|
|
|
|
David wrote:
>This would have been politically incorrect forty years ago.<
Polical correctness, and therefore political incorrectness, did not exist forty years ago. David, why are you so wedded to political correctness?
As I wrote in an earlier thread, and I remember you took the remark personally, political correctness is for the intellectually lazy. It saves having to think for oneself. It is a mental straitjacket imposed by those who consider themselves morally superior to those who have not the mental stamina to think things through. It then leads to the ridiculous - winterval instead of Christmas, no hanging flower baskets in the streets of Ipswich, telling people what to eat and what not to eat without taking their individual metabolisms into account, non-competitive sports days…
I thought I'd better start a new thread rather than hijack the 'forget the nature VS nurture argument…' one.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever heard of the word 'hyperbole'?
I'm not going to take this personally, but I will confess that I'm not finding it easy. Political correctness is not always bad. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is by your definition, Nigel, but it is not by mine. Political correctness, where it means not using provocative language to people from minority groups, is perfectly sensible behaviour. Political correctness recommends that you do not march up to a gay person and call him a faggot. That this is also within the boundaries of politeness and common sense does not mean that political correctness is redundant or even counter-productive. 'Political correctness gone mad' is a quite different concept, and I am perfectly willing to accept that it sometimes gets out of hand. So can any political concept -- excessive freedom means anarchy, excessive lawmaking means a police state. We need to find a balance.
Incidentally, just because it was not called political correctness forty years ago does not mean that political correctness did not exist then. Did no political group ever point out to you that it wasn't polite to call a black man a 'nigger'? I suppose you disagreed on principle.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> political correctness is for the intellectually lazy. It saves having to think for oneself. It is a mental straitjacket imposed by those who consider themselves morally superior to those who have not the mental stamina to think things through. It then leads to the ridiculous - winterval instead of Christmas, no hanging flower baskets in the streets of Ipswich, telling people what to eat and what not to eat without taking their individual metabolisms into account, non-competitive sports days…
No-one will surprised if I take this one on!
I agree, some of the efforts that people have made to be "correct" have been well-intentioned but spectacularly ill-informed or misconceived. However, the intellectual laziness, in my view, is to say that because a few people have got it wrong sometimes, no-one should try to be politically correct.
Language shapes how we think and how we can express ourselves. This is true even for those whose thinking is primarily visual rather than verbal (like me). So, yes, I object to the word "gay" being used to mean "not very good, lame etc". I object to the word "lame" being used in that sense, as well, and have been astonished at how many people have used it in discussions on this subject. No-one today would consider it acceptable to use the word "flid" (from "thalidomide baby"), and few would be entirely happy with using "spazz" (from "spastic" - ie given to muscle spasms). Words are a powerful medium, and you don't have to be a poet or an advertising copywriter to know that.
Of course, people can often get the words a bit wrong, if they're trying to be PC and avoid giving offence. But really, what counts is willingness to listen, to think and understand. So they use the form of words that really does give least general offence next time. So they understand that putting low-level buttons in lifts for wheel-chair users is essential - but that they also need to put in buttons at a higher level for people who cannot bend, to ensure that there is braille or tactile labelling of the buttons, and that there is a working voice-announce as well as a visual display of what floor the lift has reached, and good colour contrast between lift floor and walls, and a contrast in floor texture at the threshold.
Yup, I get wound up when people get it wrong through lack of thought or lack of real consultation or understanding or discussion.. No-one knows it all (I don't, and I've been involved in diversity and disability issues for over twenty years). But those who are over-the-top PC and get it all horribly wrong are at least trying - they're teachable.
Many of those who merely object to "PC" without doing anything to improve the lot of others (and I'm not suggesting that this applies to anyone on this forum) are passively oppressing others. They're those who don't see why we needed Civil Partnership, and still need Gay Marriage. They are the ones who can say "I'm all right, Jack". They are the ones that complain about the cost of installing lifts or ramps, without actually looking and seeing if there are other ways of meeting the need to deliver a service. They are the ones, ultimately, who are likely to believe the downright lies about what the SOR will and won't oblige businesses to do that have been propagated by so-called Christians.
Putting down "political correctness" is far too often a cover for maintaining a lazy and complacent prejudice. The examples quoted are as often misattributed and selectively misquoted as they are genuine error by the well-meaning but ill-informed.
A couple of notes:
1) I got a bit wound up writing this - so much so that after I finished, I went away and ate supper, then came back and toned it down a bit before posting.
2) If anyone is remotely interested, I'm happy to be called "gay" and "a disabled person". I don't take "homosexual" and "person with disability" as malicious, just not normally best practice. "Queer" and "crip" are things that I call myself if I'm in the company of similar people, and that's the only circumstances I'm happy to be called them!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the Hyperbole a sports stadium in the US?
Deeej wrote:
>Political correctness recommends that you do not march up to a gay person and call him a faggot.<
Political correctness may recommend that to you, but courtesy and common sense recommend it to me.
Forty years ago, perhaps slightly more, when I were a lad, the word nigger was used freely. Agatha Christie had published a book called 'Ten Little Nigger Boys', my mother had a dog called Nigger, as did Wing Commander Gibson of Dambusters fame. It was the PC brigade that brought it into disrepute. I still have a copy of Helen Bannerman's 'The Story of Little Black Sambo' on my bookshelf. David, you might start to understand why people with a slightly longer perspective than yours refuse to be brainwashed by political correctness. To answer your question people did not tell us not to use the word nigger. Incidentally I have no objection to being called a white honkey.
