Political Correctness

[Burning ghost]

The term political correctness, ironically, seems to have been used over the decades to mean one thing to one person and one thing to another.

Some use the term as a tool to inhibit freedom of speech and others use it to be cautious with words.

No matter how you view this term I think we can all agree words are very powerful and can change the world.

I do think we've suffered from media influence in how words are conveyed. If anything is responsible for making the term "political correctness" ambiguous it most likely the media.

For me political correctness means sticking to a defined political use of words which is why I see irony in the situation. For me political correctness is not simply trying not to offending people (I don't care much if you are offended by words, but I care about your use of words). Political correctness is about understanding differences as differences without an eye for good or bad.

If someone is against immigration that does not make them racist or xenophobic. If someone is nationalistic that does not make them a nazi.

Sadly it seems the very term "political correctness" has become that which it was meant to fight against. Those with a certain prejudice can use it to justify some statement and others use it to label the non-prejudice as being prejudice. So the term can be put to bad use and made to harm people. It can also be argued that it can be used as a form of psychological repression or simply as a hinderance to freedom of speech in some cases.

Appearances are merely appearances. Words and speech frame appearances as having some meaning. If I like the French language, food and landscape this does not mean I like all French people, or any. It means I admire some cultural aspects of the nation of France. It is ridiculous to like or dislike people because of their culture because culture is not someone we choose to be born into. If there are cultural attitudes I do not like and people living in these cultures that do not like them I can offer a helping hand in some fashion.

If someone says they hate French people I would say this is not "politically correct". Meaning it is a nonsensical statement unless the person has met all French people and found something distinct in thier behaviours and atttitudes unique to French people.

I actually remember working briefly with a young lad years ago who said he was a Nazi. He made some racist statements. I would not have called him an evil person, but simply naieve and badly informed about the world in general. He was not a "bad sort", just sadly harbouring some myopic views which once questioned revealed simply an ignorance of youth rather than innate evil. I myself remember making statements when I was a teenager that were very badly informed.

My point here is about looking at "political correctness" as a way to self manage. It is easy to blame this person or that person rather than consider the true source of the offense felt. Often generalising makes a statement impersonal and therefore more personally accepted. It is precisely this psychological mechanism that "political correctness" is guarding against. That is the generalisation of a said "group" as being this or that.

[Spiral Out]

There are three distinct levels of Human agency.

The first is thought. This is obviously the weakest form of agency since it is restricted to the thinker and has no influence on others.

The second is speech. This is a bit more influential as words, as your pointed out, can be very powerful and influential. Yet words can be summarily dismissed as empty concepts.

The third is action. This is the strongest form of agency since it cannot be disregarded. It must be met with stronger action.

Political correctness, as in your first definition, is the insidious censorship of unpopular ideas.

If one wants to know whether he/she is wrong, they only need to ask themselves if they wish to silence opposing views.

The skeptics are immune to the flimsy influence of mere words.

[Burning ghost]

My aim here is to try and establish the reason using derogatory terms to label groups of people is not a reasonable way to use language. It is certainly true enough to say that "political correctness" is used to actually point fingers at groups who are not "politically correct" and so a very contrary conflict begins. In trying to frame freedom and equality in speech we accidently force the opposite to happen without care and attention.

I would argue, as many have, that the pen is mightier than the sword so I don't regard physical action as more influential than verbal action at all (although that may not be what you meant). I think we all know words can inspire people to perform actions they wouldn't normally do.

As a guard against stereotyping political correctness has a use. Many political views we have are framed in the language we use and driven by media portrayals. Also we have sayings to reenforce this such as "art reflects society", which if true means that art not onlt reflects society but does so emotionally and with possiblr disregard to rational thought. Art can be used very convincingly as a form of propaganda and as a means to alter public perception.

I am not talking about censorship. I have seen that there has been a problem with people being scared to speak their minds incase they are labelled as this or that. People have censored themselves because of this fear. In this respect the very premise of "political correctness" has been taken on socially as a detriment to freedom of speech simply because people have been put into this group or that group.

When it comes to equality and freedom of speech it is probably a little naieve to assume this can be achieved, and I would argue that complete freedom and equality amounts to very little in a completr and literal sense. By this I mean that we live by a common human nature and that understanding differences is a positive recourse rather than labelling this or that as bad or good. Of course we can all agree on certain things being "wrong" such as murdering a kind human being who has done little to no harm to anyone.

I see political correctness as being both good and bad. It is good for us to reflect upon the possible socially imposed and socially imposable effects of our "mere words". It is bad if we take on an extreme stance against others and often causes defensive responses and hostility.

As an example of this in the US I here the term "black culture" and find this term questionable in some ways yet understandable in others given the historical treatment of black people in the US and media fed stereotyping. And here I have made a very telling example of what Inam talking about. I single out the US because I have concerns about the US. I could just as easily point at France, Spain, Belgium or the UK, and see elements of this. I am picking out the US here because the differences between "black" and "white" communities has been a very prominent political vehicle for good and bad.

So if I say "black american culture" we can think of many things to relate to this including music, food and dance, plus the obvious history of slavery from the past and social inequality. If I say "white american culture" I think of country and western, cowboys and Hollywood. Generally speaking the US has a wealth of cultural influences from around the globe.

So is politcal correctness really to blame as an idea? I don't think so. I do think it has been used too much and without real "political" consideration (strange as that may sound). Has it created a sense of "fear" and "labelling"? I think it has.

To me it seems that the worst and most dangerous kind of offense is actually initiated by defensive positioning. This is probably a factor too easily missed in how we respond to peoples words.

On this site people have been defending their words as not being rascist or sexist, they are worried about being labelled as this or that and this can often derail the purpose of the topic.

Of course you can throw the idea of political correctness out of the window. Don't expect everyone to feel this way though is what I say. I am free to say I see the benefits, but I will always argue that to not consider what you say can cause extreme harm.

As an obvious example we can talk about Trump or Obama and things they say. I do think that no matter what a prominent public figure says there will be some form of opposition because what they say is too moderate or too controversial. I would also argue that without controversy or moderation we have no moral compass. The sad thing is many of these instances of moderation and controversy are often taken by the media and used to fuel the public domain to the point that the mainstream media is in extreme danger of being disregarded as a credible source of information and seen merely as a pure vehicle for sensationalism and propaganda.

I think if we view "political correctness" as a means to recognise political use of "fear" we are in a good position.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

The term political correctness, ironically, seems to have been used over the decades to mean one thing to one person and one thing to another.

Some use the term as a tool to inhibit freedom of speech and others use it to be cautious with words.

No matter how you view this term I think we can all agree words are very powerful and can change the world.

I do think we've suffered from media influence in how words are conveyed. If anything is responsible for making the term "political correctness" ambiguous it most likely the media.

For me political correctness means sticking to a defined political use of words which is why I see irony in the situation. For me political correctness is not simply trying not to offending people (I don't care much if you are offended by words, but I care about your use of words). Political correctness is about understanding differences as differences without an eye for good or bad.

If someone is against immigration that does not make them racist or xenophobic. If someone is nationalistic that does not make them a nazi.

Sadly it seems the very term "political correctness" has become that which it was meant to fight against. Those with a certain prejudice can use it to justify some statement and others use it to label the non-prejudice as being prejudice. So the term can be put to bad use and made to harm people. It can also be argued that it can be used as a form of psychological repression or simply as a hinderance to freedom of speech in some cases.

Appearances are merely appearances. Words and speech frame appearances as having some meaning. If I like the French language, food and landscape this does not mean I like all French people, or any. It means I admire some cultural aspects of the nation of France. It is ridiculous to like or dislike people because of their culture because culture is not someone we choose to be born into. If there are cultural attitudes I do not like and people living in these cultures that do not like them I can offer a helping hand in some fashion.

If someone says they hate French people I would say this is not "politically correct". Meaning it is a nonsensical statement unless the person has met all French people and found something distinct in thier behaviours and atttitudes unique to French people.

