Political correctness out of control

[ronburgundy]

Do you think that Trump was engaging in "valid discourse?"

No. You weren't asking people's opinion on Trump, but about what kinds of reactions to speech people generally free to engage in. I'm not going to do the work to undue the work you did to draw invalid inferences from what I said, other than to say that I do not find Trumps comments to be valid, and nothing I said suggest that I would think that.

Where other people's freedom begins, which is at their ability to voice any and all ideas, provided they do not directly call for criminal actions against other persons, thereby constituting an effort to violate the legal liberties of others.

So then you'd be okay with a White teacher calling their Black students "niggers?"

So, do you really have no understanding of the massive logical difference between not wanting to prosecute speech as a crime and "being okay with" it? Or is this just your lazy way of trying to score rhetorical points rather than make a coherent argument?

A teacher that calls their students "niggers" is not competent at their job they are being paid to do. They can and should be fired, but not as punishment for saying a naughty word, but because their use of it in that context towards their students shows incompetence in their job.
Also, they nor anyone else who uses that term should not go to jail for it. The firing is not a legal punishment issued by the government in its role of administering the criminal justice code. Rather the firing is just an employer firing incompetent employees, as all employees ought to do. It just happens that if the teacher is in a public school, then the government happens to be the employer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No. You weren't asking people's opinion on Trump, but about what kinds of reactions to speech people generally free to engage in. I'm not going to do the work to undue the work you did to draw invalid inferences from what I said, other than to say that I do not find Trumps comments to be valid, and nothing I said suggest that I would think that.

Your response was in the context of Trump but I asked you question which did not draw inferences like you are claiming, but you did.

Where other people's freedom begins, which is at their ability to voice any and all ideas, provided they do not directly call for criminal actions against other persons, thereby constituting an effort to violate the legal liberties of others.

So then you'd be okay with a White teacher calling their Black students "niggers?"

So, do you really have no understanding of the massive logical difference between not wanting to prosecute speech as a crime and "being okay with" it? Or is this just your lazy way of trying to score rhetorical points rather than make a coherent argument?

Do you have a problem with semantic context, because in context they mean the same thing?

A teacher that calls their students "niggers" is not competent at their job they are being paid to do. They can and should be fired, but not as punishment for saying a naughty word, but because their use of it in that context towards their students shows incompetence in their job.

What if it's in a region of a lot of racism and school administrators refuse to fire the teacher?

Also, they nor anyone else who uses that term should not go to jail for it. The firing is not a legal punishment issued by the government in its role of administering the criminal justice code. Rather the firing is just an employer firing incompetent employees, as all employees ought to do. It just happens that if the teacher is in a public school, then the government happens to be the employer.

Finally, you are at least touching on something relevant to where people might have differences. The government may have laws about equal protection (such as in Constitutional amendments) and there may be statutes about harassment, including racial or sexual harassment in regard to speech. So you think that all of those laws are unjustifiable and things should be handled by firing people instead?

 

[TSwizzle]

So this is a question to liberals. Do you think political correctness is out of control?

I'm not sure what PC actually is or what its original intention was but when I see PC talked about, it usually manifests as trying to restrict speech or words as your link to CK demonstrates. If you want to see polite white people faint, just tell the the old Stevie Wonder joke which contains the word "nigger".

 

[ronburgundy]

Your response was in the context of Trump but I asked you question which did not draw inferences like you are claiming, but you did.

No, my response was in the context of your general question about being free to attack another person's speech, where Trump was merely an example.

Where other people's freedom begins, which is at their ability to voice any and all ideas, provided they do not directly call for criminal actions against other persons, thereby constituting an effort to violate the legal liberties of others.

So then you'd be okay with a White teacher calling their Black students "niggers?"

So, do you really have no understanding of the massive logical difference between not wanting to prosecute speech as a crime and "being okay with" it? Or is this just your lazy way of trying to score rhetorical points rather than make a coherent argument?

Do you have a problem with semantic context, because in context they mean the same thing?