Btw, when I was still teaching we had a pupil at school whose surname was Sambo - Christian name Ali. [Yes, Christian name, not forename.] He played rugby on the wing for the 1st XV. During a match at a not too distant public school Ali was cheered on with his surname. The following week an inter-archmagisterial epistle appeared on our Headmaster's desk from the other school's HM accusing our supporters of inflamatory language. Photocopies of Ali Sambo's registration documents were duly dispatched. No more was heard.
I am sure that PC stirs up far more hatred and intolerance than it cures or prevents, especially as it is held in such contempt by the general public.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW, I don't think anyone can take objection to what you are arguing for in your post, but again I would argue that you writing from the view of courtesy and common sense, as well as a highly personal point of view. I will not, however, allow the PC brigade to take the moral high ground and use political correctness as a synonym for courtesy and common sense.
Any comments from our American friends? After all PC was invented in the US.
Hugs
Nigel
[Updated on: Fri, 12 January 2007 22:12]
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said,
>Political correctness recommends that you do not march up to a gay person and call him a faggot.
Nigel said,
>Political correctness may recommend that to you, but courtesy and common sense recommend it to me.
Yes -- and I pointed that out:
>That this is also within the boundaries of politeness and common sense does not mean that political correctness is redundant or even counter-productive.
I do not see your statement as a valid argument against it.
>Forty years ago, perhaps slightly more, when I were a lad, the word nigger was used freely. Agatha Christie had published a book called 'Ten Little Nigger Boys', my mother had a dog called Nigger, as did Wing Commander Gibson of Dambusters fame. It was the PC brigade that brought it into disrepute.
You honestly mean that if only political correctness had not come along, you would think it perfectly fine to refer to a black person as a nigger? You do realise that the reason we're not supposed to call people niggers is because it is offensive to black people? In your protestations that these words "were used freely" you do not address this once.
Not only do I not understand your motives for saying this, I don't think I want to understand them.
>David, you might start to understand why people with a slightly longer perspective than yours refuse to be brainwashed by political correctness.
If you are representative of your generation then I am quite happy to belong to mine, thank you very much. And you should know by know that I am highly sceptical about almost any position. I have thought about the purpose of political correctness and, in the main, I appreciate its purpose even if I don't always appreciate its application.
Ironically, to object to it unreservedly because it's for the "intellectually lazy" saves you from the effort of thinking about when it could possibly be useful. You could say that the entire legal system is for the "morally lazy" and that you're going to disregard it because you don't see its point. It does not mean that it has no point.
>Incidentally I have no objection to being called a white honkey.
Oh, so that makes it all right then! I will remind you that white people historically had higher social positions and that the term is hardly of the same potency as one that was used to oppress entire races. If you can't see that I think you need to get your glasses fixed.
>I am sure that PC stirs up far more hatred and intolerance than it cures or prevents, especially as it is held in such contempt by the general public.
It seems to be held in such contempt by you. I do not think that most people would deny that political correctness, when used as a guideline to prevent offence, is not always bad. It is usually "political correctness gone mad" that one hears protests about. Most people otherwise view political correctness as slightly amusing but with a rational basis.
Incidentally, you seem to be as sensitive to the words "political correctness" as members of any minority group are to the slurs that you insist you do not need reminding are not polite.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> I am sure that PC stirs up far more hatred and intolerance than it cures or prevents, especially as it is held in such contempt by the general public.
>
I'm sure that it doesn't! I'm also sure that only a very small and completely over-the-top proportion of political correctness is held in contempt by the general public, and of that tiny proportion much of it is based on misinformation spread (deliberately or otherwise) by the bigoted and intellectually lazy. Tip - try researching the origin of the urban myth of "Winterval" which you mention: it isn't difficult as wikipedia has a good summary.
The answer is not to throw petrol on the fire by decrying PC, and making dubious allegations about its occurrence. The answer is to give chapter and verse of source where you feel that PC has gone over the top, and to try to explain why you feel it IS over the top. It also helps to keep an open mind on explanations: many things sound a bit silly until you know the reason behind them!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, NW -- I didn't address the first part of this sentence in my reply, and you've done it better than I could have done. 
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel said,
>I will not, however, allow the PC brigade to take the moral high ground and use political correctness as a synonym for courtesy and common sense.
How exactly do you plan to go about this? It sounds like you're planning on doing exactly what political correctness is alleged to do, which is to start quibbling over when particular words can be used to describe a concept, and who is allowed to use them.
I'm not sure how you can maintain you have any moral high ground when you also maintain that it's only political correctness that keeps you from using the word 'nigger'. It's not you who's offended by that word, it's other people. And they would be offended regardless of whether they'd heard of "political correctness" or not, because it's used as in insult. As, indeed, it was more than forty years ago: if all you need is 'courtesy' and 'common sense', which also existed at that time, then you should have known perfectly well that it was not a good thing to call a dog.
David
[Updated on: Fri, 12 January 2007 23:01] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> NW, I don't think anyone can take objection to what you are arguing for in your post, but again I would argue that you writing from the view of courtesy and common sense, as well as a highly personal point of view.
Well, of course I'm writing from my experience ... how could I not? But my views on this considerably pre-date my becoming disabled.
If we're going to argue over the words, I'd suggest:
Courtesy means that you open the buildings front door for a woman whether she needs it or not.
Common sense means that you open that door for anyone who you see struggling with it.
