• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Political correctness out of control

PC = polite and considerate.

The hijacking of the acronym is very similar to the hijacking of the word 'feminist'.

Those who oppose the concepts are always quick to spin the words and make them something they're not so as to use the words to dismiss and trivialize the ideas behind the words.

This. Politically correct is just not being an asshole.
 
I'm a liberal. Yes, one of those, a bleeding heart liberal. Tolerance is sacred to me. Just to let people get the fuck on with whatever without judging. To me political correctness is the antithesis of liberalism. It's everything liberalism isn't. IT'S IN THE FUCKING NAME! I personally make an effort not to offend people. Because I'm polite and well behaved. But I'm not going to police others on their use of words. Nor unfriend people who I think uses offensive words. To me that's also to be polite and well behaved. It's the opinion that matters. Not which words are used.

My impression is that political correctness is often white people competing about who is the most tolerant and end up becoming the one thing they're trying not to be... namely fascists. Here's Louis CK explaining what the problem is and how political correctness works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ

In Sweden right now there's controversy about the artist Makode Linde who is setting up a show in Stockholm's flashiest and most central art venue. He's calling the show "Negerkungens återkomst" which is Swedish for "Return of the Nigger King". What makes this special is that this is a government owned building. Politics matter. The will of the people and such.

This has led to a debate in various media channels where the director of Kulturhuset (the venue) is telling Makode that it's not acceptable and that he has to change the name. Makode's response was "So a white guy (the director) is telling a black guy (the artist) to stop being racist against blacks. He just doesn't get it. This is just political correctness out of control. He seems to be under the impression that art is a democratic process. It isn't. I'm going to call it whatever I like".

So this is a question to liberals. Do you think political correctness is out of control? I don't really care what conservatives or racists think because it's not news. This is a question for the liberal club.

I think that when you have speech, it's going to have some extremes. That doesn't just apply to things outside your political group it's also an in-group phenomenon. So, will you tolerate other liberals telling people they shouldn't do X? That's their free speech, isn't it? You also have free speech to argue back and in this very specific case mentioned in the op to talk about what the political or artistic value of the title means. Perhaps the title is in reference to himself and perhaps it's a political statement such as "Oh come all you White Swedes to see me, the spectacle around here. I am only accepted as a spectacle, not in your homes as part of your families. You have to get all dressed up and pretentious to come see me." As an artist he also doesn't have to deconstruct or explain his own art. He may feel that doing so violates his artistic integrity. His choice but it might not be convincing.

He does explain himself. But that's not the issue at all. Why does it matter whether we find the explanation convincing? Shouldn't he be free to say it anyway?
 
I think that when you have speech, it's going to have some extremes. That doesn't just apply to things outside your political group it's also an in-group phenomenon. So, will you tolerate other liberals telling people they shouldn't do X? That's their free speech, isn't it? You also have free speech to argue back and in this very specific case mentioned in the op to talk about what the political or artistic value of the title means. Perhaps the title is in reference to himself and perhaps it's a political statement such as "Oh come all you White Swedes to see me, the spectacle around here. I am only accepted as a spectacle, not in your homes as part of your families. You have to get all dressed up and pretentious to come see me." As an artist he also doesn't have to deconstruct or explain his own art. He may feel that doing so violates his artistic integrity. His choice but it might not be convincing.
He does explain himself. But that's not the issue at all. Why does it matter whether we find the explanation convincing? Shouldn't he be free to say it anyway?
And he was free to say it. Didn't he say it? If he said it, where is the problem?
 
Being liberal, I find political correctness to be perfectly opposed to the concept of liberalism.

A society cannot observe both at the same time.
 
I think that when you have speech, it's going to have some extremes. That doesn't just apply to things outside your political group it's also an in-group phenomenon. So, will you tolerate other liberals telling people they shouldn't do X? That's their free speech, isn't it? You also have free speech to argue back and in this very specific case mentioned in the op to talk about what the political or artistic value of the title means. Perhaps the title is in reference to himself and perhaps it's a political statement such as "Oh come all you White Swedes to see me, the spectacle around here. I am only accepted as a spectacle, not in your homes as part of your families. You have to get all dressed up and pretentious to come see me." As an artist he also doesn't have to deconstruct or explain his own art. He may feel that doing so violates his artistic integrity. His choice but it might not be convincing.

