|
|
Post by Liberator on Dec 30, 2009 1:14:36 GMT
Political Correctness usually applies to two slightly different things. One is people wanting to be offensive about others, or people wanting to silence assessment of themselves by calling it 'offensive'. The other is organisations presuming what others might find offensive, or deemed to have done so by conservatives even though the reality is rather different.
To presume what others might find offensive without actually consulting them and without requiring similar suppression from them is patronising in the extreme.
To declare anything you don't like to hear 'offensive' is only a return to 'Victorian' euphemism to shut dissent up. On the other hand, to jabber about the 'innocence' of jokes and remarks that lose any point except when directed at specific groups is equally underhand.
Personally, I think PC, where it genuinely exists, does more harm than good. It transfers prejudice from the thing to the word used for it, so preserves prejudice against the thing. All that happens is that in a very short time, the new euphemism becomes as tainted as the old because the underlying prejudice was never addressed. I'm with Lenny Bruce's famous extempore on this one when he ran through every pejorative term to wear them out. PC has the opposite effect, of giving them power. I believe in 'reclaiming' words (an incorrect term since they were never 'claimed' in the first place).
I refer to Enoch Powell's infamous 1969 racist speech of the river foaming with much blood that still has not come true, to show that it is not the words that matter, it is the sense. Powell never used a pejorative word in his life - and that made his racist speeches all the more poisonous.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 30, 2009 14:43:04 GMT
Political Correctness usually applies to two slightly different things. One is people wanting to be offensive about others, or people wanting to silence assessment of themselves by calling it 'offensive'. The other is organisations presuming what others might find offensive, or deemed to have done so by conservatives even though the reality is rather different. To presume what others might find offensive without actually consulting them and without requiring similar suppression from them is patronising in the extreme. To declare anything you don't like to hear 'offensive' is only a return to 'Victorian' euphemism to shut dissent up. On the other hand, to jabber about the 'innocence' of jokes and remarks that lose any point except when directed at specific groups is equally underhand. Personally, I think PC, where it genuinely exists, does more harm than good. It transfers prejudice from the thing to the word used for it, so preserves prejudice against the thing. All that happens is that in a very short time, the new euphemism becomes as tainted as the old because the underlying prejudice was never addressed. I'm with Lenny Bruce's famous extempore on this one when he ran through every pejorative term to wear them out. PC has the opposite effect, of giving them power. I believe in 'reclaiming' words (an incorrect term since they were never 'claimed' in the first place). I refer to Enoch Powell's infamous 1969 racist speech of the river foaming with much blood that still has not come true, to show that it is not the words that matter, it is the sense. Powell never used a pejorative word in his life - and that made his racist speeches all the more poisonous. you get to be fairly correct, even though you have the basics wrong. the FACT is that, NO ONE has a right to not be offended, and EVERYONE does have the right to offend. anyone who is offended by ANYTHING allows it. NO ONE can offend you without your consent, and if you choose to be offended by something, it is SOLELY because of YOUR character deficiency, not by what anyone says or does
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 30, 2009 17:00:40 GMT
Political Correctness usually applies to two slightly different things. One is people wanting to be offensive about others, or people wanting to silence assessment of themselves by calling it 'offensive'. The other is organisations presuming what others might find offensive, or deemed to have done so by conservatives even though the reality is rather different. To presume what others might find offensive without actually consulting them and without requiring similar suppression from them is patronising in the extreme. To declare anything you don't like to hear 'offensive' is only a return to 'Victorian' euphemism to shut dissent up. On the other hand, to jabber about the 'innocence' of jokes and remarks that lose any point except when directed at specific groups is equally