When is PC too PC?

[Whistler]

Alatar! You used the word "Brits." Good thing you didn't use the word "Japs," which is clearly racist!

Melly, I do not think the goal of political correctness is to avoid hurting the feelings of others.

In my experience its goal is to hurt feelings selectively, causing no end of misery for certain groups so that other groups can proudly proclaim their own presumed moral superiority.

And by "other groups" I do not mean minorities, the disabled and so forth. I mean politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats, activists and celebrities who exploit injustices (real and imagined) to promote themselves and their careers. They are parasites who manufacture disharmony for purely selfish purposes, and they exist on all sides of the political/social spectrum.

Further, their endless complaints so frustrate the average well-meaning person that he grows insensitive and deaf to the very real injustices that remain in our society. That is the greatest tragedy. Those who are “defended” by political correctness are the ones who have the greatest reason to reject it. Their lives are too important for these games.

[sauronsfinger]

PC goes too far when it infringes on the honest and open discussion of societal issues facing us.

Here is my recent example from the local news. The subject of affirmative action is one that is obviously controversial. However, it is rarely discussed in public especially in anything but an academic setting. And even then the pressures can be stifling to not have that discussion.

I am old enough to have marched in Civil Rights demonstrations. I grew up in the 100% all white community of Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn is a suburb of Detroit and the home of the Ford Motor Company. For over thirty years we had a mayor - Orville Hubbard - who made sure the city stayed all white. In high school I marched in a demonstration for open housing and against the city policies. I did NOT do this because I was in favor of African Americans although they certainly were the focus of the demonstration. I did it because I had been taught about the 14th Amendment and equal protection of the laws for ALL Americans. African Americans happen to be Americans first - at least to my way of thinking. that entitles them to the same legal protections as everyone else. No more... no less. The same as everyone else.

I have not changed my position on Civil Rights in the last forty years. The laws should apply equally to all Americans. Period. So because of that I have a unique stand on current affirmative action programs.

I think they are great and a wonderful and boost up to people who historically did not get any help but instead were held back by legal and insitiutional barriers. Unfortunatley, I strongly believe that they also violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and should be illegal.
Amend the Constitution to allow them, but do not sneak something in through an illegal back-door and tell me its okay because its good for the country.

Go to a gathering of liberal minded people, or a group which has a large minority presence and try to explain that position. You do not get very far . In Michigan, there will be a ballot question on the subject this November. My old union - the Detroit Federation of Teachers - is throwing every ounce of political muscle they have in defeating it as the cause celeb of the moment. On most union issues I was always on the extreme left position. Now I find myself almost alone on the right of that issue.

But because of PC, the merits are not discussed. There is no fair discussion based on calm, rational reasoning. Its all heat and fury with a predetermined outcome. I blame the PC environment of creating sacred cows that are beyond debate or discussion. That serves nobody well in a democracy where a vital and open exchange of honest views is a pillar of a working system.

[nerdanel]

Whistler, could you please explain further?

- Whose feelings are hurt by political correctness? Who is being caused misery?

- "Those who are “defended” by political correctness are the ones who have the greatest reason to reject it."

Again, I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you mean by this.

***

Cerin - I think that the differences you speak of are primarily cultural. However, even if a certain characteristic is more prevalent among people of a particular ethnicity, I think that the only way we can "use" that knowledge is to assume that a person of that ethnicity will exhibit that characteristic. And, for the reasons I stated earlier, I think that those assumptions are harmful.

***

Alatar, I very much agree with Frelga. Although I didn't say it explicitly as she, my "It furthers the thinking that people are members of groups rather than individuals." was also a reference to your position in the MBTI thread.

And, I think there's a key point in Frelga's post - these generalized stereotypes, which according to Sassy have a modicum of truth, are only directed against minorities. Question for any of the Americans or Europeans (especially you, Sassy ): I would like for you to provide me with generalizations containing a modicum of truth that apply to white people. (will avoid the word Caucasian because Hobby doesn't like it).

