Your Opinion of Political Correctness

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Are you saying that if we stop talking about it, then it'll somehow magically go away?

People (in America at least) have an attention span that could rival a hamster's. So yeah, eventuality, if we just don't bother with "proper" labels like "African American," for example, we'll just stop seeing them as different. One could argue that political correctness is a form of oppression by focusing on how group X is different from groups A, B, Q, Z, and T. Allow me to continue using "African American" as an example; why are they not just "Americans?" Why must they be "African Americans?" Unless they personally came from Sub-Saharan Africa to immigrate into the United States, they are not African. They are American.

True, there is nothing wrong in taking pride in your family origins, "Scottish and Proud!" or "Norwegian and Proud!" or "Korean and Proud!" or "Nicaraguan and Proud!" would be perfectly normal statements to describe oneself. But all said and done, you were born in America, you live in America, you speak American English, you are, by definition, American. No special labels required, unless you want the more formal "United States Citizen/Inhabitant."

Because people still see the skin color, because there are still stereotypes that surround people with that skin color, and because people with that skin color are still treated differently, there is a word to describe the racial background that is the reason for the skin color, and the focus of the stereotypes. Without having a word to describe the difference, there is no way to reasonably discuss the unfair prejudices arising from the difference.

[Ifreann]

Because when you use improper labels like "spear chucker" or "porch monkey", people don't seem different at all.

And if one did such a thing, one would be talking complete and utter shite.

Did you even read the entire post?

Indeed I did.

Of course derogatory, slanderous names are wrong, but here an idea, one that has never occurred in the entire existence of the left:

Why not just call them: "Them," "People," "Americans?"

Because that would involve ignoring present and historical reality, not to mention how difficult it would become to talk about the problems of racism.

[Patridam]

Because when you use improper labels like "spear chucker" or "porch monkey", people don't seem different at all.

And if one did such a thing, one would be talking complete and utter shite.

Did you even read the entire post?
Of course derogatory, slanderous names are wrong, but here an idea, one that has never occurred in the entire existence of the left:

Why not just call them: "Them," "People," "Americans?"

Because invariably a word referring to a specific group is necessary for demographics purposes. In this "black" is a more precise term than "African-American".

[The Fascist American Empire]

People (in America at least) have an attention span that could rival a hamster's. So yeah, eventuality, if we just don't bother with "proper" labels like "African American," for example, we'll just stop seeing them as different. One could argue that political correctness is a form of oppression by focusing on how group X is different from groups A, B, Q, Z, and T. Allow me to continue using "African American" as an example; why are they not just "Americans?" Why must they be "African Americans?" Unless they personally came from Sub-Saharan Africa to immigrate into the United States, they are not African. They are American.

True, there is nothing wrong in taking pride in your family origins, "Scottish and Proud!" or "Norwegian and Proud!" or "Korean and Proud!" or "Nicaraguan and Proud!" would be perfectly normal statements to describe oneself. But all said and done, you were born in America, you live in America, you speak American English, you are, by definition, American. No special labels required, unless you want the more formal "United States Citizen/Inhabitant."

Because people still see the skin color, because there are still stereotypes that surround people with that skin color, and because people with that skin color are still treated differently, there is a word to describe the racial background that is the reason for the skin color, and the focus of the stereotypes. Without having a word to describe the difference, there is no way to reasonably discuss the unfair prejudices arising from the difference.

Yes, but eventually people will just see it as it is... skin. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, there are stereotypes, for now. But what about later on in the future? Let's face it, racism is dying its natural death. People typically just don't buy into that kind of nonsense anymore, and fewer and fewer people will as time goes on.

Now, in answer to someone else's post, I can see where the demographic and human geography usage would come into play. But just everyday conversation is no place for such labels. People are people are people. Human geography, yeah, you need would categories such as "Mongolid," "Caucasian," "African American," etc. But when your just talking to your co-worker, or an old friend from high school, or whatever, why bother bringing up race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.? With the obvious difference between "Hey, have you seen the new guy at work?" and "Hey have you seen the new lady at work?" being a blatant exception of course.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Because people still see the skin color, because there are still stereotypes that surround people with that skin color, and because people with that skin color are still treated differently, there is a word to describe the racial background that is the reason for the skin color, and the focus of the stereotypes. Without having a word to describe the difference, there is no way to reasonably discuss the unfair prejudices arising from the difference.

