being 'politically correct' - how important is it?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

all_i_want

Refugee
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,180
being politically correct, using the right terms.. does it matter? does it really hide the real intention?

is it the intention or the statement that matters ?

what do you think?
 
I think it's phoney and a form of censorship. Don't get me started.:censored:
 
"Politically correct" is a reactionary term to an environment where it is essentially stated (for example) "you are a racist, prove me wrong". In todays environment, when one is accused (rightly or wrongly) of racism, or holding racist beliefs, everything else that is said stops until you respond to the charge.

The term, however, is sometimes overused to mask true racist beliefs.
 
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". :censored: :censored: 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.
 
Last edited:
"political correctness" is very passe. it's already a cliche, and while it came from good intentions -- we should examine our language, and realize how inherently racist/sexis/whatever it is, and how using such language reinforces social barriers and discrimination -- it has probably outlived its usefulness.

we now live in an age, post 9-11, of "patriotic correctness" where you cannot criticize the use of the US Army, or the behavior of American soliders at places like Abu Ghraib, without prefacing the satement with "i support our troops" or "i know not all troops torture Iraqis, but ..." same thing as NBC's example of political correctness and racism, but only this time it's loaded words like "patriotism" at stake.

of course, that only applies to the US.
 
I don't think it really exists except as a conservative bogeyman. I could be wrong, but I've never seen any other application of it.
 
Last edited:
U2Kitten said:
I think it's phoney and a form of censorship. Don't get me started.:censored:

I wouldn't say it's phoney, but it is overbloated these days.

It started with the greatest intentions. It started with the idea to truly examine our language and our actions for those that were being mistreated.

It removed racist terms, sexists terms, and insensitive terms. It forced us to look at the disabled differently are realize they can't function in our everyday surroundings. It did some great things but then it fell off the deep end. Now it's used and abused by both sides. It's used by some groups to sanitize every space of our lives and it's used by others to mask their racism and hatred.
 
nbcrusader said:
If it is a conservative bogeyman, then it is only used when the liberal bogeyman of racial politics is employed.

I don't think it's soley a conservative bogeyman, and both sides play racial politics, the right has actually gotten pretty good at it in the last few years.
 
nbcrusader said:
If it is a conservative bogeyman, then it is only used when the liberal bogeyman of racial politics is employed.

Yeah, sure. Whatever.

Case in point: the Trent Lott affair from a few years ago, in which the Senate Majority Leader says that things would be better if an avowed segregationist would have been elected President at the height of the civil rights struggle. Liberal outrage rightly ensues. Cries of "political correctness" from the right serve as pretty much the first, last, and only line of defense of Lott.

But I guess that was just that liberal bogeyman acting up again.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


It started with the greatest intentions. It started with the idea to truly examine our language and our actions for those that were being mistreated.

It removed racist terms, sexists terms, and insensitive terms. It forced us to look at the disabled differently are realize they can't function in our everyday surroundings. It did some great things but then it fell off the deep end. Now it's used and abused by both sides. It's used by some groups to sanitize every space of our lives and it's used by others to mask their racism and hatred.

I really think you have this wrong. You make it sound like "political correctness" is a liberal project gone awry. But it's nothing but a derogatory term coined by the right to trivialize the removal of "racist terms, sexists terms, and insensitive terms." It's an idiot term used by small-minded people.
 
Last edited:
strannix said:


I really think you have this wrong. You make it sound like "political correctness" is a liberal project gone awry. But it's nothing but a derogatory term coined by the right to trivialize the removal of "racist terms, sexists terms, and insensitive terms." It's an idiot term used by small-minded people.

What part do I have wrong exactly? That it did good or that it's being abused by both sides right now?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


What part do I have wrong exactly? That it did good or that it's being abused by both sides right now?

That it ever really existed in the first place! Talking about "political correctness" is the same as talking about the "Social Security crisis". It's a myth!
 
strannix said:
Case in point: the Trent Lott affair from a few years ago, in which the Senate Majority Leader says that things would be better if an avowed segregationist would have been elected President at the height of the civil rights struggle. Liberal outrage rightly ensues. Cries of "political correctness" from the right serve as pretty much the first, last, and only line of defense of Lott.

But I guess that was just that liberal bogeyman acting up again.

You couldn't pick a better example of liberal racial politics. Lott gives a man praise at a party for Thurmans 100th birthday, and liberals jump in to infer racially devisive meaning. Lott said nothing about segregation being good. Just kind words for an old politician.

Lott even said "My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life." Not good enough for the bogeyman, is suppose.

I guess it is that type of action that brings real progress in this country.
 
strannix said:


I really think you have this wrong. You make it sound like "political correctness" is a liberal project gone awry. But it's nothing but a derogatory term coined by the right to trivialize the removal of "racist terms, sexists terms, and insensitive terms." It's an idiot term used by small-minded people.

As a liberal myself (I voted for Kerry) I disagree. The original intent of this stuff sounded good--ban all of the racist, sexist, etc, etc, language and sentiment. Unfortunately they went over the deep end with this stuff really fast. By the time we were having those disputes in the history departments, it was out of hand. The controversy over Cleopatra's ethnic background had reached fever pitch and I was really pissed off over the whole thing. Some idiots wanted to preach ideology-based garbage at me in the name of history, and they were wrong, but they were so damned sure they were telling the gospel truth and anyone who disagreed with them was racist scum. They were an example of leftist racist scum themselves if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


You couldn't pick a better example of liberal racial politics. Lott gives a man praise at a party for Thurmans 100th birthday, and liberals jump in to infer racially devisive meaning. Lott said nothing about segregation being good. Just kind words for an old politician.

