June 11, 2008 by tgirsch
Commenter LarryE (at #4):
I long ago concluded that much of what is sneered at as being “politically correct” would in an earlier era be called “common courtesy.”
Amen. Kevin has often said similar, but instead of “common courtesy” he used “not being an asshole.”
 | David Worthington on Full and Satisfying |
 | tgirsch on Full and Satisfying |
 | Robert German on Full and Satisfying |
| tgirsch on Full and Satisfying |
| Robert German on World Ends. Long and Smooth… |
 | Steve Plonk on Reality: The Ultimate Litmus… |
 | Kevin T. Keith on Not Even Stupid |
| Kevin T. Keith on Not Even Stupid |
 | Dan M. on Not Even Stupid |
 | Nokilissa on Not Even Stupid |
Judd
Kevin
leanleft
Okay, I’ll bite. Just for fun. Can you provide examples of political correctness tied to common courtesy? I will look for some showing just plain stupidity. This could be fun. In the end I may wind up getting ground into the dirt and overwhelmed with evidence from you guys but I think it could be interesting to look at examples.
How about calling them “Hispanic-Americans” instead of “spics”; or “African-Americans” instead of “colored people” or “niggers”; or calling mentally-challenged people “retarded.” Etc., etc., etc.
I am sure the French love to be called frogs. Women swoon when you call them bitches and hos. It’s way cool to use the expression “jew him down” to refer to price negotiations. No doubt people of Italian descent welcome being called greaseballs and/or being automatically associated with the mafia. Dumb blonds, pollock, and other joke series spread good cheer. My native american friend is tickled pink when I use the term “indian giver”.
This is way too easy. Even a canuck should get this. (And yes, I understand that in Canada, the term is not generally considered pejorative.)
Those are excellent examples (Although I am trying to figure out why NAACP has not changed it’s name)
Some senseless examples:
large instead of fat or obese,
Asian instead of Oriental
Calling everyone who acts an actor instead of actors and actresses.
Dysfunctional family instead of broken home
gender reassignment instead of sex change
holiday trees instead of Christmas trees
Oh, and in Canada, the term natives is seen as derogatory and politically incorrect. The proper term is first nations.
Another one that I have noticed:
A blackboard is now called a chalkboard. However a whiteboard is still called a whiteboard and not a markerboard.
And as far as potential problems with political correctness, here is an article for you from Canada:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/politically_correct_advertisin.html
large instead of fat or obese,
Asian instead of Oriental
Calling everyone who acts an actor instead of actors and actresses
I fail to see why any of these are “senseless.” If people, as a group, are generally offended by a term, and there exists another equally-descriptive term that is inoffensive to them, then why is it “senseless” to prefer the inoffensive term?
And, in the case of “obese,” it’s actually a medical term with a precise technical definition. In that context, there’s nothing at all offensive about its use.
As for the “holiday tree,” I don’t see what the problem is there. If you were really a traditionalist, you’d be calling it a “solstice tree” anyway. Christians coopted it from the Druids long before pop culture coopted it from the Christians.
A blackboard is now called a chalkboard. However a whiteboard is still called a whiteboard and not a markerboard.
That’s because whiteboards are still almost exclusively whites, where as most chalkboards these days are green rather than black. It has nothing to do with “political correctness” and everything to do with the fact that they frequently aren’t black. They don’t call it “tin foil” any more, either, because it’s aluminum, not tin. No PC movement by the tin lobby is needed…
Big U -
Labeling it as “senseless” to call people “large” instead of “fat” illustrates my point. Thank you for raising it.
The word “fat” is not a description, it’s a judgment: Asked for words they associate with “fat,” common responses from “non-fat,” if you will, people include words like “lazy,” “sloppy,” and “slow” (both physically and mentally).
Not surprisingly, then, many people so described object to the term and would prefer to be called “large.”
And here you come, declaring it “senseless” to do so, as if to say “I know it’s hurtful when you’re called ‘fat,’ but I’m going to call you ‘fat’ anyway even though common courtesy and respect for your feelings would dictate that I don’t.”
Which is, again, a great example of what I was talking about. Thank you again.
Oh, and T -
Thanks for the compliment.
I’ve never understood why it’s considered “Political Correctness” to call people by the term they prefer. It is, as you say, just common courtesy.
If I decided to change my name, I’d consider anyone who continued to call me by my former name an asshole.
Well, here are my thoughts. I AM fat. I’m not lazy, I just spent 10 – 14 hours a day at the office for too long and not enough exercising so my weight got away on me. So people call me fat. Big deal. Now, I AM bothered when people call large, especially now, because I am much smaller than I was. Who is to judge what is large? Going by the charts, I will always be “overweight” or “large” even if I get down to skin and bones. I liked being called large when I was in great shape from playing sports. It was a compliment. Now society has made the choice to turn what I and many of my friends viewed as a compliment for all of our hard work in the weight room into a polite way to say someone is fat which to me now makes it an insult. But because it is politically correct, I am seen as being too sensitive when I bring up the fact I would prefer to simply be called fat instead of large. I should note, though, that while it bugs me to be called large, it’s my job to suck it up and deal with it. I do not have the right to not be offended. No one does.
