Admittedly Off-Topic: How Bad Is Political Correctness?
The meme to the left here is typical of what we see on Facebook, this posted by a “friend” whom I had accredited with more sense, but whom I treat respectfully nonetheless:
I’ve heard this countless times, but it’s always seemed strange to me. Our society is falling apart because it’s no longer acceptable to refer to gays as “faggots?” Does this strike you as a plausible argument? If anything, I would receive this as evidence that we’re becoming a kinder, more respectful, more enlightened civilization, i.e., that we’re headed in the right direction.
Maybe we have become kinder and gentler in how we refer to real people that we face on a daily basis. But, I believe that no holds are barred when it comes to politics. Anyone can be called a racist if their opinion differs on how to deal with social issues. This has not changed throughout the history of civilization. At least we are only hurling words and there are no longer Hamilton/ Burr duels to the death. Perhaps there is hope for the political realm but probably not til one party is firmly in control and can effectively eliminate free speech. I would rather put up with rudeness than to live in a straight jacket society.
There is more than one way to interpret the “TRUTH” statement. Of course it can be interpreted to mean that we should not hesitate to use hateful and offensive speech, and it may be that that it is intended to be interpreted and the way that most people will interpret it. However, there is another way to interpret it.
Sometimes what we say is censored to an absurd extent. For example, when talking to another caucasian, I referred to someone as black. She corrected me and said, “You mean African-American”. Had I though more quickly, I would have said, “If someone refers to himself as black, should I correct him?”. The fact is that not all blacks have ancestry from Africa. Some have ancestry from Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, or other nations where the people look much like black Africans. I’m sure that they do not consider themselves to be African-Americans. Moreover, there is nothing negative about referring to people as black.
The fact that it is considered socially unacceptable even to discuss problems faced by blacks who, like many whites, are trapped in a culture of poverty, makes it impossible to deal with the problems and provide the assistance that they need to escape from the culture of poverty. The fact is that it is a history of racism, Jim Crow laws, and Jim Crow customs, that has resulted in a disproportionate percentage of blacks being trapped in a culture of poverty. Regardless of race, escaping from that situation is very difficult without appropriate assistance. Treating it as socially unacceptable to discuss this benefits no one.
If the “TRUTH” statement results in making it possible to discuss problems honestly and helpfully, then it will be beneficial. Unfortunately, it could have the opposite effect.
I wonder whether there are any black persons here who would be willing to add to the discussion. Somehow it doesn’t seem quite proper to discuss a group of people who are not participating in the discussion.
Craig,
I think the term “politically correct” refers to a type of censorship designed to restrict anyone deviating from a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially a liberal point of view concerned with avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, the environment etc.
The effect is to stifle debate, reduce analysis, encourage orthodoxy and create a neo-puritinical society.
Like all forms of censorship, it actually harms those it seeks to help by breeding resentment, and ignoring reality.
Oppression, comes in many forms, from the well meaning to the malovent, by it’s still oppression.
I hear you, but I’ve never felt that way personally. I’m in favor of letting people voice whatever’s on their minds, and letting public scorn do the job of reining them in.
There are places where it’s illegal to suggest that the Holocaust never happened. Why? What’s the problem with letting people communicate. since they’re doing so at the expense of their own credibility, both morally and intellectually.
Similarly, I’m not appalled by Trump’s views on Muslims, Latinos, women, etc. Let him speak, and then let the American voters send him packing.
It may be a mistake to make it illegal for people to state that the Holocaust never occurred. Of course it did occur, but making it illegal to state that it did not occur may to some degree empower those who insist that it did not. I.e., it may actually have an opposite effect to what is intended.
The most effective way to counter a lie is to provide overwhelming information to prove that it is a lie. In the case of the Holocaust, that should be quite easy to do because of all the readily available evidence.
Jimmy Carr, a British Comedian, in one of his routines, sets up a joke by saying people belonging to a certain group get pass on comments about that group. According to this it might be “acceptable” for one white person to call another a honky without being considered racist. (Although other labels may come to mind.)
