Treating Other People With Respect

[TeapotCavalry]

No, you just repeated yourself and missed the point. If someone is so "PC" that you can't talk to them in a meaningful way, you are blaming that person for something you are unable to do.

It's weird you say I missed the point when it's my point you're trying to explain to me. 'Someone being too PC to have a meaningful discussion with' is a description of a situation, it's not an action or a position or an accusation. It's just a matter of fact in this hypothetical. When this is how the situation is, there's no conversation to be had. Now you may argue that there is no such level of politically correct rhetoric that can simply shut down a discussion, but that's something separate from my point.
The alternative scenario you supposed was that "dismissively labeling someone "PC" as a pejorative also shuts down conversation.", which is true, but the one who shuts it down is not the labeler, it's the one who is accused of being PC, because they think it's merely a pejorative and not actually a descriptive term illustrating how their rhetoric is unhelpful.

Why do you think "politically correct" is pejorative? You think people don't want to be polite, respectful and courteous? How can "you're too polite" be ever an insult? Maybe there's a different meaning to the term that actually describes traits that are not so honorable.

Not to say anyone being politically correct automatically closes down discussions, hence my use "too PC", as in excessively. I think we're all politically correct to some degree in some situations.

Of course it does.

We've come to the point where you declare wiki and google and dictionary definitions void and yours true. I don't think there's any room for a further discussion on the topic of the definition of PC then.

If there is no underlying common ground on certain base assumptions, such as who does and who does not deserve to be treated equitably, then no meaningful conversation can be had.

Equitably, not equally?

Once you've made up your mind that someone is "too PC", you've abandoned the attempt to find common ground and closed the door on meaningful conversation.

"too PC" for what? Too PC for allowing a meaningful conversation? This by definition is not you shutting down the discussion simply by observing and identifying the situation, it's the one who actually is shutting down the discussion.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's an interesting article that I think raises some good points.

6 Ways Critics Of Political Correctness Have It Backwards

Here's a relevant quote:

...the difference between "political correctness" and "censorship" is that censorship is law laid down by an authority and political correctness comes from the ground up.

Oh wait, sorry, I just realised that this is an article from Cracked and nothing Cracked says can possibly have any validity for any reason, and so it can be dismissed offhand without even reading it.

 

[Upchurch]

It's weird you say I missed the point when it's my point you're trying to explain to me.

Best go review the thread, then. You're point was a failed attempt to understand what I was saying and a false dichotomy (perhaps cherry-picking), ignoring the possibility that the one doing the PC labeling could be the one shutting down the conversation.

Why do you think "politically correct" is pejorative?

...because several sources and posters in this thread have defined it as such?

You really do need to review the thread.

You think people don't want to be polite, respectful and courteous?

Some do, some don't. Have you met people? Some take pride in being rude to others.

How can "you're too polite" be ever an insult?

The same way conservatives made "liberal" an insult in The 1980s.

Maybe there's a different meaning to the term that actually describes traits that are not so honorable.

Like what?

We've come to the point where you declare wiki and google and dictionary definitions void and yours true. I don't think there's any room for a further discussion on the topic of the definition of PC then.

So, what you're saying is that you're not going to discuss it anymore?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Here's a relevant quote:

...the difference between "political correctness" and "censorship" is that censorship is law laid down by an authority and political correctness comes from the ground up.

So it's mob mentality. Does that make it any more good, desirable or just?
At least they seem to acknowledge it's censorship, with the only difference being who's enforcing it.

But even that's not correct. It doesn't necessarily have to be the government for it to be an authority who enforces it. Private corporations, social media platforms, colleges, expos and conventions, news outlets etc. This is not "ground up". There's a handful of people who make the code of conduct.

Oh wait, sorry, I just realised that this is an article from Cracked and nothing Cracked says can possibly have any validity for any reason, and so it can be dismissed offhand without even reading it.

Not necessarily, but that's generally the case for humor blogs who do it for the buzz and clicks.
Here's a succinct summary of the fails.

So ignoring the guilt by association (D.Trump) and childish mockery in the introduction, I couldn't get past even the first point where they quoted that PC-creativity study (actual study behind paywall).

