| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/18/15 6:11 pm ::: Politically Correct. Where is the line? |
Reply  |
|
There have been a few threads going in which jammer has brought up examples of political correctness run amok, and championed those in the margins of society on whom PC is often used as a weapon to denigrate their opinions and ideas.
There's also been talk of the "Coddling of the American Mind" or maybe it was college mind? I don't know. If I have time I'll bring some of that over, but I wanted a chance for it to have it's own thread, if anyone is interested in that aspect of the conversation, versus maybe drawing other threads off topic? I love to do that, but not everyone else is as enamored. 
Meanwhile, my first contributions. Because in general I agree with jammer. But part of me wonders if some of the backlash against "PC" is from some of the last bastions of the status quo, inadvertently finding an audience in the marginalized (and likely to the detriment of the marginalized, sadly ironically).
College Students Don't Want to Hire Racist or Homophobic Comedians. Why Is That a Problem, Exactly?
| Quote: |
| What the Atlantic article fails to note in all its handwringing is that this shifting culture has led to a renaissance of comics who earn laughs while punching up. John Oliver, for instance, has had viral hits recently with segments from his show Last Week Tonight about issues such as trans rights and pay equity. Likewise, former immigrant rights organizer Hari Kondabolu's breakout album Waiting for 2042named for the projected year white people will no longer be the majority ethnic group in the U.S.is full of hilarious, pointed, insightful takes on race and colonialism. |
Jerry Seinfeld is a wimp: What his anti-P.C. tirades are really about
| Quote: |
| Of course, not everyone Seinfeld is criticizing is so noble. As Lindy West wrote, Its absolutely true that some individuals use political correctness to disguise what is, in reality, a regressive devotion to propriety. There are people who simply have no sense of humour. But thats not even remotely the same thing as political correctness being a clear and present danger to the future of comedy. |
Post your articles, if you wish. Examples of good PC and bad PC. Neutral PC?[/quote]
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/15 7:36 pm ::: Re: Politically Correct. Where is the line? |
Reply |
|
"Basic Kindness about others experiences equals censorship" - straight white dude. Seriously.
1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their life in the United States. But yes, rape jokes are funny.
42 % of trans people have attempted suicide (as opposed to 1.6 % of the rest of the population). 45% of all hate crimes in the United States are against Trans people (Despite only making up 10% of the population.) 78% of trans people experience harassment. The average lifespan of a trans woman of color is 35. But everyone loves the girly men jokes.
Every 28 hours a black person is murdered by a police officer. But, really..truly..black people just like playing the race card. What is a really pressing issue is that white people should be able to use whatever slur they want to. Freedom of Speech!
This is simply another form of conservativeness. The status quo is being challenged, and some don't like it. Some hate to admit that the younger generation may be more right than wrong. (not saying it can't be taken too far at times..but I think that's actually pretty rare...and only really shows itself in the sudden rush to be labeled.)
People aren't being censored. They're being told what they are saying is inappropriate, offensive, oppressive..neglects the experiences of others (typically non straight white cis men). They are being challenged. And their response is to pick on millennials (favorite past time of baby boomers.. don't get me started..)..and ignore the actual argument.
So instead of coddling the minds of those who are privileged, why don't we challenge them/us to educate themselves/ourselves.
Anyway, fantastic article..I also saw a response to the "Coddling of the American Mind" article that I can't find..
_________________
âAnyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is âLord Dampnutââ- Colin Mochrie
Last edited by mercfan3 on 08/19/15 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 12:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Now Dan Savage and I don't always see eye to eye. But I think his voice adds something to the marketplace, or conversation space or what have you. He can come off as insufferable.
But this article I read several months ago about a confrontation he had on his college tour (or at a college, anyway) stuck in my mind. Because I'm not sure how to digest it. On the one hand, he has some great points. He was truly in a no-win situation. On the other, he comes off as too enamored of his own "rightness" to not give me pause.
Still. The situation from his perspective is undoubtedly one of PC or something run amok. In my opinion.
About That Hate Crime I Committed at the University of Chicago
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 12:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
As I noted in the other thread, I think "political correctness" has an important role to play in our society. It is important that we understand the impact of our words and actions in shaping the world around us.
