Not so nice words...

[Booko]

I want to add this:

I believe that the political right in America, and specifically the George Bush/Carl Rove faction of the republican party, has been stirring up and using American's prejudices, particularly the prejudice of the "conservative Christian right" to get themselves elected. In effect, it has been in their interest to get conservative Americans (Christian or otherwise) as angry as they can at liberal Americans, so that they will vote even for a loser like George Bush just to vote against anything and anyone "liberal". And they have succeeded.

You will note that it's almost always the conservatives that are bad-mouthing "political correctness", and blaming it on "liberal democrats" (they assume there is no other kind of democrat). And the reason for this is that the conservative power base needed to increase anger, resentment, prejudice, and the "joy of slandering the other guy" to stir up voter participation to get themselves elected. And so they have been tirelessly promoting these ideas among their conservative base. The result, now, is that many conservatives feel that it's both good and wise to vent any sort of negative and slanderous resentments against their fellow citizens. In fact, being rude and obnoxious has become a kind of conservative art form on right wing talk radio and TV. People like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly have made millions from celebrating rude and crude and slanderous behavior, and making it acceptable behavior for the politically conservative to engage in.

It's sad that so many Christians have been drawn into this negative exploitation, and have fallen for such a low and uninspired method of political action. Carl Rove is no "genius", he's the worst kind of muck-raker; stirring up the worst in us, against each other, for his own petty political gain.

:clap :clap :clap

 

[Booko]

Wow. Just wow. You know you live in the 21st century when someone is offended by the word "spaz" before they are offended by half-nude women/men prancing around on T.V...

Not to mention a host of other "offensive" things, like dropping white phosphorus on people, like people who work their butts off and can't make a decent living despite it, oh...we could go on I'm sure.

I look forward to the day when the worst thing we have to be upset about is someone using a term like "spaz."

 

[jamaesi]

Wow. Just wow. You know you live in the 21st century when someone is offended by the word "spaz" before they are offended by half-nude women/men prancing around on T.V...

Nudity is natural. I'd like to think that being cruel to others isn't.

 

[Sunstone]

Wow. Just wow. You know you live in the 21st century when someone is offended by the word "spaz" before they are offended by half-nude women/men prancing around on T.V...

I take your point there are more important things than political correctness to be worried about (although nudity isn't something I worry about anyway), but I don't follow how paying attention to the language we use will deter us from addressing those more important things, too? Are you saying we can't drop "spaz" from our vocabulary without also becoming unconcerned about Global Warming (for instance)?

 

[lilithu]

I agree with Pah and Sunstone that PCdom started off as an effort to raise sensitivity to the ways in which the unthinking words/actions of the majority can hurt/be offensive to minorities and for that it is commendable. But I also agree with fluffy that you can't coerce sensitivity. Getting in someone's face for using the "wrong" word does nothing but convince the other person that you're the one who's wrong. (The phrase "politically correct" btw was coined by the Right in order to denigrate such efforts at raising sensitivity, and us all using the term now is basically conceding a conceptual framing victory to the Right.)

The problem is that people on average are too self-centered. So when someone says "Please stop using that word, I find it offensive." instead of taking the other person's feelings seriously, we discount them. We say "they're oversensitive"; "I didn't mean it that way and they should know that"; and "I have the right to do and say as I please." On the other side of the fence, we have people who do overreact to offense because we think "I have the right to never be offended" and if you say something that offends me, then I'm automatically going to get angry. Instead of trying to talk rationally about it, I'm going to berate you and write you off. On average there is not enough effort to take the other person seriously.

 

[PureX]

I also agree with fluffy that you can't coerce sensitivity. Getting in someone's face for using the "wrong" word does nothing but convince the other person that you're the one who's wrong.

But this argument can be used for any anti-social behavior. A thief will likely react the same way when accused of stealing (he will justify it in his own mind and then resent/dismiss the accurer), but that doesn't mean that we as a society should condone or accept stealing as reasonable behavior.

The behavior we're talking about here is a form of slander. It's intended to imply inferiority through the use of derogatory labels. It's true that it's a mild form of slander, but it's slander nevertheless. Would we condone a "mild form" of stealing? How mild is it when it's your property being stolen? It's true that we don't have the ability to change people's negative attitudes toward other people. But that doesn't mean that we should condone or accept these negative attitudes when they're expressed. In fact, I think cultural tabboos are really the best way to keep people living together in peace. They aren't meant to change people's hearts and minds, they're meant to limit selfish behavior so that people can live together in peace and prosperity. Same goes for civil laws. Murder isn't illegal because it's "bad", it's illegal because society demands it, and because society needs it to be taboo to maintain order and security.

