The concept of political correctness.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see why it is useful to replace thoughtfulness with "political correctness," especially now it has been reduced to just another weapon with which to attack others.

Good post. I agree that the effort to educate people about what was thoughtful in a society where (for example) many whites did not have any interaction with blacks etc. was hijacked early on by those who wanted to use language as a means of social control. These self-appointed arbiters of "correctness" left the realm of politeness behind, and moved into the political realm. They did not however have the decency to admit that by doing so their actions no longer deserved the protections and status that an effort to merely increase the civility of dialogue deserved. When one resisted one of their attempts to change society by redefining terms or selecting new terminology one would still be attacked as if they were against civility. This power grab thus not only stifled political debate, it also caused a reaction against the useful portion of PC, ie attempting to increase the facility of civil discourse.

Now that "victims" are able to decide what others must call them in order not be called out for the bigots that they doubtlessly are, I am making my demands as a member of three victim classes known to you all. As a caucasian / native american / man I have to suffer from being the minority gender, one of the few survivors of the genocide of my fellow native american people, while as a caucasian I am a member of the only ethnic group that is not only legal to discriminate against, but in some cases it is mandatory to discriminate against. I suffer attacks of one sort or another in regards to my ethnic heritage and gender. It is my right to empower myself by redefining the terms by which I am commonly referred to. By doing so all those bigots who torment me will be put on notice that I, the victim now hold the cards. If the bigots do not call me by terms that I myself have adopted as the proper terms for referring to me from this point forward, then they shall be publicly exposed and ridiculed, and if they persist I shall be filing a civil rights lawsuit to put an end to the hostile environment. From now caucasian-american indian males shall be referred to as "Our Righteous Overlords". Thank you, and watch your tongues!

p.s. My girlfriend wants everyone to call her "Memsahib". Thanks again.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
As the post from The Mad Monk shows, the woman did not get fired.


Is Tingkai always this thick?

The fact that she was penalized at all is outrageous. It should also be noted that it isn't over, and she may well still end up getting fired.

Okay MM, let's go over this again and see if you can follow these simple facts.

JT wrote that a teacher was fired for teaching the word niggardly.

You posted a news article that shows the teacher was not fired.

I used the article you posted to indicate that JT made a mistake.

What part of this do you not understand?

As well, the teacher was not "penalized" as you claim.

Edit: It's not clear whether the teacher was penalized. An ananova article says she was reprimanded (which could mean anything from being told "that wasn't a good idea" to "Do that again and you're fired." The article posted by MM makes no mention of a reprimand.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Why? Whats wrong with being gay you bigot!?

Had a bad day Cal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sikander: , Totally right. PC isn't the same as civility, though those that support it would like it to be such.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
Good post. I agree that the effort to educate people about what was thoughtful in a society where (for example) many whites did not have any interaction with blacks etc. was hijacked early on by those who wanted to use language as a means of social control. These self-appointed arbiters of "correctness" left the realm of politeness behind, and moved into the political realm.
....
When one resisted one of their attempts to change society by redefining terms or selecting new terminology one would still be attacked as if they were against civility. This power grab thus not only stifled political debate, it also caused a reaction against the useful portion of PC, ie attempting to increase the facility of civil discourse.

But doesn't this happen all the time regardless of the political stance of those calling for change, and those defending the status quo.

A year ago, anyone who challenged the American policy towards Afghanistan was verbally attacked. Anyone who criticized GW Bush back then was called disloyal.

If an American teacher taught students that the US invaded Vietnam, there would likely be an uproar.

At some point in the 80s, the American right wing started complaining that the left were forcing political correctness on everyone. This has proven to be a highly effective red herring.

Anyone who suggested that maybe, just maybe, we should use gender-neutral terms was attacked for being politically correct.

There were never any self-appointed arbitrators as you claim. At least, I don't know of anyone who appointed themself as chief of the language police with actual power.

The people calling for change, sought change through existing power structures. You can call this a power grab if you want, but then who were they grabbing the power from?

Originally posted by Sikander
They did not however have the decency to admit that by doing so their actions no longer deserved the protections and status that an effort to merely increase the civility of dialogue deserved.

Are you suggesting that freedom of speech changes once it enters the political realm? Exactly what protection and status was no longer deserved?

Originally posted by Sikander
Now that "victims" are able to decide what others must call them.

No one has the power to decide the words that others must use to describe them.

What they do have, at least in a democracy, is the right to say "We want to be called X in government documents" and the right to lobby for such changes. But the decision about what a group of people should be called remains in the hands of democratically elected representatives or civil servants (including judges).

Look at the case of the teacher who taught her students the word niggardly. The parent who complained did not have dictorial power. The power was in the hands of the principal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If an American teacher taught students that the US invaded Vietnam, there would likely be an uproar.

How come there hasn't been one for all the high school teachers that tell us that we invaded Vietnam?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If an American teacher taught students that the US invaded Vietnam, there would likely be an uproar.

How come there hasn't been one for all the high school teachers that tell us that we invaded Vietnam?

Okay, that may have been a bad example. Are you taught in high school that the US invaded Vietnam?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, at least I have been and most everyone else I know as well.

[Tingkai]

Okay, then definitely a bad example. Mea culpa