Does PC cause people to be oversensitive or vice versa?

Post Reply New Topic

Pro tip: any article coming out of New York, put "genius.com/" before the URL and you'll get a rebuttal and/or further reading recommendations (it also works on some other sites but it is patchy because it is crowdsourced).

It isn't currently working on NY Mag but the summary is:
- Chait doesn't understand microaggressions
- He overstates the prevalence of "trigger warnings" in academic contexts
- He criticises a theatre group's free decision to stop performing a show

I think the big issue is that many moderates - the sort who would never say "research should be banned if we don't like the outcomes" - are terrible at critical thinking and will passionately agree that research should be banned if someone says it forcefully enough. But then, that's hardly unique to lefties.

Gosh! you're all over the place.

Some of this linguistic change is due to sensitivity. But some of it is about precision (NON political "correctness").
Talking to your neighbors about their "Indian blood" is fine. But if you're writing an anthropology textbook about prehistoric migrations of peoples -then having to distinquish between american indians and India indians gets tedious. In that context a new term for "American Indians" is needed. Why perpetuate a mistake made by columbus when he didnt know wtf he was when he landed? Its about logic. Not feelings. A Hopi is more offended at being called an "Apache" then being called an "Indian". Just like a Greek would kick your ass if you called him a "Turk", but would just scratch his head if you called him "an Eskimo". But why call a Greek an "Eskimo"? And why call a Hopi "a citizen of India"? Its not offensive. Its just dumb, confusing, and inane.

But I agree with alot what you say.

I am one of the people who dont give a damn whether you call me "an aspie", or you call me "a person with aspergers". Its all the same to me! But GAWD- some folks on WP will debate you on that, and insist that it makes a difference.

When it was made fashionable.

Let's remember our Edward Bernays. He was the guy in the 20th century who, when asked by the tobacco industry what could be done to increase dwindling cigarette sales, convinced women (who had been influenced by social convention to decline smoking) that they had a legal and moral right to smoke. Obviously, sales doubled immediately.

Re-brand something which is unnecessary or even disgusting as a "right" or simply "fun" (see "the Pet Rock," "Mood Rings" and Earth shoes), and just watch the billions roll in. Humans of all kinds (not just the NT variety) are desperate to belong to greater things than themselves.

So, we were told by ... who? ... that "politically correct" speech and opinions were the new sophistication. And, like lemmings, those who had little else to do jumped on the speech-police bandwagon (or should that be "off" the bandwagon since we are using the analogy of lemmings?).

It all reminds me of Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches" who were convinced by a man that he could put on or take off stars on their bellies as fashion statements. His scheme became a raging success, and it soon evolved to the point when "...neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one... or that one was this one... or which one was what one... or what one was who."

Some humans want most sincerely to be fashionable; even at the expense of others' liberties.

There's a difference between calling Native Americans Indians, and calling African Americans the N word. While being PC has degenerated into nitpicking among some (okay, many), the original intent of ridding public discourse of blatantly racist and offensive slurs still has merit.

I completely disagree.

Not going to expand on this any further.

I see a great equality, I call them all Hairless Ground Apes. Jared Diamond calls them The Third Chimpanzee.

Those with nothing to defend attack. Having created gods in their own image, the smell, the poop slinging, lies, theft, they chose to defend an unprovable ideal.

Somehow, while I am considered equal to the lowest of the slacker apes, those who tell me about it do not realize they must be too. If they are right, they are abusing me for being like them?

Niger was the country Nigers came from, now called uppity ape, Nigeria. Nigerian Princes are still running what Nigers were famous for. A lot of Cultural Anthropology was learned managing guest workers. We now keep millions in human zoos. We used to manage them at a profit, useful work being done. Now the zoo costs $35,000 per year each. This must be done by people smarter than me, cause I can make no sense of it.

Whores are sex workers, and felons are goods redistribution workers. Maybe bank robbers are undocumented bankers?

All foul smelling hairless ground apes are equal, and I have a handful.

Bank robbers would be..."unauthorized cash withdawal customers".
Criminals in general would be "the morally impaired".

Actually nowadays inmates in prisons are referred to in prison bureaucracy as "clients" (ie "the clients of the prison").

Guards (for example) are trained to avoid "using excessive force when subduing a client".

Don't know if that terminology is either good, or bad, but it is rather amusing because it makes it sound like the inmate was like tourist on a cruise ship, and had voluntarily signed up for the privaledge of being incarcerated! Cracks me up.

In the UK it used to be "Red Indian", for American Indian, and Indian for Indian. I guess there was the perception their skin was more red.

