Your Opinion of Political Correctness

[Elwher]

I think an excellent example of how political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak is the expanding use of the term 'Undocumented Aliens' to replace the term 'Illegal Immigrants". The latter is, in my opinion, more correct as it describes someone who immigrated into a country in violation of the law. The former removes the onus of personal responsibility from the actor and replaces it with a bureaucratic misstep. To me, it is the equivalent of the passive voice error one's grammar checker often warns us of, where an action is taken without assigning responsibility to anyone.

[Talanzaar]

Gets somewhat....too much at times.

^^^^

[Asasia]

That's a thing on this site?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Unless you are stating that each and every shift in terminology is politically correct,

I do indeed define PC as each and every change of language with the intention of achieving NewSpeak.

Have you got a better definition of PC

Are you applying no true Scotsman[b][/b] = language changes you approve of qualify as PC, but language changes you disapprove of are suddenly NOT PC

No, I'm not applying "No True Scotsman". I'm stating that your definition of what constitutes political correctness is so broad and fuzzy as to be useless, and since you're throwing around the Orwellian term "Newspeak" without bothering to define that phrase, you've essentially given yourself a platform to label any shift in the language whatsoever as politically correct. It's not the definition in common use, it's not what most people think of when they think of the term "politically correct", and it only serves to confuse the issue when you use it in this manner.

[Socialist Czechia]

I do indeed define PC as each and every change of language with the intention of achieving NewSpeak.

Have you got a better definition of PC

Are you applying no true Scotsman[b][/b] = language changes you approve of qualify as PC, but language changes you disapprove of are suddenly NOT PC

No, I'm not applying "No True Scotsman". I'm stating that your definition of what constitutes political correctness is so broad and fuzzy as to be useless, and since you're throwing around the Orwellian term "Newspeak" without bothering to define that phrase, you've essentially given yourself a platform to label any shift in the language whatsoever as politically correct. It's not the definition in common use, it's not what most people think of when they think of the term "politically correct", and it only serves to confuse the issue when you use it in this manner.

Words mean something. Force your opponent to use your words, you take the debate in your hands and win even with bad ideas and evidence of the failures of those ideas. It’s about perceptions and rhetorical manipulation.

THE A-Z OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Asian Should not be used as it is a 'term of convenience'
Asylum Seeker 'Almost pejorative'
British Use only to include 'all in our multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society'
Businessman 'Implies an evaluation of the sexes'
Coloured 'Offensive'
Common Sense 'Becomes problematic when there are parties from differing cultural backgrounds with their differing views of the world'
Epileptic Use 'person with epilepsy'
Ethnics Patronising, use 'minority ethnic' but not 'minority ethnics'
Evening The notion of time can be relative. Evening can mean something completely different to a Scottish person and a Spanish person
Half-caste Offensive, use 'mixed parentage' but not 'mixed race'
Handicapped 'Insulting'
He, She, Him, Her Judges should use 'gender neutral language' such as 'they' or 'them' instead
Immigrants 'Highly inaccurate given the time the majority have been settled here in the UK. The term is exclusionary and liable to offend.'
Mental Handicap Use 'learning disabilities or difficulties '
Mental Illness Judges should say 'mental health problems' instead.
Mixed race 'Slightly pejorative to the extent that it focuses on the racial identity of the parents
Mr, Mrs, Ms 'Given the history of marriage in the subordination of women it should come as no surprise that many women find it offensive to be referred to by reference to their marital status or their husband's name.'
Normal To be avoided as a comparison with disabled people
People of colour 'Popular in the USA, implies inferior status'
Sleeping policemen 'The 1989 Bar vocational evidence exam question with reference to sleeping policemen was failed by the vast majority of non-ethic English students'
Suffer from an illness People must simply 'have' an illness
The blind Use 'blind people' or 'people who are blind'. Similar rules apply to deaf people, who may also be 'deaf without speech'
Visible minorities 'Problematic' because it implies invisible minorities.
West Indian 'Colonial overtones'
Wheelchair bound Use 'wheelchair user'

[Camelza]

Political correctness is as useless and idiotic as, ie; color blindness.
I believe in total freedom of speech, we shouldn't fear words, instead we should try and face our problems head-on instead of trying to hide behind taboos and faux respect.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Political correctness is as useless and idiotic as, ie; color blindness.
I believe in total freedom of speech, we shouldn't fear words, instead we should try and face our problems head-on instead of trying to hide behind taboos and faux respect.

