The concept of political correctness.

[MrFun]

Ok, I am all for moderate political correctness in social dialogue and interaction among people.

In business, just as you would not call a 30-year old male secretary a boy, you should not call a 30-year old female secretary a girl. For instance, a lawyer referring to his female secretary in this manner: "My girl usually handles my correspondence."

And just because a number of blacks use the word "n*gger" among themselves does not entitle whites to use the same word. Many blacks understand the different contexts of its use more readily than whites, when those blacks use it among themselves.

With all occupation titles, what is wrong with using gender-neutral versions:

chairperson -- not chairman
firefighter -- not fireman
police officer -- not policeman
supervisor -- not foreman

and so forth. Even when we know the person's gender, it will be more simple, and less offensive to use the gender-neutral occupation title.



Having stated my opinions on political correctness, I have a question for those who complain about political correctness.

What do you see so terrible or wrong with trying not to offend groups of people?
If it offends people -- don't use the word. How terrible is that?

[Capt Dizle]

Oh if it were only that simple.

Its like the case of the teacher using the word niggardly and getting fired. Its not a matter of be offensive, political correctness is a way the newly empowered take revenge on the dastardly white anglo saxon protestant (males). Sad but true.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Oh if it were only that simple.

Its like the case of the teacher using the word niggardly and getting fired. Its not a matter of be offensive, political correctness is a way the newly empowered take revenge on the dastardly white anglo saxon protestant (males). Sad but true.

Damn -- and I was hoping for more intelligent opinions rather than conspiracy theories.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually he's more right than wrong, Mr. Fun.

And the main problem with PC is that it ends up being thought control. You talk about slavery in a way that isn't consistant with accepted norms, then you are a racist. If you critisize Israel, then you are an anti-semite. THAT is the problem with political correctness.

[orange]

no. Absolutely not. "******" is a horrible word and should not be said by ANYONE...you cannot say that blacks can say it and whites cannot. It's absurd...I dont' care what kind of connotation it has.

You want to abolish hatred than you stop using that which breeds hatred...

that crap about making the word lose its power is fine, as long as you let EVERYONE use it. I'm sick of that argument

[orange]

Good point Imran

There is a MAJOR difference between being Anti-Israel and anti-semitic.

Hell I'm Anti-America, but that doesn't mean I hate Americans

[monkspider]

The so-called "gender neutral" titles are annoying simply because they are making an issue of such a minor thing. So they are called Firemen, big deal? Is it really so important that you have to raise a stink about it? What's next, Widow-person?
There are very legitimate cases for political-correctness, such as not offending certain groups of people, as Mr. Fun mentioned.
That said though, most politcal correctness is unnescarry, and tends to be about as annoying as some of the silly censor rules on this site.

[Alinestra Covelia]

The way I see it (and I will say right now that I am generally supportive of political correctness) is that the danger of PC taken to extremes is that it becomes victim-defined.

In a nightmare scenario, this can then lead to action taken against somebody for a slur that they did not intend.

Of course, the n-word and other racial slurs are fairly well-known. They have been used in their day and society has now passed on from this usage, acknowledging that the collective cultural meaning behind such words has effectively negated any return to a neutral tone. Thus, when a kindly old Victorian British lady who was my guardian through seven years uses the term "Chinkery" to describe Chinese crafts, I will tell her that the term could be construed as racially offensive. I know she didn't mean it that way (she's very open minded, but a bit behind times), and I view it as heading off future difficulties to let her know.

Orange - I think you might be referring to an incident where an aide to the Mayor of Washington DC used the word "niggardly" correctly (to mean, well, mean and tightfisted) and had to resign. I haven't heard of a teacher getting into the argument.


Back to the subject, I think it's similar to the American Indians' protest against football teams using Native American mascots. When I first heard of this, my reaction was "is that such a big problem?" ranging towards "get over it". However, since talking with members of the Native American community, I have come to understand that it is a very weighty concern for many people, and that their cultural sensitivities are being overlooked (especially poignant because of their sad history).

Each time now that I get a gut reaction of "oh, come on", I stop myself and try to look at how I would feel in their shoes. A good example is to take the mascot in question and substitute a different racial group and see if it rings racist then. "The Washington Darkies" would be quite obviously offensive if viewed in this light.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the 'Washington Whities' wouldn't .

[orange]

Ali - said nothing of 'niggardly'...but I know what you're referring to.

I didn't realize that 'gypped' is a slur against Gypsies until recently when I was yelled at for using it (not even talking about Gypsies...) so I know how that feels...

I've debated the n-word issue with myself for a long time, and my stance has been unwavering. If one side of the table is going to use it, they should accept it when others use it. If they don't want it used, they should lead by example

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by monkspider
The so-called "gender neutral" titles are annoying simply because they are making an issue of such a minor thing. So they are called Firemen, big deal? Is it really so important that you have to raise a stink about it? What's next, Widow-person?

The gender specific terms were of very real concern to my mother and her sister who faced many hurdles in their professional lives.

It used to matter more, not so much now, but then again I haven't said []man for a long time.

[Kepler]

There have been excesses in the name of PC, sure. There are excesses in all cases -- in a typical transcript of a Cato Institute or Young Republican statement there are practically as many inane generalizations and simplifications as there are words.

It is the fixation of right wingers on alleged PC'isms that is amazing. If you don't like using "B.C.E." or "African-American" or "Ms," fine. You'll sink or swim according to your audience's preferences.

BUT to get on my case if I use those terms is a pathetic attempt at bullying. Granted, right wingers have not been accustomed to *any* limits on their excessive moralizing and posturing, but if you're ever going to play in the big leagues you're going to have to accept that others will refer to themselves how they wish, and not how your bitter little ideology dictates.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Oh, this is so gay






I really hate that

[monkspider]

I agree Fab. That one really grates on my nerves too. It is sad that so many silly teenagers throw it around with reckless abandon though.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

What's politically correct about saying BCE rather than BC? The whole calendar (as in the before and after) is based on the life and death (roughly) of Jesus Christ, or of when the Church says Jesus lived for those alternative historians. Therefore, I do not find saying BC or AD politically incorrect, nor will I change it.