There’s a real spectrum on the people who get up in arms over political correctness. Some are racists who want to racist. Some are misogynists who want to do that without getting called one it. Continue down the line of people with unpopular opinions who don’t want to get shouted down by a mob for expressing them. Some are abhorrent and hateful, but not all of them.
In my view, “political correctness” is very closely related to the idea of being polite.
And what’s polite changes a lot from place to place. A very religious community might be very uncomfortable discussing religion in a critical way. Other communities (usually online, but depending on who you’re friends with and where you live, maybe in person as well) are uncomfortable discussing religion in a positive way. It’s often seen as impolite to express a minority opinion unless the topic is specifically brought up. The idea is that talking about such things in public without notice reduces community cohesion, which isn’t entirely incorrect. You see advice given to couples dealing with children or to organizations dealing with the public to present a unified front if at all possible. Disagreeing in private is fine and even healthy, but airing that to the world can undermine what you’re trying to accomplish.
The accusation of “political correctness” is essentially that heavy incentives to be as polite as possible in every setting are hurting our ability to talk about sensitive subjects. I’m on the fence myself. Personally, I think that some of the stuff that gets played as political correctness gone mad is administrators or management being overly concerned about their organization’s image, not thinking of the dangerous precedents they’re setting with regard to what is appropriate public discourse. And I think those kinds of actions from universities, corporations, and even governments has perhaps encouraged some students or other members of the public to feel justified in silencing views they disagree with. After all, if it’s fine when they do it, why can’t we have that power? At the same time, some level of politeness, which can take the form of being politically correct in our speech, can help move discussions forward. After all, if we’re not accidentally making others angry with our word choices, we’re more likely to be able to have a constructive discussion, rather than an endless argument over terms, a shouting match, or a flame war.
Since I first viewed that film in 92’, I have held the firm belief that if I could pronounce “orangutan” as well as she does I would never need to use another spoken insult.
/Also that large women are 2nd best at shoplifting.
Could it be it comes from when people owned slaves?
This incident reminds me of a scene in Animal House, when the Delta house guys go on a road trip, and mortally offend the black clientele of a bar with a similar statement (“that’s my man” or some such). At least Animal House was set in 1962, and I imagine the point was to show how offensive it was.
Oh, we had it in the 1960s too, but then it was the Trotskyites. There’s always a number of people at university who are there to shut up anybody they disagree with, since the doctors of the University of Paris were shouting “heretic” at people in the late Middle Ages, and probably before.
The behaviour continues, the name under which it takes place changes.
After all, as one of the Trots explained to me so carefully, you can’t just allow anybody to say what they like in a democracy, because then other people might be misled into incorrect thought.
A very religious community may feel very able to criticise religion. There’s a serious point behind this. People who are confident in their religious beliefs are, I think, more able to challenge them because they accept the idea that “through doubt we end in certainty.” [redacted]
One has the impression that Trump’s remarks don’t come out of any consistent mindset; I have no idea what his worldview looks like but if forced to opt for anything I would go for superficiality. Like our own beloved Boris Johnson, who has been described as a nicer version of Trump, I suspect that what Trump says at any moment is the thing he thinks will get people in the audience to support him. Get him in a room full of Mexican Republicans and he’ll probably tell them what wonderful work Mexicans do in building his hotels.
As I watched that clip, I wondered if it’s recently dawned on Trump that black people vote too. And that he’d have a better chance of winning in November if some of them voted for him.
He seemed to be floundering a bit about how to handle “his” (one) African-American.
He had a talking point to get to, and needed a touchstone to reference. He would have had to use another story about physical violence being a worthy solution if there had been zero African Americans in attendance.
I never thought that I would have nostalgia for dog whistles in stump speeches.
I was getting my haircut and a woman a few chairs over was loudly talking about how she’d been thrown out of a Cracker Barrel for making racist remarks about the employees. Then she added, “And that’s why I’m voting for Trump!”
I realize Trump’s appeal for many people is they believe he makes their racism and xenophobia acceptable, but it was the first time I heard someone say so in such a clear way.
What? Did Ben Carson accidentally sleepwalk through one of Herr Drumpf’s rallies? Watch out Ben or you’ll be Vice President if don’t wander out of there a bit quicker.
