Against Political Correctness

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Brilliantly written as usual.

I agree with many of the ideas you put forth but if your intention is anything beyond affirming conservative grievance programming, I'd find a way of saying it without using the term political correctness.

Political correctness is a pejorative bludgeon that conservative bullies have abused for decades, even as they remain oblivious to their own culture of demanding strict dogmatic adherence within their ranks and efforts to suppress ideas outside the canon of their ideological orthodoxy.

Similar to how using the term virtue signaling is in some regards, virtue signaling, bemoaning political correctness is exactly what is expected from a politically correct conservative.

I think you'll find that many on the Left find the sanctimonious furor over words, particularly commonplace words, to be as useless, self-serving and ultimately harmful to us all as you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

People hide behind the term.

"It's not censorship, it's being politically correct."

Who does this? Certainly I don't know every person on the Left nor have I heard every word they've uttered or read every sentence they've typed, but I cannot recall ever seeing anyone on the Left using political correctness in that way.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: DBCowboy

People hide behind the term.

"It's not censorship, it's being politically correct."

Who does this? Certainly I don't know every person on the Left nor have I heard every word they've uttered or read every sentence they've typed, but I cannot recall ever seeing anyone on the Left using political correctness in that way.

Everything, including trivial things like Trump hats, being "HATE SPEECH". No implicit or explicit subtext ever comes along with that term and discussions / rants along those lines?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

No. There's no common non-pejorative usage of "political correctness."

a reply to: theantediluvian

Okay, then Mr. Conservative, what is the proper vernacular for it then? Give us the whole breakdown, yo.

ATTENTION PLEASE!

You are not in the Mud Pit so please keep it clean. No Political Trolling and no personal attacks.

Thanks and do not reply to this post.

edit on 10/13/2017 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Brilliantly written as usual.

I agree with many of the ideas you put forth but if your intention is anything beyond affirming conservative grievance programming, I'd find a way of saying it without using the term political correctness.

Political correctness is a pejorative bludgeon that conservative bullies have abused for decades, even as they remain oblivious to their own culture of demanding strict dogmatic adherence within their ranks and efforts to suppress ideas outside the canon of their ideological orthodoxy.

Similar to how using the term virtue signaling is in some regards, virtue signaling, bemoaning political correctness is exactly what is expected from a politically correct conservative.

I think you'll find that many on the Left find the sanctimonious furor over words, particularly commonplace words, to be as useless, self-serving and ultimately harmful to us all as you.

That’s simply untrue on the basis that liberals, such as Nick Cohen or Robert Hughes or Bill Maher, also use the term. But you would know that had you actually looked into the matter. The only problem is not enough of the left-wing are standing up to it.

Virtue-signalling, on the other hand, captures perfectly the phenomenon of the fake activism used to display ones false sense of virtue. A good example is Harvey Weinstein’s claims he wanted to help women in the industry by starting a foundation named after his mother. Oftentimes virtue-signalling is a way to disguise one’s moral shortcomings.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That’s simply untrue on the basis that liberals, such as Nick Cohen or Robert Hughes or Bill Maher, also use the term. But you would know that had you actually looked into the matter. The only problem is not enough of the left-wing are standing up to it.

You're awfully quick to make assumptions for someone who is fond of admonishing others for assuming the worst in people. You converse with a number of American leftists on a daily basis but not nearly as many as I do, being one myself.

Nick Cohen is British and not particularly relevant to American anything. Robert Hughes has been dead for how long? Neither figure prominently in the zeitgeist of the American Left. And I'm well aware of Bill Maher. I've actually met Bill Maher and I'll be watching Real Time in about fifteen minutes.

Bill Maher can use political correctness and have people listen because he's of the Left and when he does it, it comes across as an almost ironic use of the term in self-policing. It's understood that he's using it in a way that would be akin to saying, "Listen guys, don't be the caricature the Right paints you as."

You on the other hand are not Bil Maher, not a Leftist and you're a frequent critic of the Left bordering on conservative polemic. When you use it, it will be taken as a pejorative. And I'd argue, rightly so.

I was just trying to give you insight that might help you to more effectively communicate with people in my demographic. If you truly believe you know better than I, by all means, preach to the choir until you're hoarse.



EDIT to add:

Virtue-signalling, on the other hand, captures perfectly the phenomenon of the fake activism used to display ones false sense of virtue. A good example is Harvey Weinstein’s claims he wanted to help women in the industry by starting a foundation named after his mother. Oftentimes virtue-signalling is a way to disguise one’s moral shortcomings.

