Treating Other People With Respect

[Mudcat]

I'm curious what advantage there is to not using a "politically correct" term that one knows or suspects the other person prefers. Let's take a classic from a while ago, "negro."

Because what's PC changes as oftenly as slang does. And if what is and isn't acceptable to use as common speech changes that often how do you expect someone to know when it changes?

And even if that change has been there a while there are still people who might not necessarily know the lingo because might not know that many gay people so they might not know that, for example, that 'fruitcake' is offensive when they're talking about the food item.

And on, and on.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Not something I have seen to much but censoring media for a new populace isn't uncommon.

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

Why is that different from not using other derogatory terms for groups? Why not crippled instead of disabled? That would seem to fit with being the kind of PC you are against.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

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.

Well, he does say "I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase "politically correct" wherever we could with "treating other people with respect" and it made me smile". I suppose it all hinges on the phrase "wherever we could". He seems to me to be suggesting that we could make that replacement quite often. I'd disagree with that and argue that their usages are quite different and well understood.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Not something I have seen to much but censoring media for a new populace isn't uncommon.

It's still a textbook example of political correctness, largely in the sense that "this offends our focus groups, we need to erase any offensiveness because the general public are far too sensitive". It infantilises people and assumes that they are hypersensitive.

Why is that different from not using other derogatory terms for groups? Why not crippled instead of disabled? That would seem to fit with being the kind of PC you are against.

It's not "derogatory". It's calling a spade a spade. This isn't calling black people "*******" or calling jews "kikes", both of which were inherently derogatory. "plus size"/"Body acceptance" is an attempt at coddling people who ate their way into an unhealthy lifestyle that will lead to crippling health problems years down the road (speaking as someone who is working on losing weight, and has somewhat succeeded). "Obese" is the proper term, along with "fat".

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not "derogatory". It's calling a spade a spade. This isn't calling black people "*******" or calling jews "kikes", both of which were inherently derogatory.

That is why we stick to negro or if we are being very polite coloreds. Any more than that is just PC garbage.

 

[phiwum]

Well, he does say "I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase "politically correct" wherever we could with "treating other people with respect" and it made me smile". I suppose it all hinges on the phrase "wherever we could". He seems to me to be suggesting that we could make that replacement quite often. I'd disagree with that and argue that their usages are quite different and well understood.

Eh, that's what I get for skimming. I somehow misread you as claiming that he conflates the various meanings of "respect".

My mistake.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

That is why we stick to negro or if we are being very polite coloreds. Any more than that is just PC garbage.

So why are "fat/obese" in the same category then?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So why are "fat/obese" in the same category then?

Because it has taken to be a derogatory term. Just like colored people used to be perfectly ok then took on derogatory connotations so has other terms.

Language evolves and changes over time deal with it.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Because it has taken to be a derogatory term. Just like colored people used to be perfectly ok then took on derogatory connotations so has other terms.

Language evolves and changes over time deal with it.

So how are black people, an ethnic minority that have been enslaved and persecuted for half a millennium remotely in the same category as people who eat their way to diabetes and heart disease, congesting healthcare services in the process?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

By and large, I tend to concur.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So how are black people, an ethnic minority that have been enslaved and persecuted for half a millennium remotely in the same category as people who eat their way to diabetes and heart disease, congesting healthcare services in the process?

High rates of diabetes and heart disease as well and problems with congesting the health care services? Also very high rates of HIV infection but that is not common among the obese so that isn't exactly something in common.

You are making it very clear that it is about respect, you feel that you should give respect to black people, but overweight people are moral failures and so do not deserve it.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

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

That's according to you. What is so PC about calling someone their proper pronoun? And how am I harassing them by disagreeing with their notion?

No, I thought you were talking about humans, in general.

I am, I didn't think you'd counterargue on the basis of how humans interacted thousands of years ago.

Do you think humans from 1000 BC are largely different than 100 years ago? Evolution doesn't work that quickly.

First, I said "this century", which isn't 100 years ago. It's at most 14 years ago. Welcome to the 21st century

Second, I'm talking about behaviors and societies - basically how what we consider morally desirable traits are changing depending on how the structure of society changes and how our social roles/priorities change. Social evolution. I don't know if being polite to strangers was desirable in 1000 BC, but everything I see today reinforces the assumption that it's true today. It's especially true considering we're living in information age, where ethical misconducts are easy to record and share and thus impolite behavior, which I'd argue is ethical misconduct, is much more easily ostracized.

I'm providing counter examples to your claim that humans over the last hundred years are different, kinder, or politer.

This isn't my claim. I'm simply telling you I'm talking about today.

I'd wager humans killed more people, more efficiently, in the last hundred years than in any other hundred year segment in history.

And again, this does not contradict my claim.

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."