For me terms are not as important as the intent behind them. Semantic arguments don't solve real problem.

And there lies the trouble - Native Americans had been misidentified as "Indians," and so it's easy to understand why they wouldn't want to be called by that name.

I hate PC.
I think it is considered a type of un-PC to hate PC.

Nonsense.

The current fad is the other way around. Its un-PC to be PC.

Its offensive to some to be sensitive to others.

I sometimes have to apologize for seeming to be PC when I am NOT being PC!

But to answer the question in the title of thread- Its chicken-or-egg.

There are two kinds of prudery.

There is the old kind of prudery: about sex, blasphemy, vice ("in olden times a glimpse of stocking was looked upon as something shocking. But now, heaven knows, anything goes" to quote Cole Porter).

And there is the new kind of prudery: about offending minorities. The new kind of prudery is labeled "PC".

Society just evolved. The old kind of prudery began decline in pop culture in the late Sixties, and the new kind kicked in slightly after that in the Seventies. Mel Brooks' comedy "Blazing Saddles" is an interesting piece of in between era cinema that was free of both kinds of prudery. I guess as folks get less hung up about one thing, they get more hung up about something else. Its just the way it is.

It's not that I'm offended by not offending people and being polite, quite the opposite. Unless I'm pissed off at someone I'll be very polite and do my best not to offend them. What bothers me though is when people start getting offended by stupid things that take a huge stretch of the imagination to be remotely considered offensive. Take the way that some ladies get offended by being referred to as ladies, or by getting a sincere compliment from a stranger. How is that offensive? Sure, it's none of anyone else's business if you are pretty or not but unless they are blind (or should I say visually impaired or something now?) they are going to see and notice if someone is pretty or not. If someone things you are so pretty that they feel compelled to tell you so then why in the world would you be offended? Of course some will say that it's misogynist or even a form of rape or some such BS. Some get upset at being called "ladies" because they aren't a member of the British peerage and aren't an actual titled Lady. Some may see it as meaning they are some 1950's ideal of manners, breeding and beauty, but I guarantee you that anybody who gets offended by being called a lady isn't going to be an icon of either manners or breeding, no matter how beautiful she is.

It's when people get so over the top pissed off about nonoffensive things that bother me. I was called racist on here once for saying that a black man was black when I was telling my story and giving a description of him. Because he was black. Because I noticed. Wow. Thats taking it way too far. The dude accusing me of it went way over the top hysterical/dramatic and even put himself in the same category as Nelson Mandela because he "called me out"on noticing that a black guy was black. It didn't make any difference to how I related to him, but he was still black and not being blind nor deaf, I knew he was black. My bad.

It's when people get so upset over the least little thing now. It's when kids get accused of terrorist threats for saying they want to smack another kid. It's when kids are accused of sexual harrassment for popping a girls bra strap in the 6th grade because it bugs her. It's when teachers get fired for answering a question about their own religious beliefs even though neither me nor my kids share those beliefs. It's when any and every little thing is held up to the microscope of public opinion and probed and dissected until finally the freedom fighters and nuance Ninjas have overcome and found a reason to be offended by the word, thought, deed, idea, act, spelling or tone of voice that I get pissed off.

What the hell is wrong with common sense? Are we not supposed to use it because there are some people who don't have it so we shouldn't rely on it? I can't help it that someone else might not have common sense, but I refuse to emotionally dumb down my own thoughts and communication because some panty waist might cry because I said something that wasn't an insult at all. If I insult someone, I deserve to get it right back, but neither I nor anyone else deserves to be vilified when we aren't insulting someone else. We are all devoting way too much time and energy to the task and idea of enabling those who are overly sensitive to stay that way. There is nothing wrong with developing a thicker skin, just as there is nothing wrong with being polite and not insulting others. There is a thin line between being polite and trying not to insult someone else and indulging someone's oversensitivity obsession. We have gone past indulging it as a society and now oversensitive seems to be the desired state of mind. We are all turning into that one kid from 2nd grade that cried when you looked at him wrong and ran and told on everybody for everything. Nobody liked that kid then, so why would anybody want to be him now? He's probably grown up and grown a pair, but society has decided to sink to the level he was as a child. Nothing was ever accomplished by oversensitive titty babies. All that was ever accomplished by that crowd is the compilation of a big list of don'ts. While they want everyone to take everybody else into consideration and tread oh so carefully everywhere we go so as not to trigger the most sensitive of the sensitivity crowd, not a single one of them would ever spare a moment to think that maybe just because one or two people get upset over something is not a reason to label it bad across the board.

