Forums → WEPR → Politically..."correct"?
| 29 | 26977 |
Do you think "being politically correct" is really "correct"?
One aspect, race: it seems to have moments of illogical designation to the different kinds of people. African American, for example, is a misnomer, asserting that said person is of African descent but is of American upbringing or nationality. The person could just as easily be from the UK, or somewhere in mid-Asia.
Speaking of Asia, we have the designation of "Asian" for one of such ethnic background, and properly so. However, then comes the issue with one from India (one example. There is also the Middle East and Russia), a land within Asia. Now if you take the viewpoint of it being it's own landmass separate of that of the rest of Asia due to it's much more obvious differences amongst itself than the rest of the Asian cultures, then of course the idea of separating their designation becomes obvious. But then why just stop at India?
If we do not take such viewpoint, then why call those from India "Indians" instead of the "Asian" as we do for those that come from other parts of the continent...spare Middle East and most of Russia.
Also, it seems being "c" seems to take the stance against joking about with other people of different groups due to the stigma behind certain jokes and/or joking manners. Why not allow people to understand that when one jokes, it is what it is at face value, a joke...and then allow the people to come together with mutual acceptance of one another with the freedom of these light-hearted jokes?
- 29 Replies
Also, it seems being "c" seems to take the stance against joking about with other people of different groups due to the stigma behind certain jokes and/or joking manners. Why not allow people to understand that when one jokes, it is what it is at face value, a joke...and then allow the people to come together with mutual acceptance of one another with the freedom of these light-hearted jokes?
This "why can't we all just get along and joke about it" attitude, "it" being racism, sexism, homophobia or any other inequality is terrible for a variety of reasons. I can't really tell because this is a forum with a sense of anonymity, but I'm going to assume you have privilege in some form, most likely being white, straight, cisgender or male (forgive me if I'm wrong). If somebody who isn't privileged in the same way as you calls you out for making a bigoted joke and you say "it's just a joke" you are silencing those who are fighting for equality. It can also hurt. Slurs were at one point charged with negativity and caused significant harm to many different groups which is why white people can't say the N word and straight people can't say "oh that's g**"
Why everybody shouldn't just be nice.
i think that the idea of political correctness is something that humans made in our own ignorance. people shouldn't worry over such pointless things. I can't believe that there is a whole world out there to see and so much beauty and yet there are people in the world worried about whether they are politically correct. people should be focusing on more important issues in life if you ask me.
people shouldn't worry over such pointless things
People shouldn't worry about whether they offend others?
This "why can't we all just get along and joke about it" attitude, "it" being racism, sexism, homophobia or any other inequality is terrible for a variety of reasons
I never mentioned any sort of jokes with hate or degradation attached to them.
but I'm going to assume you have privilege in some form
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Bringing up one's "rivilege" merely distracts from a point, and usually seems to have an implied argument that one's point is invalid because of something they have no control over.
If somebody who isn't privileged in the same way as you calls you out for making a bigoted joke and you say "it's just a joke"
I'd hardly say that would be my response. My response would have to then be a discussion about how making fun of one's stereotypes, in my form of humor, is to mock the idea of stereotypes to begin with. I do not connect any serious notion or belief behind them.
Slurs were at one point charged with negativity and caused significant harm to many different groups which is why white people can't say the N word and straight people can't say "oh that's g**"
Slurs are another matter, and exist across a wider range than what straight or white people can and cannot say.
As for "white people can't say the 'N' word", although I do not say it due to it's explicit background as an oppressive word, I do know of black people that actually tell their white friends they may say it (although if I was told to do so, I would refrain due to my own viewpoints), which is an interesting situation.
People shouldn't worry about whether they offend others?
âIt's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what."
-Stephen Fry
To be frank,one should have more of an argument than "I'm offended"
I never mentioned any sort of jokes with hate or degradation attached to them.
You're right, I'll look at what I was referring to again:
it seems being "c" seems to take the stance against joking about with other people of different groups
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what being "olitically correct" is about. I can joke around with POC about sports freely, I would be treading on eggshells if I were to make racial jokes with them because those jokes may exclude, marginalise or insult those people.
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Bringing up one's "rivilege" merely distracts from a point,
I didn't bring up your individual privilege because I know nothing about you, I suggested the different ways an individual can be privileged (I forgot lack of disability which is another common one) and how that affects what jokes they make and whether they're acceptable or not.
and usually seems to have an implied argument that one's point is invalid because of something they have no control over.
As a white male, a well informed POC female's word ultimately trumps mine on topics of sexism and racism. If she is striving for equality and I disagree with her I am silencing a minority, even if I'm trying to achieve equality myself.
I'd hardly say that would be my response. My response would have to then be a discussion about how making fun of one's stereotypes, in my form of humor, is to mock the idea of stereotypes to begin with.