I agree. A caste society rife with tensions is exactly the sort of world that I'd like to live in. Sectarian violence is seriously underrated as a past time.

[Keyboard Warriors]

No we cannot agree on that, because that's not what "political correctness" is.

Yes, it is. Some people goes even further, claiming that 'political correctness' is actual, real NEWSPEAK.

"Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word/phrase that is politically unsuitable (e.g. "civilian casualties") or offensive (e.g. "murder") with a politically correct or inoffensive one (e.g. "collateral damage"). Some maintain that to make certain words or phrases 'unspeakable' (thoughtcrime), restricts what ideas may be held (Newspeak) and is therefore tantamount to censorship. Others believe that expunging terms that have fallen out of favour or become insulting will make people less likely to hold outdated or offensive views. The intent to alter the minds of the public through changes made to language illustrates Newspeak perfectly."

See, the problem here is that there is nobody forcing anybody to use different words. That's you in your dreamland thinking that your views are being unfairly persecuted when in reality, you just don't like being told that you're wrong.

[Camelza]

Political correctness is as useless and idiotic as, ie; color blindness.
I believe in total freedom of speech, we shouldn't fear words, instead we should try and face our problems head-on instead of trying to hide behind taboos and faux respect.

I agree. A caste society rife with tensions is exactly the sort of world that I'd like to live in. Sectarian violence is seriously underrated as a past time.

So you're ok with a society that pretends to treat everyone as equals instead of fight to turn that society into a truly egalitarian one? Good to know.

[Socialist Czechia]

Yes, it is. Some people goes even further, claiming that 'political correctness' is actual, real NEWSPEAK.

"Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word/phrase that is politically unsuitable (e.g. "civilian casualties") or offensive (e.g. "murder") with a politically correct or inoffensive one (e.g. "collateral damage"). Some maintain that to make certain words or phrases 'unspeakable' (thoughtcrime), restricts what ideas may be held (Newspeak) and is therefore tantamount to censorship. Others believe that expunging terms that have fallen out of favour or become insulting will make people less likely to hold outdated or offensive views. The intent to alter the minds of the public through changes made to language illustrates Newspeak perfectly."

See, the problem here is that there is nobody forcing anybody to use different words. That's you in your dreamland thinking that your views are being unfairly persecuted when in reality, you just don't like being told that you're wrong.

"nobody forcing anybody to use different words"

You're simply wrong. Dare to use 'not appropriate', 'legit' words and your life is incredibly harder in public or even in private life. Of course there are differencew, which culture, society or state is your own.
With my straightforward kind of language, used with no problems in my homeland, though, I wouldn't live long freely in Canada or Britain

[Keyboard Warriors]

I agree. A caste society rife with tensions is exactly the sort of world that I'd like to live in. Sectarian violence is seriously underrated as a past time.

So you're ok with a society that pretends to treat everyone as equals instead of fight to turn that society into a truly egalitarian one? Good to know.

Do tell me more about how society becomes egalitarian when people make no attempt to act inclusive of one another. And then I suppose you could offer your explanation of how publicly telling people that their behavior towards others is wrong is pretending to be equal and not fighting for equality.

[Keyboard Warriors]

See, the problem here is that there is nobody forcing anybody to use different words. That's you in your dreamland thinking that your views are being unfairly persecuted when in reality, you just don't like being told that you're wrong.

"nobody forcing anybody to use different words"

You're simply wrong.

No I'm actually right.

Dare to use 'not appropriate', 'legit' words and your life is incredibly harder in public or even in private life. Of course there are differencew, which culture, society or state is your own.
With my straightforward kind of language, used with no problems in my homeland, though, I wouldn't live long freely in Canada or Britain

Exactly, that's people telling you that they dislike what you are saying. They are perfectly entitled to do so. It's called the right to the freedom of speech. You can't honestly expect to get around saying divisive words like "nigger" or "whore" whenever you feel like without people having some opposition to what you're saying, that's nuts.

[Camelza]

So you're ok with a society that pretends to treat everyone as equals instead of fight to turn that society into a truly egalitarian one? Good to know.

Do tell me more about how society becomes egalitarian when people make no attempt to act inclusive of one another. And then I suppose you could offer your explanation of how publicly telling people that their behavior towards others is wrong is pretending to be equal and not fighting for equality.