"Turns out political correctness actually makes us more efficient"​

Nope. That is very misleading.
There's much to be said about the study, but for one, political correctness is not diversity. And two, "priming" someone with political correctness concepts is not the same as forcing them to be politically correct.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Best go review the thread, then.

+1

...because several sources and posters in this thread have defined it as such?

Are you not curious why they have defined it as such, or you just take their word for it?

Some do, some don't. Have you met people? Some take pride in being rude to others.

And some people eat glass. Why does it matter what "some people" do? I was referring to just "people" as in people in general. Humans are social animals and politeness is a tool to help build social bonds.

The same way conservatives made "liberal" an insult in The 1980s.

And "conservative" is an insult nowadays. So you can sling your political labels as insults at each other, but the point is people generally regard politeness as a good trait.

Like what?

Being excessively concerned not to be perceived as excluding or offending groups that are considered marginalized.
First, it's posturing. It's about perceptions. Whether actual offense or harm is prevented is of secondary concern. And insults can be and are very well delivered through politically correct jargon.
Second, it's (self-)censoring to the degree that dissenting viewpoints are being suppressed. In colleges, you have speakers being turned down, because the topic matter is considered triggering. You have professors saying they are advised to preclude 'sensitive' subjects and words with trigger warnings or not teach the subjects at all.
Third, it's actually manifesting in exacting revenge rather than eliminating offense, like what we had with the shirtgate shirtstorm? Matt Taylor and Tim Hunt.

So, what you're saying is that you're not going to discuss it anymore?

I guess my example applies here well. You're refusing to entertain the possibility that political correctness has any other meaning than what you bestow upon it, and now you're saying I'm the one who's shutting down the discussion. "Some pretty epic lack of self-awareness", as you said.

 

[Upchurch]

Are you not curious why they have defined it as such, or you just take their word for it?

They define it as a pejorative because it largely is used as a pejorative. The Wikipedia article lists five sources to support the claim.

And some people eat glass. Why does it matter what "some people" do? I was referring to just "people" as in people in general. Humans are social animals and politeness is a tool to help build social bonds.

If you are looking for a single simplistic monolithic universal human response to almost anything, you're not going to find it. However...

People will generally be polite to people like themselves, for varying definitions of "polite" within the group dynamic. They generally will not be polite to people unlike themselves. "Us vs Them" is a pretty strong impulse in humans.

And "conservative" is an insult nowadays.

If that were true, you wouldn't find politicians labeling themselves as "conservative" the way politicians used to, and perhaps still do, distance themselves from "liberal" in favor of "progressive".

But you don't see that, do you? In fact, politicians and commentators proudly embrace the label of "conservative". It's not an insult in the same fashion.

Being excessively concerned not to be perceived as excluding or offending groups that are considered marginalized.

That is very subjective and meaningless. For someone to be even a little bit concerned about a group you don't like (the dreaded Other) might seem excessive to you, when by any objective standard, the change being asked for is a very small one.

This is why identification as PC is something that has to applied externally. No one who believes they are doing the right thing or even merely just being polite is going to see it as excessive. It being excessive is the perception of someone else. Typically, the perception of someone who does not approve of the politeness.

Second, it's (self-)censoring to the degree that dissenting viewpoints are being suppressed. In colleges, you have speakers being turned down, because the topic matter is considered triggering. You have professors saying they are advised to preclude 'sensitive' subjects and words with trigger warnings or not teach the subjects at all.

I agree that there are issues with modern universities, but what you characterize as a problem with being PC, I see as a matter of economics. Schools are competing for money and trying to provide what they perceive as being the demanded by their clients who are, Ed help us, in their late teens and early twenties. Yes, it's going to end up being idiotic.

Third, it's actually manifesting in exacting revenge rather than eliminating offense, like what we had with the shirtgate shirtstorm? Matt Taylor and Tim Hunt.

I have no idea what that is.

I guess my example applies here well. You're refusing to entertain the possibility that political correctness has any other meaning than what you bestow upon it, and now you're saying I'm the one who's shutting down the discussion. "Some pretty epic lack of self-awareness", as you said.

And, you'll notice, so are you. You're denying that it is a pejorative, despite numerous references to it as one. The very definition you use for it requires it to be something that someone applies to someone else. It is not inherent in the intent of ones own actions.

