PC: to be or not to be

[Gráinne]

I don't go around intentionally offending people, but I don't call myself PC, and here's why: It's offensive to me to be thought of as so thin-skinned that I can't take a non-PC word spoken in the context of a discussion, movie, or a song. I find it patronizing to have to closely watch my words as to not offend.

How far do we go? Do we ban Huckleberry Finn ? It certainly has language offensive to African-Americans in it. How about the song "Brown Sugar"? The movie Blazing Saddles?

One side's PC is another side's censorship.

Every racial, ethnic, and religious group in the history of forever has had some kind of slur or epithet attached to it. If we're talking about racial tensions, "white" people can be Irish, German, French, Russian-all of whom have had stereotypes, jokes, and slurs attached to them.

Who gets to decide what's PC and therefore, acceptable and non-offending speech/movies/plays/literature? What if I don't fall into that group? That to me is as frightening a thought as the real-life Fahrenheit 451 of Nazi Germany.

What is the difference between the censorship of 1930's Germany and the risk that a professor can ruin his or her career by a ill-thought out word and the resultant uproar? I feel that stifles, rather than encourages, open and straight talk (A professor of communications at the University of Kansas has been suspended after a protest by students-not all of whom were in her class-after she used a slur in the context of talking about racial issues).

I personally think Donald Trump is an idiot, but he can say whatever he wants and I'll consider the source before choosing whether or not to be offended. He doesn't pull punches. Neither, for that matter, did Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X, and both of them were equally controversial.

So, I guess at best I have a sick sense of humor, and at worst, I myself am racist, sexist and anything else. Maybe this post isn't even the "right" opinion and is offensive in itself, oh well.

Voltaire is incorrectly quoted as saying "I diapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it". The actual quote is "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too". Amen.

[storyspinner70]

I think that the thing most people object to when it comes to being called "pc" is that Politically Correct most often means not saying what you actually want to say because you'll be considered gauche, racist or archaic. It, like most things in our world, has been twisted into a shadow of what it may have started out as.

For example, if you see a child with Down's and it takes effort to not break out the "r" word because you know someone is going to be outraged by that, or you'll LOOK like you're an asshole, but that's the only reason you're whipping out the "differently abled" instead? It's lip service at best, and you're still not addressing the root problem - a child with Down's should just be a child to you like any other. At the core, isn't that disingenuous at best?

And, frankly, in the states anyway, we've become such a litigious society that people have become afraid to say or do things for fear of being sued by someone. Everyone is so eager anymore to be offended, it's becoming impossible to express an opinion without being attacked for it. I have zero problem with that, but people are being cowed into silence because of things like that. And that's never cool.

As for me, I'd rather you look me in the face and say, "Damn, you're a CUNxtTuesday" than to fill my ears with what you think you should say and hate me while you do it. So, I'm a firm advocate for using the politically correct terms, but you're a hypocrite to do it just because you feel you need to not to look like an asshole with no concept of what the foundation of being PC is really about.

Speaking of assholes, Trump isn't being some champion for truth and honesty when he spouts his nonsense freely in the name of "banishing political correctness". He's just doing what is his right - saying whatever he wants whenever he wants to. Dust off the extremely thin layer of righteousness, and he's still just an asshole with a ton of money and the freedom of speech we all enjoy.

So, really, for me...be PC if you want...be outrageous if you want...but be genuine. Be real. Let the chips fall where they may, but be you.


Oh and Grainne, you are very correct, that quote was never Voltaire, but Evelyn Beatrice Hall (as Stephen G. Tallentyre) writing about Voltaire's purported attitude.

[Angeltoes]

It's no surprise that people have ugly thoughts what's different now is that historically this country has never given such a wide platform to lunatics before. The term itself has morphed into something negative only because Conservatives in the 1990's started associating it with Communism.

Example: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/we...pagewanted=all

[imperfect_cupcake]

I have a dark, sarcastic, sharp sense of humour. I enjoy being called names as a form or endearment. People teased me and called me "Moose Flaps Morgan" (flaps are vagina lips and moose was because I'm Canuck) when I first went to the UK. If I showed upset and offence, they would have hit me harder and constantly. Instead, I insulted back and laughed. And learned abut a different way to express humour and to understand *intent* rather than form. I know a shit ton neo-liberal middle class white faux lesbian gals who are verbally PC but are horrid, horrid bitches when it comes to anything they don't want in their own back yard.

Intent is a lot. But that requires trusting the person and knowing what their intent is. That means if one of my mates yells "hey slag!" To me on the street, I'll grin and waggle my butt and run over and hug them. If someone I don't know says something similar, they are going to get a new one ripped about understanding slut shaming. Because I don't know what their intent is. How the fuck would I know?? That's why posting on a forum where you don't know folks, having a change of tact is usually indicative of emotional intelligence.

I'm not all that fussed about offending people that I do. However, I'm willing to have a conversation about what they have an issue with. Their emotional response is their own. That's their biz. But if they have a critical thinking point, I'll be interested in that. Someone trying to shut down a conversation by saying "I'm offended"
God for you. And? Do you have a reason and a point to go with that?

And the offhand remark of "PC police" or "PC gone crazy" means that no critical thinking, intelligent conversation will follow. Because the term is ment to dismiss any conversation and to belittle anything that follows. It falls under the same belittling terms as: hysterical, hypersensitive, over dramatic, drama queen, storm in a tea cup, over emotional... Anyone seeing a theme in this? They are feminising insults. Because yer a hypersensitive girly man liberal if it matters. Or just a female. So anything you say is dismissed.


Frankly, I get told "stop busting my balls, bitch" along the same lines.
My response "quit whining and put on a cup"

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Gráinne

I don't go around intentionally offending people, but I don't call myself PC, and here's why: It's offensive to me to be thought of as so thin-skinned that I can't take a non-PC word spoken in the context of a discussion, movie, or a song.

Well I don't think it's about you being offended by a non PC word. I think it's more about offending other people using words that are racist/ misogynist/ whatever ist/

How far do we go? Do we ban Huckleberry Finn ? It certainly has language offensive to African-Americans in it. How about the song "Brown Sugar"? The movie Blazing Saddles?

To me when it comes to art I think people can make up their own minds as to what they want to look at it/watch/read.

Every racial, ethnic, and religious group in the history of forever has had some kind of slur or epithet attached to it. If we're talking about racial tensions, "white" people can be Irish, German, French, Russian-all of whom have had stereotypes, jokes, and slurs attached to them.

I doubt anyone is advocating using any ethnic slurs of any kind. So everyone should be included when talking about not offending others by using thoughtless ethnic slurs or even purposeful offensive language.

Who gets to decide what's PC and therefore, acceptable and non-offending speech/movies/plays/literature? What if I don't fall into that group? That to me is as frightening a thought as the real-life Fahrenheit 451 of Nazi Germany.

As far as movies/plays/literature I don't think there is anyone advocating throwing out art or literature because it contains offensive language. It may earn a warning at the box office or something but I never heard of it not being shown or banned in boston or whatever. I'm not positive about this but to my knowledge no one but the religious right advocates such restrictions on art and literature. They would like to control what we can read/watch/see, but I don't think that has anything to do with being sensitive toward other groups.

When speaking individually about falling into a group that is offended by some language I think it's open to interpretation by the individual concerned or the group concerned. I don't think there is any organized group that does that. I doubt the PC Police actually exists (that's a joke, I know they don't exist).

I imagine anyone who wants to advocate for themselves can do so. For example someone with autism would prefer to be called "a person with autism" rather than "autistic" and someone with schizophrenia would prefer to called "a person with schizophrenia" rather than "a schizophrenic". I doubt someone not having autism or schizophrenia just decided that one day. I am sure people with autism or schizophrenia advocated for how they would like to be referred. So I don't see any worries about falling into a group that gets forgotten and falls through the cracks. Anyone/group can advocate against the language used to describe them.

What is the difference between the censorship of 1930's Germany and the risk that a professor can ruin his or her career by a ill-thought out word and the resultant uproar? I feel that stifles, rather than encourages, open and straight talk (A professor of communications at the University of Kansas has been suspended after a protest by students-not all of whom were in her class-after she used a slur in the context of talking about racial issues).

I read an article about that and I came away from it with a completely different take. I'll just post a link to the article and people who are interested can read it and decide for themselves.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/news...ing_nword.html

I personally think Donald Trump is an idiot, but he can say whatever he wants and I'll consider the source before choosing whether or not to be offended. He doesn't pull punches. Neither, for that matter, did Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X, and both of them were equally controversial.

It's not the punch pulling I have a problem with, just because I advocate we treat each other with respect doesn't mean I wish to be bullshitted. But rudeness and political incorrectness does not mean truth. Just look at the bullshit Trump says and the lies he tells. Offensive does not equate truth.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Offensiveness does not equal truth

Word. Yes. Absolutely.

Being offended does not mean you are right either. It just means perhaps a conversation should happen rather than expecting that being offended is a card to play to end conversation.

I get right fucked off about slut shaming and using the word whore in a derogatory way - ie someone who deserved pain or they are dirty. But me being offended isn't the issue. Those feelings are mine and frankly no one else's problem. However, the treatment and concepts of women based on how many people they have had sex with is based in religion concepts of purity, is more than just my problem. And boy the ignorance around what causes STDs due to this belief is a soap box irritation. With good reason - it causes people to treat others very poorly for false reasons.

That I Am offended is neither here nor there and inconsequential.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by imperfect_cupcake

That I Am offended is neither here nor there and inconsequential.

I think this is an important piece and certainly one that I often forget to focus on. It really is more about the significance of what you are saying universally than personally when you use offensive language.