Lott even said "My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life." Not good enough for the bogeyman, is suppose.

I guess it is that type of action that brings real progress in this country.


Is this how you filter things?:huh:

Lott said, "The counntry would have been better off if Strom was elected in 48"

he ran as a third party candidate, his issue, pro segregation.
 
strannix said:


That it ever really existed in the first place! Talking about "political correctness" is the same as talking about the "Social Security crisis". It's a myth!

I think you're giving society too much credit. You honestly think these changes took place naturally? There has definately been a very distinctive shift in perception and language.

I know people in my parents generation and older who still use the word negro or colored to talk about someone who's black well after the civil rights movement. To them that was the "nicer" alternative to the word ******. You'd get publicly flogged if you used one of those words to describe a black person today. But if there hadn't been some type of movement in society to let everyone know this wasn't acceptable people would still be using these terms. Not out of racism but because that's what they were taught.
 
deep said:
Lott said, "The counntry would have been better off if Strom was elected in 48"

he ran as a third party candidate, his issue, pro segregation.

If you want to define him as a one issue person, then I suppose you can win your own case.

When someone turns 100, people tend to be more gracious in their comments.
 
The Trent Lott controversy centered around Strom Thurmond's nomination as the Dixiecrat candidate in 1948, well before the civil rights era. Lott used poor judgment in his statement about Thurmond, in my opinion, because the Dixiecrats were so bad for Southern politics. It's a regional thing, I think, it rubbed alot of Southerners the wrong way. If you are from another part of the country, you look at it in a different way. People were circulating petitions pushing Bill Frist as the new Senate Majority Leader. I do not think these people were liberals. There *were* liberals involved; the liberal blogs were the people who actually broke the story to the press. But not everyone involved in the Lott controversy was a liberal.
Back to the politically correct debate.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


If you want to define him as a one issue person, then I suppose you can win your own case.

When someone turns 100, people tend to be more gracious in their comments.



With a hundred years, he could have picked many things to comment on

His whole presidential run was based on segregation


Again, I find your filter process odd

Would you have as much tolerance for a remark praising anti-Semitism?
 
verte76 said:
The Trent Lott controversy centered around Strom Thurmond's nomination as the Dixiecrat candidate in 1948, well before the civil rights era.

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.
 
nbcrusader said:


If you want to define him as a one issue person, then I suppose you can win your own case.

When someone turns 100, people tend to be more gracious in their comments.

I do think Lott was trying to be nice and I don't think he was advocating segregation or anything of the sort. The thing is, what do you say about a guy like Strom Thurmond, with his background? The guy was a controversy magnet, for obvious reasons.
 
nbcrusader said:


How blue state of you....


how easily you resort to name-calling.

seriously NBC, i'd expect more from you. everyone knows what Lott said, and it was deeply offensive, and it wasn't just liberals. in fact, the liberals -- boogeymen like HRC or Ted Kennedy stepped aside as people from all sides of the political spectrum called him on it. in fact, the most effective voices were from those in his own part -- from conservative writers like Sullivan to McCain and even W. the entire basis of Thurmond's platform in 1948 was segregation, and Lott effectively said that we'd all be better off had we elected him. that *is* praise for segregation, not graciousness for an old man. this isn't political correctness, not least is it political correctness in the highly conservative terms you've defined it (and incompletely and conveniently defined it, btw). it was a racist comment, and everyone recognized it as such, and called him out on it, and he did some grovling on BET, which just further exposed Lott for what he is: a modern day Dixiecrat.
 
Irvine511 said:

how easily you resort to name-calling.

I guess you missed the casual "idiot term of the small minded" comment I was responding to.

Irvine511 said:
seriously NBC, i'd expect more from you. everyone knows what Lott said, and it was deeply offensive, and it wasn't just liberals. in fact, the liberals -- boogeymen like HRC or Ted Kennedy stepped aside as people from all sides of the political spectrum called him on it. in fact, the most effective voices were from those in his own part -- from conservative writers like Sullivan to McCain and even W. the entire basis of Thurmond's platform in 1948 was segregation, and Lott effectively said that we'd all be better off had we elected him. that *is* praise for segregation, not graciousness for an old man. this isn't political correctness, not least is it political correctness in the highly conservative terms you've defined it (and incompletely and conveniently defined it, btw). it was a racist comment, and everyone recognized it as such, and called him out on it, and he did some grovling on BET, which just further exposed Lott for what he is: a modern day Dixiecrat.

It was one line from a speech fifty years removed from Strom's candidacy. I guess the my original premise is correct - it's racist, prove me wrong.
 
nbcrusader said:


I guess you missed the casual "idiot term of the small minded" comment I was responding to.



It was one line from a speech fifty years removed from Strom's candidacy. I guess the my original premise is correct - it's racist, prove me wrong.


fair enough on the first point.

on the second point ... you're really grasping at straws here. the brevity of your posts make them hard to respond to, but i suppose that's an effective technique. how else would you characterize a remark about how much better off we'd all be if we had just elected Strom in '48? the two things Strom was famous for were his age, and his deeply racist past. nothing needs be proved, nor, as we all have said, was calling Lott out on this comment at all a matter of political correctness. you're twisting the term to justify your interpretation of a situation -- again, i expect more from you.
 
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.

:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom