Treating Other People With Respect

[Duffy Moon]

"Less success-motivated".

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Of course we can say pretty much whatever we want. Doesn't mean we have to. We have every right to be an ass. Me, I care about how others feel more than exercising my right to offend.

It is a bit weird how some people seem to treat the right to offensive or disrespectful speech as if it were a trademark that needs to be continually used and "defended" in order to prevent it from being lost.

 

[Upchurch]

Are you asking do I go out of my way to draw attention to someone's physical characteristics, i.e. weight in this instance?

No, I'm asking if you want to be polite to overweight and obese people.

 

[applecorped]

I skimmed through this thread and couldn't stop saying to myself "what a bunch of losers for even talking about this". Now, is there a more pc term you all want to be referred to that is maybe less offensive then losers?

Fogleduggars?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

"Less success-motivated".

"Differently success-motivated".

 

[TeapotCavalry]

And here, I think, is one of the disconnects in this thread. The OP refers to treating people with respect, not having respect for other people. The context of this thread is the meaning of respect that is the synonym of politeness.

All the talk of having respect or earning respect is a non-sequitur.

It seems to be, but somehow the discussion got there from the OP (see the first page). Perhaps unfortunate choice of words, since respect can ostensibly mean very different things depending on the phrasing. That distinction should have been made sooner, even the OP himself didn't object on the basis that he was misunderstood, he objected on the basis that respect is/should be automatically given.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

No, I'm asking if you want to be polite to overweight and obese people.

That's incredibly odd question.

ETA: to make this a more constructive post, here's a question - are you suggesting that in order to be polite to people, we should always use the specific jargon any one individual decides they want others to use? Because overweight and obese people aren't an uniform group all agreeing how their weight-height ratio should be labelled in order to be inoffensive.

 

[theprestige]

That's incredibly odd question.

Personally I want to be polite to people, but I also want my sincere expressions of politeness to not be rejected because they don't use the approved vocabulary of a particular political sensitivity.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Okay, so explain to me why "politically correct" is throught of as a pejorative.

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

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

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

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.

We weren't talking what people were, but what people want to be.

What's the difference?

Basically the difference between reality and fantasy. But in this context, they're just categorically different things, and my claim only concerns one.

Some people want to be polite. Some people don't want to be polite.

I'm saying there are more people who want to be polite to strangers than people who don't want to be polite. And that's not some ulterior motive free altruism, btw.

Historical evidence from some 7-8 thousand years of written human history confirms it. It is full of people having no interest in being polite to people outside their group or society. Sometime within their group or society.

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. Steven Pinker has given talks and written a lot of interesting stuff about this.

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?

That's a fair argument. Do conservatives consider being called "conservatives" by non-conservatives to necessarily be an insult?

I don't know. But for a neutral observer, it seems to be used as an insult. Whether the insult lands or offends, I don't know, it's not directed at me.

 

[Dani]

People accusing the OP of having the definition of "respect" wrong are needlessly engaging in hair splitting.

It's usually unproductive to insist that someone is mistaken about the meaning of a word instead of addressing what they perfectly understood it to mean. It becomes a bit ridiculous when the meaning given by the OP is so common. Just google the exact phrase "treated with respect" and see for yourselves in case you're unfamiliar with that particular use (which I doubt).

On policital correctness, I'm very familiar with the expression. The Wikipedia definition and other similar ones that appeared in this thread don't come off as a surprise. That's more or less what I expected to see. It's definitely not a meaningless expression, unlike "jeopotillian", which I just made up.

I'm not on either side (is that meta-politically correct?). I go on a case by case basis mainly because this expression covers a lot of ground (probably more than it was originally meant if we go by its actual, real usage). I'm generally inclined to avoid euphemisms like the ridiculous "people of size", "people of color", etc. while I'm also aware that using expressions with derogatory connotations is generally not a good idea unless you want to offend someone. Sometimes, describing people as black can be more useful than describing their clothes, and going out of your way to avoid saying "the black guy" makes me think that a society that encourages people to act that way has still racial issues that no amount of euphemisms is going to disguise (quite the contrary). Also, the obsession with the "N word", pointed out earlier by Lorentz, baffles me. Just some examples of what I perceive of "PCness gone mad".