Correctness means that you anticipate the need, and open the door for those with baby buggies, in wheelchairs, with walking aids, carrying bulky or heavy shopping ... and that furthermore you make damn certain that this kind of pro-active behaviour is written into the job descriptions of the Security staff whose job it is to hang around in the foyer.
(The particular building that I have in mind is "listed", and it has not proved possible to fit automatic door openers due to certain peculiarities of the buildings construction.)
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Lord: imprecation of the deity, not bad from a logically consistent atheist.
David
I have not accepted that PC is within the bounds of common sense - or are you being selective about which bits of PC you use?
Attitudes were different forty years ago. Can you accept that as fact? Why should today's attitudes be right and the attitudes of other eras be wrong. Today's attitudes might be wrong. Why is there more crime today than forty years ago. Perhaps people got that bit right then.
Nigger is not necessarily offensive to black people. They use the word among themselves without offence.
"If you are representative of your generation then I am quite happy to belong to mine, thank you very much." David, I don't think you realise how rude that remark is. Btw, I have not taken offence at it as it is not a personal remark.
"Oh, so that makes it all right then! I will remind you that white people historically had higher social positions and that the term is hardly of the same potency as one that was used to oppress entire races. If you can't see that I think you need to get your glasses fixed."
I now understand that it acceptable to be rude to people you view as of a higher class. The remark about the glasses shows that you are turning to abuse rather than cold logical argument.
I don't think that there is much difference between PC and PC gone mad.
Could it be that the word nigger only became offensive when people were told it was offensive? Do you think people like Wg Cmdr Gibson and my mother named their pets Nigger in order to be offensive? I very much doubt it.
Sorry, I don't understand your last sentence.
"Not only do I not understand your motives for saying this, I don't think I want to understand them." How is one suppose to conduct a discussion when one side wifully closes his mind?
"Ironically, to object to it unreservedly because it's for the "intellectually lazy" saves you from the effort of thinking about when it could possibly be useful. You could say that the entire legal system is for the "morally lazy" and that you're going to disregard it because you don't see its point. It does not mean that it has no point." The legal system is in place and solid; attitudes change. You are comparing chalk and cheese. I call PC intellectually lazy because one is presented with a ready made opinion, received uncritically because it sounds good, and so lulls the receiver into not examining it.
David, I am surprised that you responded to this in such an emotional way. Indignation, for example. I have always respected your logical approach. I'm sorry that I have replied in such a higgledy-piggledy way, but that is my lack of computer skills. I think we both have to learn that we are products of our generations; one of us might be wrong; alternatively both of us could be wrong.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, I need to make it clear that I am not claiming the moral high ground. When I say I will not allow… I mean I will not accept it as an argument.
Why are you centring so on the word 'nigger'? Have you had a bad personal expeience with it?
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW, we're not arguing.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW, it sounds like a cop out, but I haven't got the time for the thoroughness that you and I would like.
I will touch on one example - non-competitive sports days at school. Team sport is competitive. Children, particularly boys are competitive. With non-competitive sports days nature is being suppressed. The losers have to learn to take it on the chin, and I speak as someone who was always in that position as a boy, but the experience made me improve things in my life. I have no hang ups about being a loser at sport.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> NW, it sounds like a cop out, but I haven't got the time for the thoroughness that you and I would like.
>
> I will touch on one example - non-competitive sports days at school. Team sport is competitive. Children, particularly boys are competitive. With non-competitive sports days nature is being suppressed. The losers have to learn to take it on the chin, and I speak as someone who was always in that position as a boy, but the experience made me improve things in my life. I have no hang ups about being a loser at sport.
>
> Hugs
> N
You have picked on the one example that I was avoiding. Avoiding because - after thirty-five or forty years - it is still an incredibly raw and painful subject for me.
I am STRONGLY opposed to COMPULSORY competitive sport of any description. Why? Because failure does NOT necessarily help one "take it on the chin". Failure is accompanied - at least in my case - by a stream of verbal abuse, generally featuring the words "unmanly", "nancy" and "disappointment" ... and on a bad day by violent physical abuse. Sporting achievement (or lack of it) had been important to my father in his youth, you see ... not much else was, really. And it didn't matter that I came first in my House in cross-country - that was not good enough: why was I not first in my year? And so on. And I wasn't competitive in the conventional sense - what I wanted to know was whether I'd run the course quicker than my previous best.
Oh, I've overcome most of that. I've been so bloody determined to prove to others that by objective standards I am NOT a failure that I have driven myself to considerable achievement in two careers, working often between 70 and 100 hours a week to reach this. Which severely limited my social life, and took a physical toll which resulted in medical retirement at the age of 50. It's only in the months since I stopped work that I've had time to wake up, smell the coffee, and realise quite how foolish that was! Thankfully, I still have enough of my life left (I hope) to correct things ...
The political correctness that says no child should EVER be forced into compulsory competition against other kids is ENTIRELY correct. PC gone mad, which tries to stop kids who actually wish to indulge in competitive sports from doing so is, of course, wrong ... although there is an argument that this could usefully be the preserve of out-of-school activities.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, IMO, Where I find this thread useful, the stronger supporters of PC would find this thread totally incorrect because it has a tone of confrontation, but that’s only if they were participating and wanted to take control hehe. The concept of being virtuous may seem old fashioned but it has served the purpose over many thousands of years. As Nigel has said, PC has only become another tool to control, at least in this country.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel said,
>I have not accepted that PC is within the bounds of common sense - or are you being selective about which bits of PC you use?
