I have found that in business, educational institutions, even many forums, our very freedom as a diverse society is threatened by political correctness. Certain individuals deem it necessary to determine what is "potentially objectionable" and remove it, rename it to be more palatable, or in the case of forums delete it. This practice flies in the face of true pluralism, in which people from many different walks of life tolerate one another, without necessarily having to like or adopt another's views or beliefs. Your thoughts? Has PC bullying happened to you?

Since forums are privately owned ....they retain the prerogative to control the content....

I have yet to see a rule that forces agreement with any comments posted....

Well, certainly privately owned forums can control content, and in many cases should. What I was driving at in the case of forums is that in few other arenas is there such a broad diversity, and to reach the widest audience it makes better sense to encourage tolerance, rather than what the PC crowd does, which is knee-jerk reactions and self-editing just in case something might offend someone. In a venue this diverse such people would just end up deleting everything.

Actually encouraging tolerance is what PC is all about. The idea behind political correctness is not to try not to offend people. PC is not about knee-jerk reactions at all. It's about listening to people and understanding what offends them and then not offending them in the future.

If someone tells me it bothers them if I refer to them as green then I'll stop referring to that person as green. In regards to a place like the forum the the only editing that would take place is when people in general are using language or doing other things that might be offending others. By the way the only person who can self-edit you would be you.

For example if a whole group of people found it offensive to be called green and a few members were constantly using the term green we would ask them to stop and possibly remove some of the offensive language. We wouldn't tell that person they couldn't use the words in other places, but here in a public forum under private ownership we would tell them they can't use those words here. They'd have to find other words to say what they wanted.

I don't think just because a community is diverse it means people have to offend each other. If you can learn to respect others and treat them in ways they ask to be treated there really isn't a problem. Instead of saying green, while you're here you say sage.

What you're suggesting is that everybody should be allowed to offend everyone else and anyone who tries to prevent that is doing so from a knee-jerk reaction and being intolerant. I don't think that's what's going on at all.

If I tell you it offends me when you call me green and you keep calling me green the only logical conclusions are either you want to offend me or don't respect me enough to try not to offend me.

Actually, what I'm suggesting is that the concept of pluralism requires respect of one another's views, without the need to adopt or accept them. PC, especially on college campuses, has historically made attempts to silence opposing views seen as "not sensitive enough". I'm also saying that "green" will mean different things to people of different backgrounds, but in a pluralistic society we should be mindful of the background of the person using the term, and not alert the National Guard over it if there's no foul intent. Again, certainly respect should be encouraged, and should happen all around, not just on the part of green or red or whatever else.

The thread and poll I started here on Confederate memorials, flags, and such is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Any chance it can be reinstated?

tim

I think where we disagree is the idea that PC means silencing opposing views. I don't think it's about silencing views at all. I don't think anyone is telling you how to think, but rather suggesting that you be sensitive to how others will respond to what you say.

Like I said above if someone finds it hurtful to be called "green" we should be sensitive to that and not use the word when talking about or to that person. A part of it would also be trying to get you to understand why that person finds the word offensive and ask you to find another more suitable word.

There's no reason to have to stick to a specific word when there are usually many others that work equally well. Green could mean different things to different people, but it's the people who are being called green that should get the deciding vote in whether or not the word is used to describe them. That's simply respect. It doesn't prevent you from thinking about that person the same way you did before and it doesn't force you to change any of your views.

You wouldn't by chance have a link to where your other thread used to be? If not and if I can't find it easily you can always start it again.

We all come from backgrounds that span the planet, and we should encourage people to learn about different cultures and viewpoints and respect them. Doesn't mean they always have to like them, but the primary thing it's in our interest not to tolerate is hate and disrespect.

That said, consider a more concrete example, say, forcing people to say, "green". The least likely people to use the term, "African American", in my experience, are "African Americans"; yet the term, coined by people of European descent, self-conscious of their own biases, was forced upon the American public. Anyone who doesn't use that term, in the PC view, is a racist, right?

Now, by your definition, you call people what they prefer to be called. To me, that means by name, but to continue the example, I refer to "African Americans" as black, "Native Americans" as Indians (and if you research that, most "Indians" prefer that if you're not referring to tribe) and so on.

But that's not what PC does. The PC crowd would still have you use "African American" and "Native American", and would try to brand you a bigot if you didn't. That's pushing what they call "sensitivity" past the limits of common sense, decency, and a true sense of pluralism and respect.

As to the other thread, I guess I'll have to repost it. I'll do that in due course.

tim

You can call a spade a shovel, but at the end of the day it's still a spade

Tim I think you're misinterpreting what PC means. PC is not saying you have to use one specific term defined by some PC crowd. What it is saying is you shouldn't be using a variety of terms that would be offensive to the people you're referring to. There's a huge difference.

