being 'politically correct' - how important is it?

[verte76]

Yeah, I got a bit carried away when I said it was at the height of the civil rights movement. I retract that part of what I said.

But the thrust of my comment still stands.

And I *basically* agree with you. Lott's comment was inexcusable. I think he was trying to be nice, but he should have cracked a joke about birthday cakes or something else. I mean, hell, our *conservatives* circulated those petitions for Frist, so this is not particularly a "liberal" sentiment, even though the liberal blogs did break the thing to the press.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, okay, then, nbc.

Tell us about some of Strom's notable accomplishments. And leave out living to be 100, running for President as a segregationist, and fathering a child out of wedlock with a black woman while running on a segregationist platform.

very well said.

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, okay, then, nbc.

Tell us about some of Strom's notable accomplishments. And leave out living to be 100, running for President as a segregationist, and fathering a child out of wedlock with a black woman while running on a segregationist platform.

My comments are not to support Strom Thurmon or Trent Lott.

This discussion is strictly about the principle where the use of the racist label automatically shifts the burden of proof to the individual so labeled, whether there is any credibilty to the accusation.

This process, giving great power in racial politics, is what has resulted in the "politically correct" defense.

 

[indra]

My comments are not to support Strom Thurmon or Trent Lott.

This discussion is strictly about the principle where the use of the racist label automatically shifts the burden of proof to the individual so labeled, whether there is any credibilty to the accusation.

This process, giving great power in racial politics, is what has resulted in the "politically correct" defense.

Hahaha! Great way of saying "I got nuttin'." You should be a politician.

 

[indra]

I had bad experiences with "politically correct" when I was a history student. In history departments all across the country, we had the Controversy From Hell over African historical studies. The biggest dispute was over Cleopatra's ethnic background. It exasperated me. The name Cleopatra was Greek; her dynastic name, Ptolemy, was Greek, and the family was founded by a Macedonian Greek, Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Great's generals. It infuriated me to hear these pious African studies activists claim that she was of African descent, and "not Caucasian like all the racist historians claim". Please. They were taking the old African nationalist argument and applying it to history. They were trying to start African studies departments in the universities. An African American history prof who opposed the idea as too politically motivated really had to put up with all sorts of crud. He was a brilliant Napoleonic scholar with a military background and was a pretty conservative guy. So naturally he didn't like alot of their politics. It's this lack of honesty that really turns me off about "political correct" stuff.

Is this really an example of political correctness, or just f**ked up facts? I understand your point, but isn't political correctness (in it's most basic form) supposed to eliminate racial, gender, social, etc., biases and references? The case you cite doesn't eliminate biases, it makes them (as well as being most likely being quite false). I just wonder if the term is being bastardized, much the way liberal has been.

 

[Irvine511]

I just wonder if the term is being bastardized, much the way liberal has been.

it totally has. it originated as a way to address, and correct, what is known as "phallologocentrism" -- hard to fully explain here, but is precidated upon the idea that all western thought is based on the idea of a center -- an origin, a Truth, and Ideal Form, a Fixed Point, an Essence, a God, whcih is usually capitalized and guarantees all meaning. the problem with having a center is that it, definitionally, excludes that which is not the center which becomes the Other, which is in turn ignored, repressed and marginalized. in male-dominated socities man is central (and woman is the marginalized Other). the longing for a center spawns binary opposites, with one term of the opposition central (man) and the other marginal (woman).

essentially, politcal correctness attempts to address how language is inherently biased, and it's very usage replicates certain social power structures. it did bastardize a bit, especially on college campuses, and become a roadblock to debate and discourse, with the need for an in ordinate number of qualifiers before a statement was made, but the intentions were noble and much work has been done by political correctness -- it is no longer acceptable to use words like "negro" "dame" "queer" or whatever because we know they are words of subjugation created by those with political and monetary power -- in Western culture, straight white males.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I think to some degree, political correctness is necessary. If republicans went around calling democrats anti-life, I think it would piss quite a few of you off. On the other hand, we have to be careful about how polically correct we are. I've seen it brainwash people on both sides of the fence. People take their buzzwords and assume that their opponents are the direct opposite of them.

Let me give you some examples, and I will be fair about it.

http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/home/2004/11/framing.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084562/

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I think it's phoney and a form of censorship. Don't get me started.

Ditto.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that it is postmodernisms contribution to the world of social engineering. Not saying things in public doesn't make those hatreds go away - only open and frank debate does. I would just like to seperate the concept of political correctness with politeness, different speech for different situations; it is a form of social engineering but one of mutual reciognition and not one that risks overt condemnation.

 

[Do Miss America]

I think to some degree, political correctness is necessary. If republicans went around calling democrats anti-life, I think it would piss quite a few of you off. On the other hand, we have to be careful about how polically correct we are. I've seen it brainwash people on both sides of the fence. People take their buzzwords and assume that their opponents are the direct opposite of them.

Let me give you some examples, and I will be fair about it.

http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/home/2004/11/framing.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084562/

I'm not sure if I'd really find those two links about political correctness more than I would of how both sides spin language. Completely different.

 

[Irvine511]

I think that it is postmodernisms contribution to the world of social engineering. Not saying things in public doesn't make those hatreds go away - only open and frank debate does. I would just like to seperate the concept of political correctness with politeness, different speech for different situations; it is a form of social engineering but one of mutual reciognition and not one that risks overt condemnation.

but political correctness should -- in it's pure form -- stimulate debate. i'd say politeness does more to stifle open dialogue. i went to a very small liberal arts school, and professors there complained of a culture of "stifling politeness." it was very small, and you didn't want to offend anyone lest you have to see them at the dining hall, soccer field, or drunk at a party and be in for an awkward situation.

it is right, however, to point out the fact that political correctness evolved (or devolved) from empowering people to exmine their lexicon to empowering people to play more-enlightened-than-thou, which is always the liberal's downfall.

 

[verte76]

Is this really an example of political correctness, or just f**ked up facts? I understand your point, but isn't political correctness (in it's most basic form) supposed to eliminate racial, gender, social, etc., biases and references? The case you cite doesn't eliminate biases, it makes them (as well as being most likely being quite false). I just wonder if the term is being bastardized, much the way liberal has been.

This stuff was *part* of a political correctness mentality that hit the universities in the '90's. Admittedly, the proponents of the fd up "facts" never called their philosophy "politically correct", it was mainly their detractors, including many embattled professors. One of these wrote a book called (something like) "The Myth of Political Correctness", I forget the exact name of the book. It analyzed the whole controversy over Cleopatra's background. Of course this made biases. These people were an extreme example of PC, but I was exposed to them every day. I took my required class "Historian's Craft" from that conservative African American prof who didn't support an African studies department and argued with these idiots about Cleopatra's heritage. He was excellent. I hated it that they were trying to screw this guy. There were other kinds of "politically correct" that weren't quite this aggressive and unforgiving, but this was part of my life for two years. I had to graduate to get away from it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm not sure if I'd really find those two links about political correctness more than I would of how both sides spin language. Completely different.

Good point, although I think that it would cause a stir if I referred to my opponents in ways that are not respectful, even if I believe it's true.