Article: 5 Reasons Political Correctness Must Die

[MA-Caver]

Interesting article I felt worth discussing...

Here are snippets of the 5 reasons:

Here are five good reasons Political Correctness must die. http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/05/13/political-correctness-must-die/

1. It’s censorship: Point blank, that’s what it is. It’s used mainly by people on the left to attack people on the right, but not the other way around.

It does deny us the freedom of speech. Which I understand is the right to say what you think. However we have to (now) say it in a manner that doesn't offend. How much free speech in there is that?

2. It’s bigotry disguised as manners: You may think all those touchy-feely names they come up with for various special interest groups are more sensitive and empowering than the “mean” names of the past, but most of them are patronizing and they segregating.

It does classify people, but we've always been classifying people. Just using as what George Carlin calls a "soft-language"... example: "Poor people used to live in slums, now the economically disadvantage lives in sub-standard housing...because they were fired, you know fired? Management wanted to curtail redundancies in the office so people are now no longer viable members of the workforce."
Funny, seems to me it says the same thing just in a lot nicer way and in a manner that isn't quite so blunt. What's the point?

3. It’s an attempt at mind control: The goal of PC always has been to segregate people into classes, destroy the family by marginalizing and polarizing people from traditional values and culture.

To think alike and to act alike and to talk alike. Can't have any differences here now can we? If we were all different then we couldn't possibly agree upon anything.

4. Evil: The textbook definition of evil is that which is willfully and maliciously harmful to others. What else do you call something that is used to commit so much harm against people and a society as a whole.

True that.

5. Why should we do what some faceless creeps tell us?: Most of the time we were told what the new term for something is.

It does get on one's nerves after a while. To be told by authority figures (usually teachers and then later employers) not to refer to people by one name but THIS name... for example: Negros, Coloreds, Blacks, and now African-Americans. Funny how the first three are probably now considered offensive when I'm old enough to remember all of them being used on a job or other type of application at one time or another when identifying race. Now whites are being referred to as Caucasians.
Will it end?
Probably not.

Thoughts, comments, additions?

For me there is another reason...
6. It can get you fired. I've come close a couple of times at my (present) job (now have warnings), and have been fired from other jobs because I said "the wrong thing".
So much for the freedom of speech even if trying to be light-hearted. For example, my boss called me on something I said to a family from an Asian descent. When I asked them (as I do with everyone) "where are you from?" They answered "Atlanta." To which I replied "Funny, you dont' look like ya'll from Georgia."... THEY laughed... my boss didn't. She was concerned about what if they DIDN'T laugh.

Dunno about you all but I think this PC-ness of our present societies is going TOO FAR. Yes you don't want to insult people but to be careful to the point where it's better not to say anything at all... well... that's just TOO FAR IMO.

Right now at work, when dealing with customers/tourists... I don't say NOTHING other than what I have to say.

I really love my job.

 

[Steve]

I don't honestly see what the big deal is.

Wanting to be called African-American rather than negro. Now, that's censorship. Oh, the humanity. That's bigotry. Give me a break.

Usually, in my experience, the ones that make a big deal about how other people are too PC are douchebags trying to blame their douchebaggery on someone else. "I shouldn't have to censor myself." BS. That's called being polite. You're censored here. It's how people who disagree get along without killing each other.

But, it's not the political correctness on the right that bothers me. Honestly, I don't care. It's the hypocrisy that gets on my nerves. I have no problem with any of the points listed except the first one. They're all opinions, and you're entitled to them. Number 1. That's a crock. EVERYONE is politically correct when it suits them. Over the last 10 years or so, people have had to walk on eggshells lest we offend the radical arm of the republican party and be called unpatriotic. We couldn't criticize the president for fear of being labeled as unpatriotic. We couldn't voice an opinion out of line with Fox news without being called appeasers. But that's not being PC?

Right wingers are as PC as left wingers, if not more so. Just about different things.

This doesn't, however, extend to the workplace. My personal opinion is that if you're at work, you should be professional. If you're calling someone a negro, or making off color jokes or doing anything else that could be considered 'un-PC', you're not being professional and should be called on it. If you're doing it to deliberately mess with a co-worker, you should be disciplined. And if you happen to be creating a hostile work environment, particularly one that can also be tied to a category protected under creo, you're an idiot and should be fired for that, if for no other reason.

