What Is Political Correctness?
- Thread starter Jorah Lavin
- Start date
Douglas & Douglass
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning."
--Frederick Douglass
"The function of free speech under our our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it invites a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."
--Justice William O. Douglas
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning."
--Frederick Douglass
"The function of free speech under our our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it invites a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."
--Justice William O. Douglas
Hmmmm ... let me see if I can put this into a single sentence
Political correctness -- in contravention to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, common sense, personal freedom, and liberty -- seeks to maintain the ideological fallacy that the removal of enumerated rights from the majority, while conferring unenumerated rights to the minority, elicits self esteem and equality for all regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
That about do it?
Political correctness -- in contravention to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, common sense, personal freedom, and liberty -- seeks to maintain the ideological fallacy that the removal of enumerated rights from the majority, while conferring unenumerated rights to the minority, elicits self esteem and equality for all regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
That about do it?
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: pejorative
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin pejoratus, past participle of pejorare to make or become worse, from Latin pejor worse; akin to Sanskrit padyate he falls, Latin ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
: having negative connotations; especially : tending to disparage or belittle : DEPRECIATORY
- pe•jo•ra•tive•ly adverb
Fraternities use "nerds" to mean anyone on campus but them. Kids are really good at this stuff from early on, especially when their use of language is not well developed. It all seems harmless enough unless one is the target of the epithetical expression. Pejorative tries to simplify characterization of a person or group and assign a little box.
Main Entry: ep•i•thet
Pronunciation: 'e-p&-"thet also -th&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin epitheton, from Greek, from neuter of epithetos added, from epitithenai to put on, add, from epi- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
1 a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase c : the part of a taxonomic name identifying a subordinate unit within a genus
2 obsolete : EXPRESSION
- ep•i•thet•ic /"e-p&-'the-tik/ or ep•i•thet•i•cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
----------------------------------
Anyone outside a certain circle of wagons.
WASP
Nigger
Whitey
White trash
Nerd
Rag head
Chink
Jap
Spick
Wet back
Commie
Fascist
Bigot
Idiot
Anti
Gun nut
Anarchist
Sheeple
Demonrat
Repugnicans
Elitist
Intelligentsia
Establishment
Gun grabber
Redneck
Nazi
Gang
Mob
Thug
Radical
Jesus killer
Wealthy
Poor
Seniors
Etc.
Name calling in general.
Being PC can be an expression of intelligence. Taken to extreme, it can be disingenuous or hypocritical.
Basically, I think if one avoids emotionally charged words and phrases, when it is not really their intent to raise the implied issues, it is simply an intelligent use of language. It is always poor writing to use too much vernacular. Being articulate with any amount of refinement is not easy, when language is so carelessly used in day to day speech. It is also not easy when excesses of language are quite fashionable and habits are formed. If one reserves strong language for when it serves well to make the desired rational point, firing for effect; as opposed to indulging in anger; that strong language is far more effective. But one must be prepared to be accountable for widely accepted interpretations of any pejorative. One will not find a discrete word to express every nuance or variance in meaning. It will not be easy to be succinct and well understood at the same time. I think it will be found that use of the pejorative will be counterproductive to communication and will discount ones image as an intelligent, well informed, articulate person. At the very least, one should provide some context in an effort to be somewhat specific. If one does not enjoy being labelled a bigot, that person would need to pay attention to how well he or she communicates.
One of the better examples of political correctness or the lack of it that I have read about lately is our senior Democratic Senator from SC, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, who said pretty explicitly that the US was in the Middle East to help Israel, period. Well, it is just not acceptable, you see, for a US Senator to be that narrow in expression of his view, and it is not fashionable to suggest that a particular ethno-religious group has that much influence. The man is under attack as if everyone but Senators can express a sincere opinion. I don't know that he used any particular pejorative, even the word Jews, but he was immediately attacked as anti-Semite. There is little doubt that the need to be PC can be a tyranny. Hollings fault is in oversimplifying the reasons for US presence in that region. I would agree 100% that supporting Israel is one reason to be in the region, but the religion of the Israelis is not or should not be the issue, and he did not make it one except perhaps by implication, accurate inference of which I see no way to be sure. Opponents are determined to put words in his mouth. I guess the message would be to take care in what one says, unless one is prepared for the hassle, fully aware of the implications, and ready to defend any point that might have been better made in another way. In other words, was it worth it?
If one means to say that all "Muslims" want to kill Americans, never mind that some Americans are Muslims, "Arab" or "A-rab" necessarily denotes a bunch of bad people, or that "American" means rude, ill-tempered, selfish, and arrogant; then they should not expect to have their statements respected or treated with any special regard by mature, intelligent, well informed, articulate people.
I guess I would say that frequent resort to the use of the pejorative, perhaps in an effort to sum up a broad issue in one or a few sentences, is just a failure to be articulate and is perhaps better left unsaid. It would not be unreasonable to tag one as disruptive, perhaps deliberately so, by being careless in their language and thereby assigning others the task of balancing what was stated. If a discussion is mostly comprised of sorting through garbage, it will not be very satisfying except for those who like that sort of thing. Will it be productive? I doubt it.
Those who react poorly to any suggestion of control, even by what should be learned as socially acceptable, are rebellious and self centered in general and will make no concession to any sense of what they should or should not say. If one does not care what others might think, then it should be no surprise if others do not care about their ideas or their intellect.
I have assumed that what this thread is all about is a rebellion against what may or may not be posted with impunity on THR. With the same moderators on duty at TFL, I would expect that THR misfits will not find this forum to be any particular refuge for their vitriol. In my opinion, avoiding the pejorative is part of civility. I wouldn't care to be part of a forum that fosters the "ugly American" image. Since I avoid free-for-all forums like the plague, I would invite the rebellious anarchist to go elsewhere. I certainly support moderators actions in that regard.
Main Entry: pejorative
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin pejoratus, past participle of pejorare to make or become worse, from Latin pejor worse; akin to Sanskrit padyate he falls, Latin ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
: having negative connotations; especially : tending to disparage or belittle : DEPRECIATORY
- pe•jo•ra•tive•ly adverb
Fraternities use "nerds" to mean anyone on campus but them. Kids are really good at this stuff from early on, especially when their use of language is not well developed. It all seems harmless enough unless one is the target of the epithetical expression. Pejorative tries to simplify characterization of a person or group and assign a little box.
Main Entry: ep•i•thet
Pronunciation: 'e-p&-"thet also -th&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin epitheton, from Greek, from neuter of epithetos added, from epitithenai to put on, add, from epi- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
1 a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase c : the part of a taxonomic name identifying a subordinate unit within a genus
2 obsolete : EXPRESSION
- ep•i•thet•ic /"e-p&-'the-tik/ or ep•i•thet•i•cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
----------------------------------
Anyone outside a certain circle of wagons.
WASP
Nigger
Whitey
White trash
Nerd
Rag head
Chink
Jap
Spick
Wet back
Commie
Fascist
Bigot
Idiot
Anti
Gun nut
Anarchist
Sheeple
Demonrat
Repugnicans
Elitist
Intelligentsia
Establishment
Gun grabber
Redneck
Nazi
Gang
Mob
Thug
Radical
Jesus killer
Wealthy
Poor
Seniors
Etc.
Name calling in general.
Being PC can be an expression of intelligence. Taken to extreme, it can be disingenuous or hypocritical.
Basically, I think if one avoids emotionally charged words and phrases, when it is not really their intent to raise the implied issues, it is simply an intelligent use of language. It is always poor writing to use too much vernacular. Being articulate with any amount of refinement is not easy, when language is so carelessly used in day to day speech. It is also not easy when excesses of language are quite fashionable and habits are formed. If one reserves strong language for when it serves well to make the desired rational point, firing for effect; as opposed to indulging in anger; that strong language is far more effective. But one must be prepared to be accountable for widely accepted interpretations of any pejorative. One will not find a discrete word to express every nuance or variance in meaning. It will not be easy to be succinct and well understood at the same time. I think it will be found that use of the pejorative will be counterproductive to communication and will discount ones image as an intelligent, well informed, articulate person. At the very least, one should provide some context in an effort to be somewhat specific. If one does not enjoy being labelled a bigot, that person would need to pay attention to how well he or she communicates.
One of the better examples of political correctness or the lack of it that I have read about lately is our senior Democratic Senator from SC, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, who said pretty explicitly that the US was in the Middle East to help Israel, period. Well, it is just not acceptable, you see, for a US Senator to be that narrow in expression of his view, and it is not fashionable to suggest that a particular ethno-religious group has that much influence. The man is under attack as if everyone but Senators can express a sincere opinion. I don't know that he used any particular pejorative, even the word Jews, but he was immediately attacked as anti-Semite. There is little doubt that the need to be PC can be a tyranny. Hollings fault is in oversimplifying the reasons for US presence in that region. I would agree 100% that supporting Israel is one reason to be in the region, but the religion of the Israelis is not or should not be the issue, and he did not make it one except perhaps by implication, accurate inference of which I see no way to be sure. Opponents are determined to put words in his mouth. I guess the message would be to take care in what one says, unless one is prepared for the hassle, fully aware of the implications, and ready to defend any point that might have been better made in another way. In other words, was it worth it?
If one means to say that all "Muslims" want to kill Americans, never mind that some Americans are Muslims, "Arab" or "A-rab" necessarily denotes a bunch of bad people, or that "American" means rude, ill-tempered, selfish, and arrogant; then they should not expect to have their statements respected or treated with any special regard by mature, intelligent, well informed, articulate people.
I guess I would say that frequent resort to the use of the pejorative, perhaps in an effort to sum up a broad issue in one or a few sentences, is just a failure to be articulate and is perhaps better left unsaid. It would not be unreasonable to tag one as disruptive, perhaps deliberately so, by being careless in their language and thereby assigning others the task of balancing what was stated. If a discussion is mostly comprised of sorting through garbage, it will not be very satisfying except for those who like that sort of thing. Will it be productive? I doubt it.
Those who react poorly to any suggestion of control, even by what should be learned as socially acceptable, are rebellious and self centered in general and will make no concession to any sense of what they should or should not say. If one does not care what others might think, then it should be no surprise if others do not care about their ideas or their intellect.
I have assumed that what this thread is all about is a rebellion against what may or may not be posted with impunity on THR. With the same moderators on duty at TFL, I would expect that THR misfits will not find this forum to be any particular refuge for their vitriol. In my opinion, avoiding the pejorative is part of civility. I wouldn't care to be part of a forum that fosters the "ugly American" image. Since I avoid free-for-all forums like the plague, I would invite the rebellious anarchist to go elsewhere. I certainly support moderators actions in that regard.
"I think if one avoids emotionally charged words and phrases, when it is not really their intent to raise the implied issues, it is simply an intelligent use of language. It is always poor writing to use too much vernacular."
Will be news to Mark Twain.
Often vernacular, well deployed, cuts to the bone. I'm more worried about legalese and polspeak myself. It's not the level of diction, it's the intent and the wit or witlessness behind the words.
Personal insults, we would agree, get us nowhere. But don't be so quick to banish the "rebellious anarchist." That's someone you might need down the road, history has indicated time and time again.
Will be news to Mark Twain.
Often vernacular, well deployed, cuts to the bone. I'm more worried about legalese and polspeak myself. It's not the level of diction, it's the intent and the wit or witlessness behind the words.
Personal insults, we would agree, get us nowhere. But don't be so quick to banish the "rebellious anarchist." That's someone you might need down the road, history has indicated time and time again.
Mark Twain...
along with a host of other great Americans, probably wouldn't last 15 minutes on THR. Some people give bonus points for flowery speech, as opposed to content. The fact is, some people get all bent out of shape over the truth.
It's up to each of us to decide if "having an audience" is worth more than twisting the truth, or our core beliefs, into a nice load of PC fertilizer.
along with a host of other great Americans, probably wouldn't last 15 minutes on THR. Some people give bonus points for flowery speech, as opposed to content. The fact is, some people get all bent out of shape over the truth.
It's up to each of us to decide if "having an audience" is worth more than twisting the truth, or our core beliefs, into a nice load of PC fertilizer.
If you'll go back to the beginning of the thread you'll find that your assumption is flawed. Assumptions, much like the use of pejoratives can make folks look foolish from time to time. Nevertheless, thanks for your post. It may indeed go down in history as the most complete, concise guide to political correctness that has ever been penned. I believe the question has been answered. A state of political correctness is a state in which one worries more about what another might be able to derive from one's stated opinions than the actual intent and content of said opinion. In other words, the fear that someone else might assume something.
"Political correctness is the legal foundation necessary to be in place to criminalize free speech."
As is already happening in supposedly "advanced" places like Canada and Sweden.
First PC, then "hate speech," then Mean Speech, then Speech with Content. After all, who needs discourse when you have MTV and American Id?
As is already happening in supposedly "advanced" places like Canada and Sweden.
First PC, then "hate speech," then Mean Speech, then Speech with Content. After all, who needs discourse when you have MTV and American Id?
"All interesting points, except that I would quarrel with equating truth to the use of rough language."
Racial and ethnic epithets and personal insults advance nothing; what is disturbing is when people find themselves unable to make candid observations that are deemed offensive because, right or wrong in fact, they challenge comfortable assumptions.
Racial and ethnic epithets and personal insults advance nothing; what is disturbing is when people find themselves unable to make candid observations that are deemed offensive because, right or wrong in fact, they challenge comfortable assumptions.