IOW, you do not understand the critical difference, because they are not the same thing in this context. In this context, "Being okay with" still implies not having any objection and not thinking that any action should be taken regarding this teacher. That is completely different and way beyond the more narrow issue of whether they should be fired as punishment for uttering the N-word. The outcome of them getting fired may be the same, but the rationale and the legal and ethical principles involved in taking that action are completely different. To claim they are the same is like claiming that shooting a person because they are about to shoot you is the same as shooting that same person because they are black.

A teacher that calls their students "niggers" is not competent at their job they are being paid to do. They can and should be fired, but not as punishment for saying a naughty word, but because their use of it in that context towards their students shows incompetence in their job.

What if it's in a region of a lot of racism and school administrators refuse to fire the teacher?

Then, the administrators should also be fired for incompetence by their employers.

Also, they nor anyone else who uses that term should not go to jail for it. The firing is not a legal punishment issued by the government in its role of administering the criminal justice code. Rather the firing is just an employer firing incompetent employees, as all employees ought to do. It just happens that if the teacher is in a public school, then the government happens to be the employer.

Finally, you are at least touching on something relevant to where people might have differences.

No, we disagree on plenty above, such as your claim that firing for inability to perform one's job is the same thing as firing to punish for using offensive language.

The government may have laws about equal protection (such as in Constitutional amendments) and there may be statutes about harassment, including racial or sexual harassment in regard to speech. So you think that all of those laws are unjustifiable and things should be handled by firing people instead?

Equal protection laws regulate actions that materially impact other people, not speech. Criminal harassment laws require actions clearly directed at a specific individual repeatedly and in a manner that creates a reasonable fear that the person poses a material physical threat.
Nearly all workplace harassment laws, including sexual, do not make speech acts a crime. Such harassment is a civil matter in which the plaintiff needs to show some material harm done to them. Within these narrow context where the speech is tied to material harm or threat of such harm (and thus goes beyond speech), then the laws can be justified because they do not contradict the principle that speech in itself can be prohibited, no matter how offensive. In general, I agree with how the courts have ruled on such laws and specific cases, because they have rightly set a high bar where some material harm or threat of it beyond being offended must be demonstrated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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".

Off topic, and also kind of on-topic: but isn't the Swedish 'neger' just the same as the Dutch 'neger', which simply means black person? The word has traditionally just been a neutral descriptive term (probably originating with the Spanish/Portugese term for the color black); there's other words that are actually equivalent to the American term in terms of connotation and offensiveness. More recently, people have started associating/confusing the term with the american slang, but these words are not proper translations of each other.

This could be seen as an example of what you're talking about; political correctness going so far as to change the meaning of words in one language because they sound similar to bad words in another, more culturally dominant language. I'm not sure I'd necessarily describe that as out of control behavior though, just a tad misguided.

Neger wasn't offensive until we started getting cable TV in the 90'ies. MTV taught us that "neger" was an insult. Before this it was just what we called blacks. There was no connotation to it. It was in conjunction with this we shifted from saying "neger" to "svart". "Svart" just means "black". There's still quite a few who insist on using the term "neger" without the racist connotation. I do sometimes. Mostly it just slips out when I'm not thinking. But I'm in the generation from before it became a racist thing. It can lead to awkwardness.

 

[Bomb#20]

Being liberal, I find political correctness to be perfectly opposed to the concept of liberalism.

A society cannot observe both at the same time.

Exactly right. As de Tocqueville observed two hundred years ago,

At the present time the most absolute monarchs in Europe cannot prevent certain opinions hostile to their authority from circulating in secret through their dominions and even in their courts. It is not so in America; as long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. ... I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. ... In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. ... those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.​

But then, the perpetrators aren't liberals. The practice of silencing dissent by using social pressure instead of by refuting it is perfectly aligned with the concept of social democracy, and decades ago Americans took up calling our social democrats "liberals". That's a linguistic monstrosity that appears to be expanding into Europe in parallel with the decline into irrelevance of its historic liberal parties.

 

[Tigers!]