He does explain himself. But that's not the issue at all. Why does it matter whether we find the explanation convincing? Shouldn't he be free to say it anyway?

People giving positive, negative or no feedback are diverse. Picture a distribution of some sort. He's going to get more criticism if he has no convincing explanation. He's going to still get some even if he does have a convincing explanation. "I think that when you have speech, it's going to have some extremes. That doesn't just apply to things outside your political group it's also an in-group phenomenon."
 
Being liberal, I find political correctness to be perfectly opposed to the concept of liberalism.

A society cannot observe both at the same time.
I find it peculiar, some people seem to think everyone should be free to say what they want and believe, but at the exact same time, seem to be against other people being able to say what they want or believe in response to the original statement.

People are free to say as they think, but people aren't free to have an opinion on it. ???
 
Getting to the OP question, as my prior post implies, all PC is by its intended meaning "out of control" in the sense it refers to dogmatic application of a political agenda without regard for actual ethics or objective fact.

Unfortunately, the reasonable leftists who created the term to critique extremist party-line towing leftists have ceded the phrase to right-wing conservatives who use it to disparage any efforts to curb their blatant racism, sexism, and general intolerance and efforts to oppose equality. The sad result is that so many if not most uses of the term are non-legit defenses of actual immoral acts, and then this gives cover to leftists extremists who deflect legit uses of the critique by claiming all uses of it are just excuses by immoral conservatives.

As is usually the case in mainstream discourse, the dishonest rhetorical tactics of people on the right and the left set-up discourse parameters that make rational discussion near impossible.
 
He does explain himself. But that's not the issue at all. Why does it matter whether we find the explanation convincing? Shouldn't he be free to say it anyway?
And he was free to say it. Didn't he say it? If he said it, where is the problem?

The matter isn't settled yet. It's not a matter of just saying it. It's got to do what goes on the flyers, and advertising to market the show. The word by which the show is searchable on the Internet.
 
In a world in which Donald Trump is the odds-on favorite for nomination as a major party candidate for President of the United States, political correctness is not only not out of control but is barely detectable.
You are mistaken. It is alive and well. Take this for example, complete with demands for reeducation camps for those who dare question orthodoxy.
 
He does explain himself. But that's not the issue at all. Why does it matter whether we find the explanation convincing? Shouldn't he be free to say it anyway?

People giving positive, negative or no feedback are diverse. Picture a distribution of some sort. He's going to get more criticism if he has no convincing explanation. He's going to still get some even if he does have a convincing explanation. "I think that when you have speech, it's going to have some extremes. That doesn't just apply to things outside your political group it's also an in-group phenomenon."

You're missing the point. Why should it matter if he gets criticism for it? It's one thing being angry and offended. Quite another to force the artist to change the name of the show. I'd say they're a world apart. The first is cool. The second is not cool.
 
PC = polite and considerate.

The hijacking of the acronym is very similar to the hijacking of the word 'feminist'.

Those who oppose the concepts are always quick to spin the words and make them something they're not so as to use the words to dismiss and trivialize the ideas behind the words.

This. Politically correct is just not being an asshole.

Not sure. At least, what is and isn't being an asshole is sometimes up for debate.

When Martin O'Malley said "All Lives Matter" was he being an asshole?

I suppose the people who booed him thought he was. Others might the the people who booed were the assholes.
 
I've always found it curious that Conservatives have attacked political correctness. Let's consider the alternative:

1) Not listening to another's point of view
2) Actively insulting and disrespecting another person or group to their face
3) Dismissing another's opinion because of their race, culture, place of birth, girth

So what is so great about this?

- - - Updated - - -

This. Politically correct is just not being an asshole.

Not sure. At least, what is and isn't being an asshole is sometimes up for debate.
Check the mirror before you judge others.
 
Being liberal, I find political correctness to be perfectly opposed to the concept of liberalism.

A society cannot observe both at the same time.
I find it peculiar, some people seem to think everyone should be free to say what they want and believe, but at the exact same time, seem to be against other people being able to say what they want or believe in response to the original statement.

People are free to say as they think, but people aren't free to have an opinion on it. ???

