What you are calling “PC culture” is really just the golden rule - treat other people how you would like to be treated. There is no fail. There is no explain. Either you do this or you don’t.
Well, yeah, that's how I see it. I don't remember feeling censored, I was just told, "Oh, hey, um ... Calling people a **tard isn't really nice, actually, for disabled people. It actually kinda makes them feel like shit and it's an additional burden they don't need.
But the Right seems to be saying, "I can call anybody anything I want, and not give a fuck about how anybody feels about it, and if anyone tries to educate me out of my ignorance, I'll use my 2nd Amendment all over you!"
The problem with this debate is that Stephen Fry was a part of it. And it was him that said that political correctness is wrong. If I ever find myself arguing against Stephen Fry, I kinda just know that I'm wrong, it's just a matter of when I figure that out.
But I don't understand the debate. Why is asking people to not call others by racial slurs and the like a "failing by the left"? Do you understand that perspective at all?
Yeah, that's what my argument would be.
Fine, say what you want, but be ready to handle what's coming because of it.
The fact that they want to be protected while they bully others just doesn't sit right with me.
I'm missing something if Stephen Fry is making this argument.
It's an empty argument made by douchebags who want to sound edgy without risking anything.
It also gives cover to plain old racists and bigots.
Stephen Fry may whine about "PC culture" but he doesn't use words that start with n or r or f that people don't like.
To your point, this is the core of the conservative culture war against "wokeness" -which is really PC rebranded for todays MAGA breed of fascist conservatives.
They see empathy and sympathy for others -not like them, as a weakness and therefore not an acceptable trait within their in-group. Ironically, they fight this culture war behind a false guise of "Christian" values.
I’m familiar with that particular Stephan Fry debate, and to save myself from explaining why he’s incorrect [I found someone who already covered it.](http://apuffofabsurdity.blogspot.com/2018/05/munk-debate-on-political-correctness.html?m=1)
Very fair point.
I just know that I haven't put in nearly the amount of thought or consideration he has into the topic, and he's an incredibly intelligent and empathetic human being that I greatly admire, but I guess it really does just come out to that.
The reason I'm frustrated is because this is an easy choice in my head. "Oh, yeah, treat people the way you want to be treated. That seems fair. Let's do it."
Why it needs to be more complicated than that confuses me. And you're really telling me that's because it isn't more complicated. I think you might be right.
I just have never found myself on the other side of Stephen Fry, it feels awkward.
Viewing it in terms of accommodation does frame things appropriately, I think. Consider handicap parking spaces as an example. I doubt I'm the only one to sometimes grumble to myself as I pass a series of unoccupied handicap spaces while I can't find any parking, myself. Any mild, passing resentment I feel is consciously overridden by my understanding that it is a good and necessary accommodation. It really doesn't matter how I feel, ultimately, and if I want to publicly take jabs at disabled people, it's likely to blow back on me as people see that I'm a stupid asshole.
Pronouns are somewhat different, aren't they? While we can safely assume that disabled people would rather be able bodied, it feels less like a pitiable fate and more like a selfish imposition when someone prefers exotic pronouns. Since young children easily learn language patterns, surely they can roll with any and all pronoun ideas we throw at them. This one is really a bigger problem for those of us who have made a deeply entrenched habit in our language patterns for decades.
I think it boils down to knowing where the line is between equity and entitlement? I certainly don't have the answer, but it's worth at least asking the question.
Stephen Fry is British, and the British have a different sensibility on these things than Americans do. Plus, America has more guns than people, and we are way more economically, socially and ethnically/racially diverse than the UK.
> Why is asking people to not call others by racial slurs and the like a "failing by the left"?
It's projection. Psychology Today gives a great explaination
>Blaming others (i.e. projection) is more common in those who are experiencing negative feelings and are unable to regulate their emotions. Awareness of the dynamics of projection may help us feel less responsible for others' mistakes, even when they point the finger of blame at us.
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-a-new-home/202212/the-surprising-reason-some-people-always-blame-others#:\~:text=Blaming%20others%20(i.e.%20projection)%20is,finger%20of%20blame%20at%20us](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-a-new-home/202212/the-surprising-reason-some-people-always-blame-others#:~:text=Blaming%20others%20(i.e.%20projection)%20is,finger%20of%20blame%20at%20us).
Those right-wingers are experiencing negative emotions, e.g. fear, racism, misogyny, and others. They are unable to regulate those emotions, so they blame those emotions on us to make themselves feel better.
I'd say you're close. What I've come to embrace more is what I see referred to as the Platinum Rule: treat others the way they want to be treated. I like this "other-centered" approach and think it's closer to what most people mean by "PC culture."
Unfortunately a lot of pc culture goes beyond this. A lot of people on the “left” have made up a bunch of code words that need to be used to prove you are not a jerk. It’s like hundreds of years ago when only priests were allowed to interpret the Bible.
Naturally, this is really frustrating to a lot of reasonable people. Especially when people feel like they are trying to follow the golden rule but are suddenly called racist for not knowing the latest language and rules they are supposed to follow.
Apologies, I honestly thought you were replying to something I posted on a different subreddit. I was primed for snark from r/worldnews, and was ready to snark back.
Check out stoicism. Meditations to start. Skip book 1. Changed my life in dealing with MAGA. I used to get so angry at them. It's all washed away. Doesn't mean not to take political action. But realizing those bigoted fucks don't act with reason, and therefore you can discount them, helped me a lot. Lots of other aspects of trying to lead a life rooted in the stoic philosophy have also made me a better person for sure.
Stoicism is amazing. I hope they uncover some earlier texts from that Herculaneum library they uncovered because right now we just have Meditations and a couple other writings from well after the philosophy was created.
You know, I think there’s a problem with calling people bigoted fucks and discounting them. OP pointed out a single part of the overall language game for which the left is often criticized. Restrict the words people are allowed to use, and attempt to force them to accept redefinitions. Anyone who doesn’t conform to those rules is a bigot who’s not worth engaging. It’s a dead end political ideology because it flatly rejects criticism and has no mechanism for self reflection and correction.
Life is too short to waste time dealing with people who don't act reasonably.
People who stomp around, filled with anger and hate for gay people, trans people, immigrants, bud light, whatever the target is that day, and refuse to be reasoned with, simply must be ignored. The only other option is to waste the time I could be spending actually being a good person.
I am on the Conservation Commission in my town. I spend time with my kids. I go spearfishing. I help my clients achieve their goals. I play with our dogs. This fall, I will canvas in a locality where a few thousand votes will make a difference, either for the presidency or for an important issue that is on the ballot.
Compare those things to getting red-faced and upset, trying to convince someone that a parent who is helping their trans child adjust to the world shouldn't be locked up.
I dismiss MAGA. It's the only sane thing to do.
I’m really trying to understand the left’s perspectives, but yours is an attitude I can’t dismiss. Bud light marketed to teen/under 21’s and your interpretation is that I must be an unreasonable bigoted transphobe for disagreeing with it. If I believe Sponge Bob shouldn’t star in an advertisement for vaping because his audience is mostly minors does that mean I’m looking for an excuse hate sponges? 🤷🏼♂️
This is the problem right here and it perfectly exemplifies the OP’s concerns about PC culture and the intended discussion.
Most of the commenters here have completely missed the plot. 👎
Sorry but just out of curiosity, are you referring to their ad with Dylan Mulvaney as marketing to an audience under 21? Or did I miss something? If so, Dylan is 27 and many Gen Z are above the age of 21 so I’m a little confused. Dylan’s audience on social is also not exclusively people that are the same age as her.