Forgot to add topic

- - - Updated - - -

"Political Correctness" is a term with no objective definition.

.

No term has an objective definition. Words are strings of squiggly line and/or sounds that at best come to have a commonly but never universally shared meaning, and even then that shared meaning changes over time.

If there is no universally shared meaning then the sentence you crafted is nonsense.

What are you trying to say?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Has political correctness actually silenced speech?

 

[fast]

Forgot to add topic

- - - Updated - - -

No term has an objective definition. Words are strings of squiggly line and/or sounds that at best come to have a commonly but never universally shared meaning, and even then that shared meaning changes over time.

If there is no universally shared meaning then the sentence you crafted is nonsense.

What are you trying to say?

Words denote collective meaning, even when people individually fail to understand what is collectively meant.

 

[fast]

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.

Girth? Was that an autocorrect mishap?

 

[Bronzeage]

Has political correctness actually silenced speech?

In one sense, it would have to. Here a TFT, we have a strictly enforced rule about personal insults. No one is allowed to call another member a liar, a racist, a pedophile, or a chicken fucker.

However, any person, living or dead can be labeled any of these things and worse, just as long as they don't open an account here. We recognize our group has a special kind of decorum and work to maintain this.

Political correctness, for all its pejorative applications, is simply shoehorning everyone into a group with a common decorum. Some people don't like this, because it means they have to admit to having unacceptable habits. It's no different than the "No shoes, no shirt, no service," sign. The barefoot man knows he has to change his habits or face not being welcome by the group.

He could put on a pair of shoes and sit down with the rest of us, but he's just as likely to protest that shoes constrict his feet and say we are the fools for not recognizing his right to go shoeless.

 

[fast]

No term has an objective definition. Words are strings of squiggly line and/or sounds that at best come to have a commonly but never universally shared meaning, and even then that shared meaning changes over time.

Terms at least have agreed upon definitions.

"Political Correctness" has no definition what-so-ever.

It is just something people say when they have no rational objection and when they want to lump many kinds of behavior into the same irrational category.

It is kind of a voodoo spell.

Suppose you're right (just supposing for the sake of argument) about the term. Suppose the two-worded term (and I know the term has two words--I counted them) ... anyway, suppose it has no definition. We ought not, therefore, conclude that the term has no meaning. I'm saying this not because you have made note otherwise. I'm saying it because I want to point out that meaning is independent of definition.

If I look in a dictionary, I will find definitions. For simplicities sake, a definition is an explanation. It's an explanation of something. It's an explanation of meaning. So, a definition is an explanation of meaning. We can have meaning without an explanation. Thus, we can have meaning without a definition.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So this is a question to liberals. Do you think political correctness is out of control?

My answer to that question is this:

I do not like to be called "African American." I find it annoying that people start to call me "black" and then correct themselves to "African American" as if that's the correct term for it.

It's not. I'm not from Africa. I've never been to Africa. I do not speak any African language, I do not honor an identifiably African heritage, and most African cultures are completely foreign to me. I'm no more "African American" than Stephen Colbert is a Frenchman.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. If you aren't sure what to call me, then call me what I look like and say it POLITELY. If you're wrong, I'll correct you politely.

 

[fast]

So this is a question to liberals. Do you think political correctness is out of control?

My answer to that question is this:

I do not like to be called "African American." I find it annoying that people start to call me "black" and then correct themselves to "African American" as if that's the correct term for it.

It's not. I'm not from Africa. I've never been to Africa. I do not speak any African language, I do not honor an identifiably African heritage, and most African cultures are completely foreign to me. I'm no more "African American" than Stephen Colbert is a Frenchman.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. If you aren't sure what to call me, then call me what I look like and say it POLITELY. If you're wrong, I'll correct you politely.

The term, "African American" doesn't imply that you were born both in Africa and America.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Has political correctness actually silenced speech?

Out of concern for not making people feel uncomfortable, I'm going to have to insist that everyone keep silent on this subject.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Then, the administrators should also be fired for incompetence by their employers.