Yes, but eventually people will just see it as it is... skin. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, there are stereotypes, for now. But what about later on in the future? Let's face it, racism is dying its natural death. People typically just don't buy into that kind of nonsense anymore, and fewer and fewer people will as time goes on.

Now, in answer to someone else's post, I can see where the demographic and human geography usage would come into play. But just everyday conversation is no place for such labels. People are people are people. Human geography, yeah, you need would categories such as "Mongolid," "Caucasian," "African American," etc. But when your just talking to your co-worker, or an old friend from high school, or whatever, why bother bringing up race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.? With the obvious difference between "Hey, have you seen the new guy at work?" and "Hey have you seen the new lady at work?" being a blatant exception of course.

People don't consciously buy into it, but they do buy into it unconsciously, without realizing what they're doing. Unarmed black men are significantly more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white men, are less likely to be called back for job interviews if they have "black sounding" names, are more likely to be stopped under stop and frisk policies despite being less likely to carry weapons, and are arrested and incarcerated at higher rates for drug possession in their younger years despite being less likely than young white people to use drugs. These are actual issues that the community still faces, and they're not going to simply go away if we ignore them.

We've come a long way, but we're not yet at the summit.

[Patridam]

Yes, but eventually people will just see it as it is... skin. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, there are stereotypes, for now. But what about later on in the future? Let's face it, racism is dying its natural death. People typically just don't buy into that kind of nonsense anymore, and fewer and fewer people will as time goes on.

Now, in answer to someone else's post, I can see where the demographic and human geography usage would come into play. But just everyday conversation is no place for such labels. People are people are people. Human geography, yeah, you need would categories such as "Mongolid," "Caucasian," "African American," etc. But when your just talking to your co-worker, or an old friend from high school, or whatever, why bother bringing up race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.? With the obvious difference between "Hey, have you seen the new guy at work?" and "Hey have you seen the new lady at work?" being a blatant exception of course.

People don't consciously buy into it, but they do buy into it unconsciously, without realizing what they're doing. Unarmed black men are significantly more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white men, are less likely to be called back for job interviews if they have "black sounding" names, are more likely to be stopped under stop and frisk policies despite being less likely to carry weapons, and are arrested and incarcerated at higher rates for drug possession in their younger years despite being less likely than young white people to use drugs. These are actual issues that the community still faces, and they're not going to simply go away if we ignore them.

We've come a long way, but we're not yet at the summit.

And how does calling them African American instead of black solve any of those problems?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

People don't consciously buy into it, but they do buy into it unconsciously, without realizing what they're doing. Unarmed black men are significantly more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white men, are less likely to be called back for job interviews if they have "black sounding" names, are more likely to be stopped under stop and frisk policies despite being less likely to carry weapons, and are arrested and incarcerated at higher rates for drug possession in their younger years despite being less likely than young white people to use drugs. These are actual issues that the community still faces, and they're not going to simply go away if we ignore them.

We've come a long way, but we're not yet at the summit.

And how does calling them African American instead of black solve any of those problems?

It doesn't solve anything. It's simply a more accurate descriptor than "black", meaning that the issues that they've faced historically and culturally can be discussed more accurately.

[Blakk Metal]

When did this start? Can you link me to the social justice workers and professors who came up with this? See, I learned it back in the mid-90s when an Asian girlfriend at the time corrected me, so I'd always been under the assumption that it was people from the Asian continent who initiated the change. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to check it out.

I dunno, I've always thought "Asian" was proper or just mention their nationality.

It really pisses me off as someone from El Salvador that other people go "south the border" or "Mexico" to refer to the entire Latin American region without actually bothering to learn some geography.

>Refers to Orientals using a term that technically refers to much larger group.
>Is mad that people call him Mexican.

[Ifreann]

I dunno, I've always thought "Asian" was proper or just mention their nationality.

It really pisses me off as someone from El Salvador that other people go "south the border" or "Mexico" to refer to the entire Latin American region without actually bothering to learn some geography.

>Refers to Orientals using a term that technically refers to much larger group.
>Is mad that people call him Mexican.

>Thinks it's hypocritical to refer to a group by a perfectly accurate, inoffensive term while objecting to another group being referred to by an entirely inaccurate term.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I dunno, I've always thought "Asian" was proper or just mention their nationality.

It really pisses me off as someone from El Salvador that other people go "south the border" or "Mexico" to refer to the entire Latin American region without actually bothering to learn some geography.