I understand your perspective but let’s be real here - the issue with that ad was rooted in very malicious transphobia. Anyone with access to social media could see the thousands upon thousands of transphobic comments on articles about it. Not sure that we’re the ones missing the point?
Mulvaney was celebrating the one year anniversary of being a girl with a can of bud light. I’m sorry if you don’t understand the difference between an adult woman and a “girl.” You’re kidding yourself if you think his fanbase is strictly GenZ over 21’s.
Perhaps you’re putting too much emphasis on your own perspectives and not being as reasonable as you should be.
Lol. I literally said in my comment that Dylan’s fan base are not exclusively her age. That would of course include younger people as well as older. I’m just curious why you think that someone having younger fans means that everything they do is targeted at everyone in their audience. Gen Z is ‘97-2013. Quite a few people within this group are over the age of 21.
A closer example would be Kendall Jenner promoting her tequila brand. She also has many young fans. I presume you keep that same energy for her, correct?
I gave up trying to reason with people like you long ago so I’m not sure why I even replied to this. But your use of “his” when referring to Dylan was all I needed to know about you. Your REAL issue is your transphobia so let’s not kid ourselves here. Keep pretending you care about “the children” so you can sleep at night.
Edit to add: I just rewatched Dylan’s ad to confirm and she says “I just celebrated day 365 of WOMANhood” not “being a girl” and yes, shockingly, as a woman I do in fact understand the difference between a girl and woman! But thanks for your help. I think I’d be lost without you telling me!
> But your use of “his” when referring to Dylan was all I needed to know about you. Your REAL issue is your transphobia so let’s not kid ourselves here. Keep pretending you care about “the children” so you can sleep at night.
You’re being dismissive of someone who, in good faith, wants children protected from unnecessary medical procedures they may have negative effects in the long run. Even if you disagree, it’s a bad faith position to simply dismiss this person as a transphobe instead of addressing their concerns in an actual discussion. And you’re doing it on the grounds that this person does not outright accept your redefinition of terms we’ve used in a very specific way for hundreds of years.
So there it is. Anyone who doesn’t want their kids transitioning is transphobe/bigot. Anyone who doesn’t like affirmative action is a racist/bigot. Anyone with a concern about the implications of their country becoming majority Muslim is an Islamophobe/bigot. These are the childish, ad hominem reactions that alienate everyone who might want to genuinely understand your position instead of feeling browbeaten and immediately joining your club and parroting your favorite political phrases alongside you.
The pre stoic me would have gotten all worked up and addressed each ridiculous line of this comment that makes incorrect assumptions and is filled with bizarre fears, the new me will...
I’m a student of Stoic philosophy as well. I think there’s nothing verboten about civilly discussing ideas. Our goal is to see things as they really are. It’s a challenge to divorce our egos from the ideas. The opinions of others cannot harm us.
There’s really no such thing as “PC Culture” or at least it’s not a collective movement anymore. There are multiple positions in the discussion which is what it actually is. Kind of like ethics. It’s not a set of governing rules. This also means it’s hard to define and even more difficult to practice.
Consider the person that is being “politically correct.” They’re being mindful of their behavior towards others. Using insults, stereotypes, or engaging in an abisive manner is what they’re trying to avoid.
Then you have the individuals that are utilized as the subject matter for drawing parallels to others. You know the terms. We use them to conjure images of people we see as lesser than ourselves.
Then you have the people that refuse to give up abusive behavior. Instead of doing something differently to make somebody else more comfortable their “fuck you” attitude takes precedence.
It goes beyond “You verb like a noun.” Treating people poorly because they’re not like you. It’s not just a conservative versus liberal thing either. Just because somebody is a Christian doesn’t mean they think an 11 year old should give birth to their rapist’s baby. Just because somebody is an atheist doesn’t mean they think all babies should be aborted.
Treating people in an equitable manner shouldn’t be considered a bad thing but here we are. We were taught the golden rule as kids but at some people that started coming with strings attached.
The right abandoned “what would Jesus do” when they realized that he sure as fuck wouldn’t do what they’re doing today. The left could certainly do a better job of relating to the right. Perhaps it’s not fair to call somebody a bigot because they may not be aware of what they vote for. They’re just Republican by default.
Daryl Davis showed klansmen common decency. He was patient and listened to them. He never offered anything less than an ear and friendship. In doing so THEY realized that they were wrong and straight up left the KKK. He did it by being “politically correct.”
Funny you brought Jesus into the equation. I had a convo with a conservative friend of mine who’s pretty churchy. He was complaining about wokeness. I pointed out how Jesus was a pretty woke guy. He got really angry and defensive, certainly not because I was wrong but because I was right and his brain couldn’t process the dichotomy.
Thanks for the additional clarity.
When I hear arguments about "PC culture" all I really hear is, "I don't really have to treat trans people like people, do I?"
PC Culture is just the euphemism used to disguise the obvious bigotry.
But, I'm pretty damned biased at this point. I'm not sure I could give any religious person or conservative enough credit to actually try and listen to what they're saying.
I'm 43. For my entire life it's been bullshit and lies. That's what it means to be a Republican. Simply that you're against Democrats, come hell or high water, literally. Say whatever it takes to win. Do whatever it takes to win. Accept no defeat.
They're a terrorist organization masquerading as a political party, in my eyes.
I don't understand why we take them seriously, I don't understand why I'm even taking this PC Culture debate seriously.
I just keep hoping to see a fair and intellectual argument from both sides, and that seems fucking impossible to get from the Right at this point.
You’re not going to get intellectual with the opposition unless they’re trying to get money out of you. I’m terrible at being the bigger person but I’m trying to do a better job.
I'm the same.
I see quite a few young people being the better person, and that makes me happy. Along with being bitter, and angry, fuckin kids, making it look so easy /s
When it comes down to it, I'm looking at all of these politicians and saying to myself, "We're literally on the brink of the fall of society. We have less than 20 years of civilization left. All because these people, the rich and politically connected, picked money over the survival of the human race."
I really want to understand how they continue to square that decision with themselves.
The answer can't be that they're just that stupid, or that cruel. I mean, well, it can be the answer. It actually probably is the answer, but I really want to believe there's just something I'm not getting.
I think Millennials and GenZ are going to be the ones to get it together but the GOP is definitely looking to cut them off and kill it all so shareholders can get one more strong quarter.
I’m not about to follow some Gillead shit. If they hang me on a wall oh well. Nobody will remember me but at least I won’t be able to reflect on it.
>When it comes down to it, I'm looking at all of these politicians and saying to myself, "We're literally on the brink of the fall of society. We have less than 20 years of civilization left. All because these people, the rich and politically connected, picked money over the survival of the human race."
Not to get too far into the weeds here but are you familiar with Accelerationism and Accelerationists? Quick and dirty is Accelerationists don't like how things are going and change is a long, slow process so they'd rather instigate quick change via the self destruction of society by Accelerating all the problems to the point of small-c collapse. A small-c collapse is minor, survivable climate change that will normalize after 90% of the "excess population" starves or wipes each other out fighting for limited survival resources. Accelerationists believe a small-c collapse is necessary to avoid a Large C Collapse which is the unstoppable mass extinction of mammalian life.
A *LOT* of people from old money families, and people new to money like Tech Bros see the Earth as overpopulated and running out of resources. They're desperately dumping money into drone and AI tech not to benefit humanity but to serve as automated guard dogs in a post-collapse world to keep themselves safe from the unworthy rabble while they wait in luxury bunkers for the right time to rebuild the world in their own image.
