Trust me. I know. I have some problems of my own with some activists' call to completely dismantle certain entire aspects of language; not necessarily because I disagree with the sentiment, but because it's so impractical that it's a battle lost before its won.
Sorry, should get better at my time keeping. Anyway.
I think I just have a gut reaction of ZOMG NO!!! Mostly due, I assume, to having read 1984. Now the very idea of tampering with language in order to restrict thoughts or sentiments just gives me the creeps. Even if it might be good. I think I just have a visceral emotional reaction to the idea now. Like what can you do, I guess?
Heck, I don't really like the term "politically correct", since I see that as, well, a political maneuver, not a genuine attempt at "treating people with respect."
Hmm I don't think I am very versed in the politics behind Political Correctness, tbh. It just always kind of existed around me, well for us 90s kids/millennials at least.
But I don't think speaking out against the casual use of slurs while in public spaces is akin to such dismantlings. It's not about being "PC", it's about basic respect. We're not asking people to stop using the word "bad" because in Old English, it was a slur against femininity among males. That context is long gone from our culture. But the "f-word" (not the one that means sex) hasn't lost that context.
Well Americans do seem oddly oversensitive to swear words. More so than other Western cultures. I don't mean that insultingly to any American here, just an observation.
I'm against randomly calling people slurs. That's just rude at the very least. But what I am calling into question is what if the current strategy (ie reclaiming the language) is actually not achieving anything? Now that doesn't go for every slur you can think of. But okay, example. Around here the f word ending in an "ot" used to denigrate gay people is being used less and less to target gay people. Instead it has shifted towards a slang term to call someone out for their ridiculously stupid or ugly behavior. Now this is regional thing, used more so by the younger crowd (especially gay youth.) But it actually does lessen the chance of a gay person being on the receiving end of that slur, because it is evolving. Like language is supposed to do. If you hold onto a word too tightly, it can only stagnate and perhaps make matters worse.
Do you see where I'm coming from? I'm saying instead of allowing words to be used as weapons, allow them to morph into something else. Allow discourse to occur without screaming bigot the moment anyone even breathes the "N word" for example.
I mean you can't even discuss Huckleberry Finn without being judged a racist these days, which is actually kind of ironic given it's original contempt of racism. Well at least slavery anyway.
Yes, I remember that. And if I remember a certain other scene correctly (personally haven't watched the show all the way, since grimdark stuff isn't really my thing right now), it would seem even that philosophy failed him in the end.
Ehhhh. Kind of? Not really?
Remember the world of GoT is a hell of a lot harsher than ours could possibly hope to be. (Speaking of the West specifically.) Especially with PC ever present, looming over us. People always mocked him, sure. Sometimes it did get to him. Sure. But he always used that as fuel to survive, even if the odds said that he would surely die. He used it to make himself stronger. So I would contend that his philosophy saved him more than once. Though his father seemed the only one able to actually legitimately wound him. I'd go into more detail, but I don't want to accidentally spoil you, if you ever wish to see the show or read the books in the future. Let's just say, Jerry Springer much?? and leave it at that.
At the same time, it's not a universal solution. Keeping with the armor metaphor, not all armor fits all bodies, and neither can all arms wield any type of weapon. It's best to see what would work best for a given person, first.
Otherwise, they won't feel armed. They might feel blamed. And either way, they'd be right. If someone feels like your solution is just playing in to their problems, then it's best to trust that they know what they're talking about, and treat them accordingly.
And I do agree with that assessment.
There is no one size fits all solution to anything in this world. But I am saying that we need more in our arsenal against bullies/bigots than just political correctness. See PC likes to pretend that by making it taboo to "be mean/rude/offensive" to people is the be all and end all to all their problems. But it's not. Not really. All it does is broaden our definition of what constitutes polite conversation. PC doesn't address concerns about mental health. It doesn't do anything to build healthy coping strategies for ****ty situations. It just enables (SOME) people to fall into a cycle of perpetual victim hood.
Again, I'll use sexual abuse as an example. Only this time, let's be a tad more specific and say it's rape victims/survivors. Now of course, a person who is raped will need time and possibly professional help to come to terms with and move forward from this unspeakable horror. And they will do this at their own pace. At the same time they will all eventually need to deal with what's called "Triggers." The best way to do this is find a healthy coping strategy, either yourself or with professional help (one on one, in a group or both. Whatever.) Now this whole "trigger warning" shenanigans done by the PC brigade, I kind of question it's helpfulness. In a High School I could kind of get behind it. In a University however? Ehhhh. Maybe, like really common or extreme ones. However one can sort those out. But not to the extent it seems to be going towards.
Uni is optional and thus is not supposed to be your personal psychiatrist. In Uni, you are an adult, you need to be able to cope like an adult. If you need to, take time off in order to be able to deal healthily with triggers. Like I will absolutely not hold it against anyone who takes a year off because they happen to be raped or sexually assaulted. Or if they need to speak to the campus' mental health faculty every single day. Like if that's what you need to do, fair enough. But this whole "trigger warning" everything is absolutely, imo, making things worse. Instead of being confronted with this and therefore having a need to be able to find a healthy coping strategy, people are being warned before they even open a book these days. Like what? You as a survivor need to find a healthy strategy to deal with encountering them. Because guess what? They will always be there. That's just how life is. If you want a life for yourself free of recurring trauma, you need to deal with triggers eventually. I mean it's not healthy to continuously have to be traumatized to the extreme every single time you face a trigger. But now with the option of completely opting out of having to face any sort of trigger whatsoever, you get people who will never be challenged. And people need to be challenged. Even people who have experienced trauma. Because we need to grow. Stagnating people with this ability to avoid being "triggered" or "offended" I think is allowing (again SOME) people to opt out of having to actually grow up.
Let me clarify, then: strangers you see on the street.
People I see on the street could be deranged serial killers for all I know. Should I then treat every stranger I meet with this in mind?
I'm still in therapy, have been for about 3 years. Some time beforehand, I'd developed social anxiety to the point where even now, I can't hold down a "normal" job. I'm 28, still living with, and to a large degree still dependent on, my mom, waiting on a second interview with a potential part-time job tomorrow, 5-7 hours minimum wage. That I'm potentially getting that job is a MAJOR breakthrough for me that I'm personally proud and scared of.
Well, I hope your job interview goes well. And I do hope that you build for yourself a place in life where you are happy and healthy. Hang in there, as they say. (Yeah, I'm not too good with the comforting speeches. I don't always understand emotions very well. Sorry.)
I have my own pet guesses as to why depression and anxiety have become epidemic, but at the moment, it's the case regardless. Therefore, when in public spaces (which includes most places on the internet), it's best to use non-hurtful language as best as possible. Personally, I don't care what words you use among your friends in private settings, as long as it's okay with everyone present.
Whilst I and most people are behind that sentiment (perhaps with the exception of places like YouTube or whatever) where exactly do you draw the line? For myself that is using slurs or being insulting to people. Unless it's obvious you are being sarcastic or using humor. (We Aussies are a bawdy bunch.)
But then you get all these people with all sorts of ideas of what constitutes being "disrespectful." Everything from saying Happy Holidays to disagreeing with their opinion. See people like myself want PC to draw a definite and clear line in the sand on where they stand with being "politically correct" as a society. I mean some leeway of course. But we want PC to be reasonable, to be concise and clear. But for some reason that gets us labelled as "bigots." Hmmmm.
See I think there's far more nuance to this PC debate than people wanting a respectful society on one side and bigots wanting to freely insult gay/black/Jew etc people on the other.
