Its not just in writing. Political Correctness is being used as a hammer to prevent people from speaking as they wish. People fear the backlash from anyone they MIGHT offend. I am so sick and tired of people saying “You can’t talk to me like that!” Oh, but yes I can when it involves my habitual way of expressing myself. Swear words and all.
Basically, whether its in writing or common speech, Political Correctness is being used as a method to enforce nice.
You know your argument is resting on a pretty shaky foundation if you bring etymology into it.
That definition is obsolete, mate. Or do you also believe that most homophobes aren’t really homophobes because they’re not technically afraid of gay people?
So what you’re saying is that I’m not allowed to tell you (for example) that the bullshit you spout is fucking stupid, because that would be censorship?
OK.
Yes, it is. It would be a case of the employer censoring the employee (they could do so by telling them to stop promoting whatever notion was problematic, or they could fire them, same thing in terms of the definition).
Again, yes it is. It would be that publisher or retailer censoring a particular work/author.
Censorship isn’t something that can only be practiced by the state.
Nobody’s stopping Anne Rice from publishing her black jew rape fantasy if that’s what she wants to write.
I mean, maybe her publishers are saying they won’t personally publish such a thing, but that’s their right as publishers, no? She can always e-publish/lulu/whatever. I mean, I think she’d actually call a LOT of attention to that field if she did!
Saying political correctness is censorship is misusing both terms. And it sounds like throwing a hissy fit. “It’s not FAIR that I can’t write my black jew rape fantasy with impunity from those who would dislike such a thing!”
Quite the opposite, I’d say.
If you are not aware that words can have several meanings, then perhaps you find it troubling. In any case, a shaky foundation would still be better than none. All you have said about censorship is your idea of what it isn’t. Which I refuted.
I could write you a whole book on that subject, but I am not going to do so here.
If you take this stance to the logical extreme, every publisher would be under the obligation to publish absolutely everything by absolutely everyone, lest they be guilty of “censorship”.
If that’s what she was doing you’d have a point. Political correctness, ideally, is just treating people with respect, trying not to be too much of a dick all of the time. What she’s complaining about though is the ridiculous extremes it gets taken to these days.
No they wouldn’t. No-one has a right to be free from all censorship, there are different laws in different countries about what the government and others can do, but we also have the right to call out over aggressive censorship when we do see it.
And I’m just going to reference this here. (From FB, sorry):
Words can have different meanings. Words can also change meanings over time. If your definition of “censorship” also includes “criticism”, then, well, that’s your pejorative, I guess. It does render your definition functionally useless, though.
Oh please, do go on.
That seems rather recursive. If a person tells you that your criticism is censorship, does that prevent you from critiquing them?
You are bringing a value judgement into this, which suggests that because it can be defined as censorship, that it must be wrong to do so. This commonly happens when people emotionally load terms. For example, my ex complained that in hiring staff, they were not allowed to discriminate, but hiring people is basically 100% discrimination - only not in the sense that they meant - ie discernment versus bigotry against protected categories of people.
She didn’t say that, @pesco did.
Ironic you make this mistake, as this is often the problem, people not being able to understand the content of people’s argument, getting hung up on some specific thing about it, not being able to see the wood for the trees.
Her point was this:
…internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all. That’s my take on it. Ignore what you find offensive. Or talk about it in a substantive way. But don’t set out to censor it, or destroy the career of the offending author.
Nobody is obligated to publish Rice or anybody else. But when submitting one’s work to a publisher, they are agreeing to subject their work to a certain degree of editorial processing. I think that writers should expect a certain amount of protection against this changing the character of their work. When they agree to pay an author for their work, it can be dishonest for them to change or insist upon changes to works they have already agreed to publishing.
Other than that, I think that more authors self-publishing is an improvement. In the e-book age, traditional book companies are really not needed anymore.
A novel work from Ms. Rice, in that it contained no epigraphs attributed to her husband.
That’s a fair point, and probably much closer to the crux of the matter. I’ll fully admit that I really am arguing against extending this colloquial use of the term to mere criticism, precisely because it is emotionally laden - which is exactly what people like Rice are banking on. By calling their criticism “censorship”, they are attempting to make (at least certain forms of) criticism socially unacceptable. When in fact all that’s happening, is people saying that some books are shit (for whatever reason).
That’s debatable, which is why we’re here.
@innerPartisan If your honest opinion is that what I am saying is fucking stupid you are most definitely allowed to say that. Its when people demand that we don’t talk like that which pisses me off.
I don’t think it is censorship in any legal sense, but sometimes these internet shame mobs can do the same job very effectively. As people have pointed out about repressive governments, one of the most effective things they do is not to tell you the rules; the costs of breaking them are too high, so you self-censor at a level greater than you would if you knew where the line was. Twitter acts like this in that it works almost at random and completely out of proportion. It seems pretty common that the target ends up hiding and losing their job over the issue (whether or not they even did anything wrong in the first place), while others who do the same thing aren’t even noticed. Comedians, writers and others can’t afford that, so they have to err on the safe side, just in case someone takes something they say as offensive. In some cases, this is merely about treating people with respect, so no complaints there. The problem is when people feel that they can’t write, speak or publish certain topics because it’s safer to be boring than receive public damnation.