Can you point to anyone is this thread who thinks that those who advocate PC positions should not be free to advocate those positions. The critique against PC is itself just a voicing the argument that the PC position is morally vacuous and often factually incorrect dogmatism. In addition, PC advocates often go beyond merely voicing displeasure with other people's language, and attempt to rob others of the freedom to voice theirs via regulations that prohibit and punish speech. The counter PC arguments (when used legitimately) are merely attempts to resist the highly coercive efforts of PC advocates.
 
I find it peculiar, some people seem to think everyone should be free to say what they want and believe, but at the exact same time, seem to be against other people being able to say what they want or believe in response to the original statement.

People are free to say as they think, but people aren't free to have an opinion on it. ???

Can you point to anyone is this thread who thinks that those who advocate PC positions should not be free to advocate those positions. The critique against PC is itself just a voicing the argument that the PC position is morally vacuous and often factually incorrect dogmatism. In addition, PC advocates often go beyond merely voicing displeasure with other people's language, and attempt to rob others of the freedom to voice theirs via regulations that prohibit and punish speech. The counter PC arguments (when used legitimately) are merely attempts to resist the highly coercive efforts of PC advocates.

You might want to cut back on the coffee.
 
PC position is morally vacuous and often factually incorrect dogmatism
Please elaborate.

PC advocates often go beyond merely voicing displeasure with other people's language, and attempt to rob others of the freedom to voice theirs via regulations that prohibit and punish speech
Please cite examples.
 
You're missing the point. Why should it matter if he gets criticism for it? It's one thing being angry and offended. Quite another to force the artist to change the name of the show. I'd say they're a world apart. The first is cool. The second is not cool.

I don't know about that one. It's one thing to use the n-word in a private conversation and it's another to post it on a sign in a public place. If the local white supremecist organization put on a show there called "Return of the Nigger King" then I'd be fine with the director stepping in and asking for a change to the title and if it's not fine for one group to use it on a public sign, I don't think it's fine for a different one to do so. It's a word that most people find offensive (for very good reasons) and it's well within the director's rights to say that they don't want to be associated with it.

I think it's the artist who's overdoing the politically correct bullshit by saying that a white person doesn't have as valid an opinion on the matter as a black person. The director knows exactly how offensive the word is and it's perfectly cool for him to not want a sign saying nigger at his venue.
 
I've always found it curious that Conservatives have attacked political correctness. Let's consider the alternative:

1) Not listening to another's point of view
2) Actively insulting and disrespecting another person or group to their face
3) Dismissing another's opinion because of their race, culture, place of birth, girth

So what is so great about this?

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure. At least, what is and isn't being an asshole is sometimes up for debate.
Check the mirror before you judge others.

I didn't judge anyone there. But look at you.
 
People giving positive, negative or no feedback are diverse. Picture a distribution of some sort. He's going to get more criticism if he has no convincing explanation. He's going to still get some even if he does have a convincing explanation. "I think that when you have speech, it's going to have some extremes. That doesn't just apply to things outside your political group it's also an in-group phenomenon."

You're missing the point. Why should it matter if he gets criticism for it? It's one thing being angry and offended. Quite another to force the artist to change the name of the show. I'd say they're a world apart. The first is cool. The second is not cool.

So far as the op, I think the artist adequately explained his position. I would tend not to be against it in the first place. I'm just an individual. Other people have different things that matter to them to different degrees. Some of it may not even be political but they may pretend it is.
 
I find it peculiar, some people seem to think everyone should be free to say what they want and believe, but at the exact same time, seem to be against other people being able to say what they want or believe in response to the original statement.

People are free to say as they think, but people aren't free to have an opinion on it. ???

Can you point to anyone is this thread who thinks that those who advocate PC positions should not be free to advocate those positions. The critique against PC is itself just a voicing the argument that the PC position is morally vacuous and often factually incorrect dogmatism. In addition, PC advocates often go beyond merely voicing displeasure with other people's language, and attempt to rob others of the freedom to voice theirs via regulations that prohibit and punish speech.
Prohibit and punish speech? Interesting. Where?
 
I think this one might be my favorite example of PC having gone too far:

https://reason.com/blog/2015/01/15/womens-college-cancels-vagina-monologues

Since the 1990s, students from Mount Holyoke College, an all-women's school in Massachusetts, have staged an annual production of The Vagina Monologues. Not this year. The college is retiring the ritual over concerns that the play—penned by Eve Ensler in 1996 as a way to "celebrate the vagina" and women's sexuality—is not inclusive enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom