Political Correctness: is it just a modern myth?

samb

The Corinthian wrote:

Unless someone’s decided to change the definition of the word racist, the last time I checked it denoted any belief that race was a determinant (genetically) so someone’s make-up.
.

If your parents are black (of a certain race) then your skin colour will be black.

Call me a racist, but isn't this genetically determined.:D

metrovelvet

samb, thats not always true. Your grandparents play a part in that.

freelancer, it would be very nice if you stopped personally insulting me. You have a brick wall on your shoulder. Get over yourself. You clearly dont know how to distinguish between essentialism and sociological factors.

Citing Blazing Saddles is ludicrous. For one thing its a comedy so it thrives on violating moral code. Secondly its pre -PC so wtf is your point? Or have you just got your period?

How are black people more likely to be crack addicts? How is that a fact? Sounds racist to me.

What exactly is your concept here? Where do you stand on PC? All you have dont so far is bitch about what everyone else has said.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

freelancer, it would be very nice if you stopped personally insulting me. You have a brick wall on your shoulder. Get over yourself. You clearly dont know how to distinguish between essentialism and sociological factors.

Riiiigghhhhtttt........ Hello Ms Pot have you met Mr Kettle

Citing Blazing Saddles is ludicrous. For one thing its a comedy so it thrives on violating moral code. Secondly its pre -PC so wtf is your point? Or have you just got your period?

So let me get this straight a handful of posts ago

metrovelvet wrote:

Because to say something like that even 5 years ago would have been a horrendous error.

Firstly you're saying it would be a horrendous error, now you're saying it was acceptable at one point, oh and "have I got my period". And I thrive on "insults"?

How are black people more likely to be crack addicts? How is that a fact? Sounds racist to me.

Ah more selective interperation. The majority of crack cocaine users in the US are black. Fact. Its not racist to state that.

What exactly is your concept here? Where do you stand on PC? All you have dont so far is bitch about what everyone else has said.

No, I'm just curious about your claim about the "irresponsible sexual practices of Africans" it's been three posts that I've asked you to clarify the above, dodge the issue much?

mountainyman

If we live in a PC tyranny which is the point of this discussion explain this discussion also on boards.ie
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054909768

metrovelvet wrote:

... You clearly dont know how to distinguish between essentialism and sociological factors...

Well I certainly don't what the N I M P is essentiallism?

metrovelvet wrote:

Citing Blazing Saddles is ludicrous. For one thing its a comedy so it thrives on violating moral code. Secondly its pre -PC so wtf is your point?

It has been claimed earlier that PCdates from the 1940s.

MM

red dave

I just checked this out, it's a bit of a read but interesting from the "Wikipedia" down.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Political+Correctness&gwp=13

There's a term used in there as well social engineering which I thought was interesting read also here's link to that

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Social+engineering+%28political+science%29&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Social%20engineering%20(political%20science)

Examples of language modification

Gender-related

* The term server is increasingly used for a person of either gender who waits tables.
* Chairman was replaced by chair, chairperson (or president or some other term). (The term chair has its own history within academia.)
* Fireman was replaced by fire fighter.
* Congressman was replaced by member of congress. The former remains in use for male members of congress, however.
* Policeman became policewoman when referring to females; then the term police officer was introduced for both genders.
* Likewise, Army wife, Navy wife, etc., are now Army spouse, etc. (Occasionally male civilian spouses of military members will ironically refer to themselves as Navy wives, etc.)
* "To boldly go where no man has gone before", from the introductory sequence of Star Trek: The Original Series, was changed to "To boldly go where no one has gone before" in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
* "Man does not live by bread alone" became "People do not live on bread alone" in the 1996 NIV Inclusive Language Edition of the Bible, Matthew 4:4.
* Airlines no longer use the term stewardess (nor steward for men), partly due to disparaging stereotypes and the condescending nickname stews. Thus they have replaced it with the gender-neutral term flight attendant. As is the case within nursing, male members of the profession, who are the minority, are typically referred to by their gender (e.g. male flight attendant as opposed to flight attendant for females.)
* The word sex has largely been replaced with the word gender, though gender classically did not mean male/female, but rather it referred to grammatical masculine/feminine constructs ("steward" vs. "stewardess", or "actor" vs. "actress", for example). The word sex seems to have become an impolite or emotion-charged term, at least in part because it is prevailing verbal shorthand for sexuality and sexual intercourse.
* Lacking a gender-neutral alternative, many actresses now prefer the term "actor" when defining their profession, thus eventually likely rendering the term gender-neutral through common usage.
* TIME Magazine's Man of the Year became Person of the Year regardless of which gender wins it (there had been "Women of the Year" in the past).
* The phrase "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me", attributed to Jesus, is frequently changed to "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
* Miss and Mrs. have been supplemented by Ms., providing a word that does not indicate marital status. The term was ridiculed by many when it was first introduced in the 1970s, but over time it has become common usage.
* The 1960s-1970s TV show The Dating Game needed terms for unmarried contestants; bachelor was obvious, but the feminine "equivalent" was the negatively-charged term "spinster", which was only more slightly polite than "old maid"; so the show either coined or popularized the term bachelorette, which has since come into common usage.
* The time-honored "I now pronounce you man and wife" at weddings has largely been replaced by "I now pronounce you husband and wife". Some etymologists find this amusing, as "wife" is Old English for "woman", while "husband" is Old English for "householder"; the original expression was meant to define a moment when both members of a couple officially and legally became equally committed to adulthood.
* Generalized uses of man when referring to humanity (mankind) are frequently replaced by gender-neutral terms.