The crowd of whiners I'm talking about are not the largest group of those who follow the PC codes. Most of them do so simply because society says something innocuous is offensive and they don't want to offend. However, it's the whiners who have made it their life's work to wear their cry baby tendencies on their shoulder proudly, and spend their life, energy and spare time scouring the world for any possible offense, if not to them then to others. They feel that it's their job to be offended for others and when the other person isn't offended by something they will spend inordinate amounts of time trying their best to convince the person that they should be offended. Like some have done to me here at times because I'm not offended when a man holds the door open for me. Some seem to feel that it's a crusade to be offended and stop whatever silly little things that they feel are ruining our society. That is the kind of thing I get pissed off about. Many of the pro PC whiner types will say that anyone who is against their form of linguistic law is just a barbarian bigot who wants to go around insulting others, taking away their rights, jobs and happiness and making ourselves feel better at other's expense. Nothing could be a bigger pile of horse s**t than that. Most of us who are against PC just want people to lighten up and give others the benefit of the doubt and not taking everything so goddamned seriously.

Thats the type of PC I'm against.

I've gotten into trouble lately in certain circles for saying I am "blessed" in various ways because if I say *I* am blessed in some good way, I *must be* communicating that someone who doesn't receive what I have received is NOT blessed, and in fact must be cursed!

Seriously???

Oh, and if I say anything about anything my kids have accomplished, automatically I am bragging and not considering the feelings of parents whose kids are not able to achieve the same things? I have actually been told that these good things should only be shared with the grandparents! (I wasn't bragging or putting others down, either, just reporting matter-of-fact.)

God forbid I share anything good about life. But, then, neither should I be airing all my problems. So, go hide under a rock and never come out - that's the only solution.

@OliveOilMom

I hear ya.

Sounds like the WP person who reamed you out about noticing someone was Black was really overboard!

Some folks think that "not noticing someone's race" means LITERALLY "not noticing their race". And it gets ridiculous. Like you cant point out that your supervisor is "that Black guy standing over there with those other guys" (uh uh...he's that tall guy. But they are ALL tall. No I mean he has black hair. But three of them have dark hair. Well... I mean he's the guy wearing..).

Too much of anything is too much. Like you can go overboard with old kind of prudery (Victorians used to cover the "legs" of tables because to even show furniture "leg" was shocking).

I dont know what to say. I just use commonsense about avoiding what seems offensive and I dont get alot of hassle about it. You dont come off as being insensitive or bigoted to me. So I dont know why you attract so much trouble from folks about it.

Oh, I completely understand and agree with you. While I don't share the same religious beliefs as the people who tell me to "Have a blessed day" etc, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying it. Also, people are allowed to talk about their kids accomplishments. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your kids and telling people about it. I've talked about my kids in the parents section on here when they have done something I've been happy about or proud of and never had anyone say something bad to me about it. I don't feel that saying something about your kids is bad or putting people down and bragging about your kids isn't ever wrong unless you are doing it to make someone else feel bad, and I can't imagine someone doing that.

What you are talking about is people wanting to make an across the board rule based on the most sensitive person's feelings. That isn't the right thing to do at all. It doesn't help anyone. While one person may take it the wrong way, 99% of the rest of the people would be happy for you. I've seen guys on Love and Dating complaining about how people talk about their boyfriends or girlfriends or engagements, etc. That they shouldn't publicly talk about them because not everybody has a significant other and it makes them feel bad. I think most of the problems with the overblown climate of PC in our society is because people are emotionally dumbing down everything, so the few most overly sensitive people won't get their feelings hurt. It seems to be wrong in this day and age to expect those who are overly sensitive to toughen up rather than expect everyone else to walk on eggshells. I'm not saying that we should expect nobody to be offended ever, but we should recognize that there is a line between appropriate sensitivity and oversensitivity. It seems that now it's wrong to even suggest that someone could be overly sensitive, and that someones feelings might be overboard. We are all too ready to worship at the alter of accommodation and sensitivity and PC so much that to even suggest that a person who has an extremely disproportionate reaction to a very innocuous thing is not seeing things clearly and going overboard. We can easily and with approval, accuse people of not being sensitive enough but how dare we accuse them of being too sensitive.

I don't see anything wrong with what you did. I don't think you should let those people dictate what you talk about. I see nothing at all wrong with saying you were blessed, and nothing at all wrong with saying nice things about your kids. What you did was normal, their reaction was not. Please don't forget that.