Big U wrote: “I should note, though, that while it bugs me to be called large, it’s my job to suck it up and deal with it. I do not have the right to not be offended. No one does.”
Of course, it may be a matter of degree, but there is a difference between using a term such as “fat” and a pejorative ethnic slur. The word “large” *sounds* less harsh and judgmental; one would use it to smooth social interaction and avoid offending someone, but “fat” is a perfectly acceptable adjective (and noun). Offensive ethnic slurs never are.
Tgirsch wrote: “They don’t call it “tin foil” any more, either, because it’s aluminum, not tin.”
Does this mean I have to change the name of my preferred headgear to “aluminum foil hat”?
Does this mean I have to change the name of my preferred headgear to “aluminum foil hat”?
If you had taken Chemistry with my 10th grade science teacher, you would.
But as to your actual point, I still hear plenty of people call it a “blackboard,” too. Obsolete usages do tend to stick around for a while.
As a side note, I wonder: can you even easily get actual tin foil any more? And is aluminum foil anywhere near as effective at blocking the alien mind control machines? Maybe it’s an alien conspiracy!
tgirsch wrote: “As a side note, I wonder: can you even easily get actual tin foil any more?”
Probably not. I’m sure it’s gone the way of lead tinsel for Christmas trees, and Edsels. Egad!! An alien conspiracy!? Is the NSA aware??? Perhaps a preemptive strike is justified!!
Big U -
For all that, it still comes down to the same thing: You don’t mind being called fat, therefore no one else is allowed to object, therefore you’re going to call people fat even if they find the term hurtful and offensive, even as common courtesy says you should not. You have again proved my point for me.
Janusz -
For many people, “fat” is not “perfectly acceptable” because, again, it is not merely a descriptive, it is a derogatory judgment. If the term is avoided in order “to smooth social interaction,” isn’t that exactly what common courtesy is?
What about when PC language is used in the sense of euphemism, not avoid an offensive meaning, but to neuter the impact of a term, policy, etc.? To borrow one of George Carlin’s pet examples, “shell shock” sounds like a serious casualty of war, as does a “disabled veteran.” Post-traumatic stress disorder sounds like an excuse Alicia Silverstone’s character would have given for not doing her homework in Clueless. Handi-capable, or whatever, doesn’t help there either.
Then there’s the whole issue of flowery language masking the true extent to which bigotry pervades. A nigger by any other name, in essence. To what extent is PC language an institutionalized attempt to evade addressing the underlying dynamics of bigotry?
One may argue that the euphemism thing isn’t PC per se, that shell shock vs. PTSD is not the same as dago vs. Italian American. I’d argue that manipulative euphemisms and ultra-PC relabeling are pretty closely related.
Needless to say, on a personal level, it is always laudable to embrace diversity and be as sensitive and respectful as possible to every individual. My point is that, the very movement that claims to address such concerns can also be used to manipulate language in order to mask attempts to undermine such sensitivity and respect.
The whole issue is of whether these shifts are meaningful is related to the question of language shaping thought or thought shaping language. To me, that’s the more interesting angle from which to approach a discussion on the merits of the PC movement.
Larry E – I find the term “large” offensive when used to describe me when I am fat but in this day of political correctness, I do not have the right to be offended because it is the term other people (whoever they are) have determined is acceptable? That makes little to no sense to me.
In reality, a large portion of political correctness comes down to which group of people has the most clout to get their phrases approved.
I don’t call anyone fat because I know it offends some people. But I have been called large by others because they assumed it was an acceptable term even though to me it was offensive. I just sucked it up because as I said, I do not have the right to not be offended.
On another note, I find the term “holiday tree” offensive. I don’t get a tree for any holidays. Due to my profession, I do not get any “holidays” at Christmas. I get one day off. Just like many other days during the year. So to me, calling it a holiday tree reminds me that others have time off and I do not. It bugs me. The ONLY reason there is a decorated tree at that time of the year is because it is Christmas so why not call it a Christmas tree? I don’t hear people saying “look what the holiday bunny left” at Easter or “let’s go watch the holiday fireworks” for July 4th. So why the change at Christmas?
I use that as an example of how political correctness tends very often to be tied to political expediency.
Big U,
Do you mean “a full-figured portion of political correctness?”
I’m with ya on holiday tree. That doesn’t address the same thing that Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas does. Holiday tree is just stupid; in fact it kinda implies that the tree validates the holiday status. It does the same kind privileging bullshit it claims not to.
As far as what is or is not offensive – I hear ya again. Look, MTV’s my Super Sweet Sixteen has been offending the living shit outta me for a hot minute now (even Cribs to a lesser degree, but at least those mofos did something to earn their bank). But, since my sensibilities don’t really jive with the values we are so keen on promoting, nobody really gives a shit about offending them.