But there's also one thing about the use of this expression that hasn't been stressed enough so far. The expression is massively overused by conservatives who very often extend its meaning to "anything liberal". The fact that the expression is derogatory and applies mainly to liberal views was a perfect recipe for this semantic slippery slope. For example, I've been accused of being politically correct for having a skeptic approach by people who regard homosexuality as a clinical condition, people who make hasty generalizations about Muslims, blacks, etc. and other typical irrational beliefs coming from the right end of the spectrum. This use, even if it's misuse, exists, and needs to be acknowledged because it creates misunderstandings and misperceptions about the different "sides".

I'll side with Upchurch in that accusing someone of being too PC doesn't add anything useful to a debate. Even if it's true. I don't usually call people on their PCness for the same reason I don't call them on their stupidity, even if I think they're too PC or stupid. If I think someone is being too stupid or too PC, that's probably because I'm seeing flaws in their arguments. Isn't it more productive to focus on their arguments, if I want to engage them at all?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

It's usually unproductive to insist that someone is mistaken about the meaning of a word instead of addressing what they perfectly understood it to mean.

Unless the topic of the discussion is the meaning of said words.

For example, I've been accused of being politically correct for having a skeptic approach by people who regard homosexuality as a clinical condition, people who make hasty generalizations about Muslims, blacks, etc. and other typical irrational beliefs coming from the right end of the spectrum.

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.

I'm just glad we don't have gendered pronouns in Estonian.

This use, even if it's misuse, exists, and needs to be acknowledged because it creates misunderstandings and misperceptions about the different "sides".

Quite correct. But it also needs to be acknowledged that just because a word is used as a pejorative or a conversation-stopper doesn't make it meaningless. Racism, misogyny, sexism, political correctness, they all have very real meanings, yet they all get thrown around as insults.

I'll side with Upchurch in that accusing someone of being too PC doesn't add anything useful to a debate.

There's probably no sides on this point.

 

[Dani]

Unless the topic of the discussion is the meaning of said words.

The topic of this discussion was never the meaning of "respect", which is the term I was specifically talking about and to which some people specifically referred to.

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. This debate (which I agree is the topic of discussion or at least very relevant to it) is entirely different from the nitpicking over the meaning of "respect" conveyed by the OP, which anyone is perfectly able to understand in that context.

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.

Here's where the expression gets closer to being synonymous with "treating other people with respect". As I said, this is not always the case, and in fact I tend to see this as a misuse of the expression.

I'm just glad we don't have gendered pronouns in Estonian.

That's awesome! In Spanish almost everything is gendered. Nowadays, if you want to be politically correct, you use "@" instead of the letter that determines the gender, like "compañer@s" instead of "compañeros" (male) or "compañeras" (female). It's very common. Even if it's done with the best of intentions, it doesn't convince me. Spain is generally less PC than the US, but we're not that far when it comes to seeing sexism (against women, of course) everywhere.

Quite correct. But it also needs to be acknowledged that just because a word is used as a pejorative or a conversation-stopper doesn't make it meaningless. Racism, misogyny, sexism, political correctness, they all have very real meanings, yet they all get thrown around as insults.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen you debate this with Upcurch, and I'm with you here.

Honestly, I usually raise my eyebrow when someone says that a known expression is meaningless.

There's probably no sides on this point.

That wasn't my perception while I was reading you debate with Upchurch, but given your direct answer here, my perception has changed.

 

[Dani]

I just rescued a perfect example of PCness gone mad from an older thread:

"Your right to do something ends the second that what it is you're doing hurts somebody else. You can wave your arms around but that right stops when you hit somebody in the nose. That also applies to things like language. I can say all manner of words, you know, I have the right to do that, I have the freedom of speech, but my right to do that ends the second that someone was affected by those words used."

This goes well beyond "treating other people with respect".

 

[Corsair 115]

No, I'm asking if you want to be polite to overweight and obese people.

What part of...

Are you asking do I go out of my way to draw attention to someone's physical characteristics, i.e. weight in this instance? No, I do not. I am not in the habit of saying to someone that they're fat or overweight or what have you.

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

 

[AdamSK]

I refer to fat people as fat.

And if you did so to people in my presence, I would consider you to be a terribly rude person and treat you accordingly.

And you would have earned it.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

The topic of this discussion was never the meaning of "respect", which is the term I was specifically talking about and to which some people specifically referred to.