>Refers to Orientals using a term that technically refers to much larger group.
>Is mad that people call him Mexican.

Latin American would be the wide term to refer to us if you want to go there

But no, the reason why it bothers me is not because they call me Mexican, as my mother is Mexican so I have Mexican citizenship by default. Try again.

[Patridam]

And how does calling them African American instead of black solve any of those problems?

It doesn't solve anything. It's simply a more accurate descriptor than "black", meaning that the issues that they've faced historically and culturally can be discussed more accurately.

It's not more accurate. African-American should be left for immigrants to the US from Africa. African Americans needn't necessarily be black (i.e. a white person born in Africa who moved to the US), and a vast majority of blacks in the US have no direct association with the continent of Africa much as a white American has no direct association with Europe. We don't go around calling white people 'Anglo-Saxo-Italio-Judeo-Native Americans'. We call them "white".

If you are categorizing blacks in the US specifically, which is indeed useful (I forget who wanted to remove all categorizations and races, but that is pretty ludicrous from a demographic, historic, and analytical standpoint), you can simply use "black Americans", which is more accurate.

[Zercera]

Though it seems nice to do, a world of complete political correctness would probably be a bad thing for minorities and other persecuted groups (specifically in the U.S.) in the long term. You may be able to ban things that may offend others sensibilities in public, but that doesn't mean that the same words won't be spoken at home, and those ideologies won't be spread down from generation to generation. The only way to truly change a culture and a country for the better is not to merely ban the things that are upsetting, but to change the people's minds enough that they will no longer do the thing that is currently the problem, or, alternatively, will lobby to end the injustice themselves. And to change people's mind, discussion that uses politically incorrect terminology is often necessary. Things like this are the reason why after the Boston Bombing, people in the U.S. didn't ostracize members of the Muslim community, while after the Lee Rigby murder, 10 mosques were attacked in the U.K., which has much more comprehensive hate speech laws than the U.S. This is because such laws force change to come from the government, and then be crammed through the throats of a public that may not agree with such measures, but then cannot speak out against it because of the law. For change to be real and permanent, it must come from the people, not the government as an independent entity, and political correctness makes people like a new Call of Duty game-sure, they may seem a little better on the outside, but on the inside they're really just the same piece of crap as before.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It doesn't solve anything. It's simply a more accurate descriptor than "black", meaning that the issues that they've faced historically and culturally can be discussed more accurately.

It's not more accurate. African-American should be left for immigrants to the US from Africa. African Americans needn't necessarily be black (i.e. a white person born in Africa who moved to the US), and a vast majority of blacks in the US have no direct association with the continent of Africa much as a white American has no direct association with Europe. We don't go around calling white people 'Anglo-Saxo-Italio-Judeo-Native Americans'. We call them "white".

If you are categorizing blacks in the US specifically, which is indeed useful (I forget who wanted to remove all categorizations and races, but that is pretty ludicrous from a demographic, historic, and analytical standpoint), you can simply use "black Americans", which is more accurate.

Sorry, what is their ancestry, then? Asian? Latin American? Canadian?

[Sebastianbourg]

I think we've reached a point where people are actually afraid to talk freely without being labelled a racist sexist bastard. Everything appears to be racist and/or sexist now.

[Ifreann]

I think we've reached a point where people are actually afraid to talk freely without being labelled a racist sexist bastard. Everything appears to be racist and/or sexist now.

I manage to get by without being called racist or sexist. And I talk a fair bit *gestures to post count*

[The Holy Therns]

I think we've reached a point where people are actually afraid to talk freely without being labelled a racist sexist bastard. Everything appears to be racist and/or sexist now.

I manage to get by without being called racist or sexist. And I talk a fair bit *gestures to post count*

It's amazing how far one can go with a sense of manners.

[Ifreann]

I manage to get by without being called racist or sexist. And I talk a fair bit *gestures to post count*

It's amazing how far one can go with a sense of manners.

Who let you out of the kitchen, woman creature?! Sammiches! Sammiches, I say!

[The Holy Therns]

It's amazing how far one can go with a sense of manners.

Who let you out of the kitchen, woman creature?! Sammiches! Sammiches, I say!

Oh goodness. Where are my manners?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Taking an opportunity to respond to the thread...

I think we've reached a point where people are actually afraid to talk freely without being labelled a racist sexist bastard. Everything appears to be racist and/or sexist now.

I manage to get by without being called racist or sexist. And I talk a fair bit *gestures to post count*

Funnily enough, I think I was called a racist 3 times and a misogynist/machista 20 times (in moments when I was actually in the conversation) in Facebook since mid-June... The people who do it are generally those who hold that all white people are [structurally] racist and all men and those privileging from the existence of misogyny are [structurally] sexist to the most part, though.

Such people are rare to find in most places, so I'm sure those crying about their existences just don't want to get down from their high horses when they are actively contributing to the non-deconstruction of vastly negative things in society without a single accusatory tone.

As is the case in NSG, where all sorts of two-faced slightly prejudice-apologist discourse are often commonly accepted without vast booing, questions and conflict as if it was just another normal opinion, disregarding the fact that slowly these opportunities are breeding grounds for those who have more extreme ideas make up their opinions based on distorted interpretation of stuff because they really aren't offered opportunity to look at stuff with the eyes of people of all groups involved, using the interpretation of every ideology and not just the one people conveniently decide to take. Or, as Truthy puts it, not a single snowflake feeling responsible for the avalanche.

Political correctness is a myth. Opinion censoring of offensive speech doesn't cause 0.0001% of the harm the things it's supposed to fight against do, so it's really an attempt to be welcomed, even if the way it is carried out by unique, imperfect human beings has wrongful execution.

[Patridam]

It's not more accurate. African-American should be left for immigrants to the US from Africa. African Americans needn't necessarily be black (i.e. a white person born in Africa who moved to the US), and a vast majority of blacks in the US have no direct association with the continent of Africa much as a white American has no direct association with Europe. We don't go around calling white people 'Anglo-Saxo-Italio-Judeo-Native Americans'. We call them "white".

If you are categorizing blacks in the US specifically, which is indeed useful (I forget who wanted to remove all categorizations and races, but that is pretty ludicrous from a demographic, historic, and analytical standpoint), you can simply use "black Americans", which is more accurate.

Sorry, what is their ancestry, then? Asian? Latin American? Canadian?

I would love for you to show me black person of Asian ancestry. There are, probably, some black Asian-Americans (meaning black people whose ancestors left Africa at some point, but they themselves have emmigrated from a country [possibly an Oriental country] in the Asian continent to America), but the fact that they are black makes it quite apparent they have Sub-Saharan African ancestry.

When people talk about "African-Americans", and they are talking about black people rather than the correct meaning of the term (first generation immigrants from Africa to America); the focus os not on their ancestry hundreds of years back. It is about the group of people with that skin tone in modern times. Once again, I point to the use of "white" instead of "European American". There's a double standard in effect, and I intend to go by the better and less PC-based one.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I would love for you to show me black person of Asian ancestry.

There are native people of African-like phenotypes to the Western eye in Yemen, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia. G_G

[Patridam]

I would love for you to show me black person of Asian ancestry.

There are native people of African-like phenotypes to the Western eye in Yemen, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia. G_G

And if they were to move to the United States, they would be incorrectly called African American.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sorry, what is their ancestry, then? Asian? Latin American? Canadian?

I would love for you to show me black person of Asian ancestry. There are, probably, some black Asian-Americans (meaning black people whose ancestors left Africa at some point, but they themselves have emmigrated from a country [possibly an Oriental country] in the Asian continent to America), but the fact that they are black makes it quite apparent they have Sub-Saharan African ancestry.

When people talk about "African-Americans", and they are talking about black people rather than the correct meaning of the term (first generation immigrants from Africa to America); the focus os not on their ancestry hundreds of years back. It is about the group of people with that skin tone in modern times. Once again, I point to the use of "white" instead of "European American". There's a double standard in effect, and I intend to go by the better and less PC-based one.

Why only first generation immigrants? You hear quite a bit about Irish-Americans during St. Patrick's Day, there are second and third-generation descendants of Mexican immigrants who refer to themselves as Mexican-American (or Latin American), and there are tons of people who refer to themselves as Italian-American despite never having been further east than the Jersey Shore. I have a few friends who refer to themselves as Scottish-American, and at least one has never seen the Highlands, contenting himself with wearing a kilt to formal functions.

"African-American" gives black Americans some sense of a shared ancestry, shared struggles, shared concerns, and a shared culture developed during and since slave times in a way that "black" does not. You may see this as unnecessary or ridiculous. I may not completely get it myself. Here's the thing: It's not up to either of us to make that call.