BTW, I have only been licensed for four years and have driven for five total, incl. learner's permit time. Still, I cannot for the life of me think what group you are talking about, unless you are referring to the complete insanity of Bostonian drivers. I can't identify one race that's particularly bad at driving in my experience. Admittedly I have only driven for three and a half months in California, but I honestly have no idea who you mean.

***

A lot of these issues with 'political correctness' seem to result from people's shock and horror that they might be asked to do such a simple thing - to use different terminology - to make members of a certain group feel more comfortable. A good example is crippled vs. handicapped vs. disabled vs. differently-abled. If it makes a person with a disability feel better to be called "differently-abled" rather than "handicapped" - for heaven's sake, how much is it hurting you just to use a different word?

I always try to find out what words people prefer, and I try to use those words around them. I agree, eborr, that this isn't a very important issue - but at the same time, it's not an issue that takes very much time to address.

[Primula Baggins]

I used that example because in my experience, people who are described by those words don't care what they're called. They laugh about it. That may not be true of all such groups, but in this case I think the successive words are being chosen by another group entirely—social workers, perhaps.

And of course I am a decently polite individual and do my best to use terms that are currently in favor. I'm allowed to notice, though, as others have, that there's a flavor of absurdity in the constant substitution of new terms, as if changing the word solves the problems of misunderstanding and prejudice.

[nerdanel]

Prim, I didn't mean for what I wrote to be directed at you - honestly, I didn't even remember who used that example.

If people don't care what they're called and the new terms are coming from, as Whistler put it, "parasites who manufacture disharmony for purely selfish purposes," then I agree that it is ridiculous.

However, I have met PWDs who feel very strongly about not being called "handicapped." In that case, as I said, I think it is not much of a hardship to describe them using the word they prefer.

...as if changing the word solves the problems of misunderstanding and prejudice.

I definitely agree that this is the underlying issue - and perhaps that it is obscured by the neverending debates about nomenclature.

[vison]

Alatar, I don't think the term "jerry-rigged" is offensive, I think it's wrong, that's all. I always knew it was SPELLED "jury-rigged" but thought that people were simply pronouncing it "jerry-rigged" because it's easier to say. (It is easier to say, you see.) I never heard of anyone being offended by it. It isn't exactly the commonest expression in the world, but it is used here now and again. My husband uses it sorta interchangeably with "haywire", in a sentence like, "I'll just have to haywire the thing together for now because I'm short of time", or "I'll just have to jury-rig the thing, I don't have time to do it properly". I know a couple of old German veterans from WW II and I'll ask them what they think. My uncle who was a prisoner in Germany is dead now so I can't ask him.

I don't want to offend anyone with a "name". If Chinese persons want me to say "Chinese", then I'll say it. And they do, believe me. We have a very large Chinese-origin population here. So much so, and so vocal are they about this, that old place names are being changed: Chinaman Creek has become Chinese Creek.

We also have a huge Indian or South Asian population here. *sigh* This is shaky ground. We always used to say "East Indian", but that term doesn't find favour with everyone. Indo-Canadian suits some people but not others. Some are Sikh, some are Muslim, some are Hindu. Many are neither here nor there, religion wise! The fellow who works for us just looked at me funny when I asked him. "Why you call me anything?" he says, and I think, yeah, Gurdip, you're right. Why I call you anything but Gurdip?

I'm with Prim, though. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and will do my best. I don't agree that this is all thought up by bureaucrats and power-mad social workers, though. Terms that were used to insult other people pack a sting forever and if they pack that sting, then discard them.

When Rick Hansen was on his around the world tour in his wheelchair he went to China, of course. He learned that in one part of China, if not all, the word for "cripple" was the same word as for "garbage".

[Whistler]

TP, I'm writing as an artist/writer for whom the PC trend has become creatively crippling. Once I wrote a children's book. I had to make all the characters animals for fear that any "negative" human characters would reflect badly on any minority humans appearing in such roles. And there was no way of avoiding minorities because this in itself would constitute prejudicial thinking. PC thinking presents one creative knot after another, and by definition it is impossible to untie them all to everyone's satisfaction.