Even the Bible is "P.C."

Beer is Life

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2114237,00.html

Shut up so as not to cause offense?

mountainyman

Beer is Life wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2114237,00.html

Shut up so as not to cause offense?

This is political correctness gone sane.
He is a crank who has found 6 other cranks to back him.

This is from one of his supporters who teaches in Jordanstown:

Professor Lynn wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html
[It is] a hitherto unrecognised law of history” that “the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942...

Completely meretricious, France was more outnumbered in the Napoleonic period than Germany in the second world war. [EDIT] I am not sure that this comparison is meaningful,lets just say that both were hugely outnumbered[/edit]
No academic, in the anglophone world, should make such a statement. [edit] In France it might be acceptable [/edit]
If these people want to be controversialists they should resign their positions and get jobs as newspaper columnists or live from the money their books generate.

[edit] Also has he controlled for the ages of the University students, perhaps the Germans are at the top because their students are older and the cognitive peak is generally in the late 20s and early 30s.[/edit]

See also:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/NationalIQs.html

I would like to know what peer review means in this context.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IS OVEREXTENDED BY ITS PROPONENTS.

MM

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

This is political correctness gone sane.
He is a crank who has found 6 other cranks to back him.

Other than your opinion, on what basis to you base this on?

This is from one of his supporters who teaches in Jordanstown:

A crank agrees with him, ergo he must also be a crank. Love your logic.

I would like to know what peer review means in this context.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IS OVEREXTENDED BY ITS PROPONENTS.

Thank you for your opinion. Try not to dress it as fact without evidence next time.

mountainyman

The Corinthian wrote:

A crank agrees with him, ergo he must also be a crank. Love your logic.

I am glad that you agree with me.
Do you believe that if this were a genuine freedom of expression case more than six academics would have backed Prof. Ellis? It is curious that no one from Leeds is speaking on his behalf.

The Corinthian wrote:

Thank you for your opinion.

You are welcome and I hope you found it instructive.

MM

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

I am glad that you agree with me.

Still twisting words I see.

Do you believe that if this were a genuine freedom of expression case more than six academics would have backed Prof. Ellis? It is curious that no one from Leeds is speaking on his behalf.

Maybe they want to keep their jobs - after all the whole point of this is that expressing politically incorrect views is seemingly bad for your career.

You are welcome and I hope you found it instructive.

I’ve learned that some people are quite willing to resort to the bizarre and semantic to deny that political correctness has any excesses.

mountainyman

The Corinthian wrote:

...after all the whole point of this is that expressing politically incorrect views is seemingly bad for your career.

Initially I believed that this was not the case and that he was under investigation for matters relating to the quality of his work. This is not the case. Dr Ellis was suspended because Leeds University has an obligation to promote racial harmony under the UK Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

He has written that the Bell Curve "[demonstrates that] there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence". He is not being investigated for academic misconduct nor is Leeds University investigating his work.

He also claimed that feminism and multiculturalism are "corroding britain" he is in fact being disciplined for the expression of fairly straightforward conservative views. Further the University had I think no choice but to suspend him.

This is disgraceful.
MM

metrovelvet

Then perhaps its time to rethink how we measure intelligence.

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

Initially I believed that this was not the case and that he was under investigation for matters relating to the quality of his work. This is not the case. Dr Ellis was suspended because Leeds University has an obligation to promote racial harmony under the UK Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

He has written that the Bell Curve "[demonstrates that] there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence". He is not being investigated for academic misconduct nor is Leeds University investigating his work.

He also claimed that feminism and multiculturalism are "corroding britain" he is in fact being disciplined for the expression of fairly straightforward conservative views. Further the University had I think no choice but to suspend him.