There's a fine line between making fun of and reinforcing stereotypes. I'm not sure what these jokes would be in your case but either way I'm hopeful that if somebody said "hey, could you not make jokes about that" you'd respect their wishes.
Alternatively, you may be making someone uncomfortable with these jokes and they may not speak up, so it's best to avoid these jokes unless you're certain it's okay with the person in question.
I do not connect any serious notion or belief behind them.
Your intent is irrelevant in this situation.
As for "white people can't say the 'N' word", although I do not say it due to it's explicit background as an oppressive word, I do know of black people that actually tell their white friends they may say it (although if I was told to do so, I would refrain due to my own viewpoints), which is an interesting situation.
This is true, however if a black friend of yours said you can use the N word you can only use it around them the same way some LGBTQIA+ people wouldn't mind their friends saying "that's g**" to describe something ****ty around them. For a young boy who is unsure about his sexuality hearing things described negatively as g** can be extremely harmful.
To be frank,one should have more of an argument than "I'm offended"
This is true, and Stephen Fry is an intellectual man, so there's a reason that quote doesn't read
"lol idc if i'm racist"
-Stephen Fry
Being PC isn't about not offending others, it's about not marginalising or insulting disadvantaged groups. You can be PC and still be rude and offend people. If I say "I'm offended by X", then Stephen Fry is right. "Well, so ****ing what." If someone says "I'm offended by X because it is racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/bigoted" (simply "that's racist" for example) or "as a member of a disadvantaged group, X offends me" then you better shut up and think about what you said because chances are they're right.
However, the public hysteria over racism/homophobia/ageism/antisemetism/any kind of offence means that people who are well, wrong, can just claim that you are a bigot.
I think that political correctness is a clumsy way to fix the American ignorance toward other races as depicted in their movies (which is a reflection of their culture) from the 20's, up to the early 60's.
Even today, how many people will say "
"The cable or dish guy came to install my new DVR."
If the guy is black or Indian they'll say "The cable or dish guy came to install my DVR, he was black/Indian/Mexican, etc."
We can say that there has been some progress toward prejudices and racism but it is still there so political correctness is just putting a band aid on a broken arm.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what being "olitically correct" is about
Nope, that looks about right.
I can joke around with POC about sports freely, I would be treading on eggshells if I were to make racial jokes with them because those jokes may exclude, marginalise or insult those people.
The point isn't to joke with people that have a lesser "rivilege" than me, but to be open with everyone.
Then there is something about Classical conditioning and desensitization that I'll either have to find something on or someone (specific person in mind, fyi) will have to come and explain it due to said person being able to explain it far better than I could. [Placing this here more as a reminder sort of deal]
and how that affects what jokes they make and whether they're acceptable or not.
Trying to understand what point you are trying to make here..
So, the less "rivileged" you are, the more freedom you have at saying things about other groups?
As a white male, a well informed POC female's word ultimately trumps mine on topics of sexism and racism. If she is striving for equality and I disagree with her I am silencing a minority, even if I'm trying to achieve equality myself.
So Appeal to Authority?
I fail to see why my words should be trumped merely because they have a lesser "rivilege". It seems to be an argument that to stop oppression, one group must be oppressed from their opinion and/or arguments.
Also, these seems to create an argument that essentially, whatever the minority states in regards to the topic of equality, goes. This, obviously, has inherent issues..
There's a fine line between making fun of and reinforcing stereotypes.
Of course, although joking about a stereotype, unless that joke has serious belief behind it, fails to cross the line.
I'm not sure what these jokes would be in your case but either way I'm hopeful that if somebody said "hey, could you not make jokes about that" you'd respect their wishes
Of course, although I would be interesting in understanding what about the joke makes them uncomfortable.
Your intent is irrelevant in this situation.
I fail to see how this is so.
For example: Capcom and their game Resident Evil 4.
They had no intent of hatred or bigotry behind the game. They were stupid, yes, but not racists.
"lol idc if i'm racist"
Nor would I expect it to be, and I fail to understand why it needs to be said that that isn't how his quote is read? Unless you are trying to state that is what the argument I'm presenting is..
then you better shut up and think about what you said because chances are they're right.
Key phrase here is "chances are". "I'm a part of x group and..." can be a weak stance for an argument.
"I'm black and blackface offends me" is a perfectly reasonable stance.
"I'm black and pointing out that Obama has an elite education is racist" is not.
{Quote for reference: Spotlighting his elite education is tantamount to racial bigotry because it insinuates that 'he took the place of someone else through affirmative action, that someone else being someone white. - jonathan capehart}
Being PC often hurt people.
Take 2 students vying for a scholarship for example.
Student 1 is white and has better grades than student 2 who's Indian.
The college board is studying their files.
A member suggest that even though student 1 has better grades, they shouldn't give it to him because people might think their institution is racist so they reward student 2 with the scholarship.
What's wrong with this picture?