Mixing a lot of different things here. Christmas tree/holiday tree is not about being politically correct. It’s about being inclusive. As far as I know, nobody in the freaking world objects to an individual having a Christmas tree and referring to it in that way. OTOH, if a tree is in a school or a mall or some other public place, in order to be inclusive of those who do not celebrate Christmas, holiday tree seems OK. But this is really on the fringe of the subject.
Blackboards, as has been pointed out, is a red herring cooked up by those who oppose political correctness.
As for newspeak terms that sanitize the true meaning of the original phrase, this is swept under the “political correctness” umbrella by some, but it is an entirely different subject.
Ted:
Once again, we agree.
Ted,
Isn’t PC vs. inclusive a largely false distinction? I mean, look at it this way (and this also goes back to the masking BS I was talking about before).
A school decides to put up a tree to be representative of winter solstice holiday season. Well, why a tree? A tree is a symbol that is only representative of one holiday, the one celebrated by the dominant group. So, by putting up a tree, you are not being inclusive at all, you are excluding people.
But then, some poindexter says, “nah, we’ll call it a holiday tree, that way it’ll encompass everybody.” Does he say, “you know, maybe we should represent more diverse holidays by displaying other symbols too” or “if we’re going to put up one symbol to represent several different holidays, maybe we should use one that is specific-holiday-netural?”
No! Instead, he says, “I’ll just change how I label my symbol (explicitly, and exclusively related to my holiday) to something universal sounding and tell everybody else that my symbol represents them too, and that this is equivalent to giving everybody equal billing.
It’s a manipulation of language to disguise what actually is happening doing. We might as well be talking about the Clean Skies Initiative, or whatever the fuck it’s called.
Here’s an exercise, show up to the RF bleachers of Yankee Stadium with a Red Sox hat on. Tell ‘em that you’re not wearing a Red Sox hat, but rather a BASEBALL hat, and therefore it represents Yankee fans equally. Let me know how that works out…
LarryE wrote: “For many people, “fat” is not “perfectly acceptable” because, again, it is not merely a descriptive, it is a derogatory judgment. If the term is avoided in order “to smooth social interaction,” isn’t that exactly what common courtesy is?”
I think this is why some people roll their eyes when they say “PC”. I was making a distinction between words that are acceptable *in certain contexts* as opposed to others that are never acceptable. The word “fat” has acceptable usage at many times; scientists refer to fat as a part of the anatomy, your gym measures your fat/muscle ratio, the milk carton in your refrigerator lists its fat content etc. When I tell my neighbor that he is fat, it can only be construed as offensive or a social faux pas at best. No one will think the fat lip I get as a result should be referred to as a large lip. Ethnic slurs can never be used in an acceptable manner.
I see it as the difference between the words “Negro” and “nigger”, and I do see a difference, though I would use neither word. “Negro” is dated, shows a lack of social sophistication, and reeks of a time of strong racial distinctions and lack of social mobility. It may reflect poorly on the user as he may appear socially retarded, oblivious, naive and demonstrates a lack of sophistication in the social/political arena. But I don’t think it’s used as a deliberately offensive term, and I think there may still be legitimate uses for the word. The work “nigger” is *always* used in an offensive and derogatory manner, and no, I don’t think co-opting the word, as in rap lyrics for example, reduces the sting or offensiveness.
Oh, and just in case you aren’t seeing why I’m saying that inclusion and PC are two sides of the same coin. If you are privileging one culture over another, you are failing to show equal respect, and being insensitive. If it’s offensive to assume that “Chinese” (let along chink) is an appropriate way to characterize all people who look similar, then it is offensive to think that a tree can encompass a sincere, well-intentioned Hanukkah wish.
Okay Ted, now I’m confused. Who determines what is and is not allowed to be seen as political correctness? Is there a list out there?
For what it’s worth, I yanked this off Wikipedia. I don’t really care one way or the other, I was just under the impression that the following represents a generally accepted definition of the term. In any event, newspeak (language sanitizing) is definitely not about political correctness.
“Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term “politically incorrect” is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.”
How stark, or rather – visible – does a “disability” have to be to qualify?
For example, can’t I make the argument that shell shock vs. PTSD qualifies as a PC rednering under the offensive disability clause?
Isn’t that what happened with manic to bipolar – the connotation and stereotyping of one got bad enough to be offensive. Disregard that if I’m wrong there, but I think you get my point regardless.
digg, I hear you. No doubt there are plenty of cases that straddle the line, and again, I have no strong feelings here. My understanding is renaming the Department of War the Department of Defense is not about political correctness. It is about using language to manipulate. So are the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. Death tax instead of Estate tax. That’s all I am saying. And on this I think we are in total agreement.
(BTW, while I am not at Yankee STadium at the moment, I am watching them on Gameday and I am wearing a Red Sox hat, as I frequenty do.)
This is just a sampling of what happens when political correctness starts to run amok in a country. Welcome to the thought-police controlled republic of Canuckistan, formerly known as the country of Canada.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg17-2008jun17,0,6999887.column