The disease of politcal correctness

yeah i think most of the people who whine about political correctness are the ignorant who want to be able to say ni**ger and f*g whenever they want and then turn it around like "oh dont be a baby its just WORDS - why you so PC man??"

real PC, PROBLEMATIC PC, is when people wont face difficult TOPICS because theyre afraid to offend - in contrast to that, the ability to use ones language in a considered and respectful way, even when the topic is highly charged, is called SOCIAL ACUITY, and is a good thing

hiddeninthesnow wrote:

Rickie wrote:

Manu wrote:
Why is political correctness so prevalent in society nowadays? Is it justified? Do we really want it at TotJO?

For some people it is a way of manipulation, control and power over others.

I am a feminist, meaning that I believe all persons of every gender should be treated with equal fairness. I would appreciate certain meatheads not saying that I am "obsessed with rape" because of that belief. And I don't believe it is unfair or "politically correct" for me to do so, it's just an incorrect generalization.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Those who label themselves as feminists confuse me, personally, especially if their goals and ideals are like what you describe. Feminism by title is exclusionary or at leased biased towards one gender. It would not be ridiculous for someone labeling themselves as an "Africanist" to be considered biased towards, or one who cares primarily about, the rights of people of African origin. The actual philosophical concept of equal treatment of the genders is called gender egalitarianism, a term which originates (as far as I know) from a time before feminism in the United States. This is a neutral term which has no "obsessed with rape" stereotype associated with it and at the same time represents exactly what you're talking about, and by using it instead of the feminist title you could avoid many problems with those whose only experience with feminism has been with radical feminists. So I'm not exactly sure why anyone in our modern age uses the title of feminism, especially considering the wide range of genders beyond the male-female dichotomy which has become widely accepted in modern times (such as those who are transgender).

Not passing any judgment, just genuinely curious about the word choice.

tzb wrote: Political correctness is another name for using language reflecting a desire to show tolerance of people with other beliefs, ideas...

I understand political correctness was originally born with this intent. I made an error in the original post by not clarifying that I was refering to instances where political correctness is abused.

One such instance is in the way feminism is practiced (by some).

Feminism is originally a counter culture movement, it balances the male-centric societal oppresion. In that sense it fulfills its purpose of bringing equality.

However, the perverted form of feminists, affectionally dubbed feminazis, twist the concept around and seem to be overly defensive and even oppress men. An example of this is how feminazis seem to denounce women wearing scant clothing as male opression, but if they wear scant clothing and are told to cover up they cry "freedom" and blame male opression again. A better example is how men who are abused by women are laughed at by society at large when they file a formal complaint.

I apologize in advance if I'm not expressing myself correctly, any offense attribute it to limitations in language, not me being a jerk. :laugh:

I do see your point Jestor, and I have no problem in accepting my part of the fault if I came across as ofensive.

hiddeninthesnow wrote:

Rickie wrote:

Manu wrote:
Why is political correctness so prevalent in society nowadays? Is it justified? Do we really want it at TotJO?

For some people it is a way of manipulation, control and power over others.

I am a feminist, meaning that I believe all persons of every gender should be treated with equal fairness. I would appreciate certain meatheads not saying that I am "obsessed with rape" because of that belief. And I don't believe it is unfair or "politically correct" for me to do so, it's just an incorrect generalization.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Well, Snowy, I cannot speak for Ren and his comment in the other thread, but I'm pretty certain it was not his intent to offend you or generalize all feminists in the way it might have come across.

And sadly, there is a group of feminists (feminazis) that make the rest of you look bad, I guess Ren was refering to those. Like in all groups, people are people, and some will carry over their flaws and violence into it. In history we've seen it happen over and over again (think Catholic Chuch vs Spanish Inquisition, Muslims vs extreme terrorist ISIS, Christians vs KKK, etc.) Feminism also has this bad element, but it is important to state that they do not represent the whole.

