Funny, the primary complainers about “political correctness” believe themselves to be fully without fault.
The difference is that I’d always like to be a better person beyond the shitty programming I get from Amercian society. Paying attention to how framing and structure improves as society may improve with regards to racism, feminism, gay rights and interrelated problems is important to this end.
[quote=“Max_Blancke, post:135, topic:91700”]
The term itself originates in Stalinist USSR. Political correctness was really coming into vogue when I was in graduate school, and the primary practitioners were people who seemed to really enjoy finding fault with others.
[/quote]There is recorded usage far before Stalin, it was just co-opted during Stalin’s reign as a digestible term. Then it was co-opted again as a joke used against the right mocking people for acting like Stalin, and then conservatives took it literally and railed against it since the Reagan administration until it eventually caught on as a completely made up hot-button issue using a few examples sprinkled across the entire country to construct strawmen to take their indignation out against. Political Correctness “came into vogue” in 1990-91 when it was politicized by the right against the left.
I remember people talking about being PC as a matter of pride. But do you know the earliest use of the phrase? I though it was the Stalinist joke.
You know, that’s what I’ve been struck by this entire thread. What does calling someone by the preferred name for their ethnicity or their gender identification cost? So far, I’ve seen a lot of arguments of the “I don’t want to call someone by their preferred identifier, but it’s not because I don’t respect that person!” sort.
Maybe it’s because I’m in academia, and almost everyone I hang out with socially is a PhD and used to some amount of criticism of their ideas, but every time I’ve seen someone be corrected on a gender or racial term, they’ve just been like ‘Oh, sorry, she/he/Honduran/etc’. I’ve never seen anyone get bothered about it. It seems to me that a lot of ink gets spilled relative to the amount of people who actually seem to be suffering under the oppressive yoke of PC culture.
I saw an article that someone shared from Washington Post the other day saying that fears about PC culture drove voters to Trump. Maybe it’s because I only go out to spend time in the countryside for a couple weeks a year, but I’ve never actually seen white people being berated or beaten in the gas stations for not saying Latinx. Who are all these people who are suffering so much from calling people the right pronouns? Where are they? What actual consequences are they suffering?
It’s not just in their head.
What, you don’t know a single holder-than-thou person who takes your words out of context even as you utter them? I have a few in my social circles. Let me give you an example from where they corrected themselves:
Them: So she needs to get a job now. Though I don’t mean to say she doesn’t have a job already, because being a mother and homemaker is valid work which needs to be respected –
Me: Yes yes, so say we all. You mean she’s seeking paid employment. We get it.
I’m sure I sound like an impatient ass in that exchange, but let’s look at what’s happening. They are stating something they know we are all already aware of and agree with (that homemaking and parenting are valid work that should be respected – that’s been discussed in this social circle several times, and the consensus that it is real work is well established). They’re being, therefore, unnecessarily lengthy by adding that breakdown in. They’re preaching to the choir while at the same time implying the rest of those present need education.
Also, by adding in the explanation, they get to talk longer and dominate the conversation.
Understand this is that person’s normal way of speaking. And if you call them on it, they attack by asking why you’re “uncomfortable” with their assertions, implying you must be, deep down, latently sexist or racist or whatever.
But, of course, it’s not their content, but their method which is uncomfortable. By taking such exquisite and lengthy pains to overtly show respect to those who aren’t even present, they wind up disrespecting those who are present.
It all boils down to context. If someone is more focused on the language used in a conversation (assuming the language is already respectful) than in the topic at hand, they’re not really into respect, but grandstanding.
We have always had access to civility and manners. Most people are happy to use whatever pronoun or label that you prefer. It is the enforcement part that people find grating. Like any movement, even if the vast majority of adherents have the best of intentions and behavior, it is the tiny but overly vocal minority who make most of the noise and who become the visible face of the movement. especially when that movement comes with an opportunity to judge others and bend then to your will.
But we are unlikely to see your scenario come about where someone gets denounced and punished at a gas station for pronoun usage, because there is no mechanism for enforcement. Oddly, I did hear almost exactly that argument made by someone who feared Clinton being elected. I can’t quote him exactly, but it was along the lines of “you may laugh at the SJW crybullies screaming about microagressions, but imagine a world where they had the full force of law and the resources of the federal government to enforce their views.” I think that result was pretty unlikely, but I am sure it influenced some voters.