But, it can go too far. Political correctness should not be used as a crutch against feeling "uncomfortable". The Dan Savage article highlights this. Ideas need to be able to be discussed, even when the topic creates discomfort. Context and intent is huge.
On the other side, however, too many people scream about "political correctness gone wild" just because someone, or some entity, decides to move in a direction they disagree with.
For instance, Target decided to go gender neutral in their bedding and toys section. Instead of having toys like dolls clearly directed towards girls and other toys directed to boys, they will now just be "toys". Or instead of bikes made one way labeled as "girl bikes" and ones designed differently as "boy bikes", they now will just have bikes. Same with bedding. The ones with Disney Princesses on them? They are just sheets.
In this era of awareness, this seems like a very positive step. Let people determine for themselves what they like or don't like, instead of enforcing gender stereotypes upon them. If a boy likes barbie dolls, he can get one from the toy section rather than the "girls toys" section.
But, of course, this created a backlash from people crying about how Target was bowing to "political correctness", and blah, blah, blah. They throw around the PC term and instead of considering that this is a corporation making a decision that they want to make because they believe in it (or at least feel it will help their bottom line), they scream and pout about how Target is caving in to the PC crowd (in other words, people who are not them...).
This did bring about one hilarious circumstance, however, as people flocked to Facebook to express their dismay at this capitulation. Someone made a Facebook page, pretended to be Target Customer Service, and trolled them. Hilarity ensued.
The irony? The same people screaming about the evils of political correctness got pretty pissed off when someone responded to them in a non-politically correct way....
_________________
ââââââââBA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 12:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Wow.  Naiveté. Self-righteousness. Academic rhetoric that doesn't reflect real-world experiences or ramifications. Or history. And then how to categorize this exactly. Every 28 hours a black person is murdered by a police officer._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, âMe, too.â - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 1:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Wow. Naiveté. Self-righteousness. Academic rhetoric that doesn't reflect real-world experiences or ramifications. Or history. And then how to categorize this exactly. Every 28 hours a black person is murdered by a police officer. |
Not sure quite of the thrust of your comment. Also, technology problems are the worst. Seriously. I've become a much calmer person in general, but my blood still gets boiling when technology does not function as it should and the immediate issue is not obvious! 
Meanwhile, this discussion can cover all levels. For instance, I think the Target story was a good one to highlight the context of justintyme's statement.
But it certainly doesn't do anything to address the use of "politeness" and social norms to keep other groups "down". This is referred to in a less life-altering (but still relevant) way in the article I posted about colleges hiring comedians (i.e. "punch up" not down).
But you can also look at deeper issues such as those raised in this article; but it comes not in the text of the article (which is a pretty brief summary of the study to bring it to attention, versus discuss all the data mined and conclusions reached), but in the top comment when I read it:
Rich Kid, Poor Kid: For 30 Years, Baltimore Study Tracked Who Gets Ahead
| AC wrote: |
| I saw an example of this via some friends I had going to college in Southern Appalachia, children of share croppers and a welfare mother. They had this idea of a middle-class lifestyle and ambitions, and they had gotten the idea that education was key somehow, but they had no idea of how to put the pieces of the puzzle together to make it work. They did not have the social skills to "fit in" in college, so they had a very hard time socially, so they could not pick up at school the tips the rest of us were picking up at home about how to go to college - about how to pace our courses, get tutors, deal with instructors, locate and take advantage of all the various programs the school offered to ease our way through the process. For them, it was a closed book because they just did not know and their social ignorance cut them off from that knowledge. It just got worse as time progressed and most of them were gone before their Sophomore year was done. This spiral continued with the folks I kept up with afterwards. There's a whole lot more to getting into and staying in the middle class than classroom education can provide; it's a complicated social system, and if you can't get find somebody who can steer you through all those social ins and outs, you really don't have a chance. We like to say we're a classless society, but we most certainly are not. |
This commenter refers to the knowledge of a certain social rhythm that is a barrier that isn't talked about a lot. A person growing up in a certain environment may not know the way the social-network generation refers to things. He or she may use terms that are deemed "ignorant" in the most pejorative use of the term (i.e. not "uneducated" but "horrible human being"), given listeners the permission to exclude and ignore.