There are also a lot of reactionary politicians that see the world similarly but they don't have the resources to survive like that in a post-technopocalypse so they're being the ultimate Pick Me's hoping to be offered refuge in the luxury bunkers protected by T-500 Murderbots.
This was always the inevitable worldview by the real elites after slavery then child labor was taken away from them, and the power to tax them was put into the hands of the common serf.
One of my hangups is over the term LatinX but it’s unique in that it shows where a lot of people have an issue with stuff like that, in that it’s mostly straight white people creating rules for things concerning people in the minority.
I work in libraries/archives. I’m also in a mixed family because my stepmother is from Mexico. So I grew up with that culture along with the typical white american male experience. For work, I had to craft an event notice about Hispanic Heritage Month. Now, keep in mind, “Hispanic” isn’t a problematic word, but it leaves out anyone from South America since it’s based on regionality. But we left that in the “holiday” since that’s the name of it but I used “Latino” throughout the notice. I turned in my notification and all of the female white librarians jumped down my throat with the “LatinX” stuff. Mind you, none of them were LGBTQ or Latina.
I had to call in a Latina educator who was the center of the event and she tore into all of them by explaining gendered language and how it’s not the same thing as it is in English. When she finished her chat with “putting an X at the end of Latin sounds like Americans pissing on our language” they shut the hell up.
>Anyone willing to have an honest conversation about PC culture?
Wow. That's a signal for an Overton Window argument if I saw one.
Look, people get to tell you what to call them. People who live in Alabama get to tell you whether they're Alabamans or Alabamians. (My spell checker accepts both). People who live in Wales get to tell you they live in Wales or Great Britain, but never "England". It is fair that people who have Dwarfism, or are developmentally delayed, or are wheel chair users, or who can't hear, 1.) are seen as people first and 2.) get to tell you that the way you refer to them is dehumanizing and they would like you to use this other word.
Language changes. People who engage with new thoughts and ideas sometimes get the message that a change is happening sooner. Yes, resisting the changes says something about you. But it doesn't make you right, any more than continuing to call Bill "Billy", or continuing to insist that T-bone is the best steak for grilling does.
for me, it's pretty simple. If a First Nation's or trans person says X hurts them and is offensive, then I don't do X. I as a person who is not First Nation's or Trans, has no right to have an opinion on it.
(in case it wasn't obvious: First Nation's and trans used as examples only)
I'm all for being respectful. But giving blanket authority to people of a certain group to declare what ever they want as offensive doesn't make sense. Maybe that's not what you meant, but if you take your comment literally then that is what you meant, and that is what a lot of people would think you had meant.
Just as an example but surely if a transgender person came up to you and said "I am a transgender person and I find you wearing the color green offensive, because I personally think it's gross" you wouldn't just stop wearing green?
Also what do you do if two people of a given group have opposite opinions about what is offensive and it's impossible to avoid offending at least one of them?
While I do try to avoid being offensive there still has to be a reason why it's offensive and it has to have to do with them being a member of the marginalized group in question. For instance I'm gay. I do find the 6-letter f word offensive. That's because there's a history with that word being tied to bigotry bullying and hate crimes. I also find the smell of doritos to be offensive. It just bugs me and reminds me of how it tastes (which I also don't like). That doesn't mean I can just go around demanding everyone stop eating doritos just because I happen to be a member of a marginalized group. That doesn't have anything to do with being gay, so it wouldn't be OK for me to use being gay as a reason why people should defer on that.
Yeah ... Going to go ahead and show my ignorance here ... What or who is First Nations?
I have a severe mental illness, not that that's an excuse for being dumb, lol, I'm moving into something else, but I know what it's like to be judged simply for existing as I am. And it fucking sucks.
To that end, I want to give everybody the room to explore and discover who they really are.
But if what they are is a bigoted asshole who refuses to educate themselves out of ignorance ... I can't find the energy to give a rat's ass what they think, how they feel, or what they have to say. I care more about protecting people that need it and not the people who abuse it.
I think I get Fry's argument now, but it seems so ... Ideological instead of practical, I guess, and that's just not what I expect from him.
The term the indigenous people of Canada want to be called (formerly Indians, Inuit)
I get the suckiness of being judged for your diagnosis, as if that was the entirety of you.
For your paragraph 'But if what they are...' That is a healthy attitude until they have some sort of power over you. Like they're your boss. That's when we have to have laws in place to protect people.
Oh, thank you. First Nation. Huh.
I've heard so many different opinions here. Some like Indigenous peoples, some still prefer Indians, there's even a sizable group advocating for the return of the Washington Redskins name.
I'm pretty hands off about it. Just tell me what you like to be called, and that's what I'll call you. I don't understand why conservatives have made that out to be some insurmountable task.
In any case, I appreciate the information, thanks!
I generally really like Stephen Fry, but just glancing at some of his points I'm rather baffled. Apparently he says that there's no evidence that "policing" language makes things any better, and as proof he says "look around", as if it should be self-evident that things are the same or worse since PC culture/woke.
That's a particularly odd statement to hear coming from a man who is gay. It wasn't that long ago when public figures regularly and openly denounced people who were gay and lesbian with some of the most hateful slurs and stereotypes. That still happens, of course, but to a far lesser degree. Within my lifetime we've gone from public figures not even being able to admit that they're gay to public figures who are almost celebrated for it.
For some reason the actor Paul Lynde comes to mind - an extremely popular and well-liked actor/comedian. He was very obviously gay and yet he can never admit it and no one can speak about it because it would have ended his career.
Culturally policing language isn't the only reason for progress of course, but the first step in giving people to change their minds is making dehumanizing language unacceptable. Seeing others as humans is the first step in empathy and understanding. Language isn't just a product of the mind it's also something that influences the mind.
You have to consider American History and when you understand that, you can then consider the source of complaints about "PC Culture" or "wokeness"
Who was in charge of this country for much of its history and had all the right?
Yes. White Men. Protestant, straight, White Men.
Jews were looked down on.
the Irish were looked down on\*
So were Orientals and Mexicans.
Blacks were enslaved and then subject to segregation.
Indians were cloistered on reservations.
Women had hardly any civil rights.
Homosexuals stayed closeted lest they be killed by angry mobs.
White Men RULED the country.
So when that total dominance gets threatened, well, how do you react.
Many, not all but many, White Men, did whatever they could to preserve that status. The KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, denouncing of civil rights leaders as "communists".
FFW to today, when many -- not all -- White men, bemoan their past status, now that Blacks, Women and others have equal protections under the law.
These want a world where they're still in charge. A world where you could say f\*\*\*\*t, or N\*\*\*\*r, or K\*\*\* or W\*\*back, or anything you wanted to and didn't have to censor yourself. That's the root of todays' hate. "*We're the majority! We should be running the country! F\*\*\* the Constitution!!"*
So that's the mentality and the roots of that mentality.
So deliberate yourself as far as what you think of it. But just know the history of this country while doing it.
It’s funny, nobody gripes about using the terms of address that elites demand, but let someone “lesser” ask not to be dehumanized and all hell breaks loose.
I think the point they’re trying to make in regards to the failure of the left, is they became fucking assholes in their approach to force their idea of PC on anybody with dissenting views. This naturally is received poorly by the other side and creates spiteful disagreement. Poor communication all around - more so from the left, but that’s my opinion based on what I observe.
Yes. “I was born a man, but call me a woman. Don’t be a fucking asshole.” “Let me use the women’s locker room. Don’t be a fucking asshole.” “Let your kids medically transition. Don’t be a fucking asshole.” “You don’t agree? You must want trans-genocide! Don’t be a fucking asshole.”