Captures perfectly for whom? There are plenty of people on the Left who will argue that white privilege perfectly captures a set of societal advantages experienced by the racial majority in the US. Do you think that American conservatives are likely to ever take seriously the concept embodied by the term because Leftists keep telling them that they've got white privilege?

Virtue signaling is a conservative buzzword, used pejoratively to describe behavior by those on the Left. It's got little to no chance of shifting to a politically neutral connotation. Are right-wingers going to start using it to describe how they superficially signal their own conservative virtues to the conservative tribe? I'm sure that will take root right after they start criticizing themselves by identifying dog whistles.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I say that because the whole “cudgel” argument, right down to the exact terminology, has been made plenty of times before. As I tried to show was that your statement was categorically untrue. The fact that they are deceased or of a different country than yours says absolutely nothing of their arguments, but instead proves fallacy is your only way out of talking about it.

Call me anything you want.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: DBCowboy

People hide behind the term.

"It's not censorship, it's being politically correct."

Who does this? Certainly I don't know every person on the Left nor have I heard every word they've uttered or read every sentence they've typed, but I cannot recall ever seeing anyone on the Left using political correctness in that way.

***SNIP*** My belief is that you are for censorship. I have seen nothing that indicates that you are an advocate for freedom.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Interesting you point that out.

Who says please and thank you anymore?

I do. We do. We're teaching it to our kid, but when you run around into strangers, how often do they generally say please and thank you anymore these days?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You would think with your penchant for verbosity, you would appreciate all the extra words. This honestly, is the stupidest contention between the left and right that exists. Both sides are essentially saying: "Stop talking like that".

Please explain how I am oppressing anyone if I choose the word disabled over crippled. Hasn't it always been this way as well? The way we speak in 'polite society' is different than how we speak with our friends.

No one seemed to have a problem with that until it was no longer acceptable to use pejoratives as identifiers, due to the gradual acceptance that those identified by pejorative were equal.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What's your belief about Trump stating that certain media should lose their licenses?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You would think with your penchant for verbosity, you would appreciate all the extra words. This honestly, is the stupidest contention between the left and right that exists. Both sides are essentially saying: "Stop talking like that".

Please explain how I am oppressing anyone if I choose the word disabled over crippled. Hasn't it always been this way as well? The way we speak in 'polite society' is different than how we speak with our friends.

No one seemed to have a problem with that until it was no longer acceptable to use pejoratives as identifiers, due to the gradual acceptance that those identified by pejorative were equal.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So why aren't 'politically correct' words, just words? Why aren't those words neutral.

I loved Carlin, I like Maher too but I think anyone who is so hung up on how people speak and what words they use has some sort of mental defect retardation.

You can use any words you like, anywhere you like, at least in America... you just aren't immune to the consequences. I don't buy the whole: "You can't say that!". You can, you just might lack the courage to do so. You can also say horrible things using politically correct language and be just as ostracized for it because ultimately it isn't your words... it's because you're a jerk (not you specifically, of course).

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So why aren't 'politically correct' words, just words? Why aren't those words neutral.

I loved Carlin, I like Maher too but I think anyone who is so hung up on how people speak and what words they use has some sort of mental defect retardation.

You can use any words you like, anywhere you like, at least in America... you just aren't immune to the consequences. I don't buy the whole: "You can't say that!". You can, you just might lack the courage to do so. You can also say horrible things using politically correct language and be just as ostracized for it because ultimately it isn't your words... it's because you're a jerk (not you specifically, of course).

I understand you don’t buy it, but it’s not about being nice and respectful. It’s a form of censorship. It’s no different in intention than the Inquisition.

I can also understand that because conservatives rail against it, that those opposed to conservatives wish not to do the same. It simply isn’t a right/left issue, but one that threatens our language, our art, our education, and our freedom of inquiry. This is something every rational person, right or left, oiled get behind.

I know you are personally supportive of free speech. There are some great left-leaning books, for instance Robert Hugh’s “Culture of Complaint”, or Jonathon Rauch’s “Kindly Inquisitors” (both have a lot to say about right-wing and religious censorship) that might inspire you to take a well-needed stand against this form of totalitarianism, before it ruins it for everyone.

The way I see it, the USA is suffering from a lack of social cohesiveness.
The sheer size of the country (see Dunbar's Number) coupled with the shared values upon individuality set the stage for a problem in this area over time. The cultural revolution of the 1960's and '70's sped up this process, I think.