underhand. Personally, I think PC, where it genuinely exists, does more harm than good. It transfers prejudice from the thing to the word used for it, so preserves prejudice against the thing. All that happens is that in a very short time, the new euphemism becomes as tainted as the old because the underlying prejudice was never addressed. I'm with Lenny Bruce's famous extempore on this one when he ran through every pejorative term to wear them out. PC has the opposite effect, of giving them power. I believe in 'reclaiming' words (an incorrect term since they were never 'claimed' in the first place). I refer to Enoch Powell's infamous 1969 racist speech of the river foaming with much blood that still has not come true, to show that it is not the words that matter, it is the sense. Powell never used a pejorative word in his life - and that made his racist speeches all the more poisonous. Yeah, I see what you're saying and pretty much agree, especially with the part about words wielding too much power. However, i know full well that in real life, I wouldn't go along with it. Some things that are PC are also common decency. Anyone with the ability to empathize - even a little - knows that calling someone who has less than average mental abilities a "retard" is hurtful. Yet, until PC came along it was totally accepted by mainstream conventions. Another good example is labeling children whose parents are not married as b*stards. That seems almost archaic and bizarre now, but as recently as mid 20th century it was the norm - no less painful then, but most people just didn't care. Now, of course, there's too much PC. Human nature seems to dictate that when something is good, a LOT of that something must be better. So, while we're trying to get out from under the burden of over-much PC, let's please not revert to the old, coarse, cruel habits that caused the need for political correctness in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Dec 30, 2009 17:11:02 GMT
In the UK we seem to be in the grip of a collective madness when it comes to P.C. A remark, or a crime becomes "racist" if it is perceived as such by a person making a complaint. It doesn't matter if the alleged offender meant to be offensive or not. An assault will attract a more severe penalty if the victim perceives it to be racist in nature. So do not get into an argument with a person of colour, if you know what is good for you. And that is simply stupid, IMHO.
And because we bend over backwards to accommodate every ethnic minority, and every sexual orientation, and every physical attribute, everyday speech is literally a minefield. Examples abound. We cannot use traditional expressions like "getting to the nitty gritty" (slavery connotations) We even had a bingo caller informed that the traditional call of "two fat ladies" for 88 was verboten in case fat people took offence.
Jumbo is partly right, although he over eggs the pudding. Insulting words do not cause physical injury, and at best are mildly annoying. And attempts by "authority" to impose a censorship of thought and speech is big brother writ large. People have lost their jobs, their livelihood and in some cases their freedom for some injudicious remark. And this, in my view is a gross over-reaction, and totally wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 30, 2009 19:44:25 GMT
An excellent post, Ben, with which I basically agree.
On the other hand, there are still some areas where there clearly IS hurt intended by the words being used. It's not true that 'sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me' because words DO hurt.
As someone who's been racially abused myself (mainly, ironically, by my former Asian neighbours in South London!) for being a gypsy; as someone who's a woman that has had to put up with being called a slag, a slapper, a whore, a slut, a bitch and other charming names:
Well, what I find is this.
Why is a man who sleeps around 'a bit of a lad' while a woman who does it is a 'horny slut' or worse?
Why is it OK for people to call me a gypsy but not for me to call them Pakis? (I've even been challenged on the word 'gadje!')
I actually have mixed feelings about political correctness.
Of course it's become barking mad these days (though Mike tells me it was even worse in the 1980s - something about 'baa baa green sheep' and stuff like that) but we ought to ask ourselves WHY political correctness came into being in the first place.
Basically, it was because people wanted to be polite instead of being rude and they realised that calling people niggers, wogs, and so on was just wrong!
OK, like so many good ideas it got twisted into an institution and an industry BUT it had its place and even now it STILL has its good side.
Just thought I'd play devil's advocate in response to a post that I pretty well agree with by Ben.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Dec 30, 2009 20:47:46 GMT
Yeah, I see what you're saying and pretty much agree, especially with the part about words wielding too much power. However, i know full well that in real life, I wouldn't go along with it. Some things that are PC are also common decency. Anyone with the ability to empathize - even a little - knows that calling someone who has less than average mental abilities a "retard" is hurtful. Yet, until PC came along it was totally accepted by mainstream conventions. Another good example is labeling children whose parents are not married as b*stards. That seems almost archaic and bizarre now, but as recently as mid 20th century it was the norm - no less painful then, but most people just didn't care. I see your point but there's just the trouble. Words can be used offensively when they are not intended literally. It would be offensive to call somebody of normal development 'retarded' but I am at a loss as to what to call anybody else whose intellectual or emotional development is much less mature than expected. As far as I am concerned 'retarded' is a perfectly respectable term when used literally. Likewise, I couldn't care less about being born a bastard. It's never bothered me and never will. The difference I suppose, is that some words have only ever been used with offensive intent. Some Roma get annoyed at being called Gypsies because they are not from Egypt. But the term is traditional and neutral. On the other hand, gypsy has always been used, at the very best slightingly and carries offensive implications. I find it annoying that because American race prejudice has made a succession of words offensive for brown people, I am required to find them offensive too! When I was growing up 'the N-word' as we must call it, was perfectly normal respectable usage. If you wanted to be insulting, the term was w-o-g (which Americans do not use unless they are Scientologists and this checker will not allow in one word). As for Lin's hoary (whory?) old question I think the answers are: it's not true, only some women keep saying it. It is harder for a man to get a woman into bed than vice-versa, so can carry more kudos. In a lot of cases, men who'll sleep with anything and everything attract just as much contempt as women with an equal lack of discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 30, 2009 20:56:20 GMT
In the UK we seem to be in the grip of a collective madness when it comes to P.C. A remark, or a crime becomes "racist" if it is perceived as such by a person making a complaint. It doesn't matter if the alleged offender meant to be offensive or not. An assault will attract a more severe penalty if the victim perceives it to be racist in nature. So do not get into an argument with a person of colour, if you know what is good for you. And that is simply stupid, IMHO. And because we bend over backwards to accommodate every ethnic minority, and every sexual orientation, and every physical attribute, everyday speech is literally a minefield. Examples abound. We cannot use traditional expressions like "getting to the nitty gritty" (slavery connotations) We even had a bingo caller informed that the traditional call of "two fat ladies" for 88 was verboten in case fat people took offence. Jumbo is partly right, although he over eggs the pudding. Insulting words do not cause physical injury, and at best are mildly annoying. And attempts by "authority" to impose a censorship of thought and speech is big brother writ large. People have lost their jobs, their livelihood and in some cases their freedom for some injudicious remark. And this, in my view is a gross over-reaction, and totally wrong! in grade school, which was a hell of a long time ago for me, we used to say "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me". that is the ABSOLUTE reality. as you said, words have NEVER physically harmed anyone. if words harm you in ANY way, it is because of a lack of character on your part for allowing them to, and feeling hurt along with that goes the fact that there is NOTHING that anyone can say to you that justifies a physical response. the intelligent thing to do is make a funny comment back, and if they have such a lack of character as to assault you, stomp their azz into the ground
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 30, 2009 21:02:27 GMT
An excellent post, Ben, with which I basically agree. On the other hand, there are still some areas where there clearly IS hurt intended by the words being used. It's not true that 'sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me' because words DO hurt. As someone who's been racially abused myself (mainly, ironically, by my former Asian neighbours in South London!) for being a gypsy; as someone who's a woman that has had to put up with being called a slag, a slapper, a whore, a slut, a bitch and other charming names: Well, what I find is this. Why is a man who sleeps around 'a bit of a lad' while a woman who does it is a 'horny slut' or worse? Why is it OK for people to call me a gypsy but not for me to call them Pakis? (I've even been challenged on the word 'gadje!') I actually have mixed feelings about political correctness. Of course it's become barking mad these days (though Mike tells me it was even worse in the 1980s - something about 'baa baa green sheep' and stuff like that) but we ought to ask ourselves WHY political correctness came into being in the first place. Basically, it was because people wanted to be polite instead of being rude and they realised that calling people niggers, wogs, and so on was just wrong! OK, like so many good ideas it got twisted into an institution and an industry BUT it had its place and even now it STILL has its good side. Just thought I'd play devil's advocate in response to a post that I pretty well agree with by Ben. It's not true that 'sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me' because words DO hurt. yeah hon, as i said, it IS true. only by your willingly allowing it to hurt, can it. there has NEVER been a need for pc, especially institutionalized pc. as ben lommond said, it is NOTHING more than the orwellian thought police at work
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Dec 30, 2009 21:06:41 GMT
Obviously name-calling in itself means nothing except to identify sources of irrational hate. Were they rational, they would have more explicit things to say. However, if you don't believe that lies and innuendo can have serious consequences, remember the result of calling somebody Queer or Commie or Witch in former times - or in some parts of the world today.
|
|