On the other side of the fence, we have people who do overreact to offense because we think "I have the right to never be offended" and if you say something that offends me, then I'm automatically going to get angry. Instead of trying to talk rationally about it, I'm going to berate you and write you off. On average there is not enough effort to take the other person seriously.

This is very true, and it's an important point in the conversation.

 

[Krie]

wacky.. that is a horrible word... i hate that word

 

[lilithu]

But this argument can be used for any anti-social behavior. A thief will likely react the same way when accused of stealing (he will justify it in his own mind and then resent/dismiss the accurer), but that doesn't mean that we as a society should condone or accept stealing as reasonable behavior.

The behavior we're talking about here is a form of slander. It's intended to imply inferiority through the use of derogatory labels. It's true that it's a mild form of slander, but it's slander nevertheless. Would we condone a "mild form" of stealing? How mild is it when it's your property being stolen? It's true that we don't have the ability to change people's negative attitudes toward other people. But that doesn't mean that we should condone or accept these negative attitudes when they're expressed. In fact, I think cultural tabboos are really the best way to keep people living together in peace. They aren't meant to change people's hearts and minds, they're meant to limit selfish behavior so that people can live together in peace and prosperity. Same goes for civil laws. Murder isn't illegal because it's "bad", it's illegal because society demands it, and because society needs it to be taboo to maintain order and security.

It's not always meant as slander, mild or not. Case in point, when I was in college it was very earnestly explained to me that we can't use the word "oriental" to describe Asians. "Oriental is an object, like a rug, not a person." And I knew Asians who would get offended if someone called them "Oriental." However, my dad uses the word "Oriental" to describe himself. (I'm Chinese-American.) He certainly doesn't mean it as slander; it's just the word that he learned in English. And I am not going to tell my dad, "Hey Dad, you can't use "Oriental"; you have to say "Asian." I leave him be. And because of that, I also can't automatically take offense if a non-Asian uses that word to refer to me, especially if they're older. Maybe they don't know. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with these things. One minute a word is acceptable and the next it's not. So someone is just talking and he uses a term that is now deemed unacceptable and someone else jumps down his throat about it. That is not going to make the first person receptive to hearing why it's offensive.

I grew up in California. There and in much of the West, the commonly accepted term to refer to people descended from Latin America is "Hispanic." When I moved to the East coast, I got upbraided for using that term because it was deemed "eurocentric." So the accepted term on the East coast is "Latino/Latina." Again, I try to use the accepted terms, out of respect to people, but I don't automatically think that people intend slander or denigration when they fail to use the accepted terms.

Another example from my church. We use a lot of negro spirituals for our opening processional (to start off the service). One of them has the lyric "Wade in the water," except that when sung in the dialect in which it was originally composed it's "Wade in duh waddah," and that is how it's spelled in our order of service so that people who are unfamiliar with the song will know how to pronounce it. Well, this offends some of our African-American congregants who think that it reinforces the impression that African-Americans do not know how to talk properly. They feel like they have been put down by their own church. But otoh, some of the staunchest supporters for it being written that way are also African-Americans who feel it important to stay true to their heritage. When I brought it up, they dismissed the feelings of those who were offended. What is the PC solution to this dilemma? (Seriously, this is a dilemma in my church right now.)

My point is that unlike stealing or murder, where the vast majority of sane people agree that it's a detriment to society, there isn't the same consensus for the things that get labeled as unPC. So how can we enforce strict codes of PCdom? Please understand that I am not arguing that we should condone bigotry. We should challenge that whenever we encounter it. My point is that the motive behind "unPC" language isn't always bigotry and we shouldn't assume that it is. A little common sense and paying attention to the situation instead of strict rules would do wonders here.

And on the other side, if someone tells you that they find something that you said offensive, try to look at it from their point of view instead of just discounting it. When people say that other people are oversensitive what they're usually saying is that they don't want to be bothered with having to respect someone else's feelings. As I said, empathy is required on both sides.

 

[jamaesi]

I think it's getting to a point of ridiculousness, all this over-political correctness. Examples include Retards not liking being called retards. Like it or not, that is the medical term. Disability, what other words do they want? Perhaps.. "Lack-of-ability-due-to-unfortunate-circumstances-or-events"? That's exaggerated but it emphasises the point that people should toughen up.

Hi, I'm learning and hearing disabled. As mental retardation is such a broad word- I would be considered mentally retarded.
That said, mental retardation is the correct term, not retard. It's almost as if you're purposely trying to be offensive.