Although I suppose any thing is possible, I doubt you'll find many people that you would call PC who set out to intentionally be excessively concerned not be perceived as as excluding or offending groups that are considering marginalized.


Just as a point of interest, do you consider Bill O'Reilly's War on Christmas crusade to be politically correct?

 

[theprestige]

Here's a good example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/n...ges-of-discrimination.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

A university student organization publishes a video, which is then attacked not because it was disrespectful in any way, but because the racial makeup of the membership offended political sensibilities. It is not good for people to be shouted down, silenced in this way. But it is politically expedient for them to concede their right to speak, to a vocal minority whose politics they offended. So much for Neil Gaiman's thesis.

Though, now that Gaiman has taken a stand in favor of political correctness (which he mistakenly describes as being respectful and nothing else), I expect that his fall from grace cannot be far away. Someday soon, he will say something that is both reasonable and respectful, but that offends someone's political sensibilities. And then he will be cast out into exile. From the wilderness his voice will be heard, "I intended no disrespect." And from the walled garden his erstwhile allies will reply, "intent is not magic! Check your privilege!"

Thus ever political correctness. Because, contra Neil Gaiman, political correctness isn't about respect. It's about controlling the debate and silencing dissent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here's a good example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/n...ges-of-discrimination.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

A university student organization publishes a video, which is then attacked not because it was disrespectful in any way, but because the racial makeup of the membership offended political sensibilities. It is not good for people to be shouted down, silenced in this way. But it is politically expedient for them to concede their right to speak, to a vocal minority whose politics they offended. So much for Neil Gaiman's thesis.

Though, now that Gaiman has taken a stand in favor of political correctness (which he mistakenly describes as being respectful and nothing else), I expect that his fall from grace cannot be far away. Someday soon, he will say something that is both reasonable and respectful, but that offends someone's political sensibilities. And then he will be cast out into exile. From the wilderness his voice will be heard, "I intended no disrespect." And from the walled garden his erstwhile allies will reply, "intent is not magic! Check your privilege!"

Thus ever political correctness. Because, contra Neil Gaiman, political correctness isn't about respect. It's about controlling the debate and silencing dissent.

It is about a lot of things. It all depends on exactly what people are being criticized for. Really what it is, is a label to reject criticisms you do not agree with out of hand.

As a more concrete example, clearly much of the criticism that Trump faces could be labeled as political correctness. Is the criticism of his labeling Mexicans as largely rapists and criminals in the US just another PC thing and the criticism can be ignored or is it a serious issue?

 

[Upchurch]

Here's a good example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/n...ges-of-discrimination.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

A university student organization publishes a video, which is then attacked not because it was disrespectful in any way, but because the racial makeup of the membership offended political sensibilities.

Again, economics. I'm not exactly clear whose video it was, but the college wants to attract students (to Alabama, of all places) and the sorority wants to attract pledges.

It is not good for people to be shouted down, silenced in this way.

What message was silenced? They still want people to join the sorority and attend the school.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Again, economics. I'm not exactly clear whose video it was, but the college wants to attract students (to Alabama, of all places) and the sorority wants to attract pledges.

Just because something is "economics" doesn't mean that it's not also Political Correctness.

What message was silenced? They still want people to join the sorority and attend the school.

Did you read the article?

 

[Upchurch]

Just because something is "economics" doesn't mean that it's not also Political Correctness.

Of course it doesn't.

Political correctness is just a catch-all phrase.

Did you read the article?

I did. What message do you think the video was trying to convey and do you think the sorority or university had a problem with that message?

 

[qayak]

It is about a lot of things. It all depends on exactly what people are being criticized for. Really what it is, is a label to reject criticisms you do not agree with out of hand.

As a more concrete example, clearly much of the criticism that Trump faces could be labeled as political correctness. Is the criticism of his labeling Mexicans as largely rapists and criminals in the US just another PC thing and the criticism can be ignored or is it a serious issue?

There is a vast difference between "I don't want immigrants coming to the country" and "All Mexicans are rapists and murderers" but PC warriors treat them as being the same and brand both speakers as racist out of hand which ends any discussion on immigration.