Humans being social animals, with a more or less conscious drive towards social cohesiveness gave forth the "culture wars" in which the sense of social belonging could be found in small local gatherings. We identify with others in our vicinity and form a sense of identification with others. Personal contact and grooming is a base (most primitive) way we form social groups.

Interpersonal attraction develops based on similarities of members, in background, attitudes, values, and personality traits.

In smaller groups, this is easy to percieve - think of high school and the various groups kids identify with, which are highly based up the "look"- the way one dresses, styles their hair, the insignia and symbols they surround their bodies and possessions with.
As they attract to each other based upon appearence, their activities further this sense of belonging.

Entry difficulty acts as a social glue- the harder it is to get in, the more prestigious the group is percieved, the more attraction it holds.

We can understand then, how our early formation as a nation of immigrants from different backgrounds set up some hurdles to cohesiveness. Though once in, striving to adapt to the current styles and common values gave one hope for developing sense of belonging.

Outside of the most local and small groups, language is the best way to spread social cohesiveness over space. Language acts as a vehicle for values- not only in what is said, but how it is said. The choice of words carries an implicit value. For example, the word "'n-word'" expresses a specific value, telling the listener/reader a bit about the values of the speaker/writer.

Shared emotion increases social cohesiveness - the government and media have worked hand in hand to create that through fear. 9/11 provided a perfect opportunity to bring the members of the nation closer together on that. Having a shared goal increases it- so finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, the invasion of Irak (the mistake of linking Irak to that event was encouraged ) were steps towards bringing together the people.

But the crisis of a splintering society was only appeased temporarily, and the efforts continue. Currently, the conflicts about "politically correct" language, and various ethical questions illustrate a heightened sense of urgency to get everyone on the same page. It's gotten to a split of opposing values at this point. No longer several fractures going every which way, it has one big crack.... on each side, people are gaining a sense of cohesiveness with the right or left, Republican or Democrat.

In this sense we can say there is progress then. The smaller groups have merged into larger.

But I still think this is a vital point in the process. If the strength of the people has grown, the stakes are also higher- either these to sides of the crack shall turn upon each other and self destruct, or they shall find a way to merge together and become a formidable social entity. If the latter can be achieved, the members will benefit from more security.

But we still have those clinging to the idea of rejecting social belonging, and belief that they have no need for it. Let the nation dissolve, I can take care of myself. I have a gun, I have property, I have a way to provide my own sustanance.

I think this was a valid belief in the early formation of the nation in which enemies only had guns and cutting off food sources and delivery were their available weapons.

This is no longer the case. Their weapons are such that your gun will be useless, your crops useless in case of fallout, (or with weather manipulation, which I suspect possible, but won't emphasize too much as it remains the stuff of conspiracy theory).

My point is this (yes! There is one!) :

The people are trying to gain shared language and values to help make a stronger nation. There is not agreement so far on what those should be, but why fight the attempt at all?
If social cohesiveness cannot be formed through social pressures, then it will have to done through force- instead of fearing some social rejection in your town, you will fear the official forces and judicial system.

The neat thing about social framework is that that the "punishment" is simply shaming from your peers- you can live with that (literally).

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s a form of censorship.

No it's not. I can say either:

"That overweight guy over there doesn't look well, I think he's having a heart attack."

or

"That porker looks like he's about keel over."

The later might make people look at me and judge me but no one is going to punish me for it.

I can also understand that because conservatives rail against it, that those opposed to conservatives wish not to do the same.

There are things I have in common with conservatives.

There are some great left-leaning books, for instance Robert Hugh’s “Culture of Complaint”, or Jonathon Rauch’s “Kindly Inquisitors” (both have a lot to say about right-wing and religious censorship)

I don't care how left someone is if their argument on words is content versus context then it has become invalid to me. I of course have issues with many things the right tries to censor, especially with religious but that is because such has invaded law. How they talk through their own political correctness though? I don't care. I can agree or disagree with them no matter what words they use.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

No. There's no common non-pejorative usage of "political correctness."

Maybe that was supposed to be humor, or sarcasm... I'm sorry if I misinterpret. But yes, there is a non-prejorative usage of the term.
To describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.

One who feels it is good to avoid language, policies, or measures that are intended to offense or disadvantage certain members of the society will not hesitate to use the term in a non-prejorative way.

The sentence, "He/she tries to be politically correct" is ascribing a positive value for such persons.