• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Condi Drops a Watermelon

its a funny thing "******" can be used by white racists to demean a black person

it can also be used by racist blacks to say "hey look because my skin is black *I* can say this word and YOU can't because you are white"

and in the end its just a word

people need to grow up
 
It isn't people that need to grow up, its society and the politics that drives it. So long as government recognizes the differences, so to MUST the people within it.

How many special laws pertain to blonds? How many jokes about them, even in the company of them, get anything other than a laugh? (the blonds laugh because they are trained to laugh at anything even resembling a joke...that's why they laugh at odd times, sometimes they get their signals mixed.
 
gnome said:
I'm not sure I'm with you here... are people to pretend that they are emotionless in the face of words? Does the right to speak include isolation from the consequences of that speech?

Political Correctness is a beast with many names. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense to consider your audience, or the message you may send, when choosing your vocabulary. On the other extreme, we are firing people for the use of the term "niggardly". One is appropriate, the other is not, yet both can be labeled, "Political Correctness". It is also startling how often the extremes of the latter are invoked at any suggestion of the former. I personally think the term itself needs to die.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. "Political Correctness" seems to mean "anything that doesn't agree with me". When envoked, it's usually a way of saying "I am upset because you are offended when I behave like an a$$." The term is now used by everybody to mean just about anything. To me, it is meaningless. It glosses over the real issues.
 
BryanLower said:
I totally agree. "Political Correctness" seems to mean "anything that doesn't agree with me". When envoked, it's usually a way of saying "I am upset because you are offended when I behave like an a$$." The term is now used by everybody to mean just about anything. To me, it is meaningless. It glosses over the real issues.
Click to expand...
I guess that is the thing about perception. While I agree with you in principle I would say your example is by far the exception and not the rule. Sadly political correctness hinders speech far more than it serves any real purpose.
 
RandFan said:
I guess that is the thing about perception. While I agree with you in principle I would say your example is by far the exception and not the rule. Sadly political correctness hinders speech far more than it serves any real purpose.
Click to expand...

Does tossing around a term like "Political Correctness" elevate or hinder debate? At best it is a broad, poorly defined term. If it doesn't elevate the debate, why use it?
 
BryanLower said:
Does tossing around a term like "Political Correctness" elevate or hinder debate? At best it is a broad, poorly defined term. If it doesn't elevate the debate, why use it?
Click to expand...
Political correctness itself hinders debate. We can ignore it, pretend that it doesn't exist in the vain hope that it will simply go away or we can confront it and point out the very real fact that political correctness is often pernicious and counter to free speech, or, I guess we can do something else (I'm trying to avoid a dichotomy I just can't think of anything else.)
 
RandFan said:
Political correctness itself hinders debate. We can ignore it, pretend that it doesn't exist in the vain hope that it will simply go away or we can confront it and point out the very real fact that political correctness is often pernicious and counter to free speech, or, I guess we can do something else (I'm trying to avoid a dichotomy I just can't think of anything else.)
Click to expand...
I personally think that the only correct thing to do would be to come up with a different term that better describes the political nature of the label. :D

My real response? Abandon the term and be more specific. If someone is using guilt to stifle the content of legitimate debate, say that. If feelings are overcoming reason, say that. Nor does the fear of political correctness require us to stay silent if we believe someone is in fact expressing something racist or offensive.

The message is not "You can't say that", but "Now that you've said that, I think you're an a$$hat."
 
gnome said:
I personally think that the only correct thing to do would be to come up with a different term that better describes the political nature of the label. :D

My real response? Abandon the term and be more specific. If someone is using guilt to stifle the content of legitimate debate, say that. If feelings are overcoming reason, say that. Nor does the fear of political correctness require us to stay silent if we believe someone is in fact expressing something racist or offensive.

The message is not "You can't say that", but "Now that you've said that, I think you're an a$$hat."
Click to expand...
With all due respect and I mean that sincerely. This seems to me to be sticking your head in the sand. To pretend that there isn't an attempt to control speech by labeling some speech as hate speech or to enforce norms on what words can and can't be used is to ignore the fact that these things do exist.

I don't like getting rid of words or terms. The answer to bad speech is good speech and not simply getting rid of the speech that we don't like.
 