I don't care about individual opinions, I care about state-imposed political corectness.
Fearing certain words means that a society isn't assured about its morality as a whole, which is the case with, ie; the US which isn't truly healed by the past practices of slavery. Such practices keep societies divided and not truly united.
Equality and mutual respect cannot be achieved via de-facto banning of certain words, it can only be achieved through many years of educational reform, egalitarian welfare and promotion of mutliculturalism.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Do tell me more about how society becomes egalitarian when people make no attempt to act inclusive of one another. And then I suppose you could offer your explanation of how publicly telling people that their behavior towards others is wrong is pretending to be equal and not fighting for equality.

I don't care about individual opinions, I care about state-imposed political corectness.

So in other words, you care about something that doesn't exist?

[Camelza]

I don't care about individual opinions, I care about state-imposed political corectness.

So in other words, you care about something that doesn't exist?

So all minor officials can use politically incrorrect terms and not be discharged?
You also beautifully avoided the rest of my post.

[Tlik]

I agree. A caste society rife with tensions is exactly the sort of world that I'd like to live in. Sectarian violence is seriously underrated as a past time.

So you're ok with a society that pretends to treat everyone as equals instead of fight to turn that society into a truly egalitarian one? Good to know.

Personally, I'd like a society where everyone kinda sorta just thinks about other people's feelings as a fairly major priority. Thus, when I'm chatting to my black friends I tend not to go around calling them niggers, or when I'm chatting to friends with mental disabilities I don't casually refer to their conditions as retardism, because doing those sorts of things is dickish. If your language is going to offend someone else, don't use it. If you don't know if your language is going to offend someone else, it probably won't, but use your common sense and if the worse comes to the worse (and you're not just being a dick about it) try asking them!

[Keyboard Warriors]

So in other words, you care about something that doesn't exist?

So all minor officials can use politically incrorrect terms and not be discharged?

Of course they can. There is no law that states minor officials must be discharged if they say something "non-PC"

You also beautifully avoided the rest of my post.

I asked you previously to explain your sentiments and you didn't. If you aren't going to offer something a little more concrete with your beliefs, then I'm not going to bother responding to you listing the mission statement over and over again.

[Camelza]

So you're ok with a society that pretends to treat everyone as equals instead of fight to turn that society into a truly egalitarian one? Good to know.

Personally, I'd like a society where everyone kinda sorta just thinks about other people's feelings as a fairly major priority. Thus, when I'm chatting to my black friends I tend not to go around calling them niggers, or when I'm chatting to friends with mental disabilities I don't casually refer to their conditions as retardism, because doing those sorts of things is dickish. If your language is going to offend someone else, don't use it. If you don't know if your language is going to offend someone else, it probably won't, but use your common sense and if the worse comes to the worse (and you're not just being a dick about it) try asking them!

I wholeheartily agree with what you describe. I simply believe it should be achieved, not forced.

[Camelza]

So all minor officials can use politically incrorrect terms and not be discharged?

Of course they can. There is no law that states minor officials must be discharged if they say something "non-PC"

Though, it has happened in the past.

You also beautifully avoided the rest of my post.

I asked you previously to explain your sentiments and you didn't. If you aren't going to offer something a little more concrete with your beliefs, then I'm not going to bother responding to you listing the mission statement over and over again.

My sentiments are pretty clear.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Of course they can. There is no law that states minor officials must be discharged if they say something "non-PC"

Though, it has happened in the past.

I guess that's the result of a funny little thing called democracy. You know, people deciding that their public officials aren't people whom they trust with representing them anymore.

I asked you previously to explain your sentiments and you didn't. If you aren't going to offer something a little more concrete with your beliefs, then I'm not going to bother responding to you listing the mission statement over and over again.

My sentiments are pretty clear.

Why don't you start by explaining how people are forced to use certain words or sentences. Then explain how encouraging society to publicly reject intolerance by speaking out against discrimination is actually pretending to be egalitarian and not fighting for equality. Actually, you should probably explain how tolerating slurs promotes equality. I mean, if you oppose "political correctness" (or being polite, as I like to call it), one can only guess you're not in favor of encouraging people to shout down those who use racial slurs.

[Tlik]

Personally, I'd like a society where everyone kinda sorta just thinks about other people's feelings as a fairly major priority. Thus, when I'm chatting to my black friends I tend not to go around calling them niggers, or when I'm chatting to friends with mental disabilities I don't casually refer to their conditions as retardism, because doing those sorts of things is dickish. If your language is going to offend someone else, don't use it. If you don't know if your language is going to offend someone else, it probably won't, but use your common sense and if the worse comes to the worse (and you're not just being a dick about it) try asking them!

I wholeheartily agree with what you describe. I simply believe it should be achieved, not forced.