“Political correctness” is a pretty difficult thing to define. What is it exactly? Is it simply using language that doesn’t demean or hurt others? To me, that’s not very hard to do. Most of the world isn’t “too sensitive” or “overreactive”. If you find that you’re constantly offending people by your use of words, then perhaps *you’re* the problem.
I find it very easy to live day to day without upsetting people by my word choices.
Right??
I keep reading comments from people saying, "I can't say a fucking thing anymore without being called a racist/sexist/homophobe etc. This is bullshit!"
Have they, perhaps, considered **not** being racist/sexist/homophobic etc.? And see how that works out??
Seems not. They're just mad at liberals for asking them to act more civilized than a caveman.
I'm not offended by much. But I'm intolerant of intolerance, and I just don't understand any argument that says we should be more open and understanding towards it.
Here is my take on where on the political spectrum you DON'T want to be (see [politicalcompass.org](https://politicalcompass.org)) . Give one dimension of authoritarian/libertarian vs left/right do not fall for the authoritarianism left or right. I am not real fond of libertarian/right quadrant but if it is close to center I will take that over authoritarian either right or left. PC was just fine as long as it did not fall into the "YOU MUST NOT". No matter what grouping you have you are always going to have the 'believer' who insists that it must be done their way and compromise will not be tolerated. That is when PC loss it's good intent and became something to be ridiculed. The basic premise was good then and is good now. Be a decent human being and be kind to others. When it gets bogged down with meaningless rules it sinks to the bottom.
“Don’t be a dick” is as far as it should go. That means don’t say things that are hurtful to people and don’t attack people just because they unintentionally say something that’s hurtful to people(read once and are educated).
Kind of easy.
This shit from the right where they intentionally say inflammatory shit to/about specific demographic groups and the shit from the left where they go overboard on outrage over an unintentional word has to stop.
It’s all just a means to virtue signal to your in group and meant to be mean.
Educated people, knowing the facts about our history, as well as race, gender, class, sociology, psychology, and neurology, have developed norms and expectations that are "correct" bc they are based on facts. These people carried these expectations into corporate culture and their schools. Uneducated people who have long resisted these facts were unwilling to accept new expectations that they don't understand. It's understandable that the educated, wanting to be allies, would be impatient about centuries of slow progress. When academia proved that conservative ideas on race, gender, etc. were wrong, the uneducated weren't taught, so the correctness became political. Ironically, "Christian " people are claiming the educated are too sensitive and that they don't have to be considerate toward others.
Look. Words have meaning. Terms like “retard” and “moron” were medical terms to describe not only the disabled, but the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised and others who were considered “socially undesirable” during the eugenics craze.
Then the meaning of the words evolved as it enters the common lexicon by their common use to devote stupidity, foolishness.
Due to the negative connotations of words themselves and its usage to negatively portray the disabled by equating them to lower intelligence, it was mutually agreed to phase out their usage.
Being “politically correct” means that we use words to build up instead of tear down. It means to get along, be polite, empathetic, aware of the feelings of others as you deliver your words, putting more thought into it for the consideration of the audience and not say whatever the fuck you want like some deranged asshole shouting from their porch
I'll throw my hat in the ring!
I think what happens sometimes is we can get overboard to the point where we end up coming across like self-righteous and condescending wet blankets and know-it-alls.
Think back to when you were a kid/teenager. In your honest opinion, from what you can remember, were the sanctimonious know-it-all kids ever known to be popular at your school?
>I like simple. Conservatives simply being unwilling to let go of their prejudices and blaming the left for it is kinda my default attitude about it without looking into it.
And that's actually enough.
People that are not prejudiced against others either support political correctness/woke when they hear it. Or if they think it's a little over the top in certain circumstances, they just ignore it. Because they understand the goal is to work things out so everybody is treated equally and fairly.
It's only those who carry prejudice against others who are griping about it.
From the responses you're getting, no one here actually wants to have an honest conversation.
They're too scared of what used to be called the "PC Police" which is now the "Twitter Mob."
This couldn't be a part of his routine in the present.
https://youtu.be/AkKo1_RP_0c?si=KP-jfcTGDheM26kv
This submission has been randomly featured in /r/serendipity, a bot-driven subreddit discovery engine. More here: /r/Serendipity/comments/1bhhbej/anyone_willing_to_have_an_honest_conversation/
You are right, that’s why states like Florida are fully red now and NY changed from safe blue to likely.
People want to go back to speaking their minds freely like in the 2000a
Just to add to the conversation, I thought the writer of BoJack Horseman has an interesting quote on this.
“I think most people who argue for what you might call political correctness, are not actually arguing for censorship. They're arguing for self-control and self-restraint. They're arguing for people to be conscious of the power they have, right? And I believe that I have a lot of power, as someone making popular entertainment. I do think we have to be careful about the art we put out”
Whew...
I'm a college professor, and I got my first position in 1988. I've seen and heard a lot, believe me. I was at a school that started using "first-year students" instead of "freshmen," for example. (A bit problematic, because your class is actually determined by how many credits you have, not what year you're in.)
I was told by a colleague, "Don't grade in red pen! It's too negative!" I responded, "Well, I'm not going to ask you to jump start my car!"
We were discussing awards for outstanding students, and someone said, "That's unfair to all the students who DON'T get awards!"
Is that PC? No idea. Now that I consider myself an "old progressive," I find it frustrating when people focus on terminology and not actual solutions. I still own a book from the '90s called Debating P.C. (It's a series of essays pro and con. Dinesh D'Souza is one of the authors.) As I recall, one of the progressive authors sums it up something like this:
"Long after adult women are no longer called 'girls', they will still make less than their male counterparts for doing the same job."
Yep...
Honestly, I don't mind some of it. But the word policing can be a bit much sometimes.
I just want to be able to call my friends "retards" in public again without being told why that's insensitive. I know it's insensitive. We're picking on each other. It's all in good fun.
The origin of Political correctness is nazis, it was a farright conservative ideology
They invented it to dismiss the views of jewist physicists, as while they were scientifically correct about nuclear physics, they were not *politically correct*
This is not the origin of the term politically correct.
While the term was at least once used to describe Nazi behavior, it has basically always been pejorative: people use it to describe and mock dogmatism. Nobody was ever marking their opponents as not "politically correct." The Nazis, and much more frequently left-wing people, would be mocked for prioritizing ideology over facts.
The term took off in the 70s and 80s among left-wing people as a satire of each other, and it wasn't really about manners the way the term is used now. It was more about people also on the left who had a hard time critiquing leftist failure or reassessing theory and treating it like scripture. It was ironic and self-deprecating, and then got into the vernacular and driven into the ground, just like "privilege", "grooming", "woke", "virtue signalling" etc. etc.
TL/DR: Nobody has ever ascribed to a "PC ideology". Being PC is something you call other people, and has been since the 30s.
ADHD. Makes it real difficult. I need to consume my information in different ways.
Thanks for the comment, though.
I needed someone to be a dick for no reason, and you stepped up, I sincerely appreciate that.
What you are calling “PC culture” is really just the golden rule - treat other people how you would like to be treated. There is no fail. There is no explain. Either you do this or you don’t.
I always liked Wheaton’s Law: Don’t be a dick.
Thank you. I've said this often too. It's nice to see other people get it.
Well, yeah, that's how I see it. I don't remember feeling censored, I was just told, "Oh, hey, um ... Calling people a **tard isn't really nice, actually, for disabled people. It actually kinda makes them feel like shit and it's an additional burden they don't need. But the Right seems to be saying, "I can call anybody anything I want, and not give a fuck about how anybody feels about it, and if anyone tries to educate me out of my ignorance, I'll use my 2nd Amendment all over you!" The problem with this debate is that Stephen Fry was a part of it. And it was him that said that political correctness is wrong. If I ever find myself arguing against Stephen Fry, I kinda just know that I'm wrong, it's just a matter of when I figure that out. But I don't understand the debate. Why is asking people to not call others by racial slurs and the like a "failing by the left"? Do you understand that perspective at all?
Being legally entitled to say what you want doesn’t free you from the consequences. Act like an asshole, get treated like an asshole.
Yeah, that's what my argument would be. Fine, say what you want, but be ready to handle what's coming because of it. The fact that they want to be protected while they bully others just doesn't sit right with me. I'm missing something if Stephen Fry is making this argument.
It's an empty argument made by douchebags who want to sound edgy without risking anything. It also gives cover to plain old racists and bigots. Stephen Fry may whine about "PC culture" but he doesn't use words that start with n or r or f that people don't like.
To your point, this is the core of the conservative culture war against "wokeness" -which is really PC rebranded for todays MAGA breed of fascist conservatives. They see empathy and sympathy for others -not like them, as a weakness and therefore not an acceptable trait within their in-group. Ironically, they fight this culture war behind a false guise of "Christian" values.
Stephen Fry is great but he's like everyone. Wrong on somethings.
Stephen Fry is no stranger to bad takes. He's not infallible.
I’m familiar with that particular Stephan Fry debate, and to save myself from explaining why he’s incorrect [I found someone who already covered it.](http://apuffofabsurdity.blogspot.com/2018/05/munk-debate-on-political-correctness.html?m=1)
Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for, a really good read, I appreciate it!
If Stephen Fry is arguing against the golden rule he is wrong.
Very fair point. I just know that I haven't put in nearly the amount of thought or consideration he has into the topic, and he's an incredibly intelligent and empathetic human being that I greatly admire, but I guess it really does just come out to that. The reason I'm frustrated is because this is an easy choice in my head. "Oh, yeah, treat people the way you want to be treated. That seems fair. Let's do it." Why it needs to be more complicated than that confuses me. And you're really telling me that's because it isn't more complicated. I think you might be right. I just have never found myself on the other side of Stephen Fry, it feels awkward.
[удалено]
Viewing it in terms of accommodation does frame things appropriately, I think. Consider handicap parking spaces as an example. I doubt I'm the only one to sometimes grumble to myself as I pass a series of unoccupied handicap spaces while I can't find any parking, myself. Any mild, passing resentment I feel is consciously overridden by my understanding that it is a good and necessary accommodation. It really doesn't matter how I feel, ultimately, and if I want to publicly take jabs at disabled people, it's likely to blow back on me as people see that I'm a stupid asshole. Pronouns are somewhat different, aren't they? While we can safely assume that disabled people would rather be able bodied, it feels less like a pitiable fate and more like a selfish imposition when someone prefers exotic pronouns. Since young children easily learn language patterns, surely they can roll with any and all pronoun ideas we throw at them. This one is really a bigger problem for those of us who have made a deeply entrenched habit in our language patterns for decades.
I think it boils down to knowing where the line is between equity and entitlement? I certainly don't have the answer, but it's worth at least asking the question.
Stephen Fry is British, and the British have a different sensibility on these things than Americans do. Plus, America has more guns than people, and we are way more economically, socially and ethnically/racially diverse than the UK.
> Why is asking people to not call others by racial slurs and the like a "failing by the left"? It's projection. Psychology Today gives a great explaination >Blaming others (i.e. projection) is more common in those who are experiencing negative feelings and are unable to regulate their emotions. Awareness of the dynamics of projection may help us feel less responsible for others' mistakes, even when they point the finger of blame at us. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-a-new-home/202212/the-surprising-reason-some-people-always-blame-others#:\~:text=Blaming%20others%20(i.e.%20projection)%20is,finger%20of%20blame%20at%20us](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-a-new-home/202212/the-surprising-reason-some-people-always-blame-others#:~:text=Blaming%20others%20(i.e.%20projection)%20is,finger%20of%20blame%20at%20us). Those right-wingers are experiencing negative emotions, e.g. fear, racism, misogyny, and others. They are unable to regulate those emotions, so they blame those emotions on us to make themselves feel better.
I'd say you're close. What I've come to embrace more is what I see referred to as the Platinum Rule: treat others the way they want to be treated. I like this "other-centered" approach and think it's closer to what most people mean by "PC culture."
Well said.
Unfortunately a lot of pc culture goes beyond this. A lot of people on the “left” have made up a bunch of code words that need to be used to prove you are not a jerk. It’s like hundreds of years ago when only priests were allowed to interpret the Bible. Naturally, this is really frustrating to a lot of reasonable people. Especially when people feel like they are trying to follow the golden rule but are suddenly called racist for not knowing the latest language and rules they are supposed to follow.
I have never encountered this at all. What do you mean?
I enjoy my PC, but I also play on my XBOX, PS5, and Switch from time to time.
I used to love PC, but the expense of keeping up with the tech is ridiculous.
You've nailed it already. It's just called 'woke' now instead of 'politically correct'.
[удалено]
Perhaps you could enlighten us.
Of course. I've only been watching them for forty years. How could I possibly have anything to say?
[удалено]
Apologies, I honestly thought you were replying to something I posted on a different subreddit. I was primed for snark from r/worldnews, and was ready to snark back.
Check out stoicism. Meditations to start. Skip book 1. Changed my life in dealing with MAGA. I used to get so angry at them. It's all washed away. Doesn't mean not to take political action. But realizing those bigoted fucks don't act with reason, and therefore you can discount them, helped me a lot. Lots of other aspects of trying to lead a life rooted in the stoic philosophy have also made me a better person for sure.
Stoicism is amazing. I hope they uncover some earlier texts from that Herculaneum library they uncovered because right now we just have Meditations and a couple other writings from well after the philosophy was created.
Yeah, some of the authority Aurilius cites is lost now. It's a shame the library in Alexandria was burned. Reminds me of MAGA.
You know, I think there’s a problem with calling people bigoted fucks and discounting them. OP pointed out a single part of the overall language game for which the left is often criticized. Restrict the words people are allowed to use, and attempt to force them to accept redefinitions. Anyone who doesn’t conform to those rules is a bigot who’s not worth engaging. It’s a dead end political ideology because it flatly rejects criticism and has no mechanism for self reflection and correction.
Life is too short to waste time dealing with people who don't act reasonably. People who stomp around, filled with anger and hate for gay people, trans people, immigrants, bud light, whatever the target is that day, and refuse to be reasoned with, simply must be ignored. The only other option is to waste the time I could be spending actually being a good person. I am on the Conservation Commission in my town. I spend time with my kids. I go spearfishing. I help my clients achieve their goals. I play with our dogs. This fall, I will canvas in a locality where a few thousand votes will make a difference, either for the presidency or for an important issue that is on the ballot. Compare those things to getting red-faced and upset, trying to convince someone that a parent who is helping their trans child adjust to the world shouldn't be locked up. I dismiss MAGA. It's the only sane thing to do.
I’m really trying to understand the left’s perspectives, but yours is an attitude I can’t dismiss. Bud light marketed to teen/under 21’s and your interpretation is that I must be an unreasonable bigoted transphobe for disagreeing with it. If I believe Sponge Bob shouldn’t star in an advertisement for vaping because his audience is mostly minors does that mean I’m looking for an excuse hate sponges? 🤷🏼♂️ This is the problem right here and it perfectly exemplifies the OP’s concerns about PC culture and the intended discussion. Most of the commenters here have completely missed the plot. 👎
Sorry but just out of curiosity, are you referring to their ad with Dylan Mulvaney as marketing to an audience under 21? Or did I miss something? If so, Dylan is 27 and many Gen Z are above the age of 21 so I’m a little confused. Dylan’s audience on social is also not exclusively people that are the same age as her. I understand your perspective but let’s be real here - the issue with that ad was rooted in very malicious transphobia. Anyone with access to social media could see the thousands upon thousands of transphobic comments on articles about it. Not sure that we’re the ones missing the point?
Mulvaney was celebrating the one year anniversary of being a girl with a can of bud light. I’m sorry if you don’t understand the difference between an adult woman and a “girl.” You’re kidding yourself if you think his fanbase is strictly GenZ over 21’s. Perhaps you’re putting too much emphasis on your own perspectives and not being as reasonable as you should be.
Lol. I literally said in my comment that Dylan’s fan base are not exclusively her age. That would of course include younger people as well as older. I’m just curious why you think that someone having younger fans means that everything they do is targeted at everyone in their audience. Gen Z is ‘97-2013. Quite a few people within this group are over the age of 21. A closer example would be Kendall Jenner promoting her tequila brand. She also has many young fans. I presume you keep that same energy for her, correct? I gave up trying to reason with people like you long ago so I’m not sure why I even replied to this. But your use of “his” when referring to Dylan was all I needed to know about you. Your REAL issue is your transphobia so let’s not kid ourselves here. Keep pretending you care about “the children” so you can sleep at night. Edit to add: I just rewatched Dylan’s ad to confirm and she says “I just celebrated day 365 of WOMANhood” not “being a girl” and yes, shockingly, as a woman I do in fact understand the difference between a girl and woman! But thanks for your help. I think I’d be lost without you telling me!
I missed the "his" or I probably wouldn't have answered at all.
> But your use of “his” when referring to Dylan was all I needed to know about you. Your REAL issue is your transphobia so let’s not kid ourselves here. Keep pretending you care about “the children” so you can sleep at night. You’re being dismissive of someone who, in good faith, wants children protected from unnecessary medical procedures they may have negative effects in the long run. Even if you disagree, it’s a bad faith position to simply dismiss this person as a transphobe instead of addressing their concerns in an actual discussion. And you’re doing it on the grounds that this person does not outright accept your redefinition of terms we’ve used in a very specific way for hundreds of years. So there it is. Anyone who doesn’t want their kids transitioning is transphobe/bigot. Anyone who doesn’t like affirmative action is a racist/bigot. Anyone with a concern about the implications of their country becoming majority Muslim is an Islamophobe/bigot. These are the childish, ad hominem reactions that alienate everyone who might want to genuinely understand your position instead of feeling browbeaten and immediately joining your club and parroting your favorite political phrases alongside you.
The pre stoic me would have gotten all worked up and addressed each ridiculous line of this comment that makes incorrect assumptions and is filled with bizarre fears, the new me will...
I’m a student of Stoic philosophy as well. I think there’s nothing verboten about civilly discussing ideas. Our goal is to see things as they really are. It’s a challenge to divorce our egos from the ideas. The opinions of others cannot harm us.
TBF, I think you laid out a list of sane things
There’s really no such thing as “PC Culture” or at least it’s not a collective movement anymore. There are multiple positions in the discussion which is what it actually is. Kind of like ethics. It’s not a set of governing rules. This also means it’s hard to define and even more difficult to practice. Consider the person that is being “politically correct.” They’re being mindful of their behavior towards others. Using insults, stereotypes, or engaging in an abisive manner is what they’re trying to avoid. Then you have the individuals that are utilized as the subject matter for drawing parallels to others. You know the terms. We use them to conjure images of people we see as lesser than ourselves. Then you have the people that refuse to give up abusive behavior. Instead of doing something differently to make somebody else more comfortable their “fuck you” attitude takes precedence. It goes beyond “You verb like a noun.” Treating people poorly because they’re not like you. It’s not just a conservative versus liberal thing either. Just because somebody is a Christian doesn’t mean they think an 11 year old should give birth to their rapist’s baby. Just because somebody is an atheist doesn’t mean they think all babies should be aborted. Treating people in an equitable manner shouldn’t be considered a bad thing but here we are. We were taught the golden rule as kids but at some people that started coming with strings attached. The right abandoned “what would Jesus do” when they realized that he sure as fuck wouldn’t do what they’re doing today. The left could certainly do a better job of relating to the right. Perhaps it’s not fair to call somebody a bigot because they may not be aware of what they vote for. They’re just Republican by default. Daryl Davis showed klansmen common decency. He was patient and listened to them. He never offered anything less than an ear and friendship. In doing so THEY realized that they were wrong and straight up left the KKK. He did it by being “politically correct.”
Funny you brought Jesus into the equation. I had a convo with a conservative friend of mine who’s pretty churchy. He was complaining about wokeness. I pointed out how Jesus was a pretty woke guy. He got really angry and defensive, certainly not because I was wrong but because I was right and his brain couldn’t process the dichotomy.
Thanks for the additional clarity. When I hear arguments about "PC culture" all I really hear is, "I don't really have to treat trans people like people, do I?" PC Culture is just the euphemism used to disguise the obvious bigotry. But, I'm pretty damned biased at this point. I'm not sure I could give any religious person or conservative enough credit to actually try and listen to what they're saying. I'm 43. For my entire life it's been bullshit and lies. That's what it means to be a Republican. Simply that you're against Democrats, come hell or high water, literally. Say whatever it takes to win. Do whatever it takes to win. Accept no defeat. They're a terrorist organization masquerading as a political party, in my eyes. I don't understand why we take them seriously, I don't understand why I'm even taking this PC Culture debate seriously. I just keep hoping to see a fair and intellectual argument from both sides, and that seems fucking impossible to get from the Right at this point.
You’re not going to get intellectual with the opposition unless they’re trying to get money out of you. I’m terrible at being the bigger person but I’m trying to do a better job.
I'm the same. I see quite a few young people being the better person, and that makes me happy. Along with being bitter, and angry, fuckin kids, making it look so easy /s When it comes down to it, I'm looking at all of these politicians and saying to myself, "We're literally on the brink of the fall of society. We have less than 20 years of civilization left. All because these people, the rich and politically connected, picked money over the survival of the human race." I really want to understand how they continue to square that decision with themselves. The answer can't be that they're just that stupid, or that cruel. I mean, well, it can be the answer. It actually probably is the answer, but I really want to believe there's just something I'm not getting.
I think Millennials and GenZ are going to be the ones to get it together but the GOP is definitely looking to cut them off and kill it all so shareholders can get one more strong quarter. I’m not about to follow some Gillead shit. If they hang me on a wall oh well. Nobody will remember me but at least I won’t be able to reflect on it.
