First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Political Correctness
35064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/22/14

Renegatz wrote:

[The 'political correctness' you're talking about has nothing to do with government. The gradual phasing-out of older terms is something that comes from society, and which the government will then mirror.


To be fair, Orwell was talking about something that the Stalinists were doing. Language was used as a way to gauge one's allegiance to the party and patriotism, with substantial penalties awaiting those who failed to demonstrate either in abundance. The part where using Orwell's words goes off the rails is when one tries to apply them to the sociopolitical situation of the present-day United States. A Stalinist USSR the USA most certainly is not.


A lot of sense in this post, particularly about the origin and use of the term itself. I think one could often substitute the term for "being considerate", or simply..."not being a dick".

However, I'd also like to add to your post that religious bodies and communities are quite often on the 'PC' side of things themselves, if you wanted to dichotomize things that way.


Certainly, but in those cases there is some re-branding taking place. For example, instead of "political correctness" it's "protecting traditional values".
19605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Osaka
Offline
Posted 6/22/14 , edited 6/22/14

BlueOni wrote:


Renegatz wrote:

[The 'political correctness' you're talking about has nothing to do with government. The gradual phasing-out of older terms is something that comes from society, and which the government will then mirror.


To be fair, Orwell was talking about something that the Stalinists were doing. Language was used as a way to gauge one's allegiance to the party and patriotism, with substantial penalties awaiting those who failed to demonstrate either in abundance. The part where using Orwell's words goes off the rails is when one tries to apply them to the sociopolitical situation of the present-day United States. A Stalinist USSR the USA most certainly is not.

Well yes, and that's obviously what we're all talking about here


Certainly, but in those cases there is some re-branding taking place. For example, instead of "political correctness" it's "protecting traditional values".

Eh, I can see what you mean if we're talking about official and public discourse. However, in conversations between individuals online/offline, religion nowadays is usually fair-game as much as anything else when it comes to the anti-PC inquisition.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/14 , edited 6/22/14

SoldierSangria wrote:

Sorry to be that person but...They're*.


I didn't even write it, but you're making me feel bad about myself. Gosh. Now I'll have to drown my misery and feelings of inferiority in a vat of ice cream.

Am I woman enough yet?
Posted 6/22/14

Renegatz wrote:

The 'political correctness' you're talking about has nothing to do with government. The gradual phasing-out of older terms is something that comes from society, and which the government will then mirror.


It does have to do with the government, as they've coined the term, and they continually impose this manner of speaking upon society so much so that people are almost afraid to say what they really think, in the way they want to.

Phrasing out of older terms by the people of society is one thing - having the government quite frankly tell you to do things their way is another, and when you don't it becomes a big scandal, and a big issue.

By telling the people how they want them to speak under the guise of "political correctness", the government is indeed conforming them to a certain way of speaking and eventually thinking.

That's not freedom of speech.

Posted 6/22/14

Phersu wrote:


SoldierSangria wrote:

Sorry to be that person but...They're*.


I didn't even write it, but you're making me feel bad about myself. Gosh. Now I'll have to drown my misery and feelings of inferiority in a vat of ice cream.

Am I woman enough yet?


Well, you're not women enough yet - but shall I join you in your conquest of the cream?
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/14

SoldierSangria wrote:

Well, you're not women enough yet - but shall I join you in your conquest of the cream?


Grab a spoon.
Posted 6/22/14

Phersu wrote:


SoldierSangria wrote:

Well, you're not women enough yet - but shall I join you in your conquest of the cream?


Grab a spoon.


I'm more of a "hand on" kind of person. I'll give you the cherry though.
19605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Osaka
Offline
Posted 6/22/14 , edited 6/22/14

SoldierSangria wrote:


Renegatz wrote:

The 'political correctness' you're talking about has nothing to do with government. The gradual phasing-out of older terms is something that comes from society, and which the government will then mirror.


It does have to do with the government, as they've coined the term, and they continually impose this manner of speaking upon society so much so that people are almost afraid to say what they really think, in the way they want to.