[Angeltoes]

I really, really hate the 'he's entitled to his opinion trend...'...'you're entitled to your opinion...'...'we're all entitled to an opinion...'

No you're not. You're not entitled to anything. You're not entitled to make up lies and call them facts. This is why we're so screwed as a society, because rather than demanding that people tell the truth, we sit back and defend their right to tell lies. The founders (most of whom I have no great respect for to be perfectly honest) had no clue that their conception of free speech would become what it is today. In their day, someone would publish an almanac or a broadside that was a bit controversial and after while it would go away. Or, someone would burn the author's publishing house down. Either way, people had to pretend to be decent in order for anyone to follow them in great numbers.

We have never before given a large audience to the Donald Trumps of the world. It's not radical to say that he has no right to speak. It's actually radical to say that he does. In the past, society expected politicians to defend their beliefs and now we say that's not necessary. Donald Trump is running for PRESIDENT and we say 'oh well he's entitled to his opinion..' opinion, opinion..

Here's more on that if you're interested...

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-...r-opinion-9978

[imperfect_cupcake]

Right to free speech is different than what people usually mean when they say they have a right to an opinion. The only time hear it is when I attempt to engage with someone about their faulty premises that their opinion is based on.

My response is always the same: yes, you do have free speech. That means you can express an opinion without being thrown in jail for it. That's what that means. It does NOT mean that if you voice an opinion, no one is allowed to challenge or dispute the premise it's based on. That is NOT what free speech means. You can also say things that make you look like a giant deranged penis hole, if you like. No one is stopping you. But people *will* call attention to things in your arsehole opinion that aren't logically sound. Suck it up and engage or shut it.


It should be obvious from that I'm not fussed if they are offended.

[Angeltoes]

I was responding to the comment Gráinne:

"I personally think Donald Trump is an idiot, but he can say whatever he wants and I'll consider the source before choosing whether or not to be offended. He doesn't pull punches. Neither, for that matter, did Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X, and both of them were equally controversial."

First of all, Malcolm X did not run for president. Second, as shocking and as offensive as they may have been at times, quite often they were right. Donald Trump is an absolute idiot. We're talking about putting our lives in his hands, and people are concerned with whether or not he's allowed to express his opinion.

Edit I take back the part about Farrakhan. He's a jerk and not in the same league as Malcolm X.

[Angeltoes]

Malcolm X was an intellectual. He said:

You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.

What has Donald Trump had to say?

And why was Malcolm considered 'radical'? Because white people were afraid of a black man man who stood up the way he did. They had never before seen so many black people publicly accepting a message like this one:

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.

[Uli]

I think political correctness as a term needs to die die die. Most of what falls under 'politically correct' in terms of language is simply being kind, being respectful, listening to people when they tell you that a word hurts them and changing your word choices accordingly because it's the right thing to do. Every person gets to choose whether to be kind or to be an asshole, there's nothing political about it.

I just think there is perhaps a small faction of people who are currently being assholes and railing against 'PC' who might actually consider changing their behavior if we called political correctness what it really is: kindness. Some people will still be assholes, which is a bummer, but any change for the better is preferable to no change at all.

[dark_crystal]

I think we should all strive to "be PC" which I would further describe as "avoid committing microaggressions"

I also think that it is shameful the way that people get dogpiled when they might say "black" instead of "POC," or leave the "IQQA" off GLBT, etc.

If someone does not get it exactly right the first time or even the third time, it should be pointed out to them in a non-escalated, non-condescending, non-shaming way

ALSO

it is worth remembering that what is PC changes all of the time

Remember when it was ok for Natalie Merchant to refuse to play "Peace Train" because she did not approve of Cat Stevens' conversion to Islam? She was applauded for that position where she would now be criticized

Remember "people-first language?" When you couldn't say "deaf person," but instead had to say "person with deafness?"

That is no longer seen as appropriate, as blind, deaf, and autistic advocacy groups have all rejected it "it is overly defensive, implies shame instead of true equality, and portrays the blind as touchy and belligerent"

Furthermore, there are politically-correct-usage guidelines that I have been made aware of, throughtfully considered, carefully researched, and then rejected. You can do that!

• I was just recently made aware of QUILTBAG as a proposed new acronym for our community
  

  I am never going to use that. Never. It has "bag" in it.

• also I do not think doing yoga automatically culturally insensitive (depending on how and whether the history is presented)
  
  
• I almost barfed when I read an article that said "calling things your spirit animal is racist"
  

  I get the author's point that it appropriates native american culture in a superficial way, but native americans don't own "spirit animals".
  
  The ancient celts used animal totems, also, along with every prehistoric tribe in every region of the world.

I taught a whole workshop on microaggressions to 100 librarians right smack in the middle of liberal old Austin, Texas

but

Here I am, a bourgeois white woman, picking and choosing which PC rules I feel like I should have to follow and which ones I feel entitled to dismiss as trivial or silly.

Maybe I'm just as bad as Donald Trump