Political Correctness: is it just a modern myth?

mountainyman

The Corinthian wrote:

Then perhaps your definition of political correctness differs from that of others...

I think that my definition of political correctness is the standard one. The use of language to promote a progressive agenda focused partcularly on notions of victimhood and identity politics. Those who 'demand political correctness' represent themselves as the outgroup or its representatives.

The Corinthian wrote:

T... 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...

Forceful being the operative word. The power exercised by the state is radically different from other actors. The state has a monopoly on force, it can imprison th chancellor of Leeds University if he doesn't seek to discipline Ellis.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

It is the imposition of the doctrine demanded by the state. The existence of such regulation arises from the English tradtition of parliamentary absolutism which is the antithesis of PC.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

One would be using a =n idiosyncratic definition of PC for this to be true. What ordinary knee jerk conservatives defend the PC project.
Right-wingers might feel as you say (though the only example of the attempted manipulation of PC by right wingers was the Columbia Zionists who tried to conflate anti zionism with traditional dislike of and contempt for Jewish people).


MM

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

I think that my definition of political correctness is the standard one. The use of language to promote a progressive agenda focused partcularly on notions of victimhood and identity politics. Those who 'demand political correctness' represent themselves as the outgroup or its representatives.

I find it ironic that you’re discussing a ‘standard definition’ of something that uses manipulation of language to change perceived meanings.

Nonetheless, here’s another ‘standard definition’ that would disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness wrote:

Political correctness (also politically correct, P.C. or PC) is a term used in various countries to describe real or perceived attempts to impose limits on language, terms, and viewpoints in public discussion in order to avoid potentially offensive terminology. While it usually refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology or public behavior.

You’ll note that the above ‘standard definition’ does not limit itself to language .

Forceful being the operative word. The power exercised by the state is radically different from other actors. The state has a monopoly on force, it can imprison th chancellor of Leeds University if he doesn't seek to discipline Ellis.

The state does not have a monopoly on force; it has a monopoly on legitimate direct force, that’s all. Force may still be applied indirectly or in an illegitimate means without reference to the state (especially in democracies) - e.g. “trial by media”.

It is the imposition of the doctrine demanded by the state. The existence of such regulation arises from the English tradtition of parliamentary absolutism which is the antithesis of PC.

This is pseudo-intellectual waffle.

Right-wingers might feel as you say (though the only example of the attempted manipulation of PC by right wingers was the Columbia Zionists who tried to conflate anti zionism with traditional dislike of and contempt for Jewish people).

The fact that there is an example does weaken your rather dubious attempt to categorise it as simply a left-right wing thing.

The Corinthian

red dave wrote:

We know who is funding; but how exactly does funding Africa enable their irresponsible sex practices?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4879822.stm

metrovelvet

http://ww4.aegis.org/news/ips/2002/Ip020412.html

http://www.usmedicine.com/column.cfm?columnID=149&issueID=56

http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue120/features/feature1/feature1.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/baleta1/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aids-virgins.htm

Some more links.

Now tell me. Why in US immigration did my mother have to bring paper work saying that she was cleared of TB everytime she came back from Ireland, but HIV/AIDS has special status where you dont have to be cleared for that? Because AIDS/HIV has been protected by PC. Why do we throw money at cultures which treat women and children like this?

mountainyman

metrovelvet wrote:

HIV/AIDS has special status where you dont have to be cleared for that? Because AIDS/HIV has been protected by PC.

That may be true, perhaps it has something to do with Ireland being a former TB blackspot and having a low AIDS rate. Anyway WHAT? I've never been asked to prove my TB status when travelling to the states.

The Corinthian wrote:

This is pseudo-intellectual waffle.

That's quite rude. I am not going to be rude back.

As regards right wingers I am still waiting for any example of conservatives using PC for their own ends. Paeloconservatives lets say, also I invite opinions on the Ward Churchill case.

I am more interested in your opinion than in this wikipedia definition or any higher power. Wikipedia is not reliable. I have read websites on it before to do with 'Skangers' and with 'Knocklyon' and neither were of encyclopedia standard. What the he11 is wikipeda anyway?
Couldn't I just go and change the website to say that PC refers only to progressive causes, that it came into existence in the late 1980s that it is specifically american and so on.

Also what is that link regarding Thomas Zuma about, how does it demonstrate funding.

MM

metrovelvet

I think it stopped in the late 80s. But up until then she had to.

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

That's quite rude. I am not going to be rude back.

Then refute the point politely if you prefer.

As regards right wingers I am still waiting for any example of conservatives using PC for their own ends.

The Israeli example has already been given. Repeatedly.

I am more interested in your opinion than in this wikipedia definition or any higher power. Wikipedia is not reliable.

And either you or I are reliable? Seriously, by your definition PC is simply a semantic strategic and so suddenly all those politically correct excesses that have been cited throughout this thread suddenly cease to exist.

The reality however is that whatever PC originally was it has become far more than a linguistic reordering of common words proposed by liberals.

I have read websites on it before to do with 'Skangers' and with 'Knocklyon' and neither were of encyclopedia standard. What the he11 is wikipeda anyway?

I’d accept Wikipedia opinion with a large pinch of salt. Given this, I’d trust Wikipedia’s opinion a lot faster than I would yours.

Couldn't I just go and change the website to say that PC refers only to progressive causes, that it came into existence in the late 1980s that it is specifically american and so on.

Yes you could and peer review would either change it if it disagreed or if any review were inconclusive the article would be flagged accordingly.

Indeed, the article in question is flagged accordingly, but then again, I never claimed it was the ‘standard definition’ of Political Correctness, only pointing out that there was no reason to accept your ‘standard definition’.

Also what is that link regarding Thomas Zuma about, how does it demonstrate funding.

It was not meant to have anything with funding, only with the aforementioned irresponsible sex practices in Africa.

Although, now that you mention it, didn’t many Western organisations fund the ANC and people like Thomas Zuma during Apartheid?

mountainyman

The Israeli example may be rightist. It is not conservative in the sense of wishing that the world should go on as it always has. In the sense that Dr Ellis may be conservative.

no one will contribute to a website on a subject they regard as un1mportant therefore the contibutors to wikipedia's political correctness article will tend to adopt a maximalist position; a position closer to yours than mine, it is therefore unsurprising if I reject appeals to wikipedia as a higher authority (and I do). Again I reiterate my interest in hearing (seeing?) your definition of the phenomenon.

Regarding the Zuma article that such practises exist is irrelevant to this discussion (if it is not irrelevant please explain why) how would political correctness impact this one way or another. One can hardly claim that irresponsible (ignorant would probably be a better word)sex practises are unknown to western donors. I myself have discussed this in the context of a theatrical troupe that an Irish charity refused to fund in an east african country (Funding was rejected for a number of reasons ).

Regarding funding for the ANC not to the extent that they should have been.

Further I invite comments on the Ward Churchill case and the conservative censorship projects in the USA.

MM

mountainyman

What is essentialism?

MM

Pompey Magnus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4883398.stm

Legal proceedings against a 10-year-old boy over alleged racist name calling have been labelled political correctness gone mad, by a judge.

The PC crowd taking a 10 year old child to court for name calling seems a little over the top to me. PC is still alive and well it seems.

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

The Israeli example may be rightist. It is not conservative in the sense of wishing that the world should go on as it always has. In the sense that Dr Ellis may be conservative.

You have a very simplistic view of what conservatism is. As an example, the conservatives in the closing days of the Soviet Union sought to perpetuate a system that had been radical sixty or seventy years earlier. Similarly, Political Correctness has been in mainstream use (originally in the US) since the 1980’s - that’s over two decades that much of it has had to become part of the cultural status quo; that’s why you’ll find that a TV show like Will and Grace will no longer raise an eyelid while Benny Hill will.

Like it or not, today’s radical is tomorrow’s conservative, after all, what they usher in today will not be radical forever - “do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster; and when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you.”

no one will contribute to a website on a subject they regard as un1mportant therefore the contibutors to wikipedia's political correctness article will tend to adopt a maximalist position; a position closer to yours than mine, it is therefore unsurprising if I reject appeals to wikipedia as a higher authority (and I do).

If your theory on Wikipedia’s slant was not so full of assumptions I might take it seriously. The most laughable assumption is that contributors on the subject would take a maximalist approach because they consider it important.

Again I reiterate my interest in hearing (seeing?) your definition of the phenomenon.

Then read my earlier posts in this thread as I’ve already done so.

Regarding the Zuma article that such practises exist is irrelevant to this discussion (if it is not irrelevant please explain why) how would political correctness impact this one way or another.

I agree that it’s irrelevant. However it was brought up earlier (in what context I didn’t read) and happened to find some grim amusement when I read the article. That’s all.

Further I invite comments on the Ward Churchill case and the conservative censorship projects in the USA.

At this stage I would have to ask why? How is it frankly relevant outside of changing the subject for you?

mountainyman

regading wikipedia they would consider it important becaue they adopt a maximalist position. The reverse makes no sense.

I am sure that you have stated your position already however I have a bad memory and as you know the chief advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy old pleasures as if they were new.

The Churchill case reflects the impostion of censorship to stifle politically correct polemic.

MM

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

regading wikipedia they would consider it important becaue they adopt a maximalist position. The reverse makes no sense.

How do you know they would consider it important because they adopt a maximalist position? How do you know that this is their aim, much less their agenda? This is why it is laughable - you’re just jumping to assumptive conclusion after assumptive conclusion.

I am sure that you have stated your position already however I have a bad memory and as you know the chief advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy old pleasures as if they were new.

Then click on the previous page link and knock yourself out.

The Churchill case reflects the impostion of censorship to stifle politically correct polemic.

Doesn’t ring a bell. Sorry.

metrovelvet

mountainyman wrote:

What is essentialism?

MM

Some answers:

http://www.womenandsociety.buffalo.edu/dictionary/essentialism.htm

or from your favourite source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746720

fly_agaric

Depeche_Mode wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4883398.stm



The PC crowd taking a 10 year old child to court for name calling seems a little over the top to me. PC is still alive and well it seems.

Was just going to post that this morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4886014.stm

"The National Union of Teachers (NUT) said Judge Jonathan Finestein was "out of date" in his attitude."

Ha Ha! He hasn't got up to speed with the Stalinist zeitgeist, poor old sod!

Perhaps when all the oul' lads with their archaic ideas are cleaned out of upper reaches of the legal profession and replaced by bright young women full of the latest diversity/feminist bullshít scummy racists like that boy will suffer in the gulag as they deserve!

mountainyman

I saw that the 2 boys now get on fine. I don't approve of this sort of thing (racist abuse) but if boys have a fight -which is my guess- they can sort anything out. The school would be better off with a boxing club and a smack on the leg for the boy who said pak1.

MM

w66w66

A first time offender gets 6 months in prison for saying to muslims "go back to where you came from" and "proud to be british".
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=351783

while according to an article in the Sunday times, only the most heinous crimes will result in a first offender being convicted. " Take the case of Andrew Campbell, a paratrooper from Ayrshire. He battered Gemma Gregerson, 19, so badly when she refused to have sex with him that she spent four days in hospital. Last week he was fined £1,200 and walked free from court."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2125150_1,00.html

surely these two cases mentioned should've being the other way round.

fly_agaric

The case of the "Gay" police-horse (okay - fining someone for slagging a police-horse + taking them to court when they refuse to pay)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm

and the lesbian [edited for stupid typo] police-woman!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/4896300.stm

Why does this crap have to go all the way to court?? Do people now believe lawyers and judges are like little Solomons (or little Gods maybe) who can solve all arguments/resolve all disputes?
This stuff would have made for a great episode of Rumpole IMO.

bonkey

Just cause it seems like a fun counterpoint...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6596503.story

yesindeedy - someone in the US suing for the right to be intolerant.

jc

SteveS

bonkey wrote:

Just cause it seems like a fun counterpoint...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6596503.story

yesindeedy - someone in the US suing for the right to be intolerant.

jc

I was wondering when this would happen. When you have administrators deciding what is acceptable speech, you are bound to have some that don't agree with them. Free speech ain't always pretty.

During the uproar over the anti-Islam cartoon, most papers declined printing a copy. There was an independent student paper that ran it, which was no surprise, since they have never shied away from controversial and provocative topics. There were several protests and one protestor had a sign that said "Your free speech ends where my dignity begins." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. While free speech is a basic human right, there is no comparable right to not be offended.

NewDubliner

SteveS wrote:

There were several protests and one protestor had a sign that said "Your free speech ends where my dignity begins." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. While free speech is a basic human right, there is no comparable right to not be offended.

Do you think that the constitution of our country might be relevant?

While it's true that there is no explicit right not to be offended, in such words. If we were to examine the reason for the person's grievance we would probably find that it is is because of an infringement of fundamental rights.

Article 40
...3.2 The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

....6.1 The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Article 44
1.The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

I think the term 'Politically Correct' has been abused by people who are looking for a convenient way of labeling or stereotyping people with whom they disagree. Similarly, the term 'racist is often hurled in the opposite direction.

The true meaning, as far as I am concerned is when someone expresses an opinion which is within the boundaries set by our constitution.

In the example given, the publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohammad, in my opinion, would be blasphemous (as defined by Islam) and also not in the interest of maintaining public order. The portrayal of the prophet as a bomber could be interpreted as an attack on the good name of Muslims, contrary to article 40.3.2.

New_Departure06

Considering this here is already a thread on PCness, I have decided to post my contribution herein.

I have found what I consider an excellent article on PCness which I think articulates my view almost exactly. I'd be interested to hear your views on what the guy is trying to say. Agree or disagree with him and why?

http://www.politics.tcd.ie/courses/undergrad/BCPOL/thunderer/politics/politics_detail_21.html

SteveS

NewDubliner wrote:

Do you think that the constitution of our country might be relevant?



In the example given, the publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohammad, in my opinion, would be blasphemous (as defined by Islam) and also not in the interest of maintaining public order. The portrayal of the prophet as a bomber could be interpreted as an attack on the good name of Muslims, contrary to article 40.3.2.

You constitution would probably get a different result than the US one. Free speech case law in the US generally does not allow restrictions on most kinds of speech, except for commercial speech and obscene speech. In order for something to be obscene, it has to be pretty bad and the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is child porn.

NewDubliner

SteveS wrote:

Free speech case law in the US generally does not allow restrictions on most kinds of speech, except for commercial speech and obscene speech.

How about incitement to hatred of racial or religious groupings? Many countries have laws against it.