What are your thoughts on "political correctness"?

Post Reply New Topic

I imagined what he was saying "banning PC" to mean that you couldn't use PC language, for example - you'd have to use the masculine generic pronoun "he" instead of his/her , her/his or they-you wouldn't be allowed to use the alternating pronoun- it would be banned. That would just be another kind of censorship but as I was trying to explain to him, I don't think anyone's suggesting that. That would make no sense.

The use of the term has become meaningless.

That's what I think of it.

I'm not trying to close the door to discussion. As I said I am skeptical, but I am discussing this with you even though you used the phrase and are not using it in the manner I typically see it used.

Also, political correctness seems to mean so many things to people that it often is almost meaningless.

in australia, there were 2 types of gollywogs. one was a gollywog biscuit, and the other was a type of stuffed gollywog toys. i did not like the gollywog biscuit, but i remember having a stuffed gollywog with a green clown cone hat on when i was about three. i never associated either the biscuit or the toys with a race of people. they were their own identities in my mind.

whether the original creators of the concept of the "gollywog" had a definite motive of castigation of negroes, or if their motive was simple caricaturizations of them from the time without malice, i do not know.

i do think that the reality of the availability of gollywogs in australia until the early 1990's was not often influential in any negative way to the mindsets of anyone who had one.

what is a valid reason for the concept of a gollywog to be considered racist?
is it because their "skin" is black? why is that considered to be offensive? gollywogs were never portrayed or stylized in a negative way.
they were always cheery, and there was no negative agenda that tried to control the facial expressions of gollywogs. every gollywog i ever saw looked happy and friendly.
so the only complaint that most people have (after everything nice about the concept is boiled away in the tempest of their uncharitable appraisal) , is that a gollywogs skin is black? if their skin was white, then no one would have a problem (including black people)?. why do people who exult themselves as champions for the down trodden, often take offense and want to censor displays of information that directly and unambiguously refer who they are the champions of?



well i never considered the link between those tiles and slavery. you have correctly identified the identity of a subset of faces that resemble the faces on the tiles in our kitchen. very well done.




i thought that the word "lubra" was the term for a female aborigine.
i was not cognizant of the fact that it was a derogatory term.



well i thought until recently that it was only half caste children that were being kidnapped. i also was told by my grand uncle that half caste
children were the first to be sacrificed.

As far as the stolen generation being the result of benign policy to protect the children, I have to disagree, and I think that historical accounts disagree as well.

i do not pontificate to such a degree as you do about whether my happiness is justified.

Have you seen them or do you think that any image of a black is racist?

I bet you think that the Aunt Jemima brand of products is racist, too. And probably Sambo's Restaurants as well.

How about various foods such as Hoecakes? Hoppin' John? Grits?

I would feel offended by it if someone said that to me...

what do they call it in your country?

just board

then it is highly unlikely anyone is going to use that word in your country, unless they were describing a particular board as opposed to another board.

To much blah blah blah about political correctness, and not enough on political compassion.

I think it's BS. Just another stupid way people comfort themselves while avoiding the issue.

"Look-- we made them stop saying [mod edit: racial slur removed] We're doing something!!"

Really?? What statement would you rather hear??

1) "Well, Hell, Billy Ray-- a [mod edit: racial slur removed] just as good as any other man."

2) "I'm so proud of my little Suzy! She plays with the African-American children like they were just as good as us!!"

Let's get a little closer to home.

1) "s**t, honey, you do an awful good job for a ret*d!"

2) "Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorders lack the capacity for empathy. There is something missing in the brain; they are simply not capable of understanding that others are people too."

One statement is pretty and gladhanding and sounds all nice.

The other one is, however roughly spoken, the statement of a basically decent human being from whom you probably have nothing to fear.

Wrapping the problems up in neutral terminology doesn't help. Frankly, all it does is make the bigots harder to identify-- and less likely to identify themselves. Besides-- The terminology doesn't stay neutral. "Idiot," "imbicile," and "moron" used to be neutral terminology. "Black" used to be a term of empowerment. There's a thread around here somewhere about the fact that the term "autistic" is becoming pejorative. If the ATTITUDES don't change, putting on a new coat of paint changes nothing.

Last edited by BuyerBeware on 19 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well in a previous quote you said you'd stop "assuming people are just using criticisms of PC to excuse being racist , sexist ect when....." I think that dismisses the other's position out of hand and closes the door to a real discussion in the sense that you're making an assumption and automatically characterizing the other side as bad people (racist, sexist ect). I didn't mean you were literally refusing to discuss things but by demonizing the other side it closes the door (metaphorically) to a serious discussion with them.

I agree with you about the term not being meaningful anymore -maybe it never really was defined properly.

In post WWII Denmark, immigrants were first referred to as "foreign workers"
Then this became politically incorrect, so they changed it to "guest workers"
Then this became politically incorrect, so they changed it to "immigrants"
Then this became politically incorrect, so they changed it to "New Danes"
When this becomes politically incorrect, they'll change it to something else...

Rinse and repeat...

Here's the definition from Merriam Webster: : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

MWLINK


Now I think instead of focusing on language and practice that could offend sensibilities we should focus on real hate and racism or sexism ect. i.e "I hate X group of people. X group of people are inherently evil..sons of pigs and dogs. X group of people shouldn't be allowed to ----- thing that everyone else is allowed to do" This kind of hatred exists in the word and should be focused on and eliminated.

I think that worrying about whether a public community center has a Christmas tree up and then having the city of Toronto remove it because it might offend political sensibilities makes my people look like a bunch of whiny prats and detracts from real problems of real hatred.

Last edited by daydreamer84 on 19 Mar 2013, 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's another thing. Changing the language used to describe a group doesn't get rid of the pejorative connotations about X group. The new term just gets those connotations. As a society I think we should focus on getting rid of the negative connotations and the stigma against X group not the name that has taken them on-the new name will take on the same connotations.

Buyer, in real life people who want to be considerate tend to adjust their language accordingly. Dehumanizing statements using medical terminology (as in the last example) have nothing to do with political correctness and are nothing new.

It seems you're trying to evoke some well-meaning old person who doesn't mean any harm, and imply that "PC" people will then scream accusations at poor old granny or grandpa. When is the last time you saw that situation? I see a bunch of people who know very well which terms are considered offensive and insist that there is nothing wrong with using them anyway.