Phrasing out of older terms by the people of society is one thing - having the government quite frankly tell you to do things their way is another, and when you don't it becomes a big scandal, and a big issue.

By telling the people how they want them to speak under the guise of "political correctness", the government is indeed conforming them to a certain way of speaking and eventually thinking.

That's not freedom of speech.

AFAIK government did not coin the term at all, and in most places there are no laws that prevent you from saying obsolete terms that aren't abusive. Now if you go further than terms which are merely obsolete and start throwing N-words around at people's faces, I'd really need to ask what it is you would be "really thinking" and whether that's an act that should be protected by law.

Can you please show me the concrete examples you're discussing when you mention government's "telling you to do things their way"? Do you really think it's government and laws that create scandals more than media and societal norms?

Also, there's no absolute freedom of speech anywhere on this planet. For example, if I repeatedly follow someone to work every morning spouting racial slurs at them, I'm committing harassment and will most likely be prosecuted for this, even though all I've done is talk.

Finally, it's to be expected that a democratic government promotes values it feels that its voter-base aspires to. Vote in a social-democratic government, and you can expect it to promote/encourage X. Vote in a far right wing government, and you can expect it to promote/encourage Y. Encouragement is not something that concretely impinges upon freedom of speech.
35064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/22/14 , edited 6/22/14

Renegatz wrote:

Well yes, and that's obviously what we're all talking about here


Oh, don't do that. The Illuminati image being circulated had the US Great Seal on it.

But since you bring it up, how is this sort of thing playing out on the ground in France?


Eh, I can see what you mean if we're talking about official and public discourse. However, in conversations between individuals online/offline, religion nowadays is usually fair-game as much as anything else when it comes to the anti-PC inquisition.


On this I am inclined to agree with no stipulations or reservations.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/14

SoldierSangria wrote:

I'm more of a "hand on" kind of person. I'll give you the cherry though.


Alright. Fine.
19605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Osaka
Offline
Posted 6/23/14 , edited 6/23/14

BlueOni wrote:


Renegatz wrote:

Well yes, and that's obviously what we're all talking about here


Oh, don't do that. The Illuminati image being circulated had the US Great Seal on it.

But since you bring it up, how is this sort of thing playing out on the ground in France?


There's no term for 'political correctness' in French, and yet the same kind of grievances are expressed a lot here too, usually revolving around Muslims, or to a lesser extent Jews. IMO, the main difference this leads to is that complaints about 'PC' are less uninspired in their composition, because people won't just have a label they can throw around with no effort. However, France being the country it is, its laws are generally more protective against abuse (or oppressive against freedom of the press and of speech, according to your perspective) than those of Anglo-Saxon states, so the irony is that French people have more reason to create that kind of word and use it, than people in the US for example, which favours freedom of speech more than just about everybody else. In my opinion and many others it does go a bit too far here, as one far-right politician got a small (suspended) prison sentence and a 5000 euro fine for saying that it's "up to historians" to decide whether gas chambers were used during the Holocaust - yes, under the Gayssot law it's an offense to question the historical establishment on the magnitude of an act of genocide. As an amateur historian I find that pretty lamentable as an idea, but that may be beside the point.

On another note, French 'PC' stuff is usually locked onto the current issue of discussing Islam and integration of people of North-African immigrant origins, yet French anti-semitism has been a thing as long as France has existed, with its highlight around the Dreyfus Affair in which France was literally torn in half over what turned out to be the unwarranted disgrace of an innocent Jewish army officer. Once again, during the occupation in WW2, the generation of anti-semitics following the anti-Dreyfusards left their mark, coming out of the woodworks to participate in ethnic cleansing and all of the worst excesses of the Nazis. I think it's because of historical shames like these, that the anti-racism current has largely taken over the 'pro freedom of speech' current in official and legal discourse around anti-semitism, and people seem proportionally more likely to get in trouble about it than about other forms of racism. Ironically the people who tend to be most pissed-off about what they see as Jewish untouchability are both the far-right Front National crowd, and some of the less tolerant French Muslims - two groups which tend to normally hate each others' guts but yet unite on this common front...