I work at a newspaper, and with every item we print must review which "representative" of which group is going to take offense at what. There are people who read for no other reason. There are people who are angry for the sake of being angry. If they are accommodated, they will simply raise the bar higher and demand more. It’s what they do. They don’t care about the people or causes for whom they pretend to speak. They care about the power they derive from being able to bring other people to their knees.

My contention is that even the best of us is only human. Most of us will make a great effort to avoid offense to people who have historically been wronged. But when we feel that we’ve been placed on a treadmill, forced to move continually toward a destination that does not exist, even the best of us will eventually give up. That is the ultimate result of allowing PC thinking to run rampant.

So…whose feelings are now being hurt? One example: haven’t you noticed the new wave of “shock humor” coming from comedians? At this moment, there’s a comedy in theaters about a man who pretends to be mentally retarded so he can join the Special Olympics. Such a thing would have been scorned years ago, but now it’s viewed by many as a sort of “escape valve.” Another comic is known for jokes about AIDS and the Holocaust. In these and other circles, there are now no taboos whatever. There is no sensitivity, no taste, no discretion. The “insensitive” days of my childhood brought us Mayberry and The Waltons; today’s “sensitivity” has brought us the crassness and cruelty of South Park.

Ironically, it is politically incorrect people like me who are most repulsed by such what-the-hell attitudes. That’s because we care about substance while others are preoccupied with surfaces.

I suggest that you read the book The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. The author is Tammy Bruce, and the book is available from Amazon.

Before you dismiss it as some right-wing diatribe, know that the author is both a leftist and a lesbian.

[Padme]

Personally, I would be quite offended if anyone called me Caucasian. I have no relations with anybody in the Caucasus, thanks very much! The Caucasus, over here, is considered a backward, uncivilised region.

Me either, but that's what I am labled. My ancestors are not from there. I am Celt. But I noticed that Caucasian has been replaced by white...which is not entirely true for me either. Most of the time I feel like placing a check mark in other and put in Martian, see what happens....'yes, I am from Mars'

[Primula Baggins]

My brother is an editor in New York who works to develop textbook series, mainly for the elementary grades. He is (even) more liberal than I am, yet he is flabbergasted at the PC limitations imposed by California, which adopts textbooks statewide rather than district by district. Not only the sort of thing Whistler mentioned, but,l for example: it is not allowable to show children eating anything but healthy food, and so a story for a reading text in which some children baked a birthday cake for a friend had to be altered so that the children baked a loaf of whole wheat bread, stuck candles in it, and carried it in to surprise their friend. Traditional fairy tales are generally deleted because there is no way to make them fit the California rules.

The other 800-pound gorilla of K-12 textboooks is Texas, which also does statewide adoption and which has a whole different set of arcane rules, most coming from a right-wing orientation—no magic, etc. So it isn't just PC that is the problem.

However, all K-12 textbooks must sell to both California and Texas to be financially worth publishing at all, and so all must meet both sets of rules. The result, my brother says, is that the children portrayed in textbooks are nothing like real children and live no kind of life any real child can identify with. He works extremely hard to produce reading series that, he himself says, are a complete waste of time and are very unlikely to engage any normal child in reading. But he has no choice. Any interesting story is usually interesting because it contains something forbidden under the rules.

[vison]

I can't think of anything to say about any of that.

Perhaps it will wear away in time.

I guess the rules here in BC must be a little different, judging by the books my grandkids bring home from school.

On the other hand, a friend of mine, retired from teaching here, has just begun teaching in an English school in Japan. It is a private school. Her students range in age from 2 (!) to 70 (!) and she is having a great time trying to organize her textbooks, etc., to suit them all. The wee ones and the grandmas aren't in the same classes, though.

She commented on the peculiar books, I will have to see if she can explain that -- what she said was the books wouldn't be allowed here. So maybe it's a PC issue. (She is also a leftist lesbian! Man, they're taking over the world, I guess...... )

[Whistler]

Precisely, Prim.