Manu wrote: Well, Snowy, I cannot speak for Ren and his comment in the other thread, but I'm pretty certain it was not his intent to offend you or generalize all feminists in the way it might have come across.

I appreciate the response (really), but I am absolutely certain that Ren's entire MO is to upset people. I've read enough of what he has to say, at this point, to know that he is the resident attention seeker and he'll be getting no more from me.

And sadly, there is a group of feminists (feminazis) that make the rest of you look bad,

Maybe that's the best reason to continue claiming feminism for myself... to eclipse what those negative voices have to say

Thanks for your response, Manu. We may have different points of view sometimes, but I believe you's good people

hiddeninthesnow wrote:

Manu wrote: Well, Snowy, I cannot speak for Ren and his comment in the other thread, but I'm pretty certain it was not his intent to offend you or generalize all feminists in the way it might have come across.

I appreciate the response (really), but I am absolutely certain that Ren's entire MO is to upset people. I've read enough of what he has to say, at this point, to know that he is a resident attention seeker and he'll be getting no more from me.

And sadly, there is a group of feminists (feminazis) that make the rest of you look bad,

Maybe that's the best reason to continue claiming feminism for myself... to eclipse what those negative voices have to say

Thanks for your response, Manu. We may have different points of view sometimes, but I believe you's good people

Well, first off thank you for the flattery

As I said I cannot speak for Ren, but I've been around online forums long enough to recognize a troll and it is my assessment that he is not.

It IS his MO to stir up conversation, but I would venture the question: is that really a bad thing? If everyone had the same style of communication it might get boring, and sometimes stirring up things is the best way to take you out of your comfort zone: that is how we learn.

I'm not saying that it is so, but maybe, just maybe, there is a hidden lesson in all of this?

I see feminism as the 'egalitarian movement focused on the problems facing women', and in that regard hence the title. It's like a lobby group, they focus on a particular area which needs work (in their opinion), and therefore identify themselves about their particular focus area. Just because they don't work on other causes doesnt mean they don't agree with them.

Unfortunately there is widespread and persistent discrimination against women by men in the world which far exceeds that against men by women... its just a sad reality. As a result there are lots of female victims and these people have a harder journey ahead of them to come to terms with their experiences, many of which go way too far in expressing their outrage at the problems facing women - often breaking the law or worse, but it goes both ways and occurs in both camps, The majority of the feminist movement is about equality by focusing on the problems facing women.

As mentioned earlier by others, demeaning any group is not particularly constructive/useful to communication if its not the point of the message. The reaction to this does not fit, in my definition, being politically correct, IMO.

We can talk about stuff, but if we are giong to exaggerate and misrepresent things then it would be expected to be pulled up if not just to educate. The problem is when people exaggerate and misrepresent to create conflict..... that is a problem IMO.

For me though I agree there is a real problem with PC being taken too far. For me half the problem is that there are 2 definitions for discrimination, and one of them is discriminatory and the other is not. I think people mix them up quite a lot. In my opinion identifying something by a notable unique attribute is not discriminatory, and instead its when that notable attribute is used to discriminate against them in terms of human rights - then its discriminatory. The problem seems to emerge how we use that attribute. Some people think using that attribute itself is not appropriate, but I think often it's not discrimination to do so, rather how its used.

Which links back to what I was saying with feminism. It's inaccurate to use the behaviour of the minority radical fringe of feminism to represent feminism's purpose or actions. As mentioned by another, its like calling the actions of the ISIL the norm for Muslim's. It offends all Muslim's. Quite simply if a person was genuine about using a label, then they'd at least make an effort to use it accurately or be open about not knowing. The post in question which started all this IMO used inflammatory and offensive langauge in two main areas, the 'slu$' word and misrepresenting feminism, and when used together I think its called flame baiting. It was very borderline to be deleted, and probably would have been if I'd been able to think up a word to replace it in its posted context. That's my opinion, which as a Mod thought might need to be explained to the membership considering the discussion its prompted.

How I look at it political correctness is that there is a time, place, and extent to it. Being in a family with a gay sibling, especially one who studies other people, I have been told about political correctness and have formed a few opinions on it. I believe there is nothing wrong with not generalizing, because generalizations can be wrong. But, that is not to say we can forget that ISIS is a group of Muslim extremists. Emphasis on extremists because it does separate them from the rest. Also, the same should be done with feminism. I have nothing whatsoever wrong with feminism as long as they don't talk down to males, and only want to be purely equal-which is a rare coincidence, which is why I don't call out all feminists, and only specific ones that make the others look bad.

It only gets extreme when it becomes a weapon rather than a shield; used to manipulate people. For example, if I were to mistakenly assume the gender of another person-knowing that there are transgenders, people who identify as other genders, and gender fluid people-I think there is a degree in which they can rightfully be upset. Should I have just assumed? Probably not, but was I supposed to ask? That would likely offend people just as much. So maybe my assumption may annoy you, but recognize there is an extent to how politically correct I can be.

But of course this is all my opinion, and it will change, as will the social situation. Before you know it all this stuff that is known as "politically correct" may just become second nature, and there will likely be a new thing that would be discussed and debated in it's place.

It IS his MO to stir up conversation, but I would venture the question: is that really a bad thing?

On a forum for an alternative religion with a strong penchant for philosophy? Probably not a bad thing, no
Super-heated debates are a bit of a jedi tradition

It's like a lobby group, they focus on a particular area which needs work (in their opinion), and therefore identify themselves about their particular focus area.

The reason why it should be abolished. right there.
How about... Big Oil is the 'egalitarian energy movement focused on the problems facing oil exploiters'. Well no of course it's not. When you exclude people you are literally discriminating and can therefore not be egalitarian. Big Oil discriminates against Small Green, feminism discriminates against men. Some people may wrongly believe themselves to be egalitarians when they are in fact feminists, some people may wrongly believe themselves to be feminists when they are egalitarians. The confusion is part of the game, Big Oil and the other big lobbies play it very well too....

ren wrote:

It's like a lobby group, they focus on a particular area which needs work (in their opinion), and therefore identify themselves about their particular focus area.

The reason why it should be abolished. right there.
How about... Big Oil is the 'egalitarian energy movement focused on the problems facing oil exploiters'. Well no of course it's not. When you exclude people you are literally discriminating and can therefore not be egalitarian. Big Oil discriminates against Small Green, feminism discriminates against men. Some people may wrongly believe themselves to be egalitarians when they are in fact feminists, some people may wrongly believe themselves to be feminists when they are egalitarians. The confusion is part of the game, Big Oil and the other big lobbies play it very well too....

I dunno how lobby groups work in the US (where the term seems prevalent), but the idea I was trying to express when I said "like a lobby group" is groups and individuals (why I used the work movement instead of group) working towards achieving outcomes in specific policy, legal, behavioral/social and therefore cultural domains to achieve an egalitarian outcome in regards to human rights in the area of gender disparity. So I'd say your use of "big lobbies" and comparing it to "Big Oil" is a chunk of a misrepresentation when used for feminism.

Focusing on one area of gender disparity is not excluding anyone, its just the scope of their activity. Nothing would get done if everything needed to be done when anything was attempted - your logic makes no sense in real terms. Feminists are egalitarians (target cause) and feminists (work focus). Its just convenient for anti-feminists to blur this distinction between goal and action. As I've explained this to you before ren, but IMO if a system is unbalanced, then movement in the direction of balance is not the same thing as movement past balance - because that would mean the target had changed. Such that any discriminatory nature in application of feminism should be to restore equality from an existing inequality. Can it go too far, yes, can it not go far enough, yes. You'd have to ignore the problem to truly believe that solving it was not required, and that person would not be an egalitarian.... so arguing against feminism generally is arguing for a patriarchy. If you wanted to label people who wanted a matriarchy then they wouldn't be feminist's, they'd have their own label to identify the different target (cause) and therefore different work focus.