Treating Other People With Respect

[Upchurch]

You missed the meaning.

"Political Correctness" is merely a pejorative, unlike racism/misogyny which are actual causes.

No one advocates for 'political correctness'. They argue for respect/courtesy/politeness/pick-your-term and people call that political correctness as a pejorative.

IMO that goes a bit far and there are some edge cases around college campuses which tend into overreaction. But over the life of the term for the vast majority of instances, this holds.

Basically, this. I see no reason to repeat it in my own words.

ETA: I will add that I'm coming to take it as another way of calling someone a doo-doo head. It's an insult, but lacks any real substance or true meaning. It's maybe not equally as childish, but it's pretty close.

 

[newyorkguy]

It seems the problem with political correctness is...

Some people find it highly offensive!

 

[Upchurch]

It seems the problem with political correctness is...

Some people find it highly offensive!

More like, some people find being courteous to the wrong kind of people highly offensive. Rather than reconcile their "Us vs. Them" with the reality that we're really just "Us", it's appears to easier to kill label the messenger.



And, yes, I see the irony in this post.

 

[TragicMonkey]

When people disrespect me, I glare at them through my Glaring Monocle, say 'never have I ever!', and smack them with my gold walking stick after switching to my Combat Monocle. Then I order my servants to dispose of the corpse.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When people disrespect me, I glare at them through my Glaring Monocle, say 'never have I ever!', and smack them with my gold walking stick after switching to my Combat Monocle. Then I order my servants to dispose of the corpse.

In "Jane Austen's Mafia" one brother says:

"You're a homicidal maniac!"

The other brother replies:

"And I deserve respect for that!"

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Now, I don't want to talk about whether the attribution is accurate or not. But I do get the impression that some people here might disagree with what it says - that "political correctness" is effectively synonymous with "treating other people with respect". I don't disagree with it. I think it expresses very well something that I've been thinking in vague terms for some time - especially when people denigrate the idea of political correctness.

If you do a Google Image search for "political correctness" you'll get a whole lot of quotes about how political correctness is tyranny with manners, or with a happy face, or that it's "destroying the very fabric of society" (yes, that's a real one), or how it's "thought control" (yes, that's a real one too). I have always thought that these ideas entirely missed the point of political correctness, and the quote above attributed to Gaiman articulates why.

What are your thoughts?

That's pretty much it. By any objective standards free speech in the US is freer than ever. You can talk about sex or criticize religion. That's new.
You can be against racism without having to fear being murdered by the KKK. You can have non-mainstream political opinions without being harassed by the government (Remember Senator McCarthy, anyone?).

It's true that some things used to be all right and are not any more. You can't go on racist or misogynist tirades anymore. Suddenly everyone is supposed to have the same rights.
I can see how that is bad news for people who have nothing else going for them than being a white male. I can see why they would be offended. And I say: Cry more, bitches.

And to such comments:

It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that," as if that give them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so [redacted] what?

It's true! In the old days, no one would have said "I'm rather offended by that". They would have said: "Guns at twenty paces, Sir."
Again, speech is freer than ever. It is so free that some morons even believe that they should receive applause and adoration for offending others. The truth is: It was never okay to hurt other people's feelings. It was just that in the old days it was 'might makes right'. You offended the wrong people, you got your teeth kicked in.
These days kicking teeth in is rather frowned upon. The other side of the coin is that you shouldn't go around asking for it.



Of course, the free speech situation could be better. None of the *********** ***** in this thread seem to have noticed that this forum will actually censor some words. And that has nothing to do with political correctness.

 

[Meed]

I will add that I'm coming to take it as another way of calling someone a doo-doo head. It's an insult, but lacks any real substance or true meaning.

I disagree. It means different things to different people, but I don't think it's meaningless to most people who use it. Here are some different things that people sometimes refer to as "PC" (in a negative sense):

1. Choosing to use inoffensive wording.
2. Trying to make sure a variety of groups are represented.
3. Banning a word or practice that they think might offend people.
4. Verbally attacking, reprimanding or firing someone who said or did something deemed offensive.

That isn't necessarily an exhaustive list, but those are the main categories I've noticed. Sometimes these are behaviors that could be described as "being respectful" or "being courteous" (especially those that fall into 1 and 2). Other times not so much. Sometimes they can seem to be the opposite of respectful or courteous (certain cases of 3 and 4).

 

[TeapotCavalry]

You missed the meaning.

"Political Correctness" is merely a pejorative, unlike racism/misogyny which are actual causes.

Alright, if that was the point, then I missed it. And obviously I disagree with the sentiment.

No one advocates for 'political correctness'. They argue for respect/courtesy/politeness/pick-your-term and people call that political correctness as a pejorative.