I actually remember working briefly with a young lad years ago who said he was a Nazi. He made some racist statements. I would not have called him an evil person, but simply naieve and badly informed about the world in general. He was not a "bad sort", just sadly harbouring some myopic views which once questioned revealed simply an ignorance of youth rather than innate evil. I myself remember making statements when I was a teenager that were very badly informed.

My point here is about looking at "political correctness" as a way to self manage. It is easy to blame this person or that person rather than consider the true source of the offense felt. Often generalising makes a statement impersonal and therefore more personally accepted. It is precisely this psychological mechanism that "political correctness" is guarding against. That is the generalisation of a said "group" as being this or that.

Language cannot be combated, it is part and parcel of culture and the PC movement as a "fight against" this or that is bound to be ineffective for a number of reasons:

-It is ill defined. Your definition of PC simply doesn't comport with other definitions that have been proffered, in fact it appears that there are a plethora of definitions out there that are not at the least primarily synonymous, but weakly analogous. While I'm uncertain of it's precise origins, it doesn't appear to have been crafted very well by it's incipient cognoscenti. In practice PC thought has only achieved a recent cultural trend towards being less inhibited in sharing one's hair brained, uncritical thoughts about the language of others; PC arguments, or more appropriately diatribes and exercises in vitriol, have this incessant tendency towards hasty generalizations, misrepresentation, and generally blundering over the possible distinct nuances in any given statement.

-Language can't be shaped by bemoaning what someone says, the precedent behind and substance of such language must be addressed head on and argued against positively with presentations of what the "accusing" interlocutor considers more appropriate. Merely complaining "but this language can do this" amounts to a careless deprecation of the precedent and substance in the minds of any sensible person who is using language that the 'PC person' has marked as objectionable.

-History has already displayed that there is a serious backlash against PC and it offends conscientious people as much as it edifies them. In order for any of the goals you've enumerated in this thread to be achieved appreciably, the movement must die and it's place must be taken by reasoned arguments, arguments accessible to the common mind and compelling enough to effect something like a mini-paradigm shift. This has already been done multiple times in response to pejorative language directed towards people who are physically and mentally disabled.

[Burning ghost]

Scruffy -

It would be ideal there were no such terms as "PC" or "rascism". I have often thought that the very use of calling someone "racist" actually causes more racism. Yet the term was developed in order to make society look at a problem.

The same can be said with PC. In trying to address prejudices reflected blindly in language it does, to some degree, actually force attention to something and intensifies its presence.

From here I find myself in a position of confusion. If I am trying to defend "PC" then am I really doing nothing more than making people open up and enforce a number of prejudices that were dormant and may have simply died out without me insisting on exposing them?

I have expressed extreme dislike of attempts to suggest "white nationalism" is nothing other than a misguided use of language that attempts not to look "racist", but has a title to it that refers to actual race (mere appearances). Then people turn around and say "PC" is to blame in labelling them as being racist? If we are talking about "nationalism" then we are talking about a nations nationality not a nation as a race. Then I see people saying race is synomynous with culture?

I see it as a terrible thing for me to sit by idle and just watch such use of language because I see it as being extremely harmful and sending out messages that are not even conveyed by the people saying them. So here "PC" is about understanding the power of words and that in sensitive areas one misplaced word can cause harm.

Of course we all make mistakes with language and generally in life.

PC is generally taken to be about avoiding offense/disadvantages to groups of people. I think it is fair to say we've become more "PC" over the last few decades and the colour of your skin is of less importance to more people than before, as is sexual identity amd sexual orientation (although homosexuality in popular culture is still shown in a very stereotypical fashion it is at least a step towards normalising general society towards homosexuality. I am sure it is nevertheless offensive for some!).

I have been watching a number of interviews with Enoch Powell. He is a figure that many obvious racists have used as a platform to spread their views. Ironically it does not appear that Powell was racist, but he said some very hard hitting things that fuelled hatred on both sides (both sides meaning nationalistic brits and immigrants/multiculturalists).

It seems to be a management problem. Culture is a very broad term so quantifiying changes to culture can be used as a means to pull public opinion along towards some other political end. Really at the heart of this we find it all comes down to questions of self identity and how much of what I identify with is what I wish to be or what has been forced into my sphere and imposed upon me.

May aim here in what I have written is simply to hope that whoever reads this questions the questions they find themselves asking.

-- Updated November 30th, 2016, 4:05 am to add the following --

It is good to see a degree of "political correctness" coming to light regarding the term "alt-right".

People wrote into the NY Times protesting at "alt-right" being labelled as a racist white sumpremacist movment.

So without PC all people who regard themselves as not being racist but being alt-right are labelled as racist. Regardless it should be clear that there is political manipulation of language to segregate and label people in one way or another. What does not help is "alt-right" has no specific ideology and is generally against PC which is the thing that can stop it from becoming a place for deep seated prejudices to rise into mass public media.

This is quite different from calling "torture" an "interrogation technique". This is not political correctness used to make torture seem okay. This is political use of language to cover up the truth of whatbis going on. Much like how labelling food products as "organic" simply because the had organic compounds in them was purposely done to misinform the public.

[Ranvier]

Personally, I don't entirely understand PC, other than manipulation of people using their sentiments and subjective internalization of perceived reality. Words shouldn't have power to a healthy mind. People can call me "cracker" and I wouldn't mind as long as they don't act on such words, for instance "I'll kill you". Words can only have power if they misrepresent the reality or falsely accuse someone of something that would require action, ex "pervert" as a word that is often abused by teenagers.

[Sy Borg]

Not all that is PC is labelled such. Conservatives have their own PC sacred cows that they routinely overlook. There are many circles where one dare not criticise the military or police, nor mention climate change, nor dare one give support to abortion, euthanasia or the relaxing of prohibition. Failure to use the right's language and to abide by the right's PC demands delivers an even more shrill righteous fury than when "the PC" complain about misogynist and homophobic slurs.

The "PC" concept is a battle between warring political tribes fightling for the moral high ground. The "cultural warriors" for each side tend to behave poorly and each seems entirely lacking in basic human decency, understanding and compassion for those they deem "other".

Moderates are often bemused by the whole game and many of us would simply like to see a measure of decency and politeness towards people, including minorities. This does not mean cowtowing or creating sacred cows - just regular "old school" politeness and consideration for others. Today, such basic human compassion is often labelled as "PC" and treated as hateful by people who strike me as having a damaged moral compass.

[Ranvier]

That's a dilemma, I don't think that it's my right to impose my rules on someone else, although there is a certain expectation of mutual politeness and respect. Some people are just used to an adversarial type of verbal and non verbal communication in achieving what they want. One can choose to walk away or advertise a higher level of intellect by remaining calm and composed adhering to the message, rather than succumb to the theatrics.

-- Updated March 5th, 2017, 2:27 am to add the following --

The last election was unusual because the crowd was vast and actually cheering with thumbs down for the "Gladiator" to tear down with impunity the corrupt system hidden behind the PC.

[LuckyR]

Not all that is PC is labelled such. Conservatives have their own PC sacred cows that they routinely overlook. There are many circles where one dare not criticise the military or police, nor mention climate change, nor dare one give support to abortion, euthanasia or the relaxing of prohibition. Failure to use the right's language and to abide by the right's PC demands delivers an even more shrill righteous fury than when "the PC" complain about misogynist and homophobic slurs.

The "PC" concept is a battle between warring political tribes fightling for the moral high ground. The "cultural warriors" for each side tend to behave poorly and each seems entirely lacking in basic human decency, understanding and compassion for those they deem "other".

Moderates are often bemused by the whole game and many of us would simply like to see a measure of decency and politeness towards people, including minorities. This does not mean cowtowing or creating sacred cows - just regular "old school" politeness and consideration for others. Today, such basic human compassion is often labelled as "PC" and treated as hateful by people who strike me as having a damaged moral compass.

In reality PC specifically is a term conservatives used to describe the backlash to change in popular thinking about previously marginalized groups. This change was led by left leaning intellectuals (whom the right hate because they rightly feel looked down upon by them). The term was then broadened to encompass any and all changes about these groups proposed by the left.

You are correct that the left is not alone in having hot button topics, but the left has not used PC in their writings about the identical behavior of the right, though there is such identical behavior.