There are plenty of available accounts and videos of people getting screamed at over cultural appropriation or some other minor or imagined slight. Mostly, these are treated with some amount of humor. Probably the instigators have deeper emotional or maturity issues. But those outbursts are what people remember.
here is one- The guy took it pretty well, but judge for yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAwSFv8e8K4
People who rail against being politically correct think that the people in question don’t deserve the respect that the effort requires. Even if the price is zero, the cost of being decent to someone else is too dear.
So some people are shallow twits, and some people are irritating.
In what way does that justify silencing the expression of social disapproval in response to bigotry and general dickishness? Because that is what the anti-PC crusaders are demanding.
Listen to what the comics who refuse to do colleges any more are actually saying. The problem isn’t that they aren’t allowed to tell racist/sexist/homophobic jokes, it’s that they aren’t allowed to tell jokes about any of those things.
Comic: “So, I have this buddy- He’s black- and”
Audience: BOO! THAT’S RACIST!
Comic: “uh, so we’re at this club one night, and the bartender-”
Audience: RACIST! GET OFF THE STAGE! BOO!
It literally doesn’t matter whether the joke was punching up or down, the split second the crowd thinks that you might be going there, they flip out. It’s not about the point of the joke, it’s the fact that the comic used a word they didn’t think he should be using, and right at that moment, the audience decides they don’t want to hear any more. This is especially problematic because turning the tables between the setup and the punchline is one of the most common formats for a good joke- But today’s audience won’t let you get that far.
This is coming, BTW, from both big names like Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock, as well as from lesser known comics. I’ve met hundreds of them, and this is a pretty widely experienced thing.
No, it doesn’t justify silencing. That’s why I went to some lengths to note the “twit” behaviour was occurring when no-one was being dickish or exclusionary.
It does justify using more than blunt-instrument, mechanical, auto-correct language policing.
It also means that anyone promoting the use of respectful terms is going to have to think about what they want out of each encounter. Do you want the person to say, “hey, I never thought of it that way. I’ll keep that on mind from now on.”
Do you want them to break down in tears, apologise for their existence, and beg for forgiveness?
Or do you just really like calling people out?
I take it as given that being a racist, sexist asshat is wrong and is therefore unjustifiable. What I would prefer to work towards are finding more effective ways of demonstrating and communicating that it’s unjustifiable.
That’s sort of where I make the distinction between actual political correctness, and what gets written off as political correctness- Is this a matter of referring to people as they asked you to, or is it going out of your way to come up with something inoffensive when nobody was offended in the first place?
Years ago, people decided that the word “deaf” was insensitive, so they started using “hearing impaired” instead. Deaf people basically said “fuck off- we’re not impaired, we just speak a different language”, and not only kept using “deaf”, but started insisting it be capitalized.
And we end up with situations where you don’t know what the “correct” term is- Most of the black people I know are offended at being called “African-American”*, even though I know there are plenty of people who feel just the opposite.
But again, it goes back to my general argument that conservatives are incapable of understanding context. They see any change to the language as unnecessary meddling, not as an overdue form of respect.
*Context: I live in a very white state, but in an area with a sizable refugee population. I also have a lot of friends who study African drumming. Most of the black people I come across are actual Africans- Either here on a work visa and not American at all, or they’re immigrants who feel like it belittles the citizenship they earned to have to put their origin before “American”.
I understand the general sentiment you’re expressing. But with hearing impaired, hearing impairment is an actual condition (or it is according to the special ed manual in my home office, which is getting old), and that condition is distinct from deafness. If that is the case, I would say that this is a successful example of political correctness - that people who were negatively affected, or not accurately described by a term, rejected that term to some degree of success.
To the rest of your comment, I don’t always expect that I can know the right term, a priori. In my family, there are Indian American people (from India), black people, Native American people and Lakota people. All of those identities are informed by something, often the availability of information. My cousin identifies as Native because his mother is white and his paternity is an open question, but is one of two men who are both Native. His wife grew up on reservation and identifies very strongly with her tribe.
I think you’re exactly right about the context thing. Outside of knowing what I know about my cousin’s wife’s history, I would not know how to refer to her accurately. That doesn’t mean that that context is transferable to any other person.