Now, let me turn it around: Why is this such an issue for you? What's wrong with using "African-American" rather than "Black", especially in journalism and in academia? What does it cost you? How does it cause you injury, or cause injury to those around you? How does this affect your life in the slightest, other than having to type a few extra letters on occasion? If prominent black people (including academics and community leaders) find the term more dignified than "black", and less clinical than "Negro", then why in the world wouldn't you say "Okay, African-American then" instead of wasting your energy fighting the change? Even if you don't have the sense of insight to understand why the term is preferable, do you at least have the sense of decency to go along with it so long as it doesn't cause you harm? It can't possibly be that difficult to remember the term, so that's not a real excuse.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There are native people of African-like phenotypes to the Western eye in Yemen, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia. G_G

And if they were to move to the United States, they would be incorrectly called African American.

At which point they could correct the person if they so wished.

[Patridam]

I would love for you to show me black person of Asian ancestry. There are, probably, some black Asian-Americans (meaning black people whose ancestors left Africa at some point, but they themselves have emmigrated from a country [possibly an Oriental country] in the Asian continent to America), but the fact that they are black makes it quite apparent they have Sub-Saharan African ancestry.

When people talk about "African-Americans", and they are talking about black people rather than the correct meaning of the term (first generation immigrants from Africa to America); the focus os not on their ancestry hundreds of years back. It is about the group of people with that skin tone in modern times. Once again, I point to the use of "white" instead of "European American". There's a double standard in effect, and I intend to go by the better and less PC-based one.

Why only first generation immigrants? You hear quite a bit about Irish-Americans during St. Patrick's Day, there are second and third-generation descendants of Mexican immigrants who refer to themselves as Mexican-American (or Latin American), and there are tons of people who refer to themselves as Italian-American despite never having been further east than the Jersey Shore. I have a few friends who refer to themselves as Scottish-American, and at least one has never seen the Highlands, contenting himself with wearing a kilt to formal functions.

"African-American" gives black Americans some sense of a shared ancestry, shared struggles, shared concerns, and a shared culture developed during and since slave times in a way that "black" does not. You may see this as unnecessary or ridiculous. I may not completely get it myself. Here's the thing: It's not up to either of us to make that call.

Now, let me turn it around: Why is this such an issue for you? What's wrong with using "African-American" rather than "Black", especially in journalism and in academia? What does it cost you? How does it cause you injury, or cause injury to those around you? How does this affect your life in the slightest, other than having to type a few extra letters on occasion? If prominent black people (including academics and community leaders) find the term more dignified than "black", and less clinical than "Negro", then why in the world wouldn't you say "Okay, African-American then" instead of wasting your energy fighting the change? Even if you don't have the sense of insight to understand why the term is preferable, do you at least have the sense of decency to go along with it so long as it doesn't cause you harm? It can't possibly be that difficult to remember the term, so that's not a real excuse.

1.) It leaves one with no term to refer to first generation immigrants from Africa to America
2.) Not all prominent blacks prefer the term. Bill Cosby comes to mind, indicating a black in America has almost no ties or relations to actual Africans. Heck, the NAACP still uses 'colored'
3.) A double standard is still in place; I can be called white or cracker with no repercussions (and indeed, I never really cared). Yet god forbid I use black, or even think about using the 'n-word', which only blacks have the privilege to use.
4.) If it was only this term I had to remember, it wouldn't be difficult to use it (despite the ungainly length compared to black), but it is not the only term PC wants you to remember, or forget, as the case may be. You must remember never to say oriental, mentally challenged, Easter, Christmas, negro, brainstorm, Indian, deaf, blind, manhole, policeman, fireman....
And then you must remember to replace them with Asian, intellectually impaired, Spring, Winter Holiday Season, <apparently there is no word for the color black in Spanish anymore>, though shower, Native American, hearing impaired, visually impaired, person hole, police officer, fire fighter... And then, you have to remember what all of those odd sexuality types are (pan?) and be sure to know the difference between gender and sex...

Yeah, no effort at all.
5.) My sense of decency says to stop what is rapidly becoming a culture of litigiousness and being easily offended before it gets out of control. It might already be, who knows, but if hurting a few oversensitive people's feelings at least keeps me from contributing towards a creep towards world of omnipresent censorship with good intentions, then I choose to do so.