[Sy Borg]

Not all that is PC is labelled such. Conservatives have their own PC sacred cows that they routinely overlook. There are many circles where one dare not criticise the military or police, nor mention climate change, nor dare one give support to abortion, euthanasia or the relaxing of prohibition. Failure to use the right's language and to abide by the right's PC demands delivers an even more shrill righteous fury than when "the PC" complain about misogynist and homophobic slurs.

The "PC" concept is a battle between warring political tribes fightling for the moral high ground. The "cultural warriors" for each side tend to behave poorly and each seems entirely lacking in basic human decency, understanding and compassion for those they deem "other".

Moderates are often bemused by the whole game and many of us would simply like to see a measure of decency and politeness towards people, including minorities. This does not mean cowtowing or creating sacred cows - just regular "old school" politeness and consideration for others. Today, such basic human compassion is often labelled as "PC" and treated as hateful by people who strike me as having a damaged moral compass.

In reality PC specifically is a term conservatives used to describe the backlash to change in popular thinking about previously marginalized groups. This change was led by left leaning intellectuals (whom the right hate because they rightly feel looked down upon by them). The term was then broadened to encompass any and all changes about these groups proposed by the left.

You are correct that the left is not alone in having hot button topics, but the left has not used PC in their writings about the identical behavior of the right, though there is such identical behavior.

Lucky, I agree with all of that.

I suspect that the left's general propensity to care prevents them from playing the "PC card" regarding veterans, foetuses, palliative care and other of the right's sacred cows. That is, most "leftists" (as regards "tribal" affiliations) also care about veterans and late term foetuses but plenty on the right use language that makes clear they have no care at all for the welfare of gays or transgenders.

[GE Morton]

Not all that is PC is labelled such. Conservatives have their own PC sacred cows that they routinely overlook. There are many circles where one dare not criticise the military or police, nor mention climate change, nor dare one give support to abortion, euthanasia or the relaxing of prohibition. Failure to use the right's language and to abide by the right's PC demands delivers an even more shrill righteous fury than when "the PC" complain about misogynist and homophobic slurs.

It's important to keep in mind that complaints about "political correctness" are not driven merely by verbal objections to someone else's use of words. They are driven by actions, usually by the State, to impose, by force, the lefty view of the world upon people who don't share it. For example:

* Forcing merchants who disapprove of gay marriage to cater to it (such as the florist in Washington State fined for refusing to supply flowers for a gay wedding);
* Forcing pharmacists who disapprove of abortion to sell "morning after" pills (another Washington State case);
* Forcing employers who disapprove of homosexuality to hire homosexuals;
* Forcing businesses to permit "transgendered" males to use women's restrooms;
* Forcing employers to hire criminals because refusing to do so has "disproportionate impact" on minorities;
* Expelling or otherwise punishing high school or college students for wearing "offensive" attire or using "offensive" terms ("offensive" to some "protected group").

Etc., etc.

Mere objections to speech, like the speech itself, are protected by the First Amendment. But when the objections and the doctrines upon which they rest are forced upon others by law admonitions become oppression.

[Sy Borg]

Not all that is PC is labelled such. Conservatives have their own PC sacred cows that they routinely overlook. There are many circles where one dare not criticise the military or police, nor mention climate change, nor dare one give support to abortion, euthanasia or the relaxing of prohibition. Failure to use the right's language and to abide by the right's PC demands delivers an even more shrill righteous fury than when "the PC" complain about misogynist and homophobic slurs.

It's important to keep in mind that complaints about "political correctness" are not driven merely by verbal objections to someone else's use of words. They are driven by actions, usually by the State, to impose, by force, the lefty view of the world upon people who don't share it. For example:

* Forcing merchants who disapprove of gay marriage to cater to it (such as the florist in Washington State fined for refusing to supply flowers for a gay wedding);
* Forcing pharmacists who disapprove of abortion to sell "morning after" pills (another Washington State case);
* Forcing employers who disapprove of homosexuality to hire homosexuals;
* Forcing businesses to permit "transgendered" males to use women's restrooms;
* Forcing employers to hire criminals because refusing to do so has "disproportionate impact" on minorities;
* Expelling or otherwise punishing high school or college students for wearing "offensive" attire or using "offensive" terms ("offensive" to some "protected group").