Anyway I hope you got something out of that.



35064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/23/14

Renegatz wrote:



I think I've followed. You're essentially saying that France, having witnessed the damage that ethnic nationalism can do to both a country's stability and its international reputation, has taken steps to control ethnic nationalism. Part of this effort included production of legislation which regulates speech, and particularly speech which risks the creation or exacerbation of fissures between ethnic/religious groups in France (especially between Muslims, Jews, and those who are neither). This legislation, while benevolent in purpose, has resulted in some unintended side-effects. For example, historians are unable to approach the subject of genocide with full academic rigor without contravening said legislation.
19605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Osaka
Offline
Posted 6/23/14 , edited 6/23/14

I think you have followed as much as an étranger could

I'll specify though: Nobody outside France seems to know much about collaboration with the Nazis and just how bad it was, particularly given its context within a long-standing history of French anti-semitism (though to be fair such feelings were widespread in Europe). Even in France, people don't seem to knowledgeable of the historical context, because such kinds of prejudice are something private, passed down from generation to generation within family circles, rather than something people have grasped from their own, independent interpretation and study of history.

Also, again something that might not be obvious to a foreigner, but I wouldn't say it's for the sake of domestic security/stability that such laws are in place. Reading the bolded part of your reply is interesting, because that's pretty much how I view the Singaporean version of 'PC', given that their state is more artificial and based around a coexistence between several large ethnic minorities with little in common. France, however, is of a different nature. If you ask me, these laws are in place because it's the nature of the modern French state, to want to provide well-being for all within its borders - it takes a more activist stance if you will, towards social and economic inequities. So I wouldn't say it's in cold, calculated self-interest that the French state provides these 'PC' laws, but more so in that such laws are supposed to be an expression of what French people aspire to, on a moral level. Ergo, in France, no man or woman should have to suffer from another individual/private entity's abuse because of their race or religion. Nominally, France is supposed to be a place in which none of those things matter as long as you are willing to integrate into French laws and values (and hopefully the culture by extension).

Though yeah, to be honest I'm not very versed in French historiography, given how much Anglo-Saxon historians are internationally predominant. Regardless of this, the guy who was trying to question the Holocaust there happened to be a facist cunt, so the law kind of fulfilled its intended purpose in that case, no harm done to any actual academics
27 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Oregon City, OR
Offline
Posted 6/23/14
I find "Political Correctness" to be just as bad as racism. In order to be truly equal we have to treat everyone the same. I love this article because it sums the whole controversy up very nicely.
http://time.com/22993/key-and-peele-make-fun-of-everything/
Posted 6/29/14
I personally don't see anything wrong with political correctness. The only people who seem to have problems with it is people who don't like to be called out when they say or do something offensive, problematic, or just downright derogatory. Words have meaning and our words still reveal many prejudices and much discrimination.


sticks and stones may break my bones, but language dictates everything from social norms to legislation and it’s indeed often used to bolster violence and oppression sooOo

http://petitsirena.tumblr.com/post/87366125433/sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones-but-language


I don't see how being considerate of others and being aware of how your words have consquences could ever be a bad thing or "not really matter."

Also, just because certain words and terms were "okay" in the past doesn't make they right to say neither back then or now, especially when most of those terms were racial and ethnic slurs like redskins.

Just take a look at this database of racial and ethnic slurs: http://www.rsdb.org/races
"Surprise, surprise" redskin is on the list.

I think people need to be very aware that just because certain terms don't apply to them, doesn't mean they're a non-issue. It's just a non-issue to you, not everyone else.

And if you're going to whine and complain about the "word police" or being "too PC" then you're part of the problem. Choosing words that aren't insensitive or derogatory isn't that hard.

Also, can you explain this "context" you're talking OP? I'm having a hard time understanding.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.