I don't mean to sound condescending to anyone here, but I am a middle-aged man who has had the stuffing kicked out of him, many times, by these Thought Police. I’ve had my work censored and suppressed. I’ve seen wonderful work go up in flames because a fool with a self-serving agenda wanted to congratulate himself. And I know that attempts to appease these bullies only make them more determined. It is they who refuse to accept a middle ground.

I don't speak out of ideology or theory. I’ve been there, done that and bought the t-shirt.

I loathe these PC hypocrites as I loathe disease. They eat up everything they touch, and they leave behind only a carcass.

[nerdanel]

Part of the problem is that there are a wide range of behaviors labeled "politically correct" - in my opinion, some are acceptable and some are not.

(1) Not everyone belongs to the majority.

A crystal-clear example of this is the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays debate. For me, it is beyond commonsensical that you would not wish someone Merry Christmas until you know that they celebrate Christmas. Nor does this persecute Christians, IMO, as Christmas is included under the penumbra of "Happy Holidays." However, I've seen an inordinate amount of whining that "we can't say Merry Christmas anymore." Incorrect. Say Merry Christmas all you want - to the people who celebrate Christmas. I don't want to rehash the debate we had in another thread, but just to provide an example.

(2) Traditionally persecuted groups can reasonably request you to use a particular word to refer to them.

Yes, the First Amendment applies. No, you don't have to do as they ask. Yes, the words change often. No, it's not the most important cause on earth, and yes, there are more important things to focus on. Here, both "sides" need to show some maturity, IMO. The aforementioned traditionally persecuted groups need to understand that there are more important battles to fight than nomenclature used without offensive intent. They also need to realize that they make themselves look silly to dwell constantly on words, as though the bigger problems have been solved. However, others can also realize, as I said earlier, that it's not ordinarily a big deal to use whatever words. Really, it's not worth fighting as a battle on either side, IMO.

(3) Free expression is a virtue and should not be unnecessarily interfered with.

Whistler, thank you for clarifying. In particular, your point about minorities resonated with me. It's a no-win situation. It's "racist" not to show minorities; it's "racist" to show minorities in negative roles - and perversely, it's even "racist" to show them in only positive roles, as though non-whites can do no wrong.

The ideal is, of course, true colorblindness. Ideally, there would be minority and white characters scattered throughout the literature in all manner of roles, both good and evil. Of course, this is not the case.

I don't really know what to tell you. All I can say is...it's frustrating, and noticeable to minorities, when literature so often features only white characters, or where the main characters are all white and minority characters are only in supporting roles (often the bad guy or the sidekick). It's frustrating when literature that features white main characters is "literature," but literature that features black main characters is "African-American literature." I think these frustrations also give rise to PC thinking...I think it is not only the power-hungry, uncaring individuals you describe, or people who are angry just for the sake of it.

Whistler, one other point:

Thanks for the book recommendation - I'm always interested in the thoughts of leftist lesbians who have issues with GLAAD. Someone's checked it out from the library, but I've placed a recall on it and should have it in the next week. This is the second time that you've suggested that I might not read books that I believed to be written by right-leaning authors. In case I inadvertently said something to give you that impression, I want to assure you that I am willing to consider those viewpoints as well, even if I am less likely to agree with them.

Prim, what you describe is simply ridiculous. California never ceases to amaze me with its absurdity...birthday cake can't be shown in textbooks?

[yovargas]

I love the adbot. Currently on the ad banner:

Code: Select all

Conservative Blacks
Share ideas w/conservative blacks and other nonwhite Americans.
			
Disparity Studies
Program Development Attorney Daniel E. Muse, Esq., Denver, CO
			
Affirmative Action
Instant access to 100,000 essays Come search for free!
			
Cultural Marketing
Over 10,000 articles and resources on successful cultural marketing.

For whatever it's worth, I've been asked in the past what I prefer to be called since a lot of people are sensitive about the sexuality issue. Though I do have preferences for what I like and don't like, I have very very rarely, if ever, really been bothered by a word. It's ultimately the context, the intent, that matters to me.