And thanks, but I am rather tough. I just don't appreciate having to up with with hateful slurs from hateful people. Of course, it's nice to be in a situation where you can look down on others, eh?


And as for other "medical terms," try nimrod, mongoloid, idiot, hermaphrodite, hysterical... so on and so forth. Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean it's nice.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I want to add this:

I believe that the political right in America, and specifically the George Bush/Carl Rove faction of the republican party, has been stirring up and using American's prejudices, particularly the prejudice of the "conservative Christian right" to get themselves elected. In effect, it has been in their interest to get conservative Americans (Christian or otherwise) as angry as they can at liberal Americans, so that they will vote even for a loser like George Bush just to vote against anything and anyone "liberal". And they have succeeded.

Actually John Kerry did fine in losing on his own because he has no backbone, no opinion, is not willing to take a stand on an issue, etc,etc. But am I mistaken or is this thread about political correctness?

You will note that it's almost always the conservatives that are bad-mouthing "political correctness", and blaming it on "liberal democrats" (they assume there is no other kind of democrat). And the reason for this is that the conservative power base needed to increase anger, resentment, prejudice, and the "joy of slandering the other guy" to stir up voter participation to get themselves elected. And so they have been tirelessly promoting these ideas among their conservative base. The result, now, is that many conservatives feel that it's both good and wise to vent any sort of negative and slanderous resentments against their fellow citizens. In fact, being rude and obnoxious has become a kind of conservative art form on right wing talk radio and TV. People like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly have made millions from celebrating rude and crude and slanderous behavior, and making it acceptable behavior for the politically conservative to engage in.

Ahh back on topic now. So let me get this straight.....Political correctness developed to counteract the blood thirsty, old people killing, child starving, Abu Graib loving evil Conservatives who wrongly blame PC on elitist leftists, when in reality Conservatives are just rude and crude and slanderous, and are the reason the tree huggers in shining granola armour had to invent PC. The leading two conservatives you name who do this are Rush, and Bill Oreilley. Sorry but Bill is no conservative, you will have to do better than that. Of course Al Franken, John Stewart, Bill Maher, Whoopie Goldberg, Janine Garofolo, Rhandi Rhodes, Molly Ivins, Helen Thomas, and every other liberal bomb throwercan say what they want without getting mentioned. Hey they arent being rude, theyre being funny, or creative etc etc.

Of course the difference is I can listen, read, watch some political leftists without becoming so offended.....Even when they call me crude rude and offensive names like red-neck, homophobe, racist, hatemonger, nazi, etc.

 

[PureX]

It's not always meant as slander, mild or not. Case in point, when I was in college it was very earnestly explained to me that we can't use the word "oriental" to describe Asians. "Oriental is an object, like a rug, not a person." And I knew Asians who would get offended if someone called them "Oriental." However, my dad uses the word "Oriental" to describe himself. (I'm Chinese-American.) He certainly doesn't mean it as slander; it's just the word that he learned in English. And I am not going to tell my dad, "Hey Dad, you can't use "Oriental"; you have to say "Asian." I leave him be. And because of that, I also can't automatically take offense if a non-Asian uses that word to refer to me, especially if they're older. Maybe they don't know. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with these things. One minute a word is acceptable and the next it's not. So someone is just talking and he uses a term that is now deemed unacceptable and someone else jumps down his throat about it. That is not going to make the first person receptive to hearing why it's offensive.

I grew up in California. There and in much of the West, the commonly accepted term to refer to people descended from Latin America is "Hispanic." When I moved to the East coast, I got upbraided for using that term because it was deemed "eurocentric." So the accepted term on the East coast is "Latino/Latina." Again, I try to use the accepted terms, out of respect to people, but I don't automatically think that people intend slander or denigration when they fail to use the accepted terms.

Another example from my church. We use a lot of negro spirituals for our opening processional (to start off the service). One of them has the lyric "Wade in the water," except that when sung in the dialect in which it was originally composed it's "Wade in duh waddah," and that is how it's spelled in our order of service so that people who are unfamiliar with the song will know how to pronounce it. Well, this offends some of our African-American congregants who think that it reinforces the impression that African-Americans do not know how to talk properly. They feel like they have been put down by their own church. But otoh, some of the staunchest supporters for it being written that way are also African-Americans who feel it important to stay true to their heritage. When I brought it up, they dismissed the feelings of those who were offended. What is the PC solution to this dilemma? (Seriously, this is a dilemma in my church right now.)

My point is that unlike stealing or murder, where the vast majority of sane people agree that it's a detriment to society, there isn't the same consensus for the things that get labeled as unPC. So how can we enforce strict codes of PCdom? Please understand that I am not arguing that we should condone bigotry. We should challenge that whenever we encounter it. My point is that the motive behind "unPC" language isn't always bigotry and we shouldn't assume that it is. A little common sense and paying attention to the situation instead of strict rules would do wonders here.

And on the other side, if someone tells you that they find something that you said offensive, try to look at it from their point of view instead of just discounting it. When people say that other people are oversensitive what they're usually saying is that they don't want to be bothered with having to respect someone else's feelings. As I said, empathy is required on both sides.

I really love your posts!

I think your church has already found the "solution", and that is that it recognized that some people are offended by something they are doing and has opened a dialogue to alleviate the offense. That's what living together in love is all about. It doesn't mean no-one should ever get offended, or that we must accept or reject such offensive behavior. It simply means that we are willing to listen to the thoughts and feelings of others and to alter our own ideas and behaviors to accommodate theirs.

Being "PC" isn't about being right, or about being inoffensive (common mischaracterizations of the political right). It's about listening to the thoughts and feelings of others and altering our own ideas and behaviors to accommodate theirs (to the degree that this is honest and reasonable).

Your dad is free to call HIMSELF anything he wants. I would prefer to call him what he asks me to call him, because he deserves that respect as a human being. So do we all.

I had a professor in college who referred to all his students as "Mr." or "Ms." unless that person asked him to refer to them by their first name, or as "Mrs.", or whatever. When asked about this, he explained that to him it was just a matter of common respect to refer to any other adult as "Mr." or "Ms." until asked to do otherwise. And if we don't know how to refer to someone's ethnic origin, or whatever, then just ask them how right off. It's simple.

The point isn't to "get it right", the point is to respect the other person.

 

[Booko]

It's not always meant as slander, mild or not. Case in point, when I was in college it was very earnestly explained to me that we can't use the word "oriental" to describe Asians. "Oriental is an object, like a rug, not a person." And I knew Asians who would get offended if someone called them "Oriental."

fwiw, calling an Asian "Oriental" is also technically wrong. Oriental refers to people from the Near East. Persians are Oriental.

Asian refers to someone from the Far East.

More importantly...great post!

 

[Krie]

im telling you... Wacky is the worst

 

[Booko]

But am I mistaken or is this thread about political correctness?

Yes it is, and therefore a discussion of the origin and history of the phrase would be right on target. The fact that it has an origin in partisan politics doesn't have to make this a political thread. Go ahead and start one on PC if you want.

Ahh back on topic now. So let me get this straight.....Political correctness developed to counteract the blood thirsty, old people killing, child starving, Abu Graib loving evil Conservatives who wrongly blame PC on elitist leftists, when in reality Conservatives are just rude and crude and slanderous, and are the reason the tree huggers in shining granola armour had to invent PC. The leading two conservatives you name who do this are Rush, and Bill Oreilley. Sorry but Bill is no conservative, you will have to do better than that. Of course Al Franken, John Stewart, Bill Maher, Whoopie Goldberg, Janine Garofolo, Rhandi Rhodes, Molly Ivins, Helen Thomas, and every other liberal bomb throwercan say what they want without getting mentioned. Hey they arent being rude, theyre being funny, or creative etc etc.

Sheesh, kev, would you please stop putting so much starch in your shorts? :sarcastic

Of course the difference is I can listen, read, watch some political leftists without becoming so offended.....Even when they call me crude rude and offensive names like red-neck, homophobe, racist, hatemonger, nazi, etc.

So take them to task when they do. Equal opportunity kvetching, I say! You are up to the task, I've noticed.

 

[lilithu]

fwiw, calling an Asian "Oriental" is also technically wrong. Oriental refers to people from the Near East. Persians are Oriental.

Yes, hence Persian rugs are "oriental" rugs. But I think that "Oriental" just means "east" in a nebulous, exotic, "otherly" sort of way. Russians are orientals too, or were, apparently. When he got the news that the Soviets detonated their first atomic bomb, President Truman supposedly said, "I didn't think those Orientals had it in them." I think one of the objections to the term is that it is so nebulous and what it really connotes is "different from us" more than anything else.

Asian refers to someone from the Far East.

Does India count as "Far East"? I used to say "Asian" in reference specifically to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. but then my Indian friends pointed out that they are from Asia too, which they are. So now, I say "East Asian" to refer to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc, and "Asian" to refer to people from all of Asia. Ah, the never ending drama of being PC. But it's fine, is it not? Every time that I made aware of how a word that I am using is exclusionary, it makes me a little better. As PureX said, the most important thing is to communicate with respect.

More importantly...great post!

Thanks, I enjoy your posts too.