherfuckers I can laugh at in person.
Quote from: Pergamos on February 16, 2016, 08:00:07 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 16, 2016, 06:10:33 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
Something of an aside, but I suspect the value of PC relates directly to the industry you're dealing with. I would imagine you get far fewer blatant racists in the halls of academia than compared to building sites and wrecking yards.
For me, the irony here is that you find that humans can adapt to PC rather quickly once they understand that it relates to their ability to gain money. The further irony being that once so adapted, they will actually teach and enforce the behavior in others.
I suppose the point is that you deal with as much racist (and such) bullshit as you allow around you. I tolerate very little, because why the fuck should you? If the people you're working with aren't at least smart enough to shut the fuck up, they're probably fucking useless at their job too. It's anecdotal, but I've yet to encounter a guy throwing out racist shit who was actually good at their job. I've found that to be true in many industries. I suspect it's some combination of fear for their own continued employment mixed with a dash of the other and ignorance.
So basically I wanted to say that you have made a couple of really good points here. One is that it's not actually that hard to be a considerate human being who takes into account the perspectives and feelings of those around you, as evidenced by the fact that, as you say, people seem to manage it if their jobs depend on it.
The other is that if you happen to be in a position of authority, you do get to make the rules about acceptable behavior. So, if you are an executive, you get to say "I won't tolerate the word faggot in my office". However, if you are a cleaning lady, you don't get to say "I won't tolerate being referred to as 'girl' in my workplace".
What you often end up with is people who are used to making the decisions, who think they have a right to make the decisions, feeling angry because they are being told "don't call the cleaning lady 'girl', it's sexist and rude". But they KNOW deep inside that they are good people, so something that comes easily to them, that they don't even think about, can't possibly be sexist and rude. On top of that, they feel like they're taking orders from below. This is what happens when common courtesy and basic decency butt heads with privilege.
Shandor, with his insistence that he should get to define other people's feelings and identity, exemplifies this.
Bit of a tangent, but if the cleaning lady is part of a union, or even just a sizeable company like merry maids, then that organization does have the power to insist that their members not be called girl.
Yeah. The person at the top gets to make that decision for a sizable company.
Unions exist for the above reason.
I think a lot of the "anti-PC" crowd are the kind of people who won't call a Mexican a "Spic" to their faces, but will freely do it when they think they're among non-Hispanic peers.
Like, they play at being polite while still harboring bigotry, and they think everyone else does the same thing. So they feel they're speaking Truth to Power when they deride PC.
Whereas, I feel the point of PC is to understand that by using those pejoratives, they reflect an underlying bigotry that should be addressed, and changing the language used is the first step to reminding yourself of that and slowly fixing your attitudes.
Quote from: LMNO on February 17, 2016, 03:49:45 PM
I think a lot of the "anti-PC" crowd are the kind of people who won't call a Mexican a "Spic" to their faces, but will freely do it when they think they're among non-Hispanic peers.
Like, they play at being polite while still harboring bigotry, and they think everyone else does the same thing. So they feel they're speaking Truth to Power when they deride PC.
Whereas, I feel the point of PC is to understand that by using those pejoratives, they reflect an underlying bigotry that should be addressed, and changing the language used is the first step to reminding yourself of that and slowly fixing your attitudes.
Those are good points. I find it interesting that many of them target Tumblr communities as an example of what is wrong with PC, which to me makes as much sense as targeting Club Penguin communities. Tumblr users are heavily skewed toward the under-18 set; they believe all kinds of stupid things, like that David Bowie was an actual Nazi. If you're elevating children to the level of opponents, you don't have an argument at all.
Quote from: LMNO on February 17, 2016, 03:49:45 PM
I think a lot of the "anti-PC" crowd are the kind of people who won't call a Mexican a "Spic" to their faces, but will freely do it when they think they're among non-Hispanic peers.
Like, they play at being polite while still harboring bigotry, and they think everyone else does the same thing. So they feel they're speaking Truth to Power when they deride PC.
Whereas, I feel the point of PC is to understand that by using those pejoratives, they reflect an underlying bigotry that should be addressed, and changing the language used is the first step to reminding yourself of that and slowly fixing your attitudes.
I think most peo-le who complain about political correctness don't mean the kind of political correctness where you can't say "spic", "slant-eye" "n*****", or "savage", I think most of them are complaining about the kind of political correctness - and this is the typical definition of the term that most people mean when they say "politically correct" - where you can't even say things like "oriental", "black", or "indian", which were never meant to be pejorative but which some people are inexplicably offended by anyway.
EDIT:
Of course, "indian" for native americans has the admittedly serious problem of it's literal meaning being different from it's intended meaning, but the term "native american" has problems in that area too, and in any case these are issues of inaccuracy rather than insult
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 17, 2016, 05:06:47 AM
Unions exist for the above reason.
More of a progress check than any real relevance to thread:
How are unions in the US doing lately? Still scorned and reviled as the ultimate evil you can perpetrate against job creators?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184622/americans-support-labor-unions-continues-recover.aspx
%
Here's an interesting article on that question. Approval is at 58% nationwide, it says, the highest it's been since 2009.
Thanks! That's a pleasant surprise.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on February 18, 2016, 07:54:22 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184622/americans-support-labor-unions-continues-recover.aspx
%
Here's an interesting article on that question. Approval is at 58% nationwide, it says, the highest it's been since 2009.
What a GODDAMN RELIEF. I'm glad the US finally figured out that no, the labor unions aren't just collecting dues for nothing, no matter what the GOP tells them.
What I find interesting is that people either want them to have more influence or less influence, but mostly we don't them to have the same amount of influence. Also that women favor unions over men. I wonder why?
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on February 18, 2016, 08:45:06 PM
What I find interesting is that people either want them to have more influence or less influence, but mostly we don't them to have the same amount of influence. Also that women favor unions over men. I wonder why?
I suspect it's related to the uneven distribution of emotional labor. Women are expected to remember minutia about extended family members, which means my sister and I both know that my mom's family was held together after her mother's death in large part due to her father's union, but my brother doesn't.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on February 18, 2016, 08:45:06 PM
What I find interesting is that people either want them to have more influence or less influence, but mostly we don't them to have the same amount of influence. Also that women favor unions over men. I wonder why?
Guessing: Women are less susceptible to the "rugged individualist" bullshit?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 18, 2016, 08:48:42 PM
Guessing: Women are less susceptible to the "rugged individualist" bullshit?
Maybe. I am not sure that rugged individualism is what fuels the desire to not have unions, though. But I don't really even understand anything about this subject so :?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 18, 2016, 08:48:20 PM
I suspect it's related to the uneven distribution of emotional labor. Women are expected to remember minutia about extended family members, which means my sister and I both know that my mom's family was held together after her mother's death in large part due to her father's union, but my brother doesn't.
Huh. That's a thing.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 18, 2016, 08:48:20 PM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on February 18, 2016, 08:45:06 PM
What I find interesting is that people either want them to have more influence or less influence, but mostly we don't them to have the same amount of influence. Also that women favor unions over men. I wonder why?
I suspect it's related to the uneven distribution of emotional labor. Women are expected to remember minutia about extended family members, which means my sister and I both know that my mom's family was held together after her mother's death in large part due to her father's union, but my brother doesn't.
I think this is a really good point.