Treating Other People With Respect

[ponderingturtle]

Recently, I've seen it used as a mere pejorative by people who object to referring to transgendered people with their new correct pronouns. I personally liken it to regular name change. If Matt changes it to Bob, I don't care. I'll call him Bob then. If Chris changes it to Christy, I'll call him/her Christy. This is something I see as not only politeness, but common sense. What would be PC is to start ostracizing people who mistakenly use the wrong pronouns or wrong name.

What about people who say they are being oppressed by the PC elite for using the "correct" name and gender? Why isn't that also Political Correctness?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

So what medical testing is the airline doing to categorize people that way?

You can't use medical terms without doing medical testing? I highly doubt airlines are diagnosing their passengers. Medical terms are supposed to be neutral terms, that's the point.

What about people who say they are being oppressed by the PC elite for using the "correct" name and gender? Why isn't that also Political Correctness?

In what ways does it fall under any definition of PC that we've discussed here?

 

[arthwollipot]

Google "passenger of size".
Some apparently refer to them as "customer of size"
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/13060972/airline-customer-of-size-policies.html
https://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/extra-seat/?clk=GFOOTER-CUSTOMER-COS

Okay, usage in the wild spotted. Thanks for the refences.

 

[arthwollipot]

Another thing.

I think that there's a vast gulf between "sometimes political correctness is taken too far", which is a perfectly reasonable and true statement that I wholeheartedly agree with, and "political correctness is tyranny with a smile", which is ridiculous hyperbole and I most certainly do not agree with.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You can't use medical terms without doing medical testing? I highly doubt airlines are diagnosing their passengers. Medical terms are supposed to be neutral terms, that's the point.

So how are they using the terms accurately? If you are defending the validity of the terms through medical use then they would need to keep them to being medically accurate. You can't have it both ways, either the medical definitions are relevant or they are not, if they are then they need to be used.

In what ways does it fall under any definition of PC that we've discussed here?

It is people being as they view it correct being targeted by PC goons for using the "wrong" words. This is a common complaint by those complaining about political correctness.

This is the problem, who's complaints against the PC army are valid and who's are not? People who insist on misgendering others certainly view complaints about them doing this as being attacked by politically correct goons.

That is exactly the problem people are not defining their own use of politically correct.

 

[Upchurch]

My ability to do that relies on us first agreeing what political correctness means.

But my post 185 actually already answered exactly that.
Here:

Without evidence, I reject your first point that it is posturing. That may be your perception, but that may be all that it is.
Your second point is nonsensical. Self-censoring is entirely different from suppressing dissenting view points. We've been through the college thing and there are other factors at play there.
Your third position has the same flaw at your second.

And none of that explains why political correctness is a deserved or earned pejorative.

I'm not talking about 1000BC or what have you. I'm talking this century. Human psyche and behavior have evolved, our morals have changed.

Text-book special pleading. I'll remind you that the last 100 years includes the Holocaust, two atomic bomb strikes, multiple genocides, lynchings, assassinations, segregation, terrorist attacks, torture, gay beatings, and anti-gay laws, which is not an exhaustive list.

Is your argument that it's 50-50 between people who want to be polite and those who don't? Or is it that it's the minority of people who want to be polite?

I don't claim to know what the exact population break down is. I doubt the data is available. I do know that the idea that majority of people want to be polite flies in the face of evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

What part of...




... is unclear to you as it pertains to politeness? Perhaps read the entire statement rather than focusing on one sentence.

As TeapotCavalry says, it's the difference between fantasy and reality. You've said what you would do in very specific situations, not what you want to be.

Do you want to be polite to overweight and obese people?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

So how are they using the terms accurately? If you are defending the validity of the terms through medical use then they would need to keep them to being medically accurate.

The purpose of medical terms here is not to diagnose, it's to be neutral, non-judgmental.

You can't have it both ways, either the medical definitions are relevant or they are not, if they are then they need to be used.

Their accuracy in use is determined probably by self-reporting. Though I've heard Uzbekistan Airways for example considers starting weighing their passengers.

It is people being as they view it correct being targeted by PC goons for using the "wrong" words. This is a common complaint by those complaining about political correctness.

This is the problem, who's complaints against the PC army are valid and who's are not? People who insist on misgendering others certainly view complaints about them doing this as being attacked by politically correct goons.

Ok, from this post...

What about people who say they are being oppressed by the PC elite for using the "correct" name and gender? Why isn't that also Political Correctness?

... you seemed to be asking why the complaints of oppression by PC folks isn't an instance of PC in itself. But you're actually asking why complaints by "PC goons" aren't PC? Who says they aren't? It depends on the individual situation. If the PC folks are harassing people because they use wrong pronouns, I see it as excessive and certainly PC.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Another thing.

I think that there's a vast gulf between "sometimes political correctness is taken too far", which is a perfectly reasonable and true statement that I wholeheartedly agree with, and "political correctness is tyranny with a smile", which is ridiculous hyperbole and I most certainly do not agree with.

This is a sentiment I don't disagree with.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The purpose of medical terms here is not to diagnose, it's to be neutral, non-judgmental.

And yet you are not using medical definitions so you are being judgmental. I mean sure no one wants to be next to a fatass like a professional football lineman.

... you seemed to be asking why the complaints of oppression by PC folks isn't an instance of PC in itself. But you're actually asking why complaints by "PC goons" aren't PC? Who says they aren't? It depends on the individual situation. If the PC folks are harassing people because they use wrong pronouns, I see it as excessive and certainly PC.

I am asking if you side with the person using the birth gender of the person or those saying you should go with the name and gender of their choice. The latter being the hated PC goons of course.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Without evidence, I reject your first point that it is posturing.

What evidence would you accept?

Your second point is nonsensical. Self-censoring is entirely different from suppressing dissenting view points. We've been through the college thing and there are other factors at play there.

The "self" is in parentheses. It's censoring and it's forcing people to self-censor in fear of social ostracizing.

Your third position has the same flaw at your second.

As in, it's nonsensical? This objection is nonsensical

And none of that explains why political correctness is a deserved or earned pejorative.

Yes it does, unless you think the three points are positive or morally desirable.

Text-book special pleading.

What made you think I was talking about human interactions in 1000 BC as opposed to how things are today?

I'll remind you that the last 100 years includes the Holocaust, two atomic bomb strikes, multiple genocides, lynchings, assassinations, segregation, terrorist attacks, torture, gay beatings, and anti-gay laws, which is not an exhaustive list.

You talked about special pleading, this is it. A type of cherry picking fallacy.

You're implicitly claiming here that the majority of human interaction has been through hate, aggression, destruction. I'd wager constructive interactions, social bonds building (trading for example) has been far more prevalent human interaction.

But again, the above is talking about what has expired, not what individual people in general aspire to be, which was my original claim.

I don't claim to know what the exact population break down is. I doubt the data is available. I do know that the idea that majority of people want to be polite flies in the face of evidence.

I does not. For example, the fact that I tend to get into fights does not contradict the claim that I want to be polite. The whole point was that politeness is a morally desirable trait.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

And yet you are not using medical definitions so you are being judgmental. I mean sure no one wants to be next to a fatass like a professional football lineman.

You've lost me here.

I am asking if you side with the person using the birth gender of the person or those saying you should go with the name and gender of their choice. The latter being the hated PC goons of course.

So you've moved on from the previous two questions to a whole new, disconnected question. I'm "siding" with using the pronouns and names that the person identifies with, given they are not absurd. "Christy" and "her" for example are not absurd. Was that not clear from my post where I brought the example up?

 

[Upchurch]

What made you think I was talking about human interactions in 1000 BC as opposed to how things are today?

No, I thought you were talking about humans, in general. Do you think humans from 1000 BC are largely different than 100 years ago? Evolution doesn't work that quickly.

You talked about special pleading, this is it. A type of cherry picking fallacy.

You're implicitly claiming here that the majority of human interaction has been through hate, aggression, destruction. I'd wager constructive interactions, social bonds building (trading for example) has been far more prevalent human interaction.

I'm providing counter examples to your claim that humans over the last hundred years are different, kinder, or politer. I'd wager humans killed more people, more efficiently, in the last hundred years than in any other hundred year segment in history.

It is very much special pleading. "Yeah, I know humans were bad in past, but we're different now. We mean better, even if we don't show it."

 

[ponderingturtle]

So you've moved on from the previous two questions to a whole new, disconnected question. I'm "siding" with using the pronouns and names that the person identifies with, given they are not absurd. "Christy" and "her" for example are not absurd. Was that not clear from my post where I brought the example up?

So to someone who disagrees with you on the changeability of gender, you are one of the PC goons who harass them.

 

[Cayvmann]

Probably when you land on a word or phrase that doesn't work as an insult. "Retarded/retard", and older once-clinical terms like "idiot" and "moron" are too easy to bark out as an insult. "Intellectually disabled" doesn't work that way (not sure if that is the current clinical term or not).

Both idiot and moron are technical terms dealing with level of retardation, which is the same thing as intellectually disabled.

I completely agree that new words aren't necessary. We should work on using the words correctly. Maybe unfortunately calling someones bad ideas, or lack of thinking, retarded is probably as good a use of the word as it gets. Calling someone a 'retard' probably isn't good, regardless.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I don't agree that "political correctness" is effectively synonymous with "treating other people with respect", as the OP said. I think it can be sometimes, when some conservatives abuse this expression, but they're definitely not always interchangeable.

That is why I think the Gaiman quote is so silly. He tries to conflate the two.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I find that Political Correctness is often used to "stepfordise" discussions, where everybody is forced to keep up appearances that everything is fine to an impossible extent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I find that Political Correctness is often used to "stepfordise" discussions, where everybody is forced to keep up appearances that everything is fine to an impossible extent.

Please give examples.

 

[phiwum]

That is why I think the Gaiman quote is so silly. He tries to conflate the two.

How so? Be explicit on where he uses the term with two distinct meanings, please, because I don't see it.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily agreeing with Gaiman. There are instances of PCness that go beyond mere courtesy. But I don't see any fallacy of equivocation on his part.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Please give examples.

Commercial English dubs of Anime (though it's gotten a lot better). Frothy Mugs of Water anybody?

Or "Plus Size" instead of the more straightforward "fat" or "Body Acceptance" when it comes to Obesity.