I suspect most political correctness advocates agree with you there as well. That said, having guidelines on the best ways to refer to differing groups of people is useful for writers, journalists, public speakers, politicians, lawyers etc, hence why there is a standard set of rules that generally make sense.

[Camelza]

Though, it has happened in the past.

I guess that's the result of a funny little thing called democracy. You know, people deciding that their public officials aren't people whom they trust with representing them anymore.

I wasn't refering to elected officials.

My sentiments are pretty clear.

Why don't you start by explaining how people are forced to use certain words or sentences. Then explain how encouraging society to publicly reject intolerance by speaking out against discrimination is actually pretending to be egalitarian and not fighting for equality.

It's pretention because turning a few words in taboos isn't going to solve the wider socio-economic and cultural divisions of a country, while in the meantime it allows the people of said country to rest assured that their society has no discrimination problems when in reality it actually has.

Actually, you should probably explain how tolerating slurs promotes equality. I mean, if you oppose "political correctness" (or being polite, as I like to call it), one can only guess you're not in favor of encouraging people to shout down those who use racial slurs.

I never said tolerating slurs promotes equality, I'm against using slurs myself, but I also believe that slurs should be slowly de-vilified, or forgotten through public education, not shunning.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I guess that's the result of a funny little thing called democracy. You know, people deciding that their public officials aren't people whom they trust with representing them anymore.

I wasn't refering to elected officials.

It does not matter if they are elected or not. If the position serves the public, and the public feels that the person holding the position is no longer fit to hold that position, that person should be stood down.

My sentiments are pretty clear.

Why don't you start by explaining how people are forced to use certain words or sentences. Then explain how encouraging society to publicly reject intolerance by speaking out against discrimination is actually pretending to be egalitarian and not fighting for equality.

It's pretention because turning a few words in taboos isn't going to solve the wider socio-economic and cultural divisions of a country, while in the meantime it allows the people of said country to rest assured that their society has no discrimination problems when in reality it actually has.[/quote]
You've just reworded your original statement. There's no explanation here, just your assumptions and claims.

Actually, you should probably explain how tolerating slurs promotes equality. I mean, if you oppose "political correctness" (or being polite, as I like to call it), one can only guess you're not in favor of encouraging people to shout down those who use racial slurs.

I never said tolerating slurs promotes equality, I'm against using slurs myself, but I also believe that slurs should be slowly de-vilified, or forgotten through public education, not shunning.

And until that day comes where the meaning of a word has shifted entirely that it's no longer regarded as a slur, how do you recommend dealing with it in the present if not through shunning? Why shouldn't people express their disgust when they feel it? Why should slurs be given a free pass from criticism? If you don't believe that we should tolerate slurs, I'm not sure how you can assert that they shouldn't be "shunned".

[Socialist Czechia]

"nobody forcing anybody to use different words"

You're simply wrong.

No I'm actually right.

Dare to use 'not appropriate', 'legit' words and your life is incredibly harder in public or even in private life. Of course there are differencew, which culture, society or state is your own.
With my straightforward kind of language, used with no problems in my homeland, though, I wouldn't live long freely in Canada or Britain

Exactly, that's people telling you that they dislike what you are saying. They are perfectly entitled to do so. It's called the right to the freedom of speech. You can't honestly expect to get around saying divisive words like "nigger" or "whore" whenever you feel like without people having some opposition to what you're saying, that's nuts.

Don't you feel yourself demagogic, a little?

But yes, freedom of speech must be total or there isn't. It's simple as that. When you try to create list of 'offensive word' to ban or even start sending people to jail, it's automatic start of tyranny.

Newspeak is bad, m'kay?

[Keyboard Warriors]

No I'm actually right.


Exactly, that's people telling you that they dislike what you are saying. They are perfectly entitled to do so. It's called the right to the freedom of speech. You can't honestly expect to get around saying divisive words like "nigger" or "whore" whenever you feel like without people having some opposition to what you're saying, that's nuts.

Don't you feel yourself demagogic, a little?

If you're going to flip through a thesaurus to find words, try looking them up in the dictionary before you try and use them.

But yes, freedom of speech must be total or there isn't. It's simple as that. When you try to create list of 'offensive word' to ban or even start sending people to jail, it's automatic start of tyranny.

Fortunately, people don't get sent to prison for saying offensive words. In fact, I'm not even sure there's a list of words you can't say.

Newspeak is bad, m'kay?

You can repeat Newspeak over and over again if you like. It wasn't relevant when you first said it last week and it still isn't relevant now.