That is ok as far as it goes, but perhaps the subject of the article directed at the other “pass” we tend to give. More generally, a pass being given for things that have affected that group and particularly exhibiting the characteristic. So if Whites were subject to racism, and there are places or neighborhoods in the world where as the local minority this may be the case, they would be forgiven for exhibiting racist tendencies. This is probably not OK. But if you consider all the potential combinations it is not all that rare.
But to compound the problem if you considered some racist honkie trash to also be an angry hulking monster able to beat you to a pulp you may not be inclined to take issue with his remarks. So you give a pass not because it is “right” but because it is prudent.
To doubly compound the issue suppose it is not one racist white guy but the whole group you fear. And then perhaps suppose it is is not a reasonable fear but one based upon prejudice. Then you are giving a pass based upon a prejudicial perception. You have been “faked out.” Look at any wildlife program and you will see similar things in nature all the time.
This is the “Truth” in the truth picture above. However to further complicate an already convoluted topic there is the suggestion of motive. Some person in an effort to overcome their fear of another group may be looking for safety in numbers. By inciting a mob there they could hide. Then we have to consider if prudence or truth is more important and again if truth based upon the lie of prejudice is valid.
With such moral dilemmas we may be inclined to turn away from science to other sources of wisdom. We are admonished to not judge or we will be judged. We are told to “not throw the first stone unless we have no faults ourselves,” but this type of guidance for our personal path is less helpful if we were to somehow stand at some high point and try and determine a course for society. Maybe it is enough to understand our place and take some comfort in our choices for ourselves.
I still think we’re over-complicating this. What’s the problem with simply refraining from using names/epithets that other people find offensive? I’m fine on calling blacks or gays or whomever whatever they want to be called. It’s just good manners, which is something to which all decent people should aspire.
It appears that the majority of blacks are comfortable being referred to as blacks and referring to each other as blacks. There is no other commonly used term that could be used which would include people with ancestry from the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, etc., who look like indigenous Africans. Insisting on calling them African-Americans would excluding blacks who are not of African ancestry.
I suppose that one could argue that we shouldn’t use terms to define races. However, not doing so would be very awkward. For example, it is known that the wounds of black people heal differently and require different surgical techniques to prevent keloids from forming. They also tend to react differently to some medications and toxins. Writing about that in a medical text book would surely be awkward if there were no simple and specific terms to refer to people.
Also, sometimes it is necessary to describe people. There is no problem referring to people as caucasians, Japanese, etc.
Of course we should avoid the “n” word and other terms which are clearly derogatory. About that there is no question.
When I lived in Fiji, I was referred to as “european”. For example, if I went to an office, the receptionist might call the manager on the intercom and say, “Sir, there’s a european man here to see you.”. I found that amusing but certainly did not see it as a put down nor was it intended as such.
True, and it may work in practice but I can imagine there will always be someone who could be offended. So the real question is how much do we censer ourselves so that no one is offended. Do you risk not offending even when it may be an opportunity to correct a problem. Do you say you will try to never offend your kids? Your spouse? Perhaps offense is more of a tactical decision than a moral one?
On a related note, probably most of us are aware that in many places in France, the burkini has been banned. I see that as a serious mistake. However, possibly the best way to deal with it would be for large numbers of Christian women and other non-Muslim women to wear burkinis to support the Muslim women who wear them. That is so obvious that I cannot understand why it has not already been done.
Hiding one’s religion is not the way to deal with prejudice. Personally I would never walk around with a big cross around my neck, but if people want to do that, or wear a star of David, or whatever, they should be free to do so without being harassed. Similarly, Muslim women should be permitted to wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing except in the few situations where it could present a real and legitimate problem.
“I still think you are over complicating this…”
It is complicated because your wishes for harmony conflict with the 1st amendment. We wouldnt have to invoke the first amendment right to say what you want, even nasty insulting stuff, if people would just treat each other respectfully. You were right on your first try. Just let people spout nonsense and public scorn or defeat at the ballot box will keep the ship of state on an even keel. We shouldn’t impose laws on all of us because of dissident voices. Some day the minority may be right about an important issue and their voices should be heard.
I’m with you 100%.