Perhaps my lack of problem with ‘PC Culture’ is that I generally feel people are too attached to untested assumptions, and that we’d all be better if we approached people and let the data that they choose to give us inform our opinions more strongly.
I’m not sure I buy that though. There are plenty of contemporary comics who regularly slay audiences with jokes about racism/sexism/homophobia (Aziz Ansari and Louis CK come to mind), Jerry Seinfeld just isn’t one of them anymore.
I still think that if a comedian isn’t connecting with an crowd it’s probably due to a shortcoming of the performer rather than the audience.
I need hearing aids to function in society but I’m far from deaf.
I’m working on an algorythm as we speak that replaces all instances of “Boingboing” with “people appointing themselves to the role of cultural authoritarians”. Soon everything will become clear.
One of the actual problems people have with the principles of political correctness (and by 'principle’ I mean what it is describing rather than the specific words used to describe it—mind-blowing, I know) is its implicit authoritarian overtones. There’s a huge gulf between treating people with basic respect, and having it mandated what words you must and must not utter. Replacing all instances of “political correctness” with “language policing” does not make it sound any more benign at all, would you believe.
Another problem is that the words that you must and must not utter are arbitrary and subject to constant change; and if you ever get it wrong, you risk becoming a pariah/losing your career. And one of the reasons the words keep changing is because the stigma attached to the word-that-must-not-be-uttered always catches up with whatever “correct” word is currently in use, because the words themselves were never the problem in the first place. Regardless, depending on your environment, the threat of saying the wrong thing, or failing to say the correct thing, can become such an oppressive presence that people end up erring on the side of caution to unreasonably bizarre degrees, with none too hilarious consequences.
And out of interest, who exactly is it that gets to decide what words must and must not be uttered, and where can they be contacted to obtain an official up to date list of the most current Orwellian Newspeak?
Honestly, I’ve never actually liked Jerry Seinfeld, but that’s just me. Believe me when I say this is coming from a lot of comics- A lot of really good comics.
I have to admit, I don’t give being politically correct much thought. I notice when the phrases that I grew up using and hearing fall out of favor, and I try to use the current correct terms, but I’ve had people occasionally correct me, and maybe that is what bothers some. If I hear someone use improper grammar, I wouldn’t demean them by correcting them, unless they were under 10, even if hearing things said poorly does make me cringe inside a little.
I draw the line at all the CIS and gender neutral pronouns and stuff. And I’ll admit that I laughed and rolled my eyes when I learned about some of the things coming out of the Occupy movement, like up-sparkles or whatever it was. I think that has more to do with me being old and tragically unhip more than anything else.
Understood. But also understand that nobody focuses on self-moderation, even when it’s by far the most largest and most significant element of any movement. For every university incident where someone is playing “gotcha” with language, there are literally millions of times when someone doesn’t use a term that either might hurt listeners or reinforces detrimental social stereotypes.
Now an interesting question is “why use the term ‘political correctness’ instead of ‘treating people with respect’?”
My answer is the two terms aren’t entirely synonymous. I’ve always attempted to show respect according to my culture. However, P.C. is a recognition that I have some obligation to show respect according to other cultures as well. And that means not using terms that other cultures find offensive.
I’ll accept people decrying what I see as acts of bullying using the tools of PC, but I will not abandon the term as it has distinct meaning and use beyond “treating people with respect” that I think has been and still is very useful towards building the sort of society I wish to see.
Again, I reserve the right to decide exactly how far I go with PC, and accept the judgment that occurs as a result of my choice.
Maybe I just haven’t heard a compelling example of a talented comedian getting silenced by demands for political correctness yet.
An old friend of mine does stand-up and, like others you mentioned, he’s complained about over-sensitive audiences too. But he often tests out material by sharing it on Twitter and Facebook and based on what I’ve seen the jokes that aren’t getting laughs are honestly just the ones that aren’t that funny.
As one example, during the Olympics last summer he joked:
Everyone is talking about how all the pools in Rio turned green but not about how the entire US gymnastics team turned black.
Now when he posted this he thought this was comedic gold and was disappointed when it was basically met with the digital equivalent of eye rolls. Nobody was telling him “you can’t joke about that!” but some of us gently pointed out that 3 out of 7 women and 2 out of 7 men isn’t “entirely black.” Of course, from his point of view this response was another example of PC Culture killing comedy. From our point of view it was just not one of his funnier jokes.
