Where did I say I disapprove of the prank? He embarrassed her primarily for being a racist not for being politically correct. It makes zero sense otherwise. Don't you know the background?

Where did I say I disapprove of the prank? — Baden

I'm just trying to make sense of how you reached your conclusion.

He embarrassed her for being a racist not for being politically correct. It makes zero sense otherwise. Don't you know the background? — Baden

Better than you, it seems. That was only part of it. He has criticised her for saying that you shouldn't say "the n-word" - not even in a context which seems acceptable. She has actually said that context doesn't matter in those exact words. Aren't you a fan of Stewart Lee? You should appreciate that point.

It's not just that she's a massive hypocrite for a number of things, it's that she's a dumb, politically correct hypocrite, who exaggerates and overreacts and makes really bad arguments and terrible excuses which don't stand up to intelligent scrutiny. She's an easy target, and he called her the most predictable person on the planet.

Have you not watched his video on her?

Ok, well, I have no sympathy for her considering her background whatever his motives were. But it doesn't seem a very good illustration of why political correctness is a bad thing. I would say the principle of etiquette that frowns upon people shouting "nigger" for fun is pretty sensible.

Ok, well, I have no sympathy for her considering her background whatever his motives were. But it doesn't seem a very good illustration of why political correctness is a bad thing. I would say the principle of etiquette that frowns upon people shouting "nigger" for fun is pretty sensible. — Baden

It's not supposed to be a categorical bloody imperative.

It wasn't just for fun. He was making a good point, and sometimes that requires being unconventional. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

Would you judge Stewart Lee because what you take from his comedy is that we should all go around calling each other things like a Toby jug filled with hot piss? Good idea, Stewart, I think I'll call my nan that when she's on her deathbed, and my boss at work when my next review comes around.

"Nan?"

"Yes, my dear? Speak up, I can't hear very well in my old age".

"I just wanted to tell you..."

"Go on, my dear."

"I just wanted to tell you that you're a Toby jug filled with hot piss".

You may have a point there. I still don't think the overall critique of political correctness is very powerful though. Attacks on it almost always tend to go for soft targets that many proponents of PC behaviour would also find problematic.

For example, I don't think it's appropriate to call children who have learning disabilities, 'mongoloids' or 'retards'. I, like most people, prefer PC terms. The children in question and their parents prefer it too and I lose nothing by being PC. So, there's a harder target for you to attack.

You may have a point there. I still don't think the overall critique of political correctness is very powerful though. Attacks on it almost always tend to go for soft targets.

For example, I don't think it's appropriate to call children who have learning disabilities, 'mongoloids' or 'retards'. I, like most people, prefer PC terms. The children in question and their parents prefer it and I lose nothing by being PC. So, there's a harder target for you to attack. — Baden

I'm not making an outright attack on political correctness, but rather what I take to be where it goes wrong. I am against it when it is excessive or not the right response. Believe it or not, I don't actually go around calling children with learning disabilities "retards" or black people "wogs" like some people I know, and who I am practically forced to associate with on a regular basis. I've got to earn a living somehow, even if some of the people I work with act like re--

And I think many who take up arms against political correctness probably feel the same way. Makes me wonder sometimes where the points of disagreement actually lie. Do we just define things differently?

And I think many who take up arms against political correctness probably feel the same way. Makes me wonder sometimes where the points of disagreement actually lie. Do we just define things differently? — Baden

Probably. That's what much of this philosophy stuff seems to boil down to. It's what I like to call the horse-cat problem. That is, when you're talking about something, but then all of a sudden you're attacked out of nowhere by a creature that is half horse, half cat. Or a "hat" as I call them.

Damn, I should start charging people for these gems.

It seems to me that the disagreement (in general, not specific to you) isnt in the way things are defined, but rather in the way they are being measured. The degree of damage the speech does is different between the two views, the penalty for certain speech is on two ends of the scale and likewise for the restrictions on speech. Its not so much what the two sides believe, its to what degree.
I think alot of the conclusions and positions on both sides are informed by each sides idea of the degrees if the three things mentioned above. For example, the lower your tolerance for the degree of damage the higher your penalties and restrictions are going to be.

Given that, I suppose the most sensible way to conduct the debate is to avoid "PC is good" vs "PC is bad" type positions and focus in on actual real-life examples and see what's going wrong (or right) with them, and why.

(Apologies to @andrewk for stealing his point and repeating it).

Apologies — Baden

:vomit:

Piss pot Toby jug!

Piss pot Toby jug! — Baden

Sorry Baden, but real men don't apologise. Bollocks cunt Play-Doh nipples.

In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. For me to do so the next person will have to be able to tell me their honest opinions however offensive these may be. — Ilya B Shambat

It is quite possible to deliver any opinion honestly and with courtesy. "Political correctness" is just another name for courtesy. Politeness. :roll:

Given that, I suppose the most sensible way to conduct the debate is to avoid "PC is good" vs "PC is bad" type positions and focus in on actual real-life examples and see what's going wrong (or right) with them, and why. — Baden

No, PC is merely the description of the divide in degrees. I wouldnt agree its ever good as it represents the opposing view. “PC” is the difference in degrees.

Given that, I suppose the most sensible way to conduct the debate is to avoid "PC is good" vs "PC is bad" type positions and focus in on actual real-life examples and see what's going wrong (or right) with them, and why. — Baden

But then you get folks like me who don't care for any moralizing at all when it comes to speech.:razz:

First of all, my attitude is not PC. — Fooloso4

Actually I didn't think so. The point of power plays was just similar.

It has been my recent experience on another philosophy forum that any rational discussion of such things is impossible there because of a group of rabid anti-PC members who are too emotionally involved and convinced of the truth of their caricatures. — Fooloso4

This brings up one important issue here. And that is simply that the whole debate around PC isn't the most important issue (which has come up already here). And this is something one has to remember.

For example, a lot of the debate is about what "is happening in American campuses". There are some highly publisized incidents which have broken the news barrier. But otherwise, I would argue that this is basically an issue that doesn't touch the vast majority of students in tertiary education or university education in general. The truth is that the majority just studies, graduates and transfers to the workforce with usually fond memories later of their time in college / at the university. Only a tiny minority is active on these issues (or in other issues) and just like in the time of their parents (or grandparents) in 60's, a small but vocal minority creates this myth of students being all hippies and leftists back then.

With this in mind one seriously could ask why someone would get so emotional about it, really. The only ones that perhaps can feel this being larger than life are few people in the academia.

In my view even if the topic isn't the most important issue of our times, it does tell something about the present.

With this in mind one seriously could ask why someone would get so emotional about it, really. — ssu

Because there is more to it. Some people feel that their way of life is being threatened by those who are going to tell them how to live, what to say and do.

I think there is some truth to this. But the world is changing and that can be threatening.

It is quite possible to deliver any opinion honestly and with courtesy. "Political correctness" is just another name for courtesy. Politeness. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

No, that is far from a complete picture of what political correctness is.

But anyway, your point is meaningless without your implicit assumptions about courtesy and politeness, and these implicit assumptions are precisely what is being questioned.

If I respect frankness, then are you not disrespecting me by being polite instead of frank? Frankness involves honesty and directness, and being polite doesn't allow that in at least some conceivable cases. You know, like white lies and avoiding certain subjects. If you know this about me, then why would you knowingly disrespect me?

By the way, is it polite to roll your eyes at someone? Didn't think so. Good thing I don't care so much about that sort of thing, but unfortunately for you it appears to suggest hypocrisy.

Because there is more to it. Some people feel that their way of life is being threatened by those who are going to tell them how to live, what to say and do. — Fooloso4

Exactly, many people feel threatened. And of course some who really feel upset about the apparent PC sillyness for example in academia, might adhere to the conspiracy theory that Cultural Marxists are doing this ideological flouridation scheme of the new generations studying in the universities. Few believe these conspiracies, yet these kind of even more outrageous ideas naturally lead to accusations that critical comments of the PC culture etc. are just 'disguised' attacks from racists. But as during the Red Scare era the conspiracies of flouridation, vaccination programs and mental health services being a communist plot can be dismissed, so ought the most bizarre ideas too. Yet there being those laughable ideas don't make the whole issue unimportant or prove the criticism wrong.

I think the best way is simply to show the inconsistencies and falsehoods when they are promoted and leave it to people then to make their own conclusions. Simply stopping the debate and not having a debate about any issue doesn't solve it. Of course many won't make the conclusions you think should be made, but who cares, that is either their problem or their advantage then.

Frankness involves honesty and directness, and being polite doesn't allow that in at least some conceivable cases. — S

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults. And that's its point and purpose. Address the message, not the messenger, and politeness will get you wherever you want to go, with complete honesty, but without conflict. Politeness avoids conflict.

does it really matter if it is a small number of people acting in a certain way, that is linked to the view of what PC is?

Surely it the effect these people have on a larger society, not the size of the groups.

Not that it needs an analogy, but one could describe the bombing of Hiroshima as just a few blokes in a plane dropping a bomb...in this case, too, it wouldn't really have any bearing how many people were in the plane...or the relatively small number of people involved in the Manhattan Project.

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults. — Pattern-chaser

Not thinking it through properly or lying to yourself? Which is it?

There can be a big difference between insulting someone and just saying something which they don't want to hear. There's a big difference between calling someone a twat, and saying that you think that their shirt clashes with their trousers. They might have even asked for your honest opinion of the latter. But some people would still try to be polite and respond with a white lie. It is understandable that some people get annoyed at people who just tell them what they want to hear in order to be polite or politically correct or sensitive to their feelings.

And that's its point and purpose. Address the message, not the messenger, and politeness will get you wherever you want to go, with complete honesty, but without conflict. Politeness avoids conflict. — Pattern-chaser

1. It's relevant to address the messenger if that's what we're talking about.

2. The whole point is to examine these simple minded assumptions. Is it always necessarily a good thing to avoid conflict? No. Anyone who isn't hopelessly biased and is capable of thinking outside of the box should be able to reach that conclusion.

It seems that some people here just want to be cheerleaders for political correctness, and turn this into a pointless "yay-boo" kind of affair.

Few believe these conspiracies, yet these kind of even more outrageous ideas naturally lead to accusations that critical comments of the PC culture etc. are just 'disguised' attacks from racists. — ssu

From the wiki article on political correctness:

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S. Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as "politically correct".

...

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US. It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term "thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination." Similar critical terminology was used by D'Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as "canon busting"). These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D'Souza's.

...

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies – especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews's view that PC is best described as "Left Eclecticism", a term defined by Kimball as "any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism."

PC is the face of the conservative battle against progressivism. For more on the history of this as well as the influence of dark money on politics, culture, and society see Jane Mayer's Dark Money.

Not everyone holds PC/politeness in such high regard. For example I find it insincere, time wasting, obnoxious and often cowardly. (Cowardly becuase some types of people like to use it as cover to be the exact kind of prick they claim to be against). I much prefer being straightforward, honest and even confrontational (get everyones cards on the table and stop pussyfooting around so the issue gets sorted and we can move on).
You think your way is better, I think my way is better. We are free to discuss, debate, convince. What you are NOT allowed to do is force your way upon me and vice versa. That is what “PC” is, forcing people to do things a certain way. Free speech protects BOTH parties from that kind if authoritarianism, which is a very good thing.

Excellent observation. It is in fact cowardly. One of the points I made in the OP is that political correctness degrades people's character. They cannot tell their honest opinions, so they become insincere. And that does far more harm to American character than things such as sex and drugs. Doing drugs and having sex does not necessarily make someone a worse person. Being taught to be a scammer however very much does make someone a worse person, and that is bad for the country.

PC is the face of the conservative battle against progressivism. — Fooloso4

Yet political correctness exists, it surely isn't imaginary. What I agree that this is more about conservatives against progressives, not the "alt-right" against "cultural marxists". The debate and the instance of PC and criticism to it simply cannot be just some weird marxists against neonazis.

Yes,what wouldn't conservatives and progressives use in their fight, however that is just one viewpoint on the matter. For example Stephen Pinker argues that freedom of speech is important and universities and science shouldn't make censor findings that seem politically incorrect, because that only enforces the views like in the alt-right. Pinkers arguments do show that this isn't just an invention of the American right. I myself hold the view that the best indeed is that things are talked openly. People simply have to have some knowledge about the issues to see what is true and what is nonsense.

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults. — Pattern-chaser

Not thinking it through properly or lying to yourself? Which is it?

There can be a big difference between insulting someone and just saying something which they don't want to hear. — S

Exactly. :up: Politeness disallows the former, while facilitating the latter.