This is disgraceful.
MM

Thus you admit that he was suspended not because of the veracity of his views but simply because he expressed them and they are considered unacceptable.

That people can be punished because they have view and not because that views may be true or false is the excess of political correctness. That and your persistent denial of it is what is truly disgraceful.

mountainyman

metrovelvet wrote:

Then perhaps its time to rethink how we measure intelligence.

Irrespective of the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence an academic should not be disciplined for failing to encourage racial harmony.
Does this mean that you shouldn't teach the history of the Slave Trade because it might enrage black students?

I don't think IQ tests say much about anything except IQ Tests.
I've seen national IQ test scores that gave Ireland scores in the '80s. (Which is I think mildly retarded). It was memorable because we had by some distance the lowest score of all the whites.

MM

mountainyman

The Corinthian wrote:

That people can be punished because they have view and not because that views may be true or false is the excess of political correctness. That and your persistent denial of it is what is truly disgraceful.

I suspect you misunderstand me. I do not maintain that because Leeds University had a legal obligation to discipline Dr Ellis that this implies a moral obligation. While racial harmony is socially desirable (in my opinion) academic freedom is more desirable.
Further who is to say that multiculturalism promotes racial harmony. Perhaps it detracts from it.

I accept that my initial email was not correct. I have changed my mind in so far as this specific instance is concerned. I accept that the situation is digraceful and that Dr Ellis is being disciplined for his views. My denial on an email internet discussion is irrelevant.

Is the imposition of a legal requirement 'PC' in the ordinary sense? Certainly it is an interference with free speech. It is unfortunate (though not surprising) that the first victim should have been someone expressing straightforward conservative views. But we may be assured that if this is not overturned (and as the UK now has a bill of rights it might be) a great deal of academic reasearch will suffer.

The ist of off limits subjects would be huge.


MM

samb

On the topic of intelligence I thought this link was very interesting http://www.heartheissues.com/e2004-6-intelligenceiq.html

with regard Proffesor Lynn I think that his work is interesting but that he may be too quick to offer explanations. He should of course not be censored for doing this.

mountainyman

samb wrote:

with regard Proffesor Lynn I think that his work is interesting but that he may be too quick to offer explanations. He should of course not be censored for doing this.

As regards Lynn's explanantions: When you have the world's biggest hammer collection you see alot of nails. That is a very generous interpretation.

The remark about IQ and military success put me off him. Also Northern Europeans being smarter, what about Greece and Rome? 2000 years in evolutionary terms isn't anything.
I don't think it is the role of academics to be controversialists.
Anyway to his enemies:
Attack his lack of rigour, attack inaccuracies in methodology, attack logical inconsistencies. But do not get the law and shut the debate down.

This is like something from Houellebecq.


MM

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

I accept that my initial email was not correct. I have changed my mind in so far as this specific instance is concerned. I accept that the situation is digraceful and that Dr Ellis is being disciplined for his views. My denial on an email internet discussion is irrelevant.

Fair enough, however this specific instance is one of a number of examples that have been put forward and they would indicate that there are excesses to what we know as political correctness - debunking the claim that these excesses are a conservative myth.

As such your denial of the existence of these excesses on an Internet notice board (not email) discussion is not irrelevant.

fly_agaric

The Corinthian wrote:

Fair enough, however this specific instance is one of a number of examples that have been put forward and they would indicate that there are excesses to what we know as political correctness - debunking the claim that these excesses are a conservative myth.

Yes, and it only took about 10 pages worth of posts too.:o

The Corinthian

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes, and it only took about 10 pages worth of posts too.:o

No one said deprogramming was going to be easy...

metrovelvet

If this professor deliberately lied and contorted stats to promote a racially divising agenda then I think he should be fired. It shows poor academic integrity.

OT -

MM - Congratulations on coming out of the closet. This must be so liberating for you. Im glad to see you have the courage to be yourself in a world that makes it so hard to do so. Peace.

mountainyman

The Corinthian wrote:

...they would indicate that there are excesses to what we know as political correctness...

It is not clear to me that this case is an example of an 'excess of political correctness' it is state censorship and to describe it as political correctness is to trivialise it.

The Corinthian wrote:

As such your denial of the existence of these excesses on an Internet notice board (not email) discussion is not irrelevant.

I was unaware of the role of the British state until yesterday;therefore I cannot reasonably be upbraided for not condemning it.
I don't accept that the 'PC left' or whatever you want to call it has any great power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1746121,00.html
See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

Metrovelvet wrote:

If this professor deliberately lied and contorted stats to promote a racially divising agenda then I think he should be fired. It shows poor academic integrity.

Dr Ellis is essentially being disciplined because his statements and writings were likely to inflame racial tension.
The accuracy of his work is irrelevant to this process. It is possible that he has distorted statistics and bent the truth to further a racist agenda, it is also possible that he has not, it is possible that his work is slapdash and possible that it is rigorous.
I think an academic who fakes his or her work should be fired whatever their views. If they did it to promote a racially harmonious agenda think of the delight that racists would take in debunking such fake research.

Metrovelvet wrote:

Congratulations on coming out of the closet. This must be so liberating for you. Im glad to see you have the courage to be yourself in a world that makes it so hard to do so. Peace..

Thank you metrovelvet. I am going to wear a badge that says Complete SAP for 'Straight and Proud'.

MM

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

If this professor deliberately lied and contorted stats to promote a racially divising agenda then I think he should be fired. It shows poor academic integrity.

Did he? From my limited reading on the subject there have been people who have disputed his findings and accused him of subjectivity and misrepresenting data, but frankly that's hardly new in academia and is a present controversy, not a proven fact.

Even if he were guilty of what you suggest it remains that he was not fired for lack of academic integrity, but for academic heresy.

metrovelvet

Thank you metrovelvet. I am going to wear a badge that says Complete SAP for 'Straight and Proud'.

Doth the lady protest too much?

and to describe it as political correctness is to trivialise it.

That is only if you find PC to be trivial, which I dont.

mountainyman

The Corinthian wrote:

Even if he were guilty of what you suggest it remains that he was not fired for lack of academic integrity, but for academic heresy.

He hasn't been fired, and it is not an academic issue. The state is telling us what we can and can't say.

MM

mountainyman

metrovelvet wrote:

That is only if you find PC to be trivial, which I dont.

Well if this is PC (the state defining the limits of acceptable speech) then it isn't trivial. It seems to me to be much more than that.
I don't see a clear evolution from student protest,to academic establishment to the state in terms of limits on freedom of speech. They all seem to be of different orders of magnitude.

metrovelvet wrote:

Doth the lady protest too much?

Hey I'm no lady. I'm a man. 110% straight man as it says below.

Man.


All MAN.

Mountainy MAN as in man from the mountains.


MM

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

Did he? From my limited reading on the subject there have been people who have disputed his findings and accused him of subjectivity and misrepresenting data, but frankly that's hardly new in academia and is a present controversy, not a proven fact.

Even if he were guilty of what you suggest it remains that he was not fired for lack of academic integrity, but for academic heresy.

Right. Thats why I said IF. The ivory tower likes to keep things ivory. This guy is a big black smudge. Academia will be getting out their rubber gloves and bleaching agents faster than you can say eggplant.

Expulsion into the depths of which circle of hell TC?

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

It is not clear to me that this case is an example of an 'excess of political correctness' it is state censorship and to describe it as political correctness is to trivialise it.

Then perhaps your definition of political correctness differs from that of others. By its very name it is dogmatic as it is by definition an imposition of what is correct as opposed to incorrect. Whether this is organised and imposed by the media, the state or the mob on the street is irrelevant, what matters is that it is the forceful imposition of ideology.

I was unaware of the role of the British state until yesterday;therefore I cannot reasonably be upbraided for not condemning it.

Simply because the British state was involved does not make it any less a question that it was an imposition of politically correct doctrine.

I don't accept that the 'PC left' or whatever you want to call it has any great power.

No, while some here are suggesting that the anti-PC sentiments right wing, I’ve not suggested that political correctness is left wing. If you flick back a few pages in this discussion I actually said that given that political correctness has now been around so long, it has become part of the establishment and so conservatives will often defend its values.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

Expulsion into the depths of which circle of hell TC?

Sixth of course.

samb

The Corinthian wrote:

Then perhaps your definition of political correctness differs from that of others. By its very name it is dogmatic as it is by definition an imposition of what is correct as opposed to incorrect. Whether this is organised and imposed by the media, the state or the mob on the street is irrelevant, what matters is that it is the forceful imposition of ideology.

Again I think that you are overstating what PC means. For me it is self-censorship used primarily by politians and the media in order not to offend. It is not imposed on anybody directly or by anybody specificaly. IF an offending statement or study or whatever is censored directly becasue it might offend then this is a politcal or judicial decsion based on liberal views. This is almost always wrong imo but is not PC, it is just censorship. Similarly the banning of The Life of Brian et al in Ireland in the past was censorship. By your definition this must also be PC gone mad.
Censoring Lynn et al= Left-wing censorship policy
Censoring Life of Brian et al=right-wing censorship policy
Neither is acceptable, but neither is PC gone mad. A silly liberal policy is a silly liberal policy.

Saying woman have lower IQ scores is not PC
Preventing someone saying this is liberalism gone mad