Again if a group of people, no matter how large or small tells, you that when you refer to them using a word or phrase they find it hurtful or offensive, then why would you continue using that word or phrase? Continuing to use the word or phrase would only show you have no respect for that group of people.

Now I'm not saying that just because someone says you have to use a specific phrase it's the only phrase you can use. It comes down to who are you talking to and about and what that person or persons lets you know what is or isn't offensive.

Also try to think beyond lumping everyone into singular groups. I have friends who prefer the word "black" and I have other friends who prefer the phrase "African American" so if I'm hanging out with the first group of friends I'll use the word "black" and if I'm with the second group I'll use the phrase "African American." If I'm with a mix of people from both groups, I'll probably refrain from using either word until I get a good feeling for which is more appropriate to use or find some other word of phrase. It's simply a matter of showing respect for other people.

Let me try this in a different context, because I think it's the same principle.

If I'm hanging out with a group of guys at a bar we may all be cursing and telling raunchy jokes. If another time I'm hanging out with those same friends in the company of their parents, I'm not going to be cursing or telling those same jokes. It's possible my friends parents would be fine with either and if I later learn that maybe I will curse and tell those jokes. I doubt I would ever do it to the same degree as I would when it's just my friends in the bar.

Certain language is appropriate in certain contexts and not in others. Taking this back to the idea of being politically correct it's about assuming everyone's mom is there when you don't know how people might react to certain language. You can easily find language inoffensive to everyone to get your point across. Later when you're in the bar with your friends talk however you want, but when you're not sure what some might find offensive or when you're talking in public to a large audience, opt on the side of caution and being respectful to the most sensitive person in the room.

No one is taking away your rights or forcing you to only say certain things. They're just saying be aware and more respectful of who might be listening and choose language that others won't find offensive.

Oh, I'm quite clear on what Political Correctness was and is, and it is not just common sense respectfulness, which it's pretty clear you're confusing it with. The difference, and it is an important one, is that PC is an institutional drive to change language and attitude. It's an actual lobby that's filtered its way primarily into universities, business and media. Its mission is not to encourage respect and common sense, it is to push an agenda.

tim

I'd go farther to say that a in a pluralistic society, it is impossible not to step on people's toes. Rather than the institutional groups telling the media, schools and us what we can and can't say, and they and the lawyers profiting therefrom, we the people need to get a grip.

We now live in a society where it's OK to say, "I'm offended! I'm complaining! I'm suing!" Let's face it folks, we all live in a diverse society. We're going to step on each other's toes. Slips aren't slurs. Whatever happened to telling one another if something bothers us? Who can truly have a meaningful conversation when people have to tiptoe around what they say? Get a grip, America, the art of meaningful conversation is coming back. Deal with it. The institutionalization and "thought policing" has stifled true dialogue between individuals, on every level of society.

tim

Originally Posted by vangogh

Actually encouraging tolerance is what PC is all about... It's about listening to people and understanding what offends them and then not offending them in the future...

The problem is that some people can take offence in a most intolerant way.

For example, some people are outraged at the thought of other people eating meat, and are willing to attack them in revenge. Other people are infuriated at the thought of other people committing consensual homosexual acts in private, and are willing to imprison or execute them. Yet other people think that a man who opens a door for a woman is a patronising sexist, and deserves public abuse.

The "Politically Correct" tend to feel that they can decide that other people are so bad as to be undeserving of tolerance.

Originally Posted by tenasidhe

The least likely people to use the term, "African American", in my experience, are "African Americans";

This is true, though in my experience it is more due to the fact that "African American" is a formal term. Most black people prefer the term "black" simply because it is more casual, and still not offensive or archaic. You'll still find almost all black leaders using the term "African American" when using formal speech, such as at public meetings or on television. Many white people tend to use formal speech when in casual company, so the fact that the term is used more frequently by whites is more of a cultural thing than anything, since formal speech is more of a cultural norm among whites. The real question to me is, when is using formal speech patronizing or phony, and when is it not?

Well, in a pluralistic society, you use your best judgment, and if you step on people's toes, you can hope they're polite enough to let you know. If you feel like it's phony, chances are others might perceive it that way.

What gets me is that the PC environment that has made the workplace, schools, etc. a cultural wasteland has spilled over into forums and everyday life, and people tiptoe around what they say out of fear of offending someone. Get over it. Tiptoeing around is just as likely to do that. And if something bothers you, take it up with that person then.

It's time for all of us to take this country back.

tim

Originally Posted by tenasidhe

... the PC environment that has made the workplace, schools, etc. a cultural wasteland...

When people feel scared to even notice another person's race, background or religion, you get a different set of problems.

That's because the culture of hypersensitivity bred of fear has overshadowed the need for mutual respect, and it rules out criticism because no one is a who, everyone's a what. Don't say Jones shouldn't have done something this way, he's in this group. The only appropriate answer to the question, "Is it because I'm (insert group)?" is, "No, it's because you're a (insert expletive)."

And let's not forget that to truly respect someone you have to respect the who and what. Say, for instance, I know someone with a physical handicap. I know he does not like for people to be overly helpful. So I don't unless he specifically asks me. End of story. We go out, we have fun, we're good friends.

Or another example: I'm bipolar. I've managed the condition and haven't had much trouble with it for over twelve years. What if I'm offended by the people who don't and use that label as an excuse, such as, "Oh, I can't control these things I'm doing because I have this condition"? Bollocks. What if I think they need to take personal responsibility for their conditions? Am I being too insensitive, or just realistic?

tim

which it's pretty clear you're confusing it with.

I'm not confusing anything. You seem to be implying that if a single person suggests something is offensive it's part of some institution consciously designed to take away some freedom of yours. I'm also wondering what exactly what freedom is being taken away. Is it the freedom to insult people? No one can ever force you to think a certain way or tell you that you have to like anyone.

Originally Posted by C0ldf1re

For example, some people are outraged at the thought of other people eating meat, and are willing to attack them in revenge.

Very true and no one, at least not me is suggesting, that's right. I also don't think that has anything to do with PC. In fact I've never met a vegetarian who was big on violence. Most seem to endorse pacifism.

The "Politically Correct" tend to feel that they can decide that other people are so bad as to be undeserving of tolerance.

I'm sure some do, but you're talking about certain individuals and not the idea of political correctness. If someone who is a fan of Mozart murders someone, it doesn't imply that Mozart's music forces people to kill.

It would be easy to argue that this whole thread was started as an argument for why anyone who is politically correct is undeserving of intolerance.

Originally Posted by serandfae

What gets me is that the PC environment that has made the workplace, schools, etc. a cultural wasteland

Tim there's a huge difference between what goes on in private and what goes on in public places like where you work. In the workplace you're around people who you don't know all that well. Some you do, but some you don't. The workplace has to set rules for everyone.

How would you feel if at work everyone only referred to you as $#&$#$% (fill in any derogatory word you want). No one ever used your name, but everyone referred to you in a way that you found offensive. I doubt you'd like it much and there's no reason you should have to be called offensive names all the time. I would hope wherever you work there would be rules to prevent people from calling you offensive names.

he culture of hypersensitivity bred of fear has overshadowed the need for mutual respect

So someone is disrespecting you by telling you not to call them an offensive name? If someone finds the way you refer to them as offensive and tells you not to call the that it's hardly showing you a lack of respect. If you know someone finds it offensive to be referred to in a certain way and you still refer to them in that way it absolutely is showing a lack of respect.

Once again no one is or even can tell you how to think. No one is telling you what words you can use in private conversations. None of your freedoms are being taken away. Exactly what freedom is being taken away from you if I say you can't call me names I find offensive in public?

And let's not forget that to truly respect someone you have to respect the who and what. Say, for instance, I know someone with a physical handicap. I know he does not like for people to be overly helpful. So I don't unless he specifically asks me. End of story. We go out, we have fun, we're good friends.

Which is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. Show respect for people based on how they want to be treated. Using words to refer to people that they find offensive is not showing resect for those people. That's all being politically correct is. I'm not sure where your expanded definition is coming from.

Originally Posted by vangogh

It would be easy to argue that this whole thread was started as an argument for why anyone who is politically correct is undeserving of intolerance.

I really think we're butting heads unnecessarily, because we differ in what PC means. What you're calling PC is simply common sense, being respectful. I couldn't possibly say that what you hold about that is anything but true. The point of the thread is that we should be mindful of the ways in which we differ. What I'm calling PC is the less healthy way of so doing.

Originally Posted by vangogh

I'm not confusing anything. You seem to be implying that if a single person suggests something is offensive it's part of some institution consciously designed to take away some freedom of yours. I'm also wondering what exactly what freedom is being taken away. Is it the freedom to insult people? No one can ever force you to think a certain way or tell you that you have to like anyone.

That's really not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that an atmosphere has been created in which throughout society, no one can commit a single offense, not one, without being tried, convicted, and punished by the court of public opinion. It is more likely that someone will create trouble for another who has caused offense than speaking with that person. I am saying that a culture of fear has erupted out of fear of lawsuits, recriminations, and media attention that lines the pockets of the lawyers and "sensitivity trainers". What I'm not suggesting, as you seem to imply, is that people have the right to just offend people as they will. I'm saying that in a diverse society, the odds are pretty good that they will, and the culture we've bred will not forgive those transgressions. It is the exact opposite of a pluralistic society. Dialogue and actual respect don't factor in. It's a brave new world.