[Primula Baggins]

The rules are absurd. In terms of work roles, every single person shown must be "nontraditional" in some way. No mother may ever be shown caring for her children; no white male does any kind of work at all except caring for children at a day-care center or another "pink collar" job. This is not offering a rainbow of options and being sure that people are often shown in non-traditional roles, which I would certainly support; this is locking out every option except the least traditional, which means Textbook World seems like an alien planet.

[yovargas]

The rules are absurd. In terms of work roles, every single person shown must be "nontraditional" in some way. No mother may ever be shown caring for her children; no white male does any kind of work at all except caring for children at a day-care center or another "pink collar" job. This is not offering a rainbow of options and being sure that people are often shown in non-traditional roles, which I would certainly support; this is locking out every option except the least traditional, which means Textbook World seems like an alien planet.

That's fascinatingly bizzarre! It sounds like some slightly perverse sociological experiment. One wonders what the results of said experiment might be...

[Whistler]

Yov, that's because it is a perverse sociological experiment.

[vison]

Yov, that's because it is a perverse sociological experiment.

When it's taken to that extreme, it certainly is.

Being a Canadian, I am all for the "happy medium" or "the golden mean".

But we Canuckians have troubles of our own with a Federal election a week from today.

Without wishing any offense to any right wing conservatives here, I sincerely hope OUR right wing conservative doesn't get elected. It's too complicated to go into here, but suffice it so say that this Harper bird is willing to canoodle with the separtists to get elected. In other words, he's willing to sleep with the devil.

*rant over*

[Whistler]

Ah, that's nothing.

Most politicians will sleep with the devil. The bad ones are the ones who serve him breakfast in bed the next morning.

[Primula Baggins]

I don't at all wish for a return to Dick, Jane, and Sally, where everyone was white and middle-class, and the only life roles ever shown were traditional. But I would like to see kids presented with at least the same variety in textbooks that they see in real life, which includes traditional roles and white men doing a wide range of work. And I would like to see reading texts that include unbowdlerized classics and new, genuinely engaging stories. Do the existing texts make readers? From the evidence, no.

The outlook isn't completely bleak. My own kids went to a school that had long ago abandoned reading texts and instead presented kids with both classic and new children's literature, in both English and Spanish. That school's success in teaching reading was phenomenal, with most kids reading at or above grade level in two languages.

[Frelga]

It seems to me that in the purest form PC is simply about not making people suffer for something that is entirely outside of their control. Like skin color or gender. Can it be taken too far? You bet.

Some of it makes no sense to me. I am happy to call a person "vision-impaired" but it won't make them see any better. But as TP said, if that's what they want to be called, fine by me.

There is an - yes, very PC - ad campaign that promotes inclusive speech. For instance, it shows the phrase "That Puerto-Rican guy is very smart", with the word Puerto-Rican crossed out. Not a biggie, right? But it does make a difference, because now you are letting the "guy" stand on his own, instead of smudging his identity out to blend it in with the group to which you think he belongs.

Whistler, I hear your frustration and yes, some of what you describe is absurd and even malicious. But you ask, why is it OK to make jokes about majority groups like white males and Christians? Well, firstly I don't think it really is OK to make hurtful jokes about anyone at all. But you can't deny (although some try) that most of wealth and power in this country is concentrated among white Christian males. NOTE that I didn't prhase it the other way around - certainly the majority of WCMs are neither wealthy nor especially powerful. Still, what fun is it picking on an underdog?

Eborr (and someone else) expressed surprise that so much fuss is made over words. But, pray, what do we have but words? You can kill with a word, you can save with a word, and so on. The Bilbe is just words, so's Tolkien. Most of you lovely people are just words to me, and yet I care about you as much as I do about flesh-and-blood friends.

Will the words we use make any difference to the real-world problems?

In the beginning there was a Word...*




----------
* Actually, IIRC the Hebrew word davar used in the original text can mean word, thing or way. Hence the endless theological debates, but tha's another forum.