Politically Correct

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Unions exist for the above reason.

[LMNO]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

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

[Junkenstein]

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?

[Freeky]

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. 

[Junkenstein]

Thanks! That's a pleasant surprise.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Freeky]

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?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?

[Freeky]

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 

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.