And this is a straw man.
My claim was people in general want to be polite. I'm saying this in today's context. "Want to be polite" means they deem politeness as a desirable trait to have or a desirable ideal to strive for. Whether they actually possess that trait or not is something I have made no claims one way or another, though if you consider violence to be one prime indicator of manifestation of the lack of desire to be polite (boy is that a mouthful of a sentence), then I know S.Pinker has said violence has been dramatically decreasing throughout our evolution, and this here right now is the safest most non-violent period in the history of humankind.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

High rates of diabetes and heart disease as well and problems with congesting the health care services? Also very high rates of HIV infection but that is not common among the obese so that isn't exactly something in common.

You are making it very clear that it is about respect, you feel that you should give respect to black people, but overweight people are moral failures and so do not deserve it.

Black People have been deliberately kicked around for centuries due to merely being black, and forced into ghettoes while denied services given to white people. This isn't a remotely appropriate comparison and is frankly insulting to black people that they be compared to the obese, who did choose to risk health problems. I'm not remotely saying blackface is acceptable or it's a good idea to sing "Ching Chong China Man" in front of chinese people. What I am talking about is this idea that we are supposed to coddle and infantilise people regarding societal issues (especially on obesity). In this example, Political Correctness is going too far because the obese have worse life/health prospects, are a net drain on the healthcare systems, and to be frank, "politically correct" terms like "Body acceptance/positivity" and "plus size" are making some of the biggest public health issues today a lot worse because they downplay a lot of those problems (and to be frank, we as a society have really not come to terms with the post industrial environment).

 

[Upchurch]

First, I said "this century", which isn't 100 years ago. It's at most 14 years ago. Welcome to the 21st century

Second, I'm talking about behaviors and societies - basically how what we consider morally desirable traits are changing depending on how the structure of society changes and how our social roles/priorities change. Social evolution. I don't know if being polite to strangers was desirable in 1000 BC, but everything I see today reinforces that assumption. It's especially true considering we're living in information age, where ethical misconducts are easy to record and share and thus impolite behavior, which I'd argue is ethical misconduct, is much more easily ostracized.

Several of my examples were from the last 14 years.

Speaking of the information age, take a look at comments on almost any wide-spread media source and tell me that people want to be polite to others. YouTube, maybe?

And this is a straw man.
My claim was people in general want to be polite. I'm saying this in today's context. "Want to be polite" means they deem politeness as a desirable trait to have or a desirable ideal to strive for. Whether they actually possess that trait or not is something I have made no claims one way or another

So, its basically meaningless? People want to have a million dollars, but if they aren't willing or are incapable of doing what is necessary to get a million dollars, of what merit is the desire?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Because it has taken to be a derogatory term. Just like colored people used to be perfectly ok then took on derogatory connotations so has other terms.

Language evolves and changes over time deal with it.

Yes, but who decided and why that "colored people" was okay, and who decided and why that suddenly it wasn't? What was the reason behind it? I'd understand if it had bad history, like being popular insult among slave masters or something. That would make sense. This just seems arbitrary.

Mudcat already said it - it's rather difficult to keep up with the seemingly random changes in accepted lingo. Let alone the whole concept of words being offensive (rather than the intent behind their usage) is something I have an issue with.

Personally, "colored people" just sounds silly either way.

 

[Corsair 115]

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

'Want' is not the right word, for me at least. My standard method of dealing with people is civility and politeness, unless I am given a reason to do otherwise. Hence, unless there is some justification to do so, I don't address anybody in terms of their physical characteristics, be it race, weight, height, hair colour, or anything else, as these are far less important to me than the content of their character.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Several of my examples were from the last 14 years.

Yeah, still irrelevant, as I explained in the post.

Speaking of the information age, take a look at comments on almost any wide-spread media source and tell me that people want to be polite to others. YouTube, maybe?

Why cherry pick comments on wide-spread media sources? Why not discussion forums such as this and image platforms such as reddit? We are, after all, trying to consider all forms of interaction. They all depend on members agreeing to some basic rules of politeness (MA on this board).

So, its basically meaningless? People want to have a million dollars, but if they aren't willing or are incapable of doing what is necessary to get a million dollars, of what merit is the desire?

It's meaningless only because you don't get to argue against the strawman. The point of my claim was to establish that politeness is a desirable trait, so using it as an insult seems absurd prima facie.

 

[Upchurch]

Hence, unless there is some justification to do so, I don't address anybody in terms of their physical characteristics, be it race, weight, height, hair colour, or anything else, as these are far less important to me than the content of their character.

The whole context of this is that airlines have to address certain restrictions for "passengers of size". In this context, yes, there is justification to do so. Are you saying you do want to be polite to obese and overweight people?

 

[Corsair 115]

The whole context of this is that airlines have to address certain restrictions for "passengers of size". In this context, yes, there is justification to do so. Are you saying you do want to be polite to obese and overweight people?

I don't work for an airline, so I don't have to confront the matter. As to using the terms a person insists be used for them, I've already covered that back in [url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10835507#post10835507]post #325[/url].

 

[Lorentz]

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?

I prefer to be referred to as "an entity who is not generally victorious in the battles of life". Thanks in advance.

If anyone calls me a "loser" in future, I shall denounce them loudly for their lack of respect for my wishes.