Some people perhaps. Others object to what political correctness actually means, ie read the wiki or google definitions.

IMO that goes a bit far and there are some edge cases around college campuses which tend into overreaction. But over the life of the term for the vast majority of instances, this holds.

Strongly disagree.

 

[Upchurch]

I disagree. It means different things to different people, but I don't think it's meaningless to most people who use it. Here are some different things that people sometimes refer to as "PC" (in a negative sense):

But those all have their own words:

1. Choosing to use inoffensive wording. politeness
2. Trying to make sure a variety of groups are represented. inclusiveness
3. Banning a word or practice that they think might offend people. censorship
4. Verbally attacking, reprimanding or firing someone who said or did something deemed offensive. objecting

When a phrase is so all-encompassing that it means means so many different things to so many different people, it really doesn't mean anything. And it really doesn't mean what you listed above either. As a pejorative, it is labeling those you oppose doing the listed actions.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Right. So you slightly modified what you posted in order to be respectful (aka. courteous) to others on the forum.

Actually, no. I don't think anyone should be offended by "bad words", and those who are, I honestly wouldn't care about, because it's ridiculous. My NSFW label was for covering my own ass, so that mods would not reprimand me (which would've been unlikely anyway).

 

[Upchurch]

Alright, if that was the point, then I missed it. And obviously I disagree with the sentiment.

What do you disagree with?

Do you disagree that PC is a pejorative or that is merely a pejorative? Or perhaps you disagree that racism, sexism, and misogyny are more than pejoratives?

Some people perhaps. Others object to what political correctness actually means, ie read the wiki or google definitions.

The Wikipedia article. What are you referring to?

 

[theprestige]

I agree with this, but it's not what you think.

See, the thing is, "political correctness" is a pejorative. It's something you call someone else's actions. The only people who make a fetish out of it are those who label others with it.

The people who make a fetish of protecting their political sensibilities don't use the pejorative. Naturally they invent some kind of noble-sounding term for it: 'raising awareness', or 'checking privilege', or 'silencing dissent', or something like that. Whatever they call it, they're still using it to justify enforcing Politically Correct Thought.

If you try to discuss illegal immigration with someone whose idea of Correct Thought does not admit the term, your discussion will fail not from insufficient respect on your part, but from excess political correctness on their part. The problem with political correctness is that it seeks to constrain the debate to certain assumptions which are not to be questioned. And political correctness often uses the framework of insult and offense to enforce that constraint. So you will be told that using incorrect terminology is disrespectful, and therefore should be silenced. But this is just an appeal to emotion, and the proposed remedy runs counter to critical thinking and rational debate.

 

[Upchurch]

The people who make a fetish of protecting their political sensibilities don't use the pejorative.

They also don't usually label it political correctness.

Naturally they invent some kind of noble-sounding term for it: 'raising awareness', or 'checking privilege', or 'silencing dissent', or something like that.

Wait a minute. Who labels what they do "silencing dissent" as a noble-sounding term?

Whatever they call it, they're still using it to justify enforcing Politically Correct Thought.

Because you label their activities as such?

If you try to discuss illegal immigration with someone whose idea of Correct Thought does not admit the term, your discussion will fail not from insufficient respect on your part, but from excess political correctness on their part. The problem with political correctness is that it seeks to constrain the debate to certain assumptions which are not to be questioned. And political correctness often uses the framework of insult and offense to enforce that constraint. So you will be told that using incorrect terminology is disrespectful, and therefore should be silenced. But this is just an appeal to emotion, and the proposed remedy runs counter to critical thinking and rational debate.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? Labeling someone's position as "politically correct" is also a way of shutting down aspect of conversation as not to be questioned because the person being labeled does not have Correct Thought. That is, they are being dismissed because they are "being too PC" and, therefore, not worthy of consideration.

In your example, the act of labeling someone or something as politically correct has the same effect as you express of political correctness itself.

It also demonstrates the ambiguity of what political correctness is. Is it objecting to terms relating to illegal immigration? Racism? Sexism? Misogyny? Evolution? Vaccines? Climate change? Winter holiday greetings? All of the above?

 

[qayak]

Do you see the hypocrisy here? Labeling someone's position as "politically correct" is also a way of shutting down aspect of conversation as not to be questioned because the person being labeled does not have Correct Thought. That is, they are being dismissed because they are "being too PC" and, therefore, not worthy of consideration.

But that's not what happens. When someone uses the term politically correct it is usually in reference to statements designed to stifle discussion.

Examples of politically correct statements:

"That's hate speech!" in reference to Holocaust denial.

"That's misogyny!" in response to asking for evidence in discussions of sex crimes.

These PC statements are often used to kill discussion and you see it on this forum a lot. It's anti-intellectual. It is a lazy attempt to end a discussion before one has to defend their own precious position on the subject.

That's why rapists are always guilty, even when they're not, Holocaust deniers are despicable people even if they are just curious teens, and all Muslins fly planes into buildings even when only 20 or so of the billion or so Muslims have ever done that.

 

[Corsair 115]

All communication consists of up to three parties. A speaker sends a message. A recipient receives a message. Potentially, there could be a third-party audience that witnesses the exchange. Each party has their own perspective of the message and no message has an inherent value outside of the perception of at least one of these parties.

Agreed.

So, you asked me if intent matters. The only intent in a single message is that of the speaker, but the value of that intent (i.e. whether it "matters") is likewise dependant upon the value a party puts upon it. This is why I asked, "matters to whom?" I want to know from whose perspective you're asking.

The simplest answer is that intent most definitely matters to the speaker. After all, without intent there is no reason to send a message. (This is barring any kind of impared babbling.) As for the other two, it is much more complicated and dependant on factors not defined in the scenario.

So, does intent matter? Sometimes. For whom are you asking if intent matters?

All of this is missing my point: how does anyone else know that the intent of the speaker was to give offence unless the speaker themselves expressly state that was their motive?

 

[Upchurch]

Examples of politically correct statements:

"That's hate speech!" in reference to Holocaust denial.

"That's misogyny!" in response to asking for evidence in discussions of sex crimes.

(I think that first one would be "racist", rather than "hate speech".)

So, are you saying one cannot discuss or identify positions as racist or misogynistic without shutting down the conversation? Does identifying something as a bad position prevent conversation?

More to the point, should racist and misogynistic go unchallenged because identifying them as such shuts down the conversation?

These PC statements are often used to kill discussion and you see it on this forum a lot.

Evidence?

It's anti-intellectual. It is a lazy attempt to end a discussion before one has to defend their own precious position on the subject.

I'd argue that labeling and dismissing something as PC does the same thing, except that PC has no real meaning beyond "showing courtesy to someone I don't like".

That's why rapists are always guilty, even when they're not, Holocaust deniers are despicable people even if they are just curious teens, and all Muslins fly planes into buildings even when only 20 or so of the billion or so Muslims have ever done that.

I think even those who support the use of the labeling others as PC would have a hard time calling "All Muslims fly planes into buildings" as politically correct.

 

[Upchurch]

All of this is missing my point: how does anyone else know that the intent of the speaker was to give offence unless the speaker themselves expressly state that was their motive?

Okay, so you're not asking if the speaker's intent matters. You're asking if the speaker's intent is conveyed.

And, yes, the speaker's intent is often conveyed. Not always, but often.

Have you never heard sarcasm or a backhanded compliment? Are you saying that these things cannot be identified unless the speaker explicitly states it as such?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

What do you disagree with?

Do you disagree that PC is a pejorative or that is merely a pejorative? Or perhaps you disagree that racism, sexism, and misogyny are more than pejoratives?

I disagree that it's merely a pejorative. I disagree with the notion that the phenomenon of being politically correct doesn't exist, just like I would disagree with the notion that the phenomenon of being racist doesn't exist. ETA: so whether it's a pejorative is really besides the point, because it's a descriptive term. For instance calling someone poopy-head is not descriptive, it's merely a pejorative.

The Wikipedia article. What are you referring to?

I'm referring to the definitions/descriptions I mentioned earlier here

wiki: "ordinarily pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society."
google: "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."​

Do you disagree with these definitions and if so why?

But those all have their own words:

The thing is, political correctness has its own definition too, and it's neither politeness, courtesy nor respect.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm referring to the definitions/descriptions I mentioned earlier here

wiki: "ordinarily pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society."
google: "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."​

Do you disagree with these definitions and if so why?

I do because that is neither sufficient nor accurate. They are often applied where no excess or extreme measure is taken and it is not applied in situations where conservatives are the ones avoiding offense. It is somehow limited to certain, and yet an undefined range, of topics, but not to others.

The thing is, political correctness has its own definition too, and it's neither politeness, courtesy nor respect.

Not really. None of the definitions provided match how it is being described or used in this thread.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

So, are you saying one cannot discuss or identify positions as racist or misogynistic without shutting down the conversation? Does identifying something as a bad position prevent conversation?

Whether the arguer is racist or misogynistic has no bearing on the correctness of their arguments. If your comeback to an argument is "you're [a pejorative]", you've already lost on the intellectual level.

More to the point, should racist and misogynistic go unchallenged because identifying them as such shuts down the conversation?

Are you labeling someone misogynist, because they ask for evidence?

I'd argue that labeling and dismissing something as PC does the same thing, except that PC has no real meaning beyond "showing courtesy to someone I don't like".

That's entirely your made up definition, though.