And to be clear, Trump is a racist, misogynistic douchebag sporting a bad comb over but not because he opposes immigration.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is a vast difference between "I don't want immigrants coming to the country" and "All Mexicans are rapists and murderers" but PC warriors treat them as being the same and brand both speakers as racist out of hand which ends any discussion on immigration.

And the anti PC crowd sees both as attacks on them.

Trump is popular because "he tells it like it is and isn't PC". So why don't those who take issue with being PC here like that about him?

 

[Upchurch]

There is a vast difference between "I don't want immigrants coming to the country" and "All Mexicans are rapists and murderers" but PC warriors treat them as being the same and brand both speakers as racist out of hand which ends any discussion on immigration.

Evidence?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Of course it doesn't. :roll eyes:

OK, then what was the relevance of bringing up economics?

Political correctness is just a catch-all phrase.

How so?

I did. What message do you think the video was trying to convey and do you think the sorority or university had a problem with that message?

The video itself was the message. "The highly produced video, released in advance of Bid Day — when potential members begin to choose between the sororities that have offered them admission — is a four-minute-long paean to the benefits of joining the sorority, Alpha Phi.

It mostly shows sorority members having a good time: dancing in front of their sorority house, blowing glitter and kisses, frolicking in swimsuits and taking a trip to the school’s Bryant-Denny football stadium in the company of the university’s mascot, an elephant known as Big Al."

Why do you think the video was taken down? What do you find offensive about the video?

 

[Upchurch]

OK, then what was the relevance of bringing up economics?


How so?

See pretty much the rest of the thread up to this point.

The video itself was the message. "The highly produced video, released in advance of Bid Day — when potential members begin to choose between the sororities that have offered them admission — is a four-minute-long paean to the benefits of joining the sorority, Alpha Phi.

It mostly shows sorority members having a good time: dancing in front of their sorority house, blowing glitter and kisses, frolicking in swimsuits and taking a trip to the school’s Bryant-Denny football stadium in the company of the university’s mascot, an elephant known as Big Al."

So you're arguing that the sorority or university had a problem with that message? That neither group wished people to join the sorority on that campus and have fun?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

See pretty much the rest of the thread up to this point.

I've read most of it and just see you asserting that Political correctness is just a catch-all phrase. I'm asking you to defend this statement because I don't think you can.

So you're arguing that the sorority or university had a problem with that message?

More evidence of the Rule of So.

 

[Corsair 115]

Here's an interesting article that I think raises some good points.

6 Ways Critics Of Political Correctness Have It Backwards ...

Oh wait, sorry, I just realised that this is an article from Cracked and nothing Cracked says can possibly have any validity for any reason, and so it can be dismissed offhand without even reading it.

Perhaps you should look closer at its #2 example, which simply repeats the same tired old falsehoods about video games and gamers. That alone casts doubt on the usefulness of the source you are citing. I mean, just look at this bit of sophistry:

Anyway, gamers often insist that, yes, while every video game character that has ever existed is a straight white male, this is only true because there are no women or black people who play video games, because women and black people are imaginary (you can tell because they never appear in video games). Except no part of that is true.

That last sentence is correct, but not in the way the author intended. What is not true is everything the author wrote prior to that last sentence. But then, gamers are used to being lied about and slandered by some in both the gaming and mainstream press—it's been going on for a year now.


You might have been better served has you used this New Yorker article rather than the Cracked piece.

And in regards to that New Yorker article, here is a rebuttal: 10 Things ‘The New Yorker’ Gets Wrong About Free Speech.

 

[Upchurch]

More evidence of the Rule of So.

Still not a thing.


Are you arguing that the sorority or university had a problem with that message? That neither group wished people to join the sorority on that campus and have fun?

 

[theprestige]

Again, economics. I'm not exactly clear whose video it was, but the college wants to attract students (to Alabama, of all places) and the sorority wants to attract pledges.

It's uneconomical to offend the political sensibilities of people you hope to do business with. It pays to be politically correct.

What message was silenced? They still want people to join the sorority and attend the school.

They want people to join, but the message they composed to encourage people to join was silenced not out of lack of respect (as Neil Gaiman imagines must be the case), but because it was politically offensive to some.