(December 15, 2015 at 1:22 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: But I don't think "political correctness" is a thing.  I think it's a term that lets us use less nuance and make discourse more divisive and promotes both intellectual dishonesty (by people who say "be politically correct!") and needless bigotry (by people who say "don't be politically correct!"), both of which are bad but easy.

Firstly, PC is certainly a thing -- and abstract thing that see concrete usage. Secondly equating PC with intellectual dishonesty or non-PC with needless bigotry are both equivalences which need support. Are you really saying that people who prefer blunt speech are automatically bigots?

(December 15, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 1:22 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: But I don't think "political correctness" is a thing.  I think it's a term that lets us use less nuance and make discourse more divisive and promotes both intellectual dishonesty (by people who say "be politically correct!") and needless bigotry (by people who say "don't be politically correct!"), both of which are bad but easy.

Firstly, PC is certainly a thing -- and abstract thing that see concrete usage. Secondly equating PC with intellectual dishonesty or non-PC with needless bigotry are both equivalences which need support.  Are you really saying that people who prefer blunt speech are automatically bigots?

No, absolutely not.  (edit: this is in response to the question at the end of your post, not the statement at the beginning)

Example: when a school bans The Adventures of Huck Finn because of a word it uses to describe black people, that's intellectually dishonest, or at least lazy, inasmuch as it is easier to just skip a classic than to address the broader issues of generational values changes and confront the bad things we did in the past and why things are different today. ("but that's not political correctness, that's pure revisionism" - says who?)

Example: when someone insists on referring to gay people as "fags" because "political correctness is hurting america," that person's hiding their own bigotry behind an ideological facade. ("but that's not anti-political correctness, that's out-and-out prejudice" - says who?)

I'm really, really pissed at politico-social categorization.  Something is either "politically correct" or "not politically correct."  Someone's either a "conservative" or a "liberal."  An idea is leftist elite moonbattery or republican redneck wingnuttery.  Bull. Shit.

Yeah, political correctness is a thing.  It's a thing because it makes it easier for the media to talk about things in black or white terms. 
It makes it easier for "the bleeding heart liberals" to pretend everyone should be fine everywhere and never have to get offended and if something historical or academic or intellectual offends someone it makes it easier to just push the topic under the rug than to have a discussion about it. 
It makes it easier for "gun lovin' hawkish conservatives" to say something awful and not get called out on it because "oh noes here comes the pc police" and when they do get called out on it it turns them into the victim of the leftist agenda rather than an idiot.

Simply because the term gets used in a divisive manner doesn't mean that it is always useless, is my point.

(December 15, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Simply because the term gets used in a divisive manner doesn't mean that it is always useless, is my point.

Yeah, and I think you're right.  And, listen, I'm not ranting against you.  Believe me, if there's someone's take on the issue that I respect... you're way up the list.  I just, I guess, had some pent up rage at how I see the whole topic being used.  I'm not disagreeing that there's a proper use of the term.  I'm just saying that, like many other things, the term has eroded into a buzzword, and oftentimes when it's invoked these days it just lets everyone transform the discussion into "liberal" vs "conservative" and make vapid statements about "how come everyone's offended all the time" and "you wouldn't say that if you weren't bigoted" and such.

I guess what I mean is: it lets people ignore the specifics of things that are said and allows them to instead argue with comfortable recycled platitudes and throw the weight of a "crusade" or "ideology" behind something relatively benign.  Or something.  I'm rambling.

(December 15, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 1:22 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: But I don't think "political correctness" is a thing.  I think it's a term that lets us use less nuance and make discourse more divisive and promotes both intellectual dishonesty (by people who say "be politically correct!") and needless bigotry (by people who say "don't be politically correct!"), both of which are bad but easy.

Firstly, PC is certainly a thing -- and abstract thing that see concrete usage. Secondly equating PC with intellectual dishonesty or non-PC with needless bigotry are both equivalences which need support.  Are you really saying that people who prefer blunt speech are automatically bigots?

Agreed. It's a power play. But I do think bluntness differs from insult, like saying someone is acting like an idiot versus saying someone is an idiot. But even that seems insufficient.

I once overhead a black mother tell her misbehaving son to "stop acting like a nigger." There's a lot going on in that seemingly simple admonition. I had to think about that one. She seemed to be distinguishing between two kinds of black people, but used a term that only gets used with reference to blacks. To me that was much different from the time I heard one white guy say that he'd rather have a nicer car than a bigger house. His friend replied, "Now you're thinking like a nigger." I know the latter is racist because I know the person who said it and he meant all black people. But if I hadn't known him personally, is that really a safe assumption. He could have meant it in the same sense as the mother. Even if he did does it matter?

I don't have an answer. Even if I did have an opinion I still wouldn't don't feel it is something white people can discuss without the very likely possibility of being accused of bigotry and outright racism. In today's culture, it doesn't matter how carefully you express yourself or the lengths to which you qualify your statements with respect to certain topics in a serious discussion. Eric Holder said that this nation (the US) needs to have a serious conversation about race. Bullshit! What he really means is only on his terms. People cannot have a serious debate when only one party gets to decide what can and cannot be said by everyone else.