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. This debate (which I agree is the topic of discussion or at least very relevant to it) is entirely different from the nitpicking over the meaning of "respect" conveyed by the OP, which anyone is perfectly able to understand in that context.

It was a general comment on what I perceived was your general observation.
If we get specific to this thread and this context, then, yes, the meaning of "respect" isn't what's on topic here, it's the meaning of "political correctness".

On the other hand, I couldn't find posts here arguing the meaning of the word respect just for the sake of arguing as you're suggesting - intentional misinterpretation, ie someone suggesting OP is mistaken despite knowing there's an alternative meaning and OP had the alternative meaning in mind.

In fact, the respect derail started with this:

You want respect, you earn it.

No, I disagree, in every possible way.
<snip>

From this point on, we weren't talking about "treating with respect", it was "having respect".

That's awesome! In Spanish almost everything is gendered. Nowadays, if you want to be politically correct, you use "@" instead of the letter that determines the gender, like "compañer@s" instead of "compañeros" (male) or "compañeras" (female). It's very common. Even if it's done with the best of intentions, it doesn't convince me. Spain is generally less PC than the US, but we're not that far when it comes to seeing sexism (against women, of course) everywhere.

This kind of inventive self-censoring seems like a minefield to navigate. Gender polemics are exhausting.

That wasn't my perception while I was reading you debate with Upchurch, but given your direct answer here, my perception has changed.

Then I managed to leave the wrong impression somewhere.
I don't think accusing or labeling anyone is ever conductive to a discussion. With perhaps the exception of self-labeling for anecdotal evidence or something.

What I would understand though is when a discussion has already run to a dead end and then one side identifies what they think the problem is. Which inevitably ends up being labeling, or at least associating the other side with a behavior that is seen as nonconductive to the discussion. In an ideal world, that would help fix the communication, but realistically that would just end up with people doubling down and derailing the discussion into accusations.
That "identifying" or labeling in itself is probably not conductive to discussion, but then again the discussion has already halted, there's nothing left to hinder any further. It's possibly informative as to why the discussion has halted, at least from the POV of one participant. For example: I discuss feminist issues with someone, and my argument is met with a claim that I'm a privileged cis white male, I don't understand lived experiences of women and I'm mansplaining. That's it, we've already reached the dead end. I might as well point out that they're being too PC (the radical, social justice warrior kind of PC) for this discussion to actually have any meaningful content.

 

[The Atheist]

People accusing the OP of having the definition of "respect" wrong are needlessly engaging in hair splitting.

In many cases, you might be right, but as has been noted by many, respect is accorded and it's an important distinction rather than a hair-split with that particular word.

It's a continuation of "respect your elders/betters/teachers/...." which is utter nonsense.

Nobody gets respect without it being earned, otherwise it's not respect. It's fear.

 

[ponderingturtle]

From the article about the sorority video:



The reason the video was withdrawn was because it was criticized (externally) for displaying a lack of diversity. I don't know why the sorority isn't diverse...probably because they are a sorority and membership tends to follow lines of similar background, interests, and outlook on life...but is it really a requirement that a non-diverse group portray themselves as diverse? I would think that would be lying.

For reference, what would consider "politically correct" would be for the sorority to deliberately stick the few non-white members into as many scenes as possible to make themselves appear more diverse. Instead of asking "Who wants to be in the video?" asking "Who wants to be in the video? Tammy and Becky, we NEED you to be in it!"

In conversation, politically correct, to me, has always meant using needlessly cumbersome phrases in order to avoid offending. And what is cumbersome, is, obviously a matter of opinion. I find "handicapped" to be a less awkward term to use in conversation than "differently abled," for example. But I would be happy to use a preferred term that flowed easier in conversation.

Being irritated by "PC" things like linguistic gymnastics does not mean one condones rudeness or that one thinks negatively towards those who are different.

Also, treating someone respectfully is different from having respect for them.

And they need to be able to team up with Sigma Alpha Epsilon in being racially pure. I wonder if they have their own songs as well?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I believe overweight and obese are the medical terms. The lack of PC speech doesn't automatically have to be third grade insults.

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sure.

I also refer to people with disabilities "people with disability".

Why such an awkward phrasing instead of the direct and short "cripple"?