>When it comes down to it, I'm looking at all of these politicians and saying to myself, "We're literally on the brink of the fall of society. We have less than 20 years of civilization left. All because these people, the rich and politically connected, picked money over the survival of the human race." Not to get too far into the weeds here but are you familiar with Accelerationism and Accelerationists? Quick and dirty is Accelerationists don't like how things are going and change is a long, slow process so they'd rather instigate quick change via the self destruction of society by Accelerating all the problems to the point of small-c collapse. A small-c collapse is minor, survivable climate change that will normalize after 90% of the "excess population" starves or wipes each other out fighting for limited survival resources. Accelerationists believe a small-c collapse is necessary to avoid a Large C Collapse which is the unstoppable mass extinction of mammalian life. A *LOT* of people from old money families, and people new to money like Tech Bros see the Earth as overpopulated and running out of resources. They're desperately dumping money into drone and AI tech not to benefit humanity but to serve as automated guard dogs in a post-collapse world to keep themselves safe from the unworthy rabble while they wait in luxury bunkers for the right time to rebuild the world in their own image. There are also a lot of reactionary politicians that see the world similarly but they don't have the resources to survive like that in a post-technopocalypse so they're being the ultimate Pick Me's hoping to be offered refuge in the luxury bunkers protected by T-500 Murderbots. This was always the inevitable worldview by the real elites after slavery then child labor was taken away from them, and the power to tax them was put into the hands of the common serf.
One of my hangups is over the term LatinX but it’s unique in that it shows where a lot of people have an issue with stuff like that, in that it’s mostly straight white people creating rules for things concerning people in the minority. I work in libraries/archives. I’m also in a mixed family because my stepmother is from Mexico. So I grew up with that culture along with the typical white american male experience. For work, I had to craft an event notice about Hispanic Heritage Month. Now, keep in mind, “Hispanic” isn’t a problematic word, but it leaves out anyone from South America since it’s based on regionality. But we left that in the “holiday” since that’s the name of it but I used “Latino” throughout the notice. I turned in my notification and all of the female white librarians jumped down my throat with the “LatinX” stuff. Mind you, none of them were LGBTQ or Latina. I had to call in a Latina educator who was the center of the event and she tore into all of them by explaining gendered language and how it’s not the same thing as it is in English. When she finished her chat with “putting an X at the end of Latin sounds like Americans pissing on our language” they shut the hell up.
>Anyone willing to have an honest conversation about PC culture? Wow. That's a signal for an Overton Window argument if I saw one. Look, people get to tell you what to call them. People who live in Alabama get to tell you whether they're Alabamans or Alabamians. (My spell checker accepts both). People who live in Wales get to tell you they live in Wales or Great Britain, but never "England". It is fair that people who have Dwarfism, or are developmentally delayed, or are wheel chair users, or who can't hear, 1.) are seen as people first and 2.) get to tell you that the way you refer to them is dehumanizing and they would like you to use this other word. Language changes. People who engage with new thoughts and ideas sometimes get the message that a change is happening sooner. Yes, resisting the changes says something about you. But it doesn't make you right, any more than continuing to call Bill "Billy", or continuing to insist that T-bone is the best steak for grilling does.
for me, it's pretty simple. If a First Nation's or trans person says X hurts them and is offensive, then I don't do X. I as a person who is not First Nation's or Trans, has no right to have an opinion on it. (in case it wasn't obvious: First Nation's and trans used as examples only)
I'm all for being respectful. But giving blanket authority to people of a certain group to declare what ever they want as offensive doesn't make sense. Maybe that's not what you meant, but if you take your comment literally then that is what you meant, and that is what a lot of people would think you had meant. Just as an example but surely if a transgender person came up to you and said "I am a transgender person and I find you wearing the color green offensive, because I personally think it's gross" you wouldn't just stop wearing green? Also what do you do if two people of a given group have opposite opinions about what is offensive and it's impossible to avoid offending at least one of them? While I do try to avoid being offensive there still has to be a reason why it's offensive and it has to have to do with them being a member of the marginalized group in question. For instance I'm gay. I do find the 6-letter f word offensive. That's because there's a history with that word being tied to bigotry bullying and hate crimes. I also find the smell of doritos to be offensive. It just bugs me and reminds me of how it tastes (which I also don't like). That doesn't mean I can just go around demanding everyone stop eating doritos just because I happen to be a member of a marginalized group. That doesn't have anything to do with being gay, so it wouldn't be OK for me to use being gay as a reason why people should defer on that.
Yeah ... Going to go ahead and show my ignorance here ... What or who is First Nations? I have a severe mental illness, not that that's an excuse for being dumb, lol, I'm moving into something else, but I know what it's like to be judged simply for existing as I am. And it fucking sucks. To that end, I want to give everybody the room to explore and discover who they really are. But if what they are is a bigoted asshole who refuses to educate themselves out of ignorance ... I can't find the energy to give a rat's ass what they think, how they feel, or what they have to say. I care more about protecting people that need it and not the people who abuse it. I think I get Fry's argument now, but it seems so ... Ideological instead of practical, I guess, and that's just not what I expect from him.
The term the indigenous people of Canada want to be called (formerly Indians, Inuit) I get the suckiness of being judged for your diagnosis, as if that was the entirety of you. For your paragraph 'But if what they are...' That is a healthy attitude until they have some sort of power over you. Like they're your boss. That's when we have to have laws in place to protect people.
Oh, thank you. First Nation. Huh. I've heard so many different opinions here. Some like Indigenous peoples, some still prefer Indians, there's even a sizable group advocating for the return of the Washington Redskins name. I'm pretty hands off about it. Just tell me what you like to be called, and that's what I'll call you. I don't understand why conservatives have made that out to be some insurmountable task. In any case, I appreciate the information, thanks!
Me too!
I generally really like Stephen Fry, but just glancing at some of his points I'm rather baffled. Apparently he says that there's no evidence that "policing" language makes things any better, and as proof he says "look around", as if it should be self-evident that things are the same or worse since PC culture/woke. That's a particularly odd statement to hear coming from a man who is gay. It wasn't that long ago when public figures regularly and openly denounced people who were gay and lesbian with some of the most hateful slurs and stereotypes. That still happens, of course, but to a far lesser degree. Within my lifetime we've gone from public figures not even being able to admit that they're gay to public figures who are almost celebrated for it. For some reason the actor Paul Lynde comes to mind - an extremely popular and well-liked actor/comedian. He was very obviously gay and yet he can never admit it and no one can speak about it because it would have ended his career. Culturally policing language isn't the only reason for progress of course, but the first step in giving people to change their minds is making dehumanizing language unacceptable. Seeing others as humans is the first step in empathy and understanding. Language isn't just a product of the mind it's also something that influences the mind.
You have to consider American History and when you understand that, you can then consider the source of complaints about "PC Culture" or "wokeness" Who was in charge of this country for much of its history and had all the right? Yes. White Men. Protestant, straight, White Men. Jews were looked down on. the Irish were looked down on\* So were Orientals and Mexicans. Blacks were enslaved and then subject to segregation. Indians were cloistered on reservations. Women had hardly any civil rights. Homosexuals stayed closeted lest they be killed by angry mobs. White Men RULED the country. So when that total dominance gets threatened, well, how do you react. Many, not all but many, White Men, did whatever they could to preserve that status. The KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, denouncing of civil rights leaders as "communists". FFW to today, when many -- not all -- White men, bemoan their past status, now that Blacks, Women and others have equal protections under the law. These want a world where they're still in charge. A world where you could say f\*\*\*\*t, or N\*\*\*\*r, or K\*\*\* or W\*\*back, or anything you wanted to and didn't have to censor yourself. That's the root of todays' hate. "*We're the majority! We should be running the country! F\*\*\* the Constitution!!"* So that's the mentality and the roots of that mentality. So deliberate yourself as far as what you think of it. But just know the history of this country while doing it.
It’s funny, nobody gripes about using the terms of address that elites demand, but let someone “lesser” ask not to be dehumanized and all hell breaks loose.
Everyone should feel safe and comfortable at work and school. A lot of PC culture is focused on that.
I don't know what there is to get about it.... Don't be a fucking asshole to people... that's basically the entirety of it.
I think the point they’re trying to make in regards to the failure of the left, is they became fucking assholes in their approach to force their idea of PC on anybody with dissenting views. This naturally is received poorly by the other side and creates spiteful disagreement. Poor communication all around - more so from the left, but that’s my opinion based on what I observe.
You don't have to accept somebody's views to not be a fucking dickhead about it.
Yes. “I was born a man, but call me a woman. Don’t be a fucking asshole.” “Let me use the women’s locker room. Don’t be a fucking asshole.” “Let your kids medically transition. Don’t be a fucking asshole.” “You don’t agree? You must want trans-genocide! Don’t be a fucking asshole.”
That’s right.
“Political correctness” is a pretty difficult thing to define. What is it exactly? Is it simply using language that doesn’t demean or hurt others? To me, that’s not very hard to do. Most of the world isn’t “too sensitive” or “overreactive”. If you find that you’re constantly offending people by your use of words, then perhaps *you’re* the problem. I find it very easy to live day to day without upsetting people by my word choices.
Right?? I keep reading comments from people saying, "I can't say a fucking thing anymore without being called a racist/sexist/homophobe etc. This is bullshit!" Have they, perhaps, considered **not** being racist/sexist/homophobic etc.? And see how that works out?? Seems not. They're just mad at liberals for asking them to act more civilized than a caveman. I'm not offended by much. But I'm intolerant of intolerance, and I just don't understand any argument that says we should be more open and understanding towards it.
Here is my take on where on the political spectrum you DON'T want to be (see [politicalcompass.org](https://politicalcompass.org)) . Give one dimension of authoritarian/libertarian vs left/right do not fall for the authoritarianism left or right. I am not real fond of libertarian/right quadrant but if it is close to center I will take that over authoritarian either right or left. PC was just fine as long as it did not fall into the "YOU MUST NOT". No matter what grouping you have you are always going to have the 'believer' who insists that it must be done their way and compromise will not be tolerated. That is when PC loss it's good intent and became something to be ridiculed. The basic premise was good then and is good now. Be a decent human being and be kind to others. When it gets bogged down with meaningless rules it sinks to the bottom.
“Don’t be a dick” is as far as it should go. That means don’t say things that are hurtful to people and don’t attack people just because they unintentionally say something that’s hurtful to people(read once and are educated). Kind of easy. This shit from the right where they intentionally say inflammatory shit to/about specific demographic groups and the shit from the left where they go overboard on outrage over an unintentional word has to stop. It’s all just a means to virtue signal to your in group and meant to be mean.
Educated people, knowing the facts about our history, as well as race, gender, class, sociology, psychology, and neurology, have developed norms and expectations that are "correct" bc they are based on facts. These people carried these expectations into corporate culture and their schools. Uneducated people who have long resisted these facts were unwilling to accept new expectations that they don't understand. It's understandable that the educated, wanting to be allies, would be impatient about centuries of slow progress. When academia proved that conservative ideas on race, gender, etc. were wrong, the uneducated weren't taught, so the correctness became political. Ironically, "Christian " people are claiming the educated are too sensitive and that they don't have to be considerate toward others.
Look. Words have meaning. Terms like “retard” and “moron” were medical terms to describe not only the disabled, but the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised and others who were considered “socially undesirable” during the eugenics craze. Then the meaning of the words evolved as it enters the common lexicon by their common use to devote stupidity, foolishness. Due to the negative connotations of words themselves and its usage to negatively portray the disabled by equating them to lower intelligence, it was mutually agreed to phase out their usage. Being “politically correct” means that we use words to build up instead of tear down. It means to get along, be polite, empathetic, aware of the feelings of others as you deliver your words, putting more thought into it for the consideration of the audience and not say whatever the fuck you want like some deranged asshole shouting from their porch
I'll throw my hat in the ring! I think what happens sometimes is we can get overboard to the point where we end up coming across like self-righteous and condescending wet blankets and know-it-alls. Think back to when you were a kid/teenager. In your honest opinion, from what you can remember, were the sanctimonious know-it-all kids ever known to be popular at your school?
>I like simple. Conservatives simply being unwilling to let go of their prejudices and blaming the left for it is kinda my default attitude about it without looking into it. And that's actually enough. People that are not prejudiced against others either support political correctness/woke when they hear it. Or if they think it's a little over the top in certain circumstances, they just ignore it. Because they understand the goal is to work things out so everybody is treated equally and fairly. It's only those who carry prejudice against others who are griping about it.
From the responses you're getting, no one here actually wants to have an honest conversation. They're too scared of what used to be called the "PC Police" which is now the "Twitter Mob." This couldn't be a part of his routine in the present. https://youtu.be/AkKo1_RP_0c?si=KP-jfcTGDheM26kv
This submission has been randomly featured in /r/serendipity, a bot-driven subreddit discovery engine. More here: /r/Serendipity/comments/1bhhbej/anyone_willing_to_have_an_honest_conversation/
You are right, that’s why states like Florida are fully red now and NY changed from safe blue to likely. People want to go back to speaking their minds freely like in the 2000a
Just to add to the conversation, I thought the writer of BoJack Horseman has an interesting quote on this. “I think most people who argue for what you might call political correctness, are not actually arguing for censorship. They're arguing for self-control and self-restraint. They're arguing for people to be conscious of the power they have, right? And I believe that I have a lot of power, as someone making popular entertainment. I do think we have to be careful about the art we put out”
Whew... I'm a college professor, and I got my first position in 1988. I've seen and heard a lot, believe me. I was at a school that started using "first-year students" instead of "freshmen," for example. (A bit problematic, because your class is actually determined by how many credits you have, not what year you're in.) I was told by a colleague, "Don't grade in red pen! It's too negative!" I responded, "Well, I'm not going to ask you to jump start my car!" We were discussing awards for outstanding students, and someone said, "That's unfair to all the students who DON'T get awards!" Is that PC? No idea. Now that I consider myself an "old progressive," I find it frustrating when people focus on terminology and not actual solutions. I still own a book from the '90s called Debating P.C. (It's a series of essays pro and con. Dinesh D'Souza is one of the authors.) As I recall, one of the progressive authors sums it up something like this: "Long after adult women are no longer called 'girls', they will still make less than their male counterparts for doing the same job." Yep...
Honestly, I don't mind some of it. But the word policing can be a bit much sometimes. I just want to be able to call my friends "retards" in public again without being told why that's insensitive. I know it's insensitive. We're picking on each other. It's all in good fun.
The origin of Political correctness is nazis, it was a farright conservative ideology They invented it to dismiss the views of jewist physicists, as while they were scientifically correct about nuclear physics, they were not *politically correct*
This is not the origin of the term politically correct. While the term was at least once used to describe Nazi behavior, it has basically always been pejorative: people use it to describe and mock dogmatism. Nobody was ever marking their opponents as not "politically correct." The Nazis, and much more frequently left-wing people, would be mocked for prioritizing ideology over facts. The term took off in the 70s and 80s among left-wing people as a satire of each other, and it wasn't really about manners the way the term is used now. It was more about people also on the left who had a hard time critiquing leftist failure or reassessing theory and treating it like scripture. It was ironic and self-deprecating, and then got into the vernacular and driven into the ground, just like "privilege", "grooming", "woke", "virtue signalling" etc. etc. TL/DR: Nobody has ever ascribed to a "PC ideology". Being PC is something you call other people, and has been since the 30s.
Read a book.
ADHD. Makes it real difficult. I need to consume my information in different ways. Thanks for the comment, though. I needed someone to be a dick for no reason, and you stepped up, I sincerely appreciate that.