I know my post is long, but there was another point that I figure we'll be covering, and I feel that it dovetails with this PC discussion, and that is the need for social disruption to bring about change. You don't get it by asking "pretty please" when it involves those in power giving up any speck of that power. Yet there is backlash against protestors, for instance, at Bernie Sanders' appearances. "They" shouldn't use these tactics, etc. And because of that "we" don't have to listen to the import of their statements.
I don't have links at my fingertips for that, yet. I still have to eat lunch!  But I'd like it if our discussion touched on those things too.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 2:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Wow. Naiveté. Self-righteousness. Academic rhetoric that doesn't reflect real-world experiences or ramifications. Or history. And then how to categorize this exactly. Every 28 hours a black person is murdered by a police officer. |
It's called a statistic.
Personally, I think the self-righteousness comes from the inability to empathize with the experiences of others. To never even consider that your language has an impact. And upon finding out that it does..decide that it shouldn't matter.
And I think real-world experiences are had by those that aren't cis straight white men, and ought to be considered.
What's hilarious about this, to me..is that somehow it's tied to free speech. People aren't being censored. There are simply consequences for their words..such as any word.
And that's the problem with the Dan Savage article. His insistence that he's right, that his ideas are right, that these children are having themselves a tantrum (meanwhile, the entire article reads like a tantrum)..he can't handle someone else's thoughts or ideas. His whole discussion about "it." Like he thought it is ridiculous that the word "it" could be offensive to a trans person..I mean, that's simply a lack of empathy..
I'm not even ready to say that he was right about this incident. Was he simply having a discussion or was he antagonizing this person..in perhaps the same sarcastic manner that he used in this article. I don't know..if what he said happened is what actually happened, then it's an example of someone not quite understanding the purpose of political correctness. I wouldn't call what he did creating an "unsafe" place regardless, but then again, I'm not a part of the demographic that has a 1 and 12 chance of being murdered.
Now, it's not that it can't go too far.. Too much of a good thing is never a good thing. But honestly, who cares? So what, a privileged person can't say whatever they want to say without receiving criticism. Look at the other side..
edit: Norwester, I think that's an important point. (To a point..there are some things..where..quite frankly..people should know.) And I think people who are educated should educate.
For example, for the average high school boy..it's pretty common to use gay slurs to imply weakness..or femininity in their male peers.
They may have no issue whatsoever with gay people. But they still shouldn't be using those slurs. Language is a tool for oppression..sometimes without oppressors even realizing it.
Now, is it fair to instantly label these people horrible human beings? No. Because they aren't thinking about what they are saying. It's cultural. But at the same time, criticism and an explanation is fair. (Because cultural relativism doesn't allow for progress.)
_________________
âAnyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is âLord Dampnutââ- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 2:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| And that's the problem with the Dan Savage article. His insistence that he's right, that his ideas are right, that these children are having themselves a tantrum (meanwhile, the entire article reads like a tantrum)..he can't handle someone else's thoughts or ideas. His whole discussion about "it." Like he thought it is ridiculous that the word "it" could be offensive to a trans person..I mean, that's simply a lack of empathy.. |
The Savage article definitely had an antagonistic tone to it, but I find it hard to fault him. He was writing this in defense of himself and, naturally, it becomes pretty defensive. I think most people would be a little put out if they were accused of a "hate crime", but it's got to be even harder when it is a person like Savage who has dedicated his life to the concept of social justice for LGBTQ peoples. When the community you have worked your butt off for suddenly turns on you, it has to feel like a sense of betrayal--and that feeling can lead to this sort of tone. Is it the best tone to get your point across? No. But it is, at least to me, very understandable.
However, unless I misunderstood what he wrote, I am pretty sure he didn't actually refer to a trans person as "it". The first part starts with "pretend...". I think it was meant to be a thought exercise, the reason for which he explains later.
My understanding is that someone objected to him using a term they found offensive, even though he was doing it in the context of academic discussion. Later, after they left, one of their friends told him that this individual preferred the pronoun "it". His thought experiment was meant to highlight the fact that if he used that person's preferred pronoun, he would likely offend others. He likened it to the term "queer" which although is now preferred terminology was not always the case, and does in fact still offend some, mostly older, people.
My feelings on this matter is that when it is knowable, context and intent must be considered before condemning a person's words. Especially if we are going to label things "hate speech" or a "hate crime". A word, in and of itself, should not be seen as such in an open society. While it is definitely fair for someone to feel a word offensive no matter the context, it is decidedly not fair to then label the user of said word without considering the situational context.
_________________
ââââââââBA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 3:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
it's been months since I read (and posted here) the Savage article. I thought the trans person demanded to be referered to as 'it.' lol. As I say, it's been a while._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, âMe, too.â - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 3:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| it's been months since I read (and posted here) the Savage article. I thought the trans person demanded to be referered to as 'it.' lol. As I say, it's been a while. |
If it's the article I think it is, then that's correct. My impression at the time (and, granted, I read Savage's account first, but I did read some other stuff on it) was that the individual was planning to be offended, pretty much no matter what Savage did or said. And Savage certainly has his weak spots, some of which he's mended, and some of which, well, maybe never.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/19/15 4:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Wow. Naiveté. Self-righteousness. Academic rhetoric that doesn't reflect real-world experiences or ramifications. Or history. And then how to categorize this exactly. Every 28 hours a black person is murdered by a police officer. |
It's called a statistic. |
Exactly who is charging and convicting those police officers with murder? Uh. That would be you. Representing the same political perspective, vocal, online, self-righteous; the thought, behavior and speech police. Here you are believing that this preposterously unfair thing you're saying is the statistical truth and now you also want to hear and adjudicate cases where there is an alleged violation of the rules of political correctness.
Do I have that right? 
How can you not be responsible for the factual accuracy of your statement and yet think that anyone would want to ENTRUST you and those who think like you to decide what they can and can't say and what the consequences will be? Seriously? Unbelievable.
You do know that black people call the police, right? They dial 911 for the cops. Oh yeah. They're doing it right now, as I type this. They NEED the cops to protect them. This is coming from someone who had a website about police killing people. Me. The reason that black people continue to call the police is because the police continue to show up, address the reasons for the call and results are not a police officer murdering a black person.
I don't want to get sidetracked into a police discussion but I don't know how anyone can use language so carelessly to conflate a handful of actual cases of police officers ending a black person's life for no reason that society can or will tolerate, and EVERY case where a black person is killed by a police officer. But believe me, I realize you're not alone, you're not just confecting this stuff on the fly yourself. But your bringing this up in a discussion of political correctness is rich.
Mercfan, you are a muse. lol. I have let SOOOooo many things you've written go, not intentionally, I intend to respond to every one of them, but somehow, it rarely happens. I had your last PC statement in the other thread marked as an opportunity to give norwester the willies with more dark Saturday night perspective but my Saturday night was just too much fun so I didn't get around to it. That's what always seems to happen. But I'm going to bring it this time on PC. Just maybe not on this particular PC.  _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, âMe, too.â - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/20/15 2:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
jammer, I'm still waiting to be freaked out! I can't wait.
Re: the Savage article, beknighted has it right, the transgendered individual in question demanded to be referred to by the gender pronoun "it". A no win situation for Savage, and one he didn't bring on himself this time! 
Meanwhile, I came across this article during my lunch-time reading that I felt was very germane to the conversation of this thread as a whole (come one, folks, I know there are more instances out there, some serious, and some less so but still useful as examples in conversation), and I think also delves into that area of PC-ness that I've heard jammer pontificate (no disrespect intended) about. Language.
8 Harmful Examples of Standard American English Privilege
| Quote: |
Those with non-SAE accents are forced to speak differently, otherwise they risk being labeled such racist, classist and sexist terms as urban, country, girly, and so on.
Subsequently, such perceptions negatively affect professional and academic advancement, criminal guilt and so on. |
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/20/15 6:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
jammer, I'm still waiting to be freaked out! I can't wait.
Re: the Savage article, beknighted has it right, the transgendered individual in question demanded to be referred to by the gender pronoun "it". A no win situation for Savage, and one he didn't bring on himself this time!
Meanwhile, I came across this article during my lunch-time reading that I felt was very germane to the conversation of this thread as a whole (come one, folks, I know there are more instances out there, some serious, and some less so but still useful as examples in conversation), and I think also delves into that area of PC-ness that I've heard jammer pontificate (no disrespect intended) about. Language.
8 Harmful Examples of Standard American English Privilege
| Quote: |
Those with non-SAE accents are forced to speak differently, otherwise they risk being labeled such racist, classist and sexist terms as urban, country, girly, and so on.
Subsequently, such perceptions negatively affect professional and academic advancement, criminal guilt and so on. |
|
I can't even read this. One of the reasons I'm having such a hard time responding to this topic (or reading more materials on the subject) is because it really changes where I'm at in my head. And I'm in a really good place. Taking a week off. mrs jammer is out of town. Chillaxing to the umpteenth degree. I have had a mother bear of a year. So it's really hard to grind out all of this, in all honesty, really class anger, etc. Which I most certainly have and can tap into. But for now... I choose to be mellow. _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, âMe, too.â - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 12:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
It's sufficiently dark in my part of the world for a little bit of typing.
"We're not trying to take away your free speech," says the college kids to the working class dogs. "But there will be consequences."
Donald Trump. I've said his success is largely due to his rhetoric flying in the face of political correctness. And I believe, quite honestly, that all he really has to do to continue to grow as a movement politician, which is how I'm characterizing his candidacy, is keep hammering away like a broken record at PC whenever he even slightly missteps. He needs to become more articulate in attacking PC and if he bones up on the right points he could really catch fire.
Because. PC scares the hell out of the working classes in this country. They don't understand the nuances of it. They know they don't have a chance of trying to keep up with the latest in an ever shape-shifting lexicon of off-limits words and phrases and thoughts. But they do know a couple of things. One is that in this employment environment, after 20-plus years of PC, there's no chance that their employer can not and would not easily fire them for, let's call them PC-related infractions or incidents. Yes, they know there will be consequences.
As far as creating a better work environment in this country, I'm not arguing against the idea that moving people away from being insufferable intolerant hicks and towards more accepting and acceptable employees is a good thing. But creating that better more tolerant work environment is a process that doesn't happen and cannot happen as quickly as firing someone. And the reason for that is because of the limitations of the individuals you are dealing with. Limitations that the college kids who have been raging PCers for the last 20 plus years care little to nothing about as they TARGET the less educated for CONSEQUENCES.
Another reason it can't be accomplished by simply firing the offending employee is because you are creating a tremendous amount of ill-will which has ramifications that extend far beyond the specific individuals involved.
Let's talk about the bottom of the food chain in American. People where I come from. You just don't have any idea. None of you. They cover their mouths or don't open them at all because they have bad teeth. They can't put sentences together. They stumble over the things they're saying and you have to often figure out what they're trying to say from some stab at a thought/point they're trying to make. Go back and watch those minors' families interviewed in West Virginia about 6 or so years ago. Okay?
So then some of them, a percentage, I guess, get some confidence in themselves and their abilities to articulate something. They get better jobs, etc. Jobs that they KNOW that the people maybe back living in their house, mom, brothers, etc. could NEVER do because of the lack of education and inability to present themselves verbally.
Okay. As an aside, you also have to understand, I would hope, how speech and dialect has been used in the English language to categorize people according to class, station in life, and level of education. They've been doing it in England forever. Branded on the Tongue, it's called there. We do it here, we just don't have a name for it. So there's that.
But now, you're hitting all these people where it really hurts them and that is threatening their jobs, their ability to earn a living and eat, clothe themselves, put a roof over their heads. But the college kids who are raging on a campus somewhere creating the next generation of PC devotees... a LOT of those people come from different circumstances entirely. To say they don't care is an understatement. The one thing that people who come from even a fairly affluent background will NEVER get is the realities, fears, limitations, lowered aspirations, etc. that are the economic circumstances of the working class.
So given all that's against these people, you're FURTHER taking away their voice. They're going to be afraid to speak up and add their thoughts or concerns or even political leanings and even far from the workplace. There is this intimidating speech and thought police that they have every reason to fear can find them on Facebook or overhear them talking at a bar or making jokes somewhere.
So you can believe me or not, but what I'm saying is that there is a lot of people out there who hate PC, hate and fear the thought of it. Hate it like the anti-Disco crowd in the 70s. Till one day they riot at a baseball game. lol. Look it up, it happened.
So in the other thread mercfan said something like... one thing the educated seek to do is... educate!
That's when I started thinking I might have something to freak out norwester. We'll see.
Because, I don't think that's the case, mercfan. The educated mostly seek to capitalize on their education, get a great job, a leg up, compete, be successful, be vicious assholes, etc. Whatever. In pretty much every field and at every prestige level from Pomona College to Harvard. We churn out millions of college grads in this country every year. They don't go from their commencement ceremony to some American Peace and Education Corps career where they transform the inner city classroom and the schools in the hills of Appalachia.
So like the claim that every 28 hours a police officer MURDERS a black person, this is another specious claim.
The real world. How the real world works? The educated seek to educate is not how the real world works.
There's something else entirely that is REAL. That would be exclusivity of knowledge, and the hording of basic information, behavioral and social codes, business basics etc, in order to maintain a privileged position or status. That is as old as civilization. That's why a person like me is crying bullshit on so much of this altruistic college environment perspective that we get here.
I mean. If you're a college professor, just to pull an example out of my ass and go off on another aside, you're used to functioning almost like a priest. No matter WTF is going on, how bad it is, you have to help people process it in manner which allows them to move forward. From the bereaved wife to the freshman who's furious to find out that every 28 hours a cop MURDERS a black person. Your job is constantly taking everything good and horrible and repackaging it in a way that's looking forward and, because you're dealing with young minds, you know, optimism. The world is in a state of constant improvement, etc. Isis, Russia, growing inequality, endless starvation and desperation as economies and countries collapse world-wide? It's just us working the bugs out. Things are getting better.
Okay. Not out here in the real world. It's actually a lot darker. And we don't have to bullshit each other.
And that brings me back to Donald Trump. Donald Trump represents one of the biggest jammer-told-you-so's since I got killed for saying the Sparks were building a championship basketball team back in the late 90s. Comets fans ate me alive. With Trump... it's like... Trump is the chickens coming home to roost. Maybe they are in his hair, but whatever. People in this country feel that they've been pushed into a number of corners. You may all very well not have contact with these kinds of Americans. But some of us really do.
One of the things that cracked me up in this latest PC story in the Atlantic and how it was received and even presented by the authors... is this idea that PC has been a good thing... but this latest strain is really different and sucks. lol. Uh... yeah. That shows me how successful PC was in become an unquestioned and accepted part of enlightened educated affluent liberal intellectual life in America over the last two decades. People are invested in it in a way that is unquestioned. But this is different. etc.
So the Atlantic has a piece and one of the authors was on Morning Joe.
Dudes. When PC first reared it's ugly head back in the early 90s, it was on the network news and on the covers of Time and Newsweek, I'm sure. The proponents were militant and angry and scared the hell out of everyone. These people were frightening. They made a huge splash and PC came to look like it was going to be exactly what it turned out to be, a slow growing cultural turning point in America.
So it doesn't seek to limit free speech? But what about those consequences? From the beginning, and for many many many years, every so often, there would be a case where some nationally known someone would step in it. And then, that would be the end of their careers. The list is too long. So to the regular people out there who really really can't afford to be fired? PC has BEEN scaring the hell out of them since Jimmy the Greek. That's a long time.
So Donald Trump says the Mexicans coming across the border are rapists. lol. Go back and look at what I said about that. I'm like, welp, there he goes. Seeya. But then he just mouthed off some shit about not being PC. And boo-ya! Suddenly, just like that, Donald Trump has a base.
PC is not going to win in America. I say that looking at Trump but also just reading comments sections in places like the New York Times were obviously liberal people who are WAY better at articulating the issues are starting to really voice their contempt and take the concept of political correctness to task for the many ridiculous overreaches and hypocrisy of the movement and its proponents.