Now if there were no prejudices toward races, sexual preference, male vs female, skinny vs fat, short vs tall, who do you think would receive the scholarship?
Following my reasoning, political correctness is wrong.
As for the link, which I was able to get to after being so clever as to figure out what no-no word was in it...it seems to argue for an egalitarian stance that takes from those with more.
Also, why the idea of stealing apples? Is it implying that the "rivileged side" stole their apples from the "oppressed side"? Why not mention the idea that maybe the "rivileged side" gained their apples an honest way?
Also, how is the "oppressed side" automatically "oppressed" solely based on the fact that they have less amount of apples?
Being PC often hurt people.
Take 2 students vying for a scholarship for example.
Student 1 is white and has better grades than student 2 who's Indian.
The college board is studying their files.
A member suggest that even though student 1 has better grades, they shouldn't give it to him because people might think their institution is racist so they reward student 2 with the scholarship.
If you can find examples of this happening, I'll believe you. Unfortunately, in the real world, schools and further education are predominantly white. A white person is more likely to get hired for a job or accepted into a university than a POC.
I'll respond to Pang later.
If you can find examples of this happening, I'll believe you. Unfortunately, in the real world, schools and further education are predominantly white. A white person is more likely to get hired for a job or accepted into a university than a POC.
Affirmative Action
"Politically Correct" is a term I have much disdain to. It's a term that has meaning that divides the principles of speech into two thing: things that you can't say (whether untrue or a truth "best left unspoken" and things you can say to avoid a bitter truth or an emotionally rejection.
Political Correctness suppresses both untrue words and a truth that should be accepted as a flaw; regardless if it hurts someone. It suppresses the truth in this example:
If I were to say that every German supports National Socialism and are a "Nazi" not only am is this comment extremely untrue but I am ignoring logic. Obvious reasons I would assume.
Now, if I were to state that Seppuku (also known as Hari Kari), the act of suicide based out of shame (I'm using shame in this case, other reason for Seppuku exist but are irrelevant in my point), is extremely illogical and is down right a stupid thing to believe in. The act of "shame" exists in all peoples lives and to state you must live without shame of an action is **** near impossible. This should be understood and respected as human nature and not to be a situation where it's arrogance should be ignored.
Now, in everything that I have stated I have brought up two major factors. Both statements I have made are bias and contain content that is bound to create an emotional reaction out of someone. But all of these statements contain one thing that will always be better than political correctness. What is this magical thing I speak of.
Common Sense
Despite the fact that most people say "common sense isn't common" it is still something that should be practiced more than political correctness. Political Correctness will suppress a truthful or false, which isn't a solution if one chooses to improve on a flaw, whether is be about gender/race/etc. But if you use common sense then the reason to use the principles of "Political Correctness" will be applied in proper situations, for many reasons to use political correctness exist - variables one too many to state.
For a young boy who is unsure about his sexuality hearing things described negatively as g** can be extremely harmful.
I fail to see the harm in this.
There's a fine line between making fun of and reinforcing stereotypes.
You see now this is a perfect example in using common sense. If a stereotype (example: blondes are naturally dumb) then you would need to analyze the data that proves this statement true. No data proves it is such, therefore people must immediately identify when someone is saying something because they are either stupid or do not know what common sense is.
Some stereotypes can be true in which case making fun of them is a mixed situation. The humor in stupidity is commonly used in modern day humor and isn't frowned upon anymore but the action of hurting someones feelings falls to two factors; if on purpose or a non personal statement.
If a person were to make fun of how gay men always are emotionally unstable (this is an example I don't want to hear I'm being shrewd from anyone) then this statement would need some concluding. Facts being:
- Sexual Orientation does not dictate behavior in a manner like this
- This statement has no consistent and valid data backing it up
- Personality overpowers personal habit and has more meaning then subconscious and unconscious behavior
With all of this being stated this "joke" has no factual data behind it and the real question is "did this person make this "joke" because he/she is sexist or is that what they've falsely observed?". This action varies and I don't care enough to come up with a hypothetical scenario (I personally would chose the latter).
This statement shouldn't hurt someones feelings however. Why? Because homosexuals have no union in which they stand up for each other simply because they share a characteristic. Offense to gay people as a group would be appropriate if a famous comedian were to have said this publicly.
This goes for race as well. Offense to race is the exact same as the examples I have given. But for the most part, no union exists among those of sexuality or race. Individuals wouldn't be offended by this because it hurts their feelings due to their attachment to their race.
And for the most part, if a statement is obviously untrue, it should be discarded with no ones feelings hurt.
I have no qualms with being PC, unless it affects tangibly. If it's being used to be polite and nice, then fine. But if it erodes the meaning of whatever you want to get at, or if it's plain silly, then no.
Whar about the other way? These who divide the world to "N" words and "C" words?
Its like a tower of cards. If you start lowering the standards in no time we get back to USA 1960.
You must be logged in to post a reply!