Of course I am being selective about which bits of PC I use. There is no manual of political correctness. Some people overdo it. It is the principle which I regard as worthwhile, not every application of it.
>Attitudes were different forty years ago. Can you accept that as fact? Why should today's attitudes be right and the attitudes of other eras be wrong. Today's attitudes might be wrong. Why is there more crime today than forty years ago. Perhaps people got that bit right then.
I do not know enough about life forty years ago to be able to comment. I do think that a person who pays no attention to political differences and denounces all political correctness out of hand, without any persuasive arguments, is more than just an anachronism: I think it's rude.
>Nigger is not necessarily offensive to black people. They use the word among themselves without offence.
Not necessarily. But it is definitely offensive to some. You might not find the word 'faggot' offensive. But I know Marc does and I would not even call myself a faggot on this board because I know it would offend him. That is both politeness and justified through political correctness.
>"If you are representative of your generation then I am quite happy to belong to mine, thank you very much." David, I don't think you realise how rude that remark is. Btw, I have not taken offence at it as it is not a personal remark.
I know how offensive it is. I wrote it because I have taken this thread rather more personally than I thought I would, starting right back at 'why are you so wedded to political correctness?' (which you then go on to describe in extremely unflattering terms).
>I now understand that it acceptable to be rude to people you view as of a higher class.
It is certainly more acceptable, yes.
>The remark about the glasses shows that you are turning to abuse rather than cold logical argument.
It's an expression. I could have put it a bit more tactfully, granted. I wear glasses myself -- I thought you were saying it was okay to use an insult if you don't mind it? (That's sarcasm, by the way.)
>I don't think that there is much difference between PC and PC gone mad.
I do.
>Could it be that the word nigger only became offensive when people were told it was offensive? Do you think people like Wg Cmdr Gibson and my mother named their pets Nigger in order to be offensive? I very much doubt it.
No, I don't. I don't think they thought about it. But political correctness prompts people to think about why something might be offensive, which can only be a good thing, surely?
The only people who can say that a word is positively not offensive are those people whom it describes. A black person can call himself a 'nigger' if he wants. A gay person can call himself 'queer'. There are certain words it's not sensible to call someone else unless he specifically tells you 'it's all right to call me that'. I sincerely doubt many black people have told you, 'It's fine to call me "nigger".'
>"Not only do I not understand your motives for saying this, I don't think I want to understand them." How is one suppose to conduct a discussion when one side wifully closes his mind?
Er -- (a) that is also an expression, and (b) you seem to be doing exactly the same thing, for you won't accept my proposition that political correctness is not always a bad thing. When NW gave examples of good political correctness, you were quick to try and relabel them 'common sense'.
>The legal system is in place and solid; attitudes change.
Actually, no. The legal system reflects attitudes, and it's changing all the time. For example, this new law which prevents businesses from discriminating against gay people. It will prompt people to re-examine their attitudes. It's a politically-driven law; in fact, it's literal political correctness -- is it automatically bad? (If you think it is then perhaps you could join in on the thread about it, which so far you have failed to do.)
>I call PC intellectually lazy because one is presented with a ready made opinion, received uncritically because it sounds good, and so lulls the receiver into not examining it.
Please give examples. By those terms 'Winterval' is hardly a good example of political correctness as it sounds preposterous, regardless of whether it stands up to further examination (from what NW says I understand it in fact does; how much 'political correctness gone mad' is actually 'political correctness reported wrongly'?). On the other hand, 'Install elevators in public buildings where there are disabled users' not only sounds like a good idea, it is a good idea.
>David, I am surprised that you responded to this in such an emotional way.
I have to say I have never met anyone who refused to concede, as you do, that there is any purpose to political correctness at all. When political correctness produces something worthwhile, you call it 'common sense' or 'politeness' or 'courtesy'; when, very infrequently, someone goes too far, you denounce this as a classic example of political correctness (without qualification as 'gone mad' or 'over the top'). It makes it virtually impossible to argue with you.
To be frank, I was surprised that you have brought this subject up again with no apparent purpose except to denounce it. I exaggerated slightly in another thread in saying that something would have been politically incorrect forty years ago -- I knew it was an anachronism. The last thing I would ever have expected was that this would result in a brand new thread containing an attack on me. Whatever you maintain, accusing me of being 'wedded' to political correctness, and then calling political correctness 'intellectually lazy', 'imposed by those who consider themselves morally superior' is an attack. It implies that I am both of those things. Especially considering that it is not true -- I am not 'wedded' to it. I am simply not as closed-minded to it as you are.
I'm not going to respond to this thread any further. Nigel, please don't start any new threads in response to throwaway remarks of mine and use them to ridicule my opinions from now on, or I will ask Timmy to remove them.
David
[Updated on: Sat, 13 January 2007 04:27] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> As I wrote in an earlier thread, and I remember you took the remark personally, political correctness is for the intellectually lazy. It saves having to think for oneself. It is a mental straitjacket imposed by those who consider themselves morally superior to those who have not the mental stamina to think things through. It then leads to the ridiculous - winterval instead of Christmas, no hanging flower baskets in the streets of Ipswich, telling people what to eat and what not to eat without taking their individual metabolisms into account, non-competitive sports days…
Right, let's address these allegations.
Winterval. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterval
"The word came to prominence in 1998 when Birmingham City Council in the United Kingdom used it as a title to encompass the three month collection of multi-faith and secular events, running from October to January, and including Diwali, Bonfire Night, New Year and other seasonal events as well as Christmas itself."
and
" 'Birmingham City Council wants people to celebrate Christmas. Christmas is the very heart of Winterval; far from not talking about Christmas the events within Winterval and the publicity material for it are covered in Christmas greetings and traditional images, including angels and carol singers'.The council had drawn particular attention to the city's Anglican cathedral during the festival by placing Christmas lights in the trees around the building, and the greeting "Happy Christmas Birmingham" hung in large lights over the main entrance to the Council House as it had done every other year."
no hanging flower baskets in the streets of Ipswich see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3545495.stm
County Councillor Julian Swainson said they never intended banning the baskets, and had always wanted to see if there was a way to maintain safety and floral decoration. 'In Suffolk we have a can-do approach, and we say no, let's see if we can help and get the flower displays up.And that's what's happened here.'
Last year Bury St Edmunds was the winner of the best large town in regional Anglia in Bloom event. The council felt they could present a safety hazard on some of the older lampposts. 'We have to be satisfied that the columns are strong and stable enough to take the weight,' he said."
telling people what to eat and what not to eat without taking their individual metabolisms into account, - sorry, not enough detail to track down a specific source for this one.
non-competitive sports days… see my post on this thread at Jan 12 2007, 23:55 for my take on this.
Case against PC ? Not proven , to put it very mildly.
Now I'm going to take another cooling-off period from this thread - overnight at least, possibly longer.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
without wishing to get involved in this overly, jus my own 2 cents
as far as i remember, Ipswich and the flowers wasn't a case of PC, but the ultimate and final ludicrousy in a string of scenarios where councils took overly preventative measures to protect themselves against civil liability. not long after the Ipswich story occured, the courts moved in to put a stop with the nonsense in (i think) Thompson v Congleton District Council 2004, where they stated that people had to take responsibility for their own safety and their own actions. The Lords refused to hold that the council had any liability for Thompsons injuries.
i object to PCness for many reasons, not least of which because it involves some collective group that by some means decides what is the appropriape definition for something. Nigger became an offensive word not because the word itself is offensive, but because of the context in which it was used. Now the word itself gives offense. If the same standards apply to other words, and we hold them forever offensive, we prevent our changing mutable language developing.
Spazz and lame both derogatory terms came and went out of fashion. while lame is still somewhat in use, certainly calling someone a spazz would be rather outdated these days. had that word developed the same level of negative connotation as nigger, its redemption toward proper usage might never have started.
as for homosexual, as a personal preference i object to it strongly. which makes PC all the more annoying for me, since homosexual is the PC term to describe what i am (all the more annoying since i don't think my sexuality defines me at all) i don't like the word because i don't like the way it sounds, i don't like the emphasis that can be put on it that makes it sound (to my ears) sickening and disgusting, or full of innuendo, and i also don't like the fact it developed in common usage out of PCness. I'd prefer to be called gay, and don't overly mind queer. tbh, the use of Queer is a big joke among the local gay community, whenever someone does something particularly camp someon'll say "ooh you big queer you" in the gayest possible voice. its what passes for humour right now lol.
i had a friend i lived with last year who grew up in solihul. where he came from, at that time, using gay in a negative fashion was all too common. As we got to know each other (before i lived with him) he used it all the time, and would then remember who he was with and apologise. i got to find the apologies annoying and was never bothered about his use of "gay" in that fashion. kept telling him not to apologise. summer came and went, and we moved in together, and he never used it in that fashion the whole year. no idea what changed. my guess is it simply went out of fashion in his area (with no help from Chris Moyles...)
point is, he never meant it in an offensive way, i knew he didnt, and was never offended by it. on the other hand, a PC word like homosexual used as a derogatory term is offensive.
words come and go, and meanings change among todays youth like the phases of the moon
by all means object to the use of certain words in common slang, but its better to leave. a popular word now will be out of fashion very soon, make it taboo, or make it controversial, or kick up a fuss, it stays around longer.
but better still, instead of wrrying about the word used, think of the context. far better to be annoyed at those intend offence whilst speaking politely, than those who use what may be offensive terms without meaning too.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... what happens when you start arguing about a concept which means different things to different people!
Being, as you know, an enthusiastic student of language history, this is right up my street!
Regardless of the fanciful origins claimed for the phrase, it is in fact purely a linguistic concept and it entered common British usage (as an import from the US) specifically as a description of naive, politically generated gobbldegook. Holding a door open has nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness, but everything to do with plain and simple courtesy.
Nigel is absolutely right to suggest that words such as 'nigger' were suppressed for all the wrong reasons; there is little or no evidence to suggest that black people found the word offensive in itself, though obviously it could become offensive if used in a derogatory way. But as a name for a dark-brown dog it was neither intended nor perceived as offensive. We also lost a childhood institution, the golliwog, to misguided PC zeal.
Ultimately, when it comes to 'sensitive groups', the concept is self-defeating. An identifiable group requires a descriptor, and if one descriptor is suppressed another will eventually replace it.
'Political Correctness' is misused if it is applied to political initiatives which are manifestly sensible or desirable. It applies only to those which are cosmetic and ill-conceived. 'Multicultural' is perhaps the quintessential PC word; it sounds impressive, but it has absolutely no consistent and widely-understood meaning.