I think most people can say that in polite discourse vulgarities should be avoided, except when absolutely necessary. Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits. I say 'nigger' is more vulgar and ugly than any of these. But I refused to have written this post without using it. I'm not going to say "N-word" because maybe people aren't saying it out loud, but they're still thinking it in their heads.

(December 15, 2015 at 3:30 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Simply because the term gets used in a divisive manner doesn't mean that it is always useless, is my point.

Yeah, and I think you're right.  And, listen, I'm not ranting against you.  Believe me, if there's someone's take on the issue that I respect... you're way up the list.  I just, I guess, had some pent up rage at how I see the whole topic being used.  I'm not disagreeing that there's a proper use of the term.  I'm just saying that, like many other things, the term has eroded into a buzzword, and oftentimes when it's invoked these days it just lets everyone transform the discussion into "liberal" vs "conservative" and make vapid statements about "how come everyone's offended all the time" and "you wouldn't say that if you weren't bigoted" and such.

I guess what I mean is: it lets people ignore the specifics of things that are said and allows them to instead argue with comfortable recycled platitudes and throw the weight of a "crusade" or "ideology" behind something relatively benign.  Or something.  I'm rambling.

I hear you; there's that danger in any label, and extremes on both sides of this debate avail themselves of such simplistic thinking as pigeonholing.

(December 15, 2015 at 3:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Firstly, PC is certainly a thing -- and abstract thing that see concrete usage. Secondly equating PC with intellectual dishonesty or non-PC with needless bigotry are both equivalences which need support.  Are you really saying that people who prefer blunt speech are automatically bigots?

Agreed. It's a power play. But I do think bluntness differs from insult, like saying someone is acting like an idiot versus saying someone is an idiot. But even that seems insufficient.

I once overhead a black mother tell her misbehaving son to "stop acting like a nigger." There's a lot going on in that seemingly simple admonition. I had to think about that one. She seemed to be distinguishing between two kinds of black people, but used a term that only gets used with reference to blacks. To me that was much different from the time I heard one white guy say that he'd rather have a nicer car than a bigger house. His friend replied, "Now you're thinking like a nigger." I know the latter is racist because I know the person who said it and he meant all black people. But if I hadn't known him personally, is that really a safe assumption. He could have meant it in the same sense as the mother. Even if he did does it matter?

I don't have an answer. Even if I did have an opinion I still wouldn't don't feel it is something white people can discuss without the very likely possibility of being accused of bigotry and outright racism. In today's culture, it doesn't matter how carefully you express yourself or the lengths to which you qualify your statements with respect to certain topics in a serious discussion. Eric Holder said that this nation (the US) needs to have a serious conversation about race. Bullshit! What he really means is only on his terms. People cannot have a serious debate when only one party gets to decide what can and cannot be said by everyone else.

I think most people can say that in polite discourse vulgarities should be avoided, except when absolutely necessary. Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits. I say 'nigger' is more vulgar and ugly than any of these. But I refused to have written this post without using it. I'm not going to say "N-word" because maybe people aren't saying it out loud, but they're still thinking it in their heads.

There's this great new thing called internalized racism.

(December 15, 2015 at 4:34 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: There's this great new thing called internalized racism.

As opposed to the old thing of rising above it?

What I get from this thread so far (at least for me) is this:
1) Names made specifically to take an unintelligent stance toward a group are bad: nigger, chink, faggit, gook etc. are like saying "I disrespect you so much, I'm not even going to bother saying the word for you properly." The negative isn't so much in the racism as in the complete disrespect with which it's prevented. I've seen at least 20 fights in Canada start with "What the fuck are YOU lookin' at, faaaaaagit?" and it's ugly.

2) Some words describe people reasonably well: colored IS a meaningful term from the perspective of white people, and handicapped or crippled ARE words that reasonably well describe traits people can have. Retarded people ARE stupid, in relative terms, and calling someone retarded is saying they are acting stupidly. None of these words bother me much, because while they aren't necessarily sensitive, they aren't words of hate specially constructed to belittle. When they are USED as such, then the bullying stance is always wrong: "What the fuck are you looking at, retard!?" is clearly bad, while "Oh my God, I forgot to turn off the stove again. I'm so retarded!" isn't too bad, at least to me.

3) (my own idea) a lot / most of PC is as belittling as the un-PC vocabulary, because it implies that all those groups NEED to be protected by. . . guess who? Douchey young or middle-aged white people. How condescending that the Starbucks faggits (yeah, I said it, and I don't mean homosexual!) think anybody needs them for anything but fixing their iPhones.

RE: Guys: Would you ever rape and murder a girl? http://atheistforums.org/thread-40039.html

Damn it, I am so sick of atheists being offended at every little thing. Why'd you all attack this man, call him names, and label him a troll just because he suggested it's likely that atheists are potential rapists and murderers? A troll, mind you...a troll! Must everyone have to tip-toe around the sensibilities of overly-sensitive, thin-skinned, professional victims every waking moment of every single day? Come on! This gentlemen should've been free to be able to say whatever the fuck he wanted without interference from people whining that it was inaccurate, unfair or untrue. 

So what are we saying, atheists are a minority, so they're worthy of "special" rights and consideration...like consideration? Ha ha. Sure. Okay. 
This is a prime example of the type of PC bullshit that disgusts me. 







Just kidding:
3 Common Complaints about Political Correctness (That Completely Miss the Point)
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/10/comp...rrectness/