PC is, again, not just about respect. Political Correctness began as an institutional attempt to change attitudes by coerced change in language. The very term is a pejorative intended to mock the groups that started it, mostly feminist and radical left groups. Changing of language is a result of changing attitudes through history. The newspeak coined by the PC crowd was seen by most individuals as just that, but institutions adopted it to be, well, POLITICALLY correct, not necessarily right. Most of that newspeak was not invented by the actual groups to whom it's supposed to refer.

Originally Posted by serandfae

That's because the culture of hypersensitivity bred of fear has overshadowed the need for mutual respect, and it rules out criticism because no one is a who, everyone's a what.

Originally Posted by vangogh

So someone is disrespecting you by telling you not to call them an offensive name? If someone finds the way you refer to them as offensive and tells you not to call the that it's hardly showing you a lack of respect. If you know someone finds it offensive to be referred to in a certain way and you still refer to them in that way it absolutely is showing a lack of respect.

That, again, is absolutely not what I'm saying. What would you rather have from your workforce, those who respect one another because it's the right thing to do, or those who do what they have to out of fear of reprisal? I am not saying, nor was I ever saying, that people should just be allowed to disrespect one another. I am saying that the PC, lawyered-up approach is not the way to effect the atmosphere of respect that should happen.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Which is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. Show respect for people based on how they want to be treated. Using words to refer to people that they find offensive is not showing resect for those people. That's all being politically correct is. I'm not sure where your expanded definition is coming from.

The definition comes from a knowledge of history and personal experience. Consider that I'd been assaulted by six black males between the ages of 18-25, wearing gang colors, in a well-lit area of my university, not 150 yards away from my dorm. It was a beatdown, a common initiation among gangs. The campus paper printed that description from the police report. The next day, they saw fit to print a complaint that the assailants were described as "black." No mention of the student who got the hell beat out of him, just anger that a description was reprinted. What about that complaint was even remotely newsworthy? That's what PC is all about. It's not about respect, it's about agendas. The real issue of campus security was overshadowed by some wag bothered by what a bunch of criminals were described as in a police report. Were they called by some epithet? No! 17 years later, and that garbage still burns in my memory. Believe me, if you want more examples I'll happily provide them; at the university I went to they were plentiful.

No disrespect intended, but I've had sufficient experience with what PC really is. I truly wish that it was what you're calling it.

tim

because we differ in what PC means

I agree we're talking about different things. I'll leave it at that.

What would you rather have from your workforce, those who respect one another because it's the right thing to do, or those who do what they have to out of fear of reprisal?

By that same logic we should eliminate all laws, because it would be better to have people do the right thing because it's the right thing. The problem is all people don't do the right thing all the time. Laws, rules, regulations usually exist because people haven't been doing the right thing and the right thing needs to be enforced.

In the workplace people have not always been respectful of each other. So rules are made to ensure they are and to protect those who are being disrespected. If people had been respectful without the rules the rules would never exist.

I am saying that the PC, lawyered-up approach is not the way to effect the atmosphere of respect that should happen.

What's a better way? And haven't you been arguing against the idea of affecting the atmosphere of respect in the first place?

I'm also still wondering what freedom of yours is being taken away in all of this?

As far as the situation of you're getting beaten up years ago, I hope you know I don't think it was right. The people who did that to you should have been punished and I hope they were and saw some jail time.

With the details of what happened with the paper and the complaint it's hard for me to comment specifically because I don't know the details, but I would say someone complaining about how the story was reported and the actual events of the story are two different things. I don't see how someone complaining about the people who beat you up being reported as "black" is in any way defending what they did or doing you any kind of injustice.

Didn't the paper originally mention the person who got beat up in the first story. The complaint is a second and different story.

The reality is whether they were black or not is irrelevant to what happened. I'm not suggesting what the paper did was right or wrong, since I don't know the details. Just saying two different things are going on. The connection between them is stronger for you personally, but they're still separate things. It's understandable if it's hard for you to separate them because of what happened, but they are separate events.

Take the example of a criminal getting off because no one read them their Miranda rights. Assuming the person is guilty. I think we'd all agree the person should go to jail. At the same time Miranda rights exist to protect innocent people who don't understand their rights. It's important that those rights be read and understood to protect innocent people. We can't decide that some people should be read those rights and others shouldn't. It has to be all or none.

So someone who is guilty gets off on the technicality of not being read their rights. Many will naturally be upset. Some will still defend the idea of Miranda rights being read as an important part of the process. That doesn't mean those people defending Miranda feel any less anger that a criminal is walking free. It just means they think the separate issues of due process and those accused of crimes understanding their rights are also important and worth defending.

Two separate issues.

I had to goto Chicago a couple of years ago, hadn't been to America for about 18 years, they all seem terrified of lawsuits now, cars stopping 20 foot away from you as your walking in the shopping mall carpark, people terrified of you petting their dogs, pretty crap country nowadays.