To further illustrate my point, I think that both 'sides' misunderstood the significance of physical competition in childhood. I would argue that NW was absolutely right in arguing that dismissive criticism of kids with little or no physical co-ordination or sporting ability is potentially the cause of serious psychological damage - but, on the other hand, Nigel was equally correct in drawing attention to the ludicrous idea of non-competitive games. As a concept, it merely demonstrates the intellectual poverty of those who came up with the idea. We are all innately competitive; the only rational policy is to encourage everyone to be competetive in the fields in which they perform best - athletic, academic, artistic or whatever - and to suppress the negative treatment of those who are unable to excel in a particular sphere.
Sensible, sympathetic and thoughtfully considered initiatives are to be applauded - but, linguistically, these will never be 'PC' - the core characteristic of which is the initiative which is ill thought out, illogical and comprehensively devoid of merit.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading this thread and what you said touched on a really personally emtional subject for me too, NW.
I was extremely small for my age while in those school years and although I played sports to some extent with my friends in the neighborhood I had no liking for sports thru school. Perhaps because the kids I played with were more of less two years or more younger than I was but then were about my same size and ability. I actually liked to play softball (larger, softer ball more easy to catch) and some of the other things we did. I got along fine with those boys most of the time even though my ability at sports was so minimal that I was not dominent in our endevours despite being much older.
At school this was a different matter and sports games always placed me at the bottom as far as being picked for a team and I was deemed to be a detriment to being able to win by everyone. In baseball, I was always called "easy out" for instance. I did not learn to be a good loser, just a painful one. I never liked losing and it always hurt if I was the reason my team lost the game. No kids should have to routinely put up with that.
NOw of course I could have been helped a lot if I had some instruction as to the rules of the game which were only vaguely something I understood. I may not have made so many bonehead errors if I had known. Gym time was a waste of time as far as I was concerned and a source of humiliation every time.
Oh only one comment on the PC thing. I do agree that a lot of the time that there seems to be an extreme fear of offending anyone at all, and in life there are lots of times when we can be offended by someone's statement if we let ourselves be offended. I think we had tougher skins in those days in the 50's when I was brought up. I dont think it was right for people to hurl ethnic slurs at anyone and remarks about race or sex or whatever were not making anyone feel any better I am sure. I think what was trying to be said was that we have sometimes gone to extremes not to be offensive such that we are actually unable to tell stories the way they were really written. The word niggardly was never used in the sense of someone's race and it was not derived from any attempt at a racial slur, but you can no longer use it in speech now days as some will take offense. My dad used to say that we sometimes go from the rediculous to the sublime and now I know what he meant by it.
I would never have meant to offend anyone being as I was so aware of my inferiority amoung my peers, but when efforts were made to be more aware, at first I didnt know what to call someone who was black. Now we say african american; sometimes we called them Negros. I only use some term like that if I am trying to tell someone about the physical characteristics of someone they have not met etc. I would never have used the word nigger as I was sure that even sounded derogatory.
I think the main thing we should do, and that I assume was the intent of most political correctness, is to be considerate of each other. Not a hard concept to understand I would think.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you said it very well.
I liked the fact that you had the good sense not to get all mad at your friend for calling you gay and then apologizing for it since you knew he didnt mean it to be hateful towards you. Maybe that is what is needed more than simply saying that certain words cant be used. Some people tend to jump to conclusions and act compulsively when all that was needed was for them to think first and maybe have some dialog with the other person.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For whatever reason Cossie you made me think of a time when I was traveling in the south (Mississippi I think) and had stopped to get gas. In those days we had never heard of self-service. So I sat in my car and heard the station owner, who was a white man of course (this was late 50's) yell to his helper who was black, "Boy, go check out that man's car and see if he wants to get a fill."
I was embarrassed to hear that sort of language directed at that young man and it felt uncomfortable to be sitting there being waited on by him. I knew that the language he used was meant to be derogatory towards that person and demean him and keep him in his place. He didnt need to say nigger or blackie or anything else.
Things have come a long way since then, believe me.
As to the sports competition and all that, my feeling has been that the purpose of sports in school has long since been lost when only a few are made to feel worthwhile as they are the ones who can represent the school in competition and the rest are made to feel inferior. The reason initially years ago was to promote physical fitness and help everyone learn to work as a team etc. And also those little league teams can be even worse when you include some of the parents.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the differences between David and me on this topic can be summed up in our different views of what is PC. He includes courtesy and common sense in being PC; I don't, particularly the common sense thing, that is I consider PC as being OTT.
David, I am sorry that you have taken this thread so personally. I was mistaken in thinking that I could have had a discussion with you on an intellectual level without its becoming personal. I am also sorry that you think my contributions deserve censorship. Mea culpa, mea ipsa culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Hi Nigel.
Well done dont worry about david he does like to have one view,
as for him having a word with timmy well i think timmy is a mature guy who welcomes good opinions as long as we behave like real people.
give david time to reflect as he will often throw his toys.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
OK, that is realy not nice. Enough, please.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie, I'm not sure what evidence you have that "Political Correctness' is misused if it is applied to political initiatives which are manifestly sensible or desirable. It applies only to those which are cosmetic and ill-conceived." It definitely does not accord with my own experience of the way the phrase is used.
I certainly was using the phrase while I was active in student politics - by 1981 at the latest. By that time, it could already be used as an exhortation to those who shared the same kind of values as I do - the phrase "now, lets be a bit PC about this" was often heard. It was a reminder and exhortation (frequently from the women and gay men among us) to avoid language and actions that made assumptions about the gender or orientation of others, or that made the lives of others unnecessarily difficult. So - "now for the PC bit - do we need a creche for this event?"
We may have been using it in a slightly ironic context, or perhaps "reclaimed" is a better way of putting it. There was certainly a sense that others might see our concerns with things that extended to details of the language used as petty or inappropriate, but that we recognised this and nevertheless affirmed the value of our approach. This is very similar to the way that "queer" (as in "gay", not as in "queer studies") is now common.
One of the exciting intellectual debates of the time was that between the view that language shapes thought (the modified Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) and the view of the universality of language structures popularised by Chomsky - or perhaps it is more accurate to say that it was accepted that there was merit in both views and we sought to understand in what areas each applied. So ensuring that non-sexist and gender-neutral language was used ("Chair" not "Chairman - and "Chairperson" was only ever used in a joking fashion, for example) was politically correct and intended to (and, I think did) bring about desirable changes.
So much for the early 1980s.
I certainly used "politically correct" in much the same way when I was working in that hotbed of political correctness, Local Government. Indeed, one of the last things I did before retiring in 2005 was to make up a checklist for meeting organisers to think about, to ensure that no-one was excluded by accident. So, this was a quick check that most of the obvious things had been covered - do we need: interpreter / signer? large print handouts? dietary requirements? any other requirements? creche? access to power to charge electric wheelchairs? bowls of water for assistance dogs? chairs of differing heights, some with arms? should we avoid holding the meeting on a Friday (Muslim religious observances) or Saturday (Jewish religious observances)? ... A whole long list, not exhaustive and designed to be added to in the light of experience, and not intended as prescriptive but as something to kick-start the organisers into considering access issues. This was self-avowedly politically correct, was seen as such, but I strongly feel was NOT "cosmetic and ill-conceived " but greatly reduced the risk of meetings being held that excluded numbers of people. It is embarrassing for both organiser and the person attending for someone to turn up and discover that they are unable to participate - or even to reach the room in which the meeting is be held!
I don't have a modern dictionary to hand, but a net search on dictionary.com shows:
------------------------------------------------------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
politically correct
–noun
marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology. Abbreviation: PC, P.C.
—Related forms
political correctness,
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Heritage Dictionary
politically correct
adj. Abbr. PC
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.
political correctness n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------
WordNet - Cite This Source
political correctness
noun
avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against [ant: political incorrectness]
WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
--------------------------------------------------------------
I note that only one of these seems to explicitly support the idea of being "overconcerned" with such change, and there doesn't seem to be a necessary element of being "ill-concieved".
cossie, please note that I'm not suggesting that the usage you suggest is unknown. However, I do feel that such a concept is more usually referred to as "politcal correctness gone mad", and that to be "politically correct" is not in itself usually seen as being ill-concieved. The value attached to political correctness will of course depend on the extent to which the person using the phrase is in agreement with "supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation".
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language or behavior which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. The concept is not exclusive to the English language.
.....
The term PC is often used in a pejorative or ironic sense to satirise either the idea that carefully chosen language can encourage, promote, or establish certain social outcomes and relationships, or the belief that the resulting changes benefit society. This satire often comments on certain forms of identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement. For example, the use of "gender-neutral" job titles ("lineworker" instead of "lineman," "chairperson" or "chair" instead of "chairman," etc.), the use of the expression "differently abled" rather than "disabled", or the use of "Native American" rather than "Indian", are all sometimes referred to as "politically correct". 'PC' terms are also applied to objects, such as "maintenance cover" instead of "manhole cover".
......
In linguistics, the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds that a language's grammatical categories control its speakers' possible thoughts. While few support the hypothesis in its strong form, many linguists accept a more moderate version, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use. In its strong form, the hypothesis states that, for example, sexist language promotes sexist thought.
The situation is complicated by the fact that members of identity groups sometimes embrace terms that others seek to change. For example, deaf culture has always considered the label "Deaf" as an affirming statement of group membership and not insulting or disparaging in any way. The term now often substituted for the term "deaf", hearing-impaired, was developed to include people with hearing loss due to aging, accidents, and other causes. While more accurate for those uses, the term "hearing-impaired" is considered highly derogatory by many deaf people. The term "Hard of Hearing," however, is considered an acceptable descriptive term for a limited- to non-hearing person.
....
Critics of political language choice argue the new terms are often awkward, euphemistic substitutes for the original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, and political views. Politically correct language has been compared to George Orwell's invented language Newspeak.
It is often argued that political correctness amounts to censorship and endangers free speech, as limits are placed on public debate, especially in universities and political forums. It is also often argued that politically correct terminology (such as "collateral damage") can be misappropriated to soften concepts that would be unacceptable in normal language, and as such is a key technique employed by Spin doctors to massage and manipulate the masses.
Conservatives often view many politically correct terms as being linguistic cover for an evasion of personal responsibility, for instance when "juvenile delinquents" became "children at risk" or when "illegal aliens" became "undocumented workers". On the other side of the rope, Liberals view political correctness as a necessity to deter negative thoughts against groups of people.
....
Liberal and progressive commentators, however, sometimes argue that the term "political correctness" was fabricated by United States conservatives around 1980 and defined as a way to reframe the political arguments in the United States. Such commentators say that there never was a "Political Correctness movement" in the United States, and that many who use the term are attempting to distract attention from substantive debates over discrimination and unequal treatment based on race, class, and gender."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are (at the time of writing - 200601132235 - two damn great boxes at the top of the Wikipedia article.
One says :
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
The other says:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
As the article doesn't seem to represent a consensus view, and as the points made on the "talk" page to some extent echo those made here, I don't place overmuch reliance on it.
However, it does seem to reinforce the view that PC is more often used pejoratively than I was aware - I certainly don't think that it supports the assertion that an affirmative/positive use of the phrase is incorrect.
----------------------------------------------------
edits made to correct typos - 2200601132241)
[Updated on: Sat, 13 January 2007 22:38]
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... and I make no claim to be immune to that effect.
NW, I think the problem is that you have been too close to the PC machine to appreciate the derision with which so many people view the concept.
The meaning of a word or phrase is determined by its actual usage, and the simplest (though imperfect) measure of such usage is the way in which the word or phrase is used in the ordinary, non-specialised press. I do not see that there can be any doubt that the phrase rarely appears in the British press without pejorative implications.
Obviously, the phrase was first used in a purely literal sense. It came into disrepute because of the idiocies committed in its name. Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of this was the fad for anodyne terms to describe disabilities; they sounded ridiculous even to those to whom they were applied. As a colleague remarked to me several years ago: “I’m not visually challenged – I just can’t bloody well see!” It was manna from heaven for comedians and comedy writers – short people were described as ‘vertically challenged’, fat people as ‘circumferentially challenged’, bald people as ‘follicularly challenged’ – the list was endless. It is perhaps ironic that those in the front line of ‘real’ political correctness failed to take note of what was happening; by coining a new term for the legitimate concept they could have distanced themselves from their idiot fringe.
I accept that the press has a field day with the dafter examples, but I don’t accept your dismissal of most of these stories as urban myths. OK, they might have been embellished by repetition, but many are rooted in truth. The passage of time has enabled the perpetrators (or their successors) to come up with plausible explanations, but the fact that such explanations were not offered until long after the event suggests to me that they are likely to be every bit as mythical as the stories themselves. I recently referred you to the NewcastleGateshead Winter Festival – until recently a Christmas Celebration. You suggested that ‘Winter Festival’ was a reasonable description, because it stretched from November to January. So did the Christmas Celebration; it began and ended with the switching-on (November) and switching-off (January) of the street decorations. That instance is most certainly not an urban myth.
Nor is the instance I describe below. Tyneside has a rich dialect tradition, and conversations are peppered with terms of affectionate regard, such as ‘hinny’ (honey), or less specific equivalents such as ‘pet’ or ‘love’. In 2006, care workers were directed to avoid the use of such terms ‘as some clients might find them offensive’. That is certainly possible, but no doubt such a client would make the offence known and it would not be repeated. The inescapable fact is that the vast majority of clients actively welcomed such forms of address – and in any event care workers were perfectly capable of exercising judgement. So, on the altar of political correctness, the wishes of the majority were outweighed by the perceived POSSIBILITY that a small minority might be offended. That, of course, is so typical of the public perception of political correctness.
Newcastle has a very substantial Chinese community; the city’s ‘Chinatown’ has appropriate street furniture and a distinctive atmosphere. There are major, civic-sponsored celebrations to commemorate the Chinese New Year. They are immensely enjoyable and draw huge crowds. No-one could deny the contribution they make to Tyneside culture. Yet ‘Christmas’, the traditional festival of the indigenous population – religious or otherwise – has become a term to be avoided. The logic absolutely defeats me!
Political correctness can also cost lives. No-one would deny the desirability of ensuring easy disabled access wherever this is possible. But in the 1980s and 1990s urban road improvements were accompanied by a welter of footbridges designed for disabled use. These has zig-zag or spiral ramps to accommodate wheelchairs but, in order to reach the normal road clearance of 5 metres or so at a sufficiently gentle incline, these ramps were very long. The entirely predictable conclusion was that able-bodied pedestrians ignored the bridges and attempted to cross at road level. As a direct result, there were two fatal accidents on a ten-mile stretch of road which I used every day. In the last five years or so, most – if not all – of these bridges have been adapted by adding stepped access to the bridge deck – but on any logical view such access should have been provided at the outset. It seems to me that this is a classical example of the working of the politically-correct mind – a preoccupation with the minority at the expense of the majority.
I applaud the check-list to which you refer, so long as it remains a reference aid rather than a prescriptive manual, but I am afraid that my experience in government service suggests that, in the culture in which it is to be used, the latter alternative is all too possible – and that would contradict what I regard as a fundamental precept of what (so I’m told) was a very successful stint as a manager: never, ever address a problem until you have established that it exists. That is not to say that problems should not be anticipated, but there’s a world of difference between anticipation and assumption.
I am NOT trying to discredit the concept of intelligently assessing the needs and interests of the wider community; this should be an integral part of any review. I do however strongly believe that balance is paramount. The interests of the majority must not be ignored; indeed, if there is a legitimate conflict with the needs of the minority, then majority benefit should prevail. I realise that what I have said can be nit-picked, but in truth I am both flexible and compassionate. I would never intentionally injure anyone, but given the choice of injuring one or injuring ten, the majority wins every time. As I’ve said before, I take the view that the ultimate ethical position is to seek the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number.
So, to return (at last, I hear you say!) to the point. The phrase ‘political correctness’, in the UK at least, is irredeemably tarnished and will continue to be ridiculed by the majority of the population. That does not mean that logic, ethics and compassion should be laid aside; it simply means that the term itself should be avoided and that the excesses committed in its name should be rigorously examined and reversed.
Oh, and Sapir-Wharf (sounds like a nasty, virulent bacterium!) is much more likely to be quoted at a gathering of politicians than at a gathering of applied linguists – not because it has no merit, but because it imputes rather more than it should from its research base.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