The employer is also a racist. He's the mayor. And the people of the town are majority racists so they keep voting for him.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My answer to that question is this:

I do not like to be called "African American." I find it annoying that people start to call me "black" and then correct themselves to "African American" as if that's the correct term for it.

It's not. I'm not from Africa. I've never been to Africa. I do not speak any African language, I do not honor an identifiably African heritage, and most African cultures are completely foreign to me. I'm no more "African American" than Stephen Colbert is a Frenchman.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. If you aren't sure what to call me, then call me what I look like and say it POLITELY. If you're wrong, I'll correct you politely.

The term, "African American" doesn't imply that you were born both in Africa and America.

No, it implies I am an American of recent African descent.

Problem is, there's nothing RECENT about my African background, nor is "African-American" a coherent ethnic group to which any set of properties could be described other than skin color (and even then, not all of the time and not consistently).

Somewhere in the past I have an African ancestor, to be sure. But that's the past, ancient history; I'm as African as a One Direction concert and maybe half as unique. On the other hand, white people don't need to explain this to anyone; Donald Trump is not referred to as an "Anglo American," Stephen Colbert is not a "French American," No one calls Bill O'Reilly "Irish American" or "European American." We recognize the existence of those ethnic groups, but Donald Trump doesn't honor his British Heritage and Bill O'Reilly doesn't speak a word of Gaelic.

White people don't have to qualify their birthright with a hyphen; they're not "something-American." Being white or being black is a physical description and not a statement of origins and culture. I'm not "something-American." I am American.

 

[fast]

The term, "African American" doesn't imply that you were born both in Africa and America.

No, it implies I am an American of recent African descent.

Problem is, there's nothing RECENT about my African background, nor is "African-American" a coherent ethnic group to which any set of properties could be described other than skin color (and even then, not all of the time and not consistently).

Somewhere in the past I have an African ancestor, to be sure. But that's the past, ancient history; I'm as African as a One Direction concert and maybe half as unique. On the other hand, white people don't need to explain this to anyone; Donald Trump is not referred to as an "Anglo American," Stephen Colbert is not a "French American," No one calls Bill O'Reilly "Irish American" or "European American." We recognize the existence of those ethnic groups, but Donald Trump doesn't honor his British Heritage and Bill O'Reilly doesn't speak a word of Gaelic.

White people don't have to qualify their birthright with a hyphen; they're not "something-American." Being white or being black is a physical description and not a statement of origins and culture. I'm not "something-American." I am American.

There is a difference, an important difference, between an implication and a suggestion. The term in no way implies that you are an American of recent African descent. I would be willing to say that the term does suggest (but not imply) that you are of African descent, but I'm not sure how you come to think it suggests (if you're willing to go with "suggests") that your African descent is recent.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, it implies I am an American of recent African descent.

Problem is, there's nothing RECENT about my African background, nor is "African-American" a coherent ethnic group to which any set of properties could be described other than skin color (and even then, not all of the time and not consistently).

Somewhere in the past I have an African ancestor, to be sure. But that's the past, ancient history; I'm as African as a One Direction concert and maybe half as unique. On the other hand, white people don't need to explain this to anyone; Donald Trump is not referred to as an "Anglo American," Stephen Colbert is not a "French American," No one calls Bill O'Reilly "Irish American" or "European American." We recognize the existence of those ethnic groups, but Donald Trump doesn't honor his British Heritage and Bill O'Reilly doesn't speak a word of Gaelic.

White people don't have to qualify their birthright with a hyphen; they're not "something-American." Being white or being black is a physical description and not a statement of origins and culture. I'm not "something-American." I am American.

There is a difference, an important difference, between an implication and a suggestion. The term in no way implies that you are an American of recent African descent. I would be willing to say that the term does suggest (but not imply) that you are of African descent

If this is true, then it is a meaningless term that serves no purpose whatsoever. Either way, I do not condone its usage.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

They are cultural marxists and PC is their little red book.

funny thing is, don't think ol Karl was especially PC himself, I hear that he liked the ladies of the night and a fair bit of grog too!