Caver, I don't see a problem with the joke you told and wouldn't have thought twice about it. But if they HAD been offended, that's a problem. As a manager, I think that yours overreacted, but I can see where he or she is coming from in that you can't let crap like that get started. If I see something that is objectionable, part of the job is to make it go away. A woman shouldn't have to approach me about sexist jokes before I tell the jokester to knock it off. It isn't helping get the work done, and it has the potential to cause some serious problems.

And, just food for thought, I've personally been involved in situations where someone said things that were offensive, and because the person laughed, thought it was all good. But the person laughed because it was awkward and didn't know what to do. The jokes continued and eventually led to some serious LR issues. Not saying that's the case in your situation, but the point is, you really don't know who was offended and who wasn't, and it's work. Tell jokes on your own time.

 

[Big Don]

As I see it, Honest isn't always nice. Yes, it is nice to be nice, but, really, I'd prefer honest. Sometimes those pants DO make your butt look big...(sometimes, it isn't the pants...)

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I don't honestly see what the big deal is.

Wanting to be called African-American rather than negro. Now, that's censorship. Oh, the humanity. That's bigotry. Give me a break.

Usually, in my experience, the ones that make a big deal about how other people are too PC are douchebags trying to blame their douchebaggery on someone else. "I shouldn't have to censor myself." BS. That's called being polite. You're censored here. It's how people who disagree get along without killing each other.

But, it's not the political correctness on the right that bothers me. Honestly, I don't care. It's the hypocrisy that gets on my nerves. I have no problem with any of the points listed except the first one. They're all opinions, and you're entitled to them. Number 1. That's a crock. EVERYONE is politically correct when it suits them. Over the last 10 years or so, people have had to walk on eggshells lest we offend the radical arm of the republican party and be called unpatriotic. We couldn't criticize the president for fear of being labeled as unpatriotic. We couldn't voice an opinion out of line with Fox news without being called appeasers. But that's not being PC?

Right wingers are as PC as left wingers, if not more so. Just about different things.

This doesn't, however, extend to the workplace. My personal opinion is that if you're at work, you should be professional. If you're calling someone a negro, or making off color jokes or doing anything else that could be considered 'un-PC', you're not being professional and should be called on it. If you're doing it to deliberately mess with a co-worker, you should be disciplined. And if you happen to be creating a hostile work environment, particularly one that can also be tied to a category protected under creo, you're an idiot and should be fired for that, if for no other reason.

Caver, I don't see a problem with the joke you told and wouldn't have thought twice about it. But if they HAD been offended, that's a problem. As a manager, I think that yours overreacted, but I can see where he or she is coming from in that you can't let crap like that get started. If I see something that is objectionable, part of the job is to make it go away. A woman shouldn't have to approach me about sexist jokes before I tell the jokester to knock it off. It isn't helping get the work done, and it has the potential to cause some serious problems.

And, just food for thought, I've personally been involved in situations where someone said things that were offensive, and because the person laughed, thought it was all good. But the person laughed because it was awkward and didn't know what to do. The jokes continued and eventually led to some serious LR issues. Not saying that's the case in your situation, but the point is, you really don't know who was offended and who wasn't, and it's work. Tell jokes on your own time.

Don't know why you're so hateful with only the Republicans on this one.

Is it so different then being called a racist because you disagree with Obama and his policies?

 

[Archangel M]

When the media/gvt tries to alter our speech and thoughts through intentional use of language, it's sort of a form of Orwellian Newspeak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

 

[David43515]

Even the quotes from the article used softer edged politcally correct phrases to explain what`s wrong with plitical correctness. Let`s just call it what it is.

Plitical correctness is an attempt to avoid hurting anyone`s feelings, even if it means you can`t be honest. One friend explained it as "the misguided idea that it`s possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." Sorry folks, sometimes you`re better off getting your hands dirty and worrying about washing up later.

 

[Steve]

Don't know why you're so hateful with only the Republicans on this one.

Is it so different then being called a racist because you disagree with Obama and his policies?

You didn't actually read my post if that's the conclusion you're drawing.

 

[WC_lun]

I just love these people who want to cry because they say they don't have "freedom of speach" or particularly that thier first ammendment rights have are being suppressed. That is crap. What is really being said is they don't like it that they are being held responsible for the nonsense that is coming out of thier mouth. You can say just about any damn thing you want in this country and not get arrested for it. THAT is freedom of speach. That doesn't mean that your friends, co-workers, or the random public is not going to have a reaction when you are a douchebag. It is part of the whole consequences for your actions thing that is part of being in the real world. Don't like it? Tough. Is it really so difficult to understand that what you say might have an effect on someone else? I know, having empathy for others and actually being polite are signs of weakness, right? Stop your whining. If you don't like the repurcussions of what you say, don't say it. Pretty simple, huh? <rant off>

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are a lot of issues in play here.

First, 'censorship'. Technically, 'freedom of speech' in the USA means that the government cannot suppress speech (which can be actual speech, or print, or online posts, or photography, or artwork, or actions like burning a flag, etc). It's all protected. But that applies to the government only. An employer can tell employees what they may not say; so can the owner of MT. It's censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.

Second, 'PC' is not a law. As WC_lun mentioned, you can still say just about anything you like in America. "Political Correctness" means social pressure to use certain terms for certain things. Frankly, I agree that PC has run amok in many ways, although I think it's been scaled back considerably since the bad old days.

And it can be confusing and upsetting. An example; I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus. Every year, we give away Tootsie Rolls and solicit donations for the ARC (http://www.thearc.org). Our day-glo vests say "Help Retarded Children" on them. We catch a lot of flack for that. It's funny the people who will take the time to give me hell for having the word 'retarded' printed on my vest, but don't have a dollar to chip in. Yeah, yeah, I'd be a lot more interested in your point of view if you weren't a skinflint, sport.

The fact (I am told) is that the ARC and the KofC have to use the term 'retarded' because that is the term that the federal government demands we use for this charity. And in general the ARC is against the retiring of this word (http://www.thearc.org/page.aspx?pid=1910&storyid5118=305&ncs5118=3). I don't know, I just collect donations for kids who need help. GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT IT, PC SNOTS!

On the other hand, there are many reasons for 'PC' speak, and some of the reasons make a lot of sense to me. It seems we consider requests or demands to use a particular word or phrase in place of another we're more used to using offensive only if WE think it's offensive, which makes "PC" a moving target.

An example of that - I grew up in central Illinois. Lived in a small town called 'Pekin'. Supposedly named after 'Peking' (now known as Beijing) in China. Therefore, and supposedly in honor of this, Pekin had a high school football, baseball, and basketball team called the "Pekin Chinks." Yeah, not kidding. Growing up, I didn't even know it was a bad word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Illinois

The school teams were officially known as the Pekin Chinks until 1980 when the school administration changed the mascot to the Pekin Dragons. The team mascot was a student dressed as a Chinaman wearing a coolie hat, who struck a gong when the team scored. An earlier attempt was made by a visit of Chinese American groups to change the name from Chinks during the 1974–1975 school year; this was voted down by the student body. The event received national attention.

Frankly, I think the decision to change the name to the Pekin Dragons was a good one. Anyone disagree? Should we have kept the name 'Chinks' because we hate being forced to be PC? I'm guessing we're cool with that.

"PC" also represents changing language. English, like any language, changes over time. Sometimes because of informal and slowly-accepted terminology creeping into the lexicon (case in point; in the Detroit area, the newspapers use the term 'swiped' to mean 'stolen' as if the term was not slang). Sometimes the changes are more abrupt, such as the aforementioned change from 'Negro' to "African-American" in what was considered to be polite speech. Less obvious but also present was a shift from using the term 'Oriental' to 'Asian'.

Although I am occasionally irritated by someone who insists that I use a word or term or phrase that annoys me (like 'rightsizing' or 'downsizing' instead of 'laid off' or 'fired'), in general if a group of people wish to be known by a different term than whatever term came before, I'm OK with that.

But "PC" is also a political tool. When one attacks a group for their political beliefs, one puts the terms used in one's favor too. That means using one's own phrases and trying to change the phrases used by the opponent. Thus, there are pro-choice and pro-life groups - but if you ask them, their opposition is anti-life or anti-choice; each using a negative term to describe the other, while using the most positive term to describe themselves.

It also means that one attacks not just the arguments of the political opposition, but also the language they use. We see this when terms like 'mosque' and 'madrassa' are used by two sides in a political discussion. One side sees the terms to mean one thing, another side sees them to mean something else. So if one side says a 'madrassa' is a school, the other says it is a training center for terrorism. This either forces the first group to abandon the use of the term or to continually attempt to reinforce their point of view that a madrassa is not necessarily a terrorist training center. The battle, then, is not just being fought over Islamic schools, but over the very terms used to describe them. By attaching strong negative emotional meaning to given terms, one can win a political battle for hearts and minds by simply letting others absorb the negative meaning and not have to 'think' any further about it.

The 'madrassa' example is a good one. Some people may not have a negative opinion about madrassas if they are described simply as schools, or religious schools, or even Islamic religious schools. But describe them as terrorist training centers and now lots of people are against them. So the battle is over terms in this case. It doesn't matter so much what a madrassa is; it matters what you call it. Convince others to accept the definition you've given it, and your battle is won. The madrassa in question remains the same either way - the definition didn't change what it is; but the public perception is now changed.

That's PC too, you know. It's just not the kind of touchy-feely liberal love-speech we're used to associating with "PC" speech.

 

[crushing]

PC may not be the law, but isn't political correctness written in to some thought crime laws and other legislation that is written specifically for protected classes of people?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

PC may not be the law, but isn't political correctness written in to some thought crime laws and other legislation that is written specifically for protected classes of people?

I presume you mean so-called 'hate crime' laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

If that is what you're referring to, then no. Hate crime laws punish certain types of behavior against people based upon a number of biases, including race, gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, disability status, etc.

Although I can well imagine that the words a person uses to express their infringement of the rights in question might be used against that person in court, it's not that the words are prohibited, it's that they tend to show the bias which the state would be attempting to prove.

 

[Bruno@MT]

This is like using the constitution to strongly defend the things you agree with (like the 2nd amendment), but when the discussion is about prisoners rights, humane treatment and the prevention of prison rape (like the 8th amendment) you can't help but think 'Meh... constituion shmonstitution'

And lest I be painted as a leftie again, I can turn the argument around using the federal universal healthcare bill.

It is human nature to pick and choose, and only apply the inconvenient things when it suits you.

 

[crushing]

I presume you mean so-called 'hate crime' laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

If that is what you're referring to, then no. Hate crime laws punish certain types of behavior against people based upon a number of biases, including race, gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, disability status, etc.

Although I can well imagine that the words a person uses to express their infringement of the rights in question might be used against that person in court, it's not that the words are prohibited, it's that they tend to show the bias which the state would be attempting to prove.

Yes, they are also called "hate crimes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts."


Political correctness isn't just about language, but also policies and and behavior. If there are laws that increase the penalty for committing crimes against certain classes of people, or that require, or even encourage the hiring of a certain protected classes of people, such as veteran's, isn't an attempt to minimize social and institutional offense to those protected classes?

 

[Tez3]

What the blazes is a Tootsie Roll! Now that sounds odd lol!

 

[girlbug2]

The example of PC speech that annoys me the most: first it was "handicapped", then "disabled". Later it changed to "differently abled", and finally "challenged". What a stupid progression. "Handicapped" is a perfectly usable word, only at some point somebody decided that it had a negative connotation. Sooner or later every substitute word is going to have a negative connotation--do we keep changing the language because nobody wants any kind of negative connotation, real or imagined? What will it be next, after the PC crowd decides that "challenged" has a negative spin?

And.. have you noticed that those blue parking spaces are still referred to as "handicapped" parking spaces?

 

[mook jong man]

What the blazes is a Tootsie Roll! Now that sounds odd lol!

I'm pretty sure its a break fall technique from Judo.

 

[Steve]

I'm pretty sure its a break fall technique from Judo.

Break fall performed by Dustin Hoffman in drag.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Political correctness isn't just about language, but also policies and and behavior. If there are laws that increase the penalty for committing crimes against certain classes of people, or that require, or even encourage the hiring of a certain protected classes of people, such as veteran's, isn't an attempt to minimize social and institutional offense to those protected classes?

I see your point.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What the blazes is a Tootsie Roll! Now that sounds odd lol!

http://www.tootsie.com/