You can enforce this stuff in your home. There will always now be workplace protections but, and maybe Trump will not radically change anything like PC in the short term, but sooner or later protections are going to start gaining popularity and a foothold in legislation that prevents employers from firing people for what they say on Facebook, etc.
Anyway. That's about a third, or maybe even less, one area actually, of my objections to PC.
Free speech is really important. The concept itself is what is important. Not whether or not the constitution protects people only from the government infringing on their free speech. We're really not going to long tolerate a constitutional principle wherein the government can't limit our free speech... but oh shit... that doesn't stop some college kids from creating a movement that DOES?
Please. Trump is blowback. As the cover of Time says, Deal With It._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, âMe, too.â - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
HistoryWomensBasketball
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 7:14 am ::: |
Reply |
|
< Jammer
Post of the year. enjoyed reading it very much and enlightened me some as well.
Thank you |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 7:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
My opinion of political correctness is unchanged from the last time we discussed it...
http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=621258#621258
| Quote: |
| Political correctness is hateful. The whole point of it is to demonize people based on the way they express themselves. |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 9:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| And that's the problem with the Dan Savage article. His insistence that he's right, that his ideas are right, that these children are having themselves a tantrum (meanwhile, the entire article reads like a tantrum)..he can't handle someone else's thoughts or ideas. His whole discussion about "it." Like he thought it is ridiculous that the word "it" could be offensive to a trans person..I mean, that's simply a lack of empathy.. |
The Savage article definitely had an antagonistic tone to it, but I find it hard to fault him. He was writing this in defense of himself and, naturally, it becomes pretty defensive. I think most people would be a little put out if they were accused of a "hate crime", but it's got to be even harder when it is a person like Savage who has dedicated his life to the concept of social justice for LGBTQ peoples. When the community you have worked your butt off for suddenly turns on you, it has to feel like a sense of betrayal--and that feeling can lead to this sort of tone. Is it the best tone to get your point across? No. But it is, at least to me, very understandable.
However, unless I misunderstood what he wrote, I am pretty sure he didn't actually refer to a trans person as "it". The first part starts with "pretend...". I think it was meant to be a thought exercise, the reason for which he explains later.
My understanding is that someone objected to him using a term they found offensive, even though he was doing it in the context of academic discussion. Later, after they left, one of their friends told him that this individual preferred the pronoun "it". His thought experiment was meant to highlight the fact that if he used that person's preferred pronoun, he would likely offend others. He likened it to the term "queer" which although is now preferred terminology was not always the case, and does in fact still offend some, mostly older, people.
My feelings on this matter is that when it is knowable, context and intent must be considered before condemning a person's words. Especially if we are going to label things "hate speech" or a "hate crime". A word, in and of itself, should not be seen as such in an open society. While it is definitely fair for someone to feel a word offensive no matter the context, it is decidedly not fair to then label the user of said word without considering the situational context. |
Oh, I definitely think "hate crime" is excessive. But my only point was, without being there..I don't know if he was really using the word in an intellectual discussion or was truly being antagonistic. (Or somewhere in the middle?)
But his discussion of the word "it" is totally different. It was a "thinking exercise"..but it was also accompanied with the disbelief that the word "it" could be offensive. Now, if a trans person wants to be identified with the word "it" ...so be it. But it's hard to understand his disbelief that the majority of the trans community wouldn't take kindly to being referred to as "it."
And here's what has always been my point. If someone says "please stop doing X, it bothers me"..a person has two choices..they can stop doing X, or they can say "I don't give a shit about your feelings" and continue doing X. One of these two options makes you an asshole, pretty much regardless of the situation.
Jammer..ah, you had issues with the word "Murder"...okay. Truthfully, I thought about that word too, but ended up using the word from the website I got the statistic from (which had other accurate statistics). Now, delving further into that statistic, 88% of the black men killed by police were cases of excessive force. (So instead of 313 killings - at the time of the 275 would really be murdered) And another 4% were cases where it was unclear. So maybe the true statistic for the word "murder" as opposed to killing is more like "every 31 hours" Regardless, delving too hard into that statistic is missing the point entirely. Which is..black men are subjected to an extremely high rate of violence against them from those who are meant to protect society..which is just one way that they are oppressed in this country. Now, when you have individuals complaining that they can't drop racial slurs like they used to (in the good old days, I'm assuming?) I pretty much don't give a fuck.
When I say consequences, I mean criticism. Everyone has free speech, but that also means you are open to criticism.
And your story about consequences is interesting. But once again, you are only taking into the account of white middle class straight cis male individuals.
Are there cases of people who are fired for "PC Reasons taken too far." I'm sure there are. And that's terrible for them. But my guess is that is a relatively small percent of the time. (Certainly, a much smaller rate than the violence that occurs against oppressed individuals.)
What is likely the case, is when people are fired for "PC reasons", it's because they were blatantly sexist, racist, or homophobic. And quite frankly, I don't have an issue with that. Sorry, you don't get to tell the secretary how much you love her boobs. And you don't get to drop homophobic and ethnic slurs. Period. The working class knows what those are. The working class knows that's not appropriate.
In those cases, it's not about "not knowing" it's about not liking. There was a time when those behaviors are fine, but we don't live in the 1950s any longer. So get over it.
And quite frankly, in those cases..although it may be scary to those who might be prone to use that language..it protects the rest of us.
Political Correctness seeks to stop the dehumanization of oppressed groups of people. Language is a tool used for oppression, used to dehumanize. Can it be taken too far? Sure. Nothing's perfect. There's an attempt here to consider the experiences of others, not just society's "default." ( the straight white cis man.) That is not a bad thing.
*And the idea that the educated don't educate is ludicrous. I'm pretty aware when it comes to being politically correct, but I've been corrected on language before. I've corrected others on language before. I've seen others corrected on language before. And 99% of the time, it's done in a polite manner.
_________________
âAnyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is âLord Dampnutââ- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 9:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| But his discussion of the word "it" is totally different. It was a "thinking exercise"..but it was also accompanied with the disbelief that the word "it" could be offensive. |
I didn't get the same thing in my reading of the essay. They way I understood it, he was saying that using "it" would be offensive, and rightfully so. Yet that is what the person who accused him of "hate speech" wanted to be called.
| Dan Savage wrote: |
Because referring to a trans person as "it"not he or she or zim or zer or them or their, but it, a thing, an objectis the worst thing you call a trans person after "tranny." Some would argue that "it" is worse than "tranny" because "tranny" is sometimes used by trans people affectionately or ironically. (When I posted this picture of me in drag on Instagram, for example, Kate Bornstein, the trans activist, author, icon, and a "Savage Love" guest expert for nearly twenty years (!) wrote this in the comment thread: "Aw, see? You ARE a dear tranny!") I've heard shock jocks and bigots and bashers dehumanize trans people by calling them "it," but I have never in my life heard a trans person refer to another trans person as "it"not in jest, not as a putdown, not once, not ever.
So "it" is an anti-trans slur and it's arguably the worst anti-trans slur. Got it? Okay, hold that thought....
Okay, gang, remember our let's pretend game at the top of the post? What's one of the worst things you can call a trans person? What's arguably worse than the "t-slur" itself? It. After the student who challenged, interrupted, and yelled at me and Cox stormed out of the room, a friend of this student informed Cox, who had used a standard pronoun to refer to this person after this person left the room (while Cox observed, with great sensitivity and tact, that some feel very strongly about this issue), that this person's preferred pronoun was "it." |
_________________
ââââââââBA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 10:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| And here's what has always been my point. If someone says "please stop doing X, it bothers me"..a person has two choices..they can stop doing X, or they can say "I don't give a shit about your feelings" and continue doing X. One of these two options makes you an asshole, pretty much regardless of the situation. |
The problem being that the PC crowd doesn't ask. They just expect you to know what they don't want you to do. And it changes all the time.
Plus, sometimes it's appropriate to continue saying or doing things that make others uncomfortable. There are any number of people who would say "Stop talking about killer cops", for example. Does it make you an asshole if you continue to do so?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19759
Back to top |
|
|
|