Etc., etc.

Mere objections to speech, like the speech itself, are protected by the First Amendment. But when the objections and the doctrines upon which they rest are forced upon others by law admonitions become oppression.

What of "righties"?

* Preventing loving, carng competent and ethically fine couple from getting married - due to right wing PC
* forcing elderly people to suffer tortuously or to live in fear because euthanasia is not allowed - - due to right wing PC
* pressuring, harassing and sometimes killing women seeking abortions and the doctors who perform them - due to right wing PC
* Pushing young trangenders into suicide and depressed dysfuntionality because they are being forced into dangerous and humiliating situations daily - due to right wing PC
* Forcing innocent people to live in fear of maniacs legally allowed to own firearms and carry loaded weapons - due to right wing PC
* Creating rules that result in class divides and deep societal rifts - due to right wing PC

I could list many more than you have a hope of listing on the "left"'s side.

The US's democracy my be on the verge of disappearing, the economy is weakening and now being based on legacy technology that will stymie the US's future progress, but at least with trannies going to the "right" bathrooms Americans will have much more chance to beat queers to death in public toilets. Good to see that the US has its priorities together, as it moves backwards with excited vigour as the nature watches and enjoys the "show" of its own destruction.

[-1-]

If you are holier than thou in the left extreme (with moderation), you're PC. If you are holier than thou in the right extreme (with moderation) then you are MM.

MM being "moral majority".

[GE Morton]

What of "righties"?

* Preventing loving, carng competent and ethically fine couple from getting married - due to right wing PC

Agree with you there. Marriage is essentially a private contract between consenting adults. The State has no useful or legitimate role to play in it whatsoever, apart from recording and enforcing that contract (if the contractees so desire), as it does with all other contracts. It has no business "licensing" marriages, or extending special privileges and benefits to married persons.

* forcing elderly people to suffer tortuously or to live in fear because euthanasia is not allowed - - due to right wing PC

Agree on that one too. That someone decides that life is no longer worth living is no business of the State (unless, perhaps, he will leave unpaid debts to someone else).

* pressuring, harassing and sometimes killing women seeking abortions and the doctors who perform them - due to right wing PC
* Pushing young trangenders into suicide and depressed dysfuntionality because they are being forced into dangerous and humiliating situations daily - due to right wing PC
* Forcing innocent people to live in fear of maniacs legally allowed to own firearms and carry loaded weapons - due to right wing PC

Well, now you're speaking of actions by private parties, not the State. "Pressuring," "pushing," and "harassment" are ambiguous terms. You need to specify to just what conduct you're referring. As commonly understood, however, those terms do not denote or imply force. If the harassment does escalate to force, the State will act (as it should).

By "pushing young transgenders into suicide" I hope you don't mean others expressing disapproval, refusing to associate with the "transgenders," or even insulting them. Those are all within the rights of free people. You have a right to alter your body surgically if you so desire. You have no right that others like you or accept you.

And of course, no one is "forced to live in fear" of others who own firearms. Someone who lives in fear because he discovered his neighbor owns a firearm should seek therapy for his phobia. But you specified "maniacs" who own firearms. The State does what it can to keep firearms out of the hands of "maniacs."

* Creating rules that result in class divides and deep societal rifts - due to right wing PC

Can you be more specific? But class divides and societal rifts are not the products of any rules. They are endemic to civilized societies and are uneradicable. Civilized societies are not tribes, not "brotherhoods," not giant communes, not "big happy families." They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals and kinship groups who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They have no common interests, no natural bonds, no overriding interest in one another's welfare, and no a priori obligations to one another.

[Steve3007]

OP:

The term political correctness, ironically, seems to have been used over the decades to mean one thing to one person and one thing to another.

As a term, I think it's become like "terrorism" or "liberal". It is so widely used for such different purposes that it has lost most of its ability to have any objective meaning that stands on its own without need for further explanation. When that happens to a term I think it's probably time to stop using it and talk more specifically about individual instances.