RandFan said:
With all due respect and I mean that sincerely. This seems to me to be sticking your head in the sand. To pretend that there isn't an attempt to control speech by labeling some speech as hate speech or to enforce norms on what words can and can't be used is to ignore the fact that these things do exist.
Click to expand...
Please re-read. That's not what he's doing. He's said "be more specific". This isn't stiffling speach, it's expanding it.

I don't like getting rid of words or terms. The answer to bad speech is good speech and not simply getting rid of the speech that we don't like.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of getting rid of words because they're "bad". It's admitting that the meaning of some words become so muddled that they're useless, so other words are needed.
 
BryanLower said:
Please re-read. That's not what he's doing. He's said "be more specific". This isn't stiffling speach, it's expanding it.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Getting rid of the term Political Correctness doesn't expand anything. It ignores it.

It's not a matter of getting rid of words because they're "bad". It's admitting that the meaning of some words become so muddled that they're useless, so other words are needed.
Click to expand...
Give me another term that others will understand and I will use it. Until then I only need use the word and explain the context in which I use it. It is effective and appropriate in my opinion. I don't deny that the term is problematic but here you are making the term itself politically incorrect. I hope you appreciate the irony.
 
RandFan said:
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Getting rid of the term Political Correctness doesn't expand anything. It ignores it.
Click to expand...

Talking more specifically about the issues that are labelled "Politically Correct" is not ignoring them. How is discussing something ignoring it? How is discussing something in greater detail ignoring it?

Give me another term that others will understand and I will use it. Until then I only need use the word and explain the context in which I use it.
Click to expand...

There is no single term. The problem is that a single term is being used too broadly to mean too many different things. Talk about the actual issues.

It is effective and appropriate in my opinion. I don't deny that the term is problematic but here you are making the term itself politically incorrect. I hope you appreciate the irony.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the irony.

If we can help make a discussion more fruitful by avoiding vague, poorly defined terms, then I would consider that healthy. People use profanity in debates, too. I'm not going to restrict them from doing so (though the message board rules may), but it doesn't add anything, and it's not as effective as a good argument with specific points and precise definitions. The term "Politically Correct" is not as effective as a description of exactly what you mean when you say it.
 
gnome said:
I If someone is using guilt to stifle the content of legitimate debate, say that. If feelings are overcoming reason, say that. Nor does the fear of political correctness require us to stay silent if we believe someone is in fact expressing something racist or offensive.

The message is not "You can't say that", but "Now that you've said that, I think you're an a$$hat."
Click to expand...

Thats the thing, I would say that it isnt even a question of feeling but in fact a political system which says you MUST feel offended if certain sounds are uttered in a certain order

its total BS and bib brother thoughtcrime

And the message IS "you can't say that"

It is a religion plain and simple, an irrational belief and response to a set of "circumstances"
 
As a formally trained instructor, it is my opinion the professor in the OP has demonstrated he does not know how to properly write a test question. Using names (Gallagher, Condi, whoever) is doubleplusungood.

pipelineaudio said:
its a funny thing "******" can be used by white racists to demean a black person

it can also be used by racist blacks to say "hey look because my skin is black *I* can say this word and YOU can't because you are white"

and in the end its just a word

people need to grow up
Click to expand...

But who is it that needs to grow up? The person who hurls racist words, or the person who is offended by them?

I say both. "The defenseless man is invulnerable."
 
RandFan said:
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Getting rid of the term Political Correctness doesn't expand anything. It ignores it.
Click to expand...
I think one thing to be wary of in discussions is the use of terms that are used to identify a feel good consensus when in fact no consensus exists or if some kind of a consensus exists it isn't possible to determine what it is because of the use of ambiguous generalities.

People criticizing political correctness is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

It is very easy to get agreement among most people that they don't like political correctness. But what do we know about the underlying views of these people as a result of their expression of their dislike for political correctness? IMHO, exactly zero except perhaps for a willingness to participate in a vapid exchange.

One person's definition of political correctness might include all criticism of racist speech. Another person's might be limited to the practice of renaming sports teams that have Indian names.

If one wishes to convey real meaning about what kinds of speech he feels should not be suppressed as a result of social pressure, specifics are required.

For those of you who disagree with the above, take this test:
Joe states that he hates the political correctness that has taken over mainstream media. What can you say about how mainstream media should be changed to be more conforming to how Joe thinks it should be?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom