Politically correct terminology

slowburner

I wonder what rules govern the evolution of politically correct terms.
I most certainly do not want to offend anyone's sensibilities but it is necessary to use words which might offend in order to give examples.
In the past, the term 'tinker' was perfectly acceptable. Now that is unacceptable. Similarly with 'handicapped', 'midget', 'mongoloid' etc.
Will currently acceptable terms like 'traveller', 'special needs' etc. become politically incorrect at some point?

When and why does a term change from being acceptable to unacceptable?

MungBean

It becomes unacceptable when it makes the transition from a descriptive word to an insult.

As with most things this changes with popular trends. Once those trends become widespread enough the usage as an insult becomes more prevalent than its usage as a descriptive word and it will be deemed an incorrect term.

Those terms you mention may very well become unacceptable at some stage if they catch on as popular insults or in the case of traveller it may become as tinker did a derogatory description of travellers as it were.

P. Breathnach

There is a wonderful irony evident in this short discussion. The phrase "politically correct" has itself gone through a transition from descriptive term to insult. It's even a hot button for many.

It's a change I regret, because it indicates a victory by the yob element in modern culture.

Morlar

MungBean wrote: »

It becomes unacceptable when it makes the transition from a descriptive word to an insult.

As with most things this changes with popular trends. Once those trends become widespread enough the usage as an insult becomes more prevalent than its usage as a descriptive word and it will be deemed an incorrect term.

Those terms you mention may very well become unacceptable at some stage if they catch on as popular insults or in the case of traveller it may become as tinker did a derogatory description of travellers as it were.

According to who & how many ?

Different people have different levels of sensitivity, is the standard set by the Most Sensitive percentage of the population ? If one person found the word 'Blackboard' offensive should people then be forced to refer to chalkboard or whiteboard instead?

I think if you look hard enough will always find someone who finds any given thing offensive.

This is also operating from the basic starting point that people have the right never to be 'offended' & that this is also a healthy, constructive and positive development.

P. Breathnach

Morlar wrote: »

According to who & how many ?

Different people have different levels of sensitivity, is the standard set by the Most Sensitive percentage of the population ? If one person found the word 'Blackboard' offensive should people then be forced to refer to chalkboard or whiteboard instead? ...

This suggests that political correctness is coercive: there are relatively few cases of people being forced to use one term rather than another.

Most PC language is freely chosen by the person making utterances. It's not wrong - or foolish - for me to seek ways of expressing my thoughts that minimise the chance that I might give unintentional offence. Whether it is one person that I avoid offending, or a thousand, is immaterial to me.

One thing does vex me about PC language: some people get so caught up in PC-ness that their utterances become turgid, and the form of the message dominates over the content. That's just bad use of language. If people who read my words do not particularly notice that I try to be PC, then I'm doing it properly.

markfla

To paraphrase Frankie Boyle "political correctness used to be called gay spastic talk".

Manach

If the vocabulary of a debate can be vetted by anyone side, then it ceases to be a meaningful dialog. Thus PCism becomes ultimately inhibiting.

P. Breathnach

Manach wrote: »

If the vocabulary of a debate can be vetted by anyone side, then it ceases to be a meaningful dialog. Thus PCism becomes ultimately inhibiting.

If I choose to express myself in language that is chosen so as to minimise the risk of giving offence, how is that inhibiting?

philologos

^^ Ultimately you'll offend someone eventually. It's just a case of resolving it in the most gracious way possible.

MungBean

Morlar wrote: »

According to who & how many ?

Different people have different levels of sensitivity, is the standard set by the Most Sensitive percentage of the population ? If one person found the word 'Blackboard' offensive should people then be forced to refer to chalkboard or whiteboard instead?

I think if you look hard enough will always find someone who finds any given thing offensive.

This is also operating from the basic starting point that people have the right never to be 'offended' & that this is also a healthy, constructive and positive development.

According to popular opinion and however many it takes to make it popular opinion. I'm not saying it becomes offensive when enough people find it offensive. I'm saying it becomes offensive when enough people begin to use it that way.

Take for example the word knacker. Used to be a valid term for a traveller. Now its an insult and derogatory term used to portray someone as anti-social or of bad repute. Regardless of how many people take offence to the use of the word it is being used as a insult. So eventually its use as an insult becomes more widespread and takes over as the standard definition of sorts. And as a result becomes unacceptable to use as a valid term for travellers.

slowburner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This suggests that political correctness is coercive: there are relatively few cases of people being forced to use one term rather than another.

Most PC language is freely chosen by the person making utterances. It's not wrong - or foolish - for me to seek ways of expressing my thoughts that minimise the chance that I might give unintentional offence. Whether it is one person that I avoid offending, or a thousand, is immaterial to me.

One thing does vex me about PC language: some people get so caught up in PC-ness that their utterances become turgid, and the form of the message dominates over the content. That's just bad use of language. If people who read my words do not particularly notice that I try to be PC, then I'm doing it properly.

I would have thought that political correctness is coercive in the same way as any social obligation.

P. Breathnach

philologos wrote: »

^^ Ultimately you'll offend someone eventually. It's just a case of resolving it in the most gracious way possible.

Don't I know it! Of course I offend people from time to time, even though I generally try to avoid it. But my wish is to do it as little as I can manage. To the extent that I achieve my aim, I am spared the effort of repairing whatever damage I have done. If my efforts to be PC are successful, then I spend less of my time clarifying my utterances and apologising for my clumsy way of expressing my thoughts.

slowburner wrote: »

I would have thought that political correctness is coercive in the same way as any social obligation.

You are taking a subtler view than the rather simplistic one I was articulating. Yes, I recognise that there is a social imperative to avoid giving offence, and that can be seen as coercive. But the social imperative is mediated by me, and that means that the coercion feels less burdensome than if I were following rules laid down by others.

mariaalice

A good way to explain it is this.

Say you had cancer and you were well at the moment, but you were going to die form it eventually, it use to be though of/ described as dying from cancer


Now it would be described as living with cancer the out come is still the same, but how you describe your condition has change because of a better more positive and accurate description of your situation.

That is the good side of pc, its a more accurate and positive description of something, There is a downside though.

slowburner

mariaalice wrote: »

A good way to explain it is this.

Say you had cancer and you were well at the moment, but you were going to die form it eventually, it use to be though of/ described as dying from cancer


Now it would be described as living with cancer the out come is still the same, but how you describe your condition has change because of a better more positive and accurate description of your situation.

That is the good side of pc, its a more accurate and positive description of something, There is a downside though.

Agreed that it is a more positive description - not so sure about accurate though.

mariaalice

Well if you are not terminally ill with cancer you are living with cancer because you are alive and getting on with you life at this moment in time, even if the outcome is going to be death.

A word like Mongol came from a description of one feature ( slightly slanted eyes ) It is not an accurate description Downs syndrome is a more accurate description.

value judgements in language is a very complex area a whole slew of very difficult to understate French thinker have written about it, look up Foucault if you want read some interesting ideas.

mikemac

Around here the knacker man is the guy who collects dead carcasses. With regulations these days of burying dead stock in the corner of the field are over.
We never called travelers knackers, to be a knacker was a proper job and a business.
We used itinerant.
I used it still, stray dog kills the sheep so we call up the knacker man. Don't mean anything bad by it, that's just the job they do.


Back when we had the census the radio shows were talking about the census one hundred years ago.
And people were labelled imbecile or lunatic. Yeah you wouldn't use that nowadays but the word was different then

I suppose another example is bastard.
If you know a unmarried couple and were feeling pretty vindictive it's something people used to say about their child. Child is a bastard.
It's a legal term too, you'd see it in law books. Inheritance cases were and still are a huge part of law. Illegitimate is still used, you can talk to the lawyers about that one

Once widely used, now ever ever used at all in conversation.
I'm glad it's gone, a child shouldn't be labelled if their parents did not marry, it's not the child's fault at all

Dudess

Political correctness is viewed as everywhere and really repressive... that's just in people's heads. There's all this talk of how people "have to" say "chalkboard" instead of "blackboard" (and all the other oft-cited ones, some of which aren't even true) - no they don't, who's making them?

Being sensitive about the language you use within a particular context is fair enough surely.

CathyMoran

In terms of someone who has experienced cancer I prefer the term cancer survivor as from the date you are diganosed until you die you are a cancer survivor - am a cancer survivor myself. The term that I hate is cancer victim.

slowburner

CathyMoran wrote: »

In terms of someone who has experienced cancer I prefer the term cancer survivor as from the date you are diganosed until you die you are a cancer survivor - am a cancer survivor myself. The term that I hate is cancer victim.

By the same token, we are all living, not dying.

Blisterman

It's an interesting topic, and to be honest I think it's possibly futile to change the terminology due to a word becoming an insult.

Originally, what are today known as the mentally challenged, were called "idiots", which was a perfectly fine term with no negative connotations. This evolved to "imbecile", then retard, mentally handicapped etc, each time changing as a result of the previous term becoming unacceptable.

I'd say most of these insults originate from the playground. Kids tend not to worry about political correctness, and when they're looking for a word to use while insulting somebody's intellegence, that tends to be where they go.

Same way handicapped, crippled etc is used to insult people's poor movement.

Chuck Stone

Political correctness makes life hard for Bernard Manning types and I think that's good for health and safety.

F12

I think we don't actually think about what we are saying most of the time. I mean, I was in a filling station the other day and there were a number of those pillar shaped plastic charity collection boxes near the till. One of them was for "Friends of Asthma". I looked at it again and wondered if I was picking the name up wrongly, for surely it should be called the "Enemies of Asthma"? Would you call an anti-cancer group "Friends of Cancer"? I don't think so....
It seems that all it takes is for unquestioned contradiction to become fashionable for it to become correct, and a lot of this PC stuff simply is not correct.

slowburner

Blisterman wrote: »

It's an interesting topic, and to be honest I think it's possibly futile to change the terminology due to a word becoming an insult.

Originally, what are today known as the mentally challenged, were called "idiots", which was a perfectly fine term with no negative connotations. This evolved to "imbecile", then retard, mentally handicapped etc, each time changing as a result of the previous term becoming unacceptable.

I'd say most of these insults originate from the playground. Kids tend not to worry about political correctness, and when they're looking for a word to use while insulting somebody's intellegence, that tends to be where they go.

Same way handicapped, crippled etc is used to insult people's poor movement.

The playground is the source of many evils but then again, that's where we grow up.
As a child, I remember that the worst possible word you could use to insult a woman was 'wench'. Nobody knew anything of its origins or meaning - it was the consensus behind it that gave the word its force.

P. Breathnach

slowburner wrote: »

...
As a child, I remember that the worst possible word you could use to insult a woman was 'wench'....

Even worse: call her a comely wench.

slowburner

F12

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Even worse: call her a comely wench.

Maybe today if she had dyslexia she might be called a 'spanner', not a wench......:D

slowburner

raah!

When you look at the actual words politically correct. It's something which has arisen from politicians who never speak directly as doing so is politically inexpedient. It is for people who want to hide their meanings in innocuous terms so as to get things from the people they want.

Furthermore, those examples of the evolution of politically correct terms are hilarious:

Spastic-retard-disabled-handicapped-specially abled

All the while these people don't recognise that it's insulting to be called <whatever describes a person with a mental disability>. It wasn't long before "special" became an insult, and no amount of word chaning will chang the fact that people perceive mental disabilities to be a negative thing.

The same thing goes for:

Tinker - Knacker - Pikey etc.

These are insults because people think that being called what it is that travellers are is an insult. Until the perceptions of these people changes (or perhaps these people change their behaviour) the words will never be anything other than insults. No amount of word games will make any difference.

What is worse about political correctness is that it does not just stop at which words you use. It also comes down for what people say: look back to the meaning of the word "politically correct" and you'll see it would not be "P.C" for some american politician to talk about evolution in a room full of creationists. It's not "P.C" to talk about the origins of homosexuality (as you can see by the reactions to it in that thread, though any conclusions regarding this are hardly established scientific fact). All "generalisations" are not P.C regardless of whether or not they are true. This is a stifling of thought and an impediment to the progress of the understanding. We learn about the scientific method in school and we learn how to think rationally and then suddenly "this conclusion is wrong because it's not nice". And it's this same sensibility behind "knackers a terrible word" "it's wrong that travellers are prone to crime for some reason" etc.

There is definitely a difference between merely being tactful/polite and not saying "you're dying of a big ****ting tumour" and being "politically correct". That's why a new word was made for politically correct.

F12

raah! wrote: »

When you look at the actual words politically correct. It's something which has arisen from politicians who never speak directly as doing so is politically inexpedient. It is for people who want to hide their meanings in innocuous terms so as to get things from the people they want.

Furthermore, those examples of the evolution of politically correct terms are hilarious:

Spastic-retard-disabled-handicapped-specially abled

All the while these people don't recognise that it's insulting to be called <whatever describes a person with a mental disability>. It wasn't long before "special" became an insult, and no amount of word chaning will chang the fact that people perceive mental disabilities to be a negative thing.

The same thing goes for:

Tinker - Knacker - Pikey etc.

These are insults because people think that being called what it is that travellers are is an insult. Until the perceptions of these people changes (or perhaps these people change their behaviour) the words will never be anything other than insults. No amount of word games will make any difference.

What is worse about political correctness is that it does not just stop at which words you use. It also comes down for what people say: look back to the meaning of the word "politically correct" and you'll see it would not be "P.C" for some american politician to talk about evolution in a room full of creationists. It's not "P.C" to talk about the origins of homosexuality (as you can see by the reactions to it in that thread, though any conclusions regarding this are hardly established scientific fact). All "generalisations" are not P.C regardless of whether or not they are true. This is a stifling of thought and an impediment to the progress of the understanding. We learn about the scientific method in school and we learn how to think rationally and then suddenly "this conclusion is wrong because it's not nice". And it's this same sensibility behind "knackers a terrible word" "it's wrong that travellers are prone to crime for some reason" etc.

There is definitely a difference between merely being tactful/polite and not saying "you're dying of a big ****ting tumour" and being "politically correct". That's why a new word was made for politically correct.

I couldn't agree with you more...this PC dung should be called WC, as it just a form of crap that's being flushed into our minds by some of the most dishonest and slithery creatures on the face of the earth, and who couldn't, as you say, give a direct answer to a direct question if they were to die for not doing so.

F

FlutterinBantam

mikemac wrote: »

Around here the knacker man is the guy who collects dead carcasses. With regulations these days of burying dead stock in the corner of the field are over.
We never called travelers knackers, to be a knacker was a proper job and a business.
We used itinerant.
I used it still, stray dog kills the sheep so we call up the knacker man. Don't mean anything bad by it, that's just the job they do.


Back when we had the census the radio shows were talking about the census one hundred years ago.
And people were labelled imbecile or lunatic. Yeah you wouldn't use that nowadays but the word was different then

I suppose another example is bastard.
If you know a unmarried couple and were feeling pretty vindictive it's something people used to say about their child. Child is a bastard.
It's a legal term too, you'd see it in law books. Inheritance cases were and still are a huge part of law. Illegitimate is still used, you can talk to the lawyers about that one

Once widely used, now ever ever used at all in conversation.
I'm glad it's gone, a child shouldn't be labelled if their parents did not marry, it's not the child's fault at all

:eek:

Knacker person surely!!

tut tut.

mascaput

mikemac wrote: »

Around here the knacker man is the guy who collects dead carcasses. With regulations these days of burying dead stock in the corner of the field are over.
We never called travelers knackers, to be a knacker was a proper job and a business.
We used itinerant.
I used it still, stray dog kills the sheep so we call up the knacker man. Don't mean anything bad by it, that's just the job they do.


Back when we had the census the radio shows were talking about the census one hundred years ago.
And people were labelled imbecile or lunatic. Yeah you wouldn't use that nowadays but the word was different then

I suppose another example is bastard.
If you know a unmarried couple and were feeling pretty vindictive it's something people used to say about their child. Child is a bastard.
It's a legal term too, you'd see it in law books. Inheritance cases were and still are a huge part of law. Illegitimate is still used, you can talk to the lawyers about that one

Once widely used, now ever ever used at all in conversation.
I'm glad it's gone, a child shouldn't be labelled if their parents did not marry, it's not the child's fault at all

The usage of words depends on context and on what people are led to imagine they mean in the absence of knowing any better.

A person who collects dead and worn out animals is correctly called a knacker, from the Latin root origins for dead or relating to death, necro.
In Portugueses a necroteria is a knackery, a place where you bring dead animals, and a necrotério is a morgue, which is the proper use of the word in the correct context also.

When something is described as being a bastard, it literally means 'hard', as in bastard steel, which is a very tough form of steel, specially hardened. A child who is a 'bastard' would have a hard life, and that's the sense of hardness when we say "He's an absolute bastard"....someone hard and cold.

Words and their use according to their context and arrangement is called semantics, and it all depends on understanding how any when to say something, or not.

A lunatic was the name given to someone who was not in control of their mind, and under the influence of the pull of the moon, from the Latin word luna, from which we also derive the Irish word Lunasa (August) and De Luain (Monday/moon-day)

pickarooney

Sometimes 'politically correct' is not only incorrect but insultingly presumptuous as in the case of applying the term 'African American' to anyone with dark skin. The idea of refusing to state the obvious but instead using the obvious to infer a stereotype is laughable.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

Sometimes 'politically correct' is not only incorrect but insultingly presumptuous as in the case of applying the term 'African American' to anyone with dark skin. The idea of refusing to state the obvious but instead using the obvious to infer a stereotype is laughable.

Further to my point, I am reminded of a television interview I saw many years ago. A reporter from one of the major US television networks (I forget which one) was interviewing black British athlete Kriss Akabusi after being a member of the 400 meters relay team that took the gold medal at the 1991 Athletics World Championships. The interviewer started off with:

“So, Kriss, what does this mean to you as an African-American?”

“I’m not American, I’m British”

“Yes, but as a British African-American …”

“I’m not African. I’m not American. I’m British.”

This went on for some time before the reporter got so flustered that she gave up and went to interview someone else. I guess more than anything else it demonstrates the potential absurdity of political correctness — this reporter was so tied-up with the idea that the “correct” term for someone of afro-caribbean ancestry was African-American and not Black that she couldn’t cope with the fact that many black people are neither African nor American.

http://www.chuckiedaniel.com/archives/172

slowburner

pickarooney wrote: »

Sometimes 'politically correct' is not only incorrect but insultingly presumptuous as in the case of applying the term 'African American' to anyone with dark skin. The idea of refusing to state the obvious but instead using the obvious to infer a stereotype is laughable.

There is an undercurrent of condescension in the usage of politically correct terminology, I think. It is directed more towards those who don't subscribe to their use, rather than the subjects described by the terms.

Chuck Stone

Baa baa non-white sheep have you any wool?
Yes person, yes person 3 bags full.
One for the Senior male citizen
One for the Senior female citizen
And one for the young person who lives down the lane!

That's the PC version :pac:

THENORTHSIDER

slowburner wrote: »

I wonder what rules govern the evolution of politically correct terms.
I most certainly do not want to offend anyone's sensibilities but it is necessary to use words which might offend in order to give examples.
In the past, the term 'tinker' was perfectly acceptable. Now that is unacceptable. Similarly with 'handicapped', 'midget', 'mongoloid' etc.
Will currently acceptable terms like 'traveller', 'special needs' etc. become politically incorrect at some point?

When and why does a term change from being acceptable to unacceptable?

Has become words that no longer will be used. In England A Special Needs Assistant is known as a classroom assistant and we are following this

slowburner

THENORTHSIDER wrote: »

Has become words that no longer will be used. In England A Special Needs Assistant is known as a classroom assistant and we are following this

Interesting.
So this seems to imply that a label for a minority group has a sell by date.
If the old term is used, perhaps this then becomes interpreted as derogatory?

mascaput

slowburner wrote: »

Interesting.
So this seems to imply that a label for a minority group has a sell by date.
If the old term is used, perhaps this then becomes interpreted as derogatory?

slowburner wrote: »

Interesting.
So this seems to imply that a label for a minority group has a sell by date.
If the old term is used, perhaps this then becomes interpreted as derogatory?

It basically a notional or fanciful thing, something that people start doing because they think they should because some authority figure 'frowns' on not doing it.
In the past, when the Church or the king 'frowned' on something, it was like you'd pooped in your pants...done something deserving disapproval, regardless of the lack of reality of the 'offence' allegedly comitted. It's all about image and impressions, and it's why our national mindset is so impoverished, as we are made to think of ourselves as 'bad' for not accepting what our ideologically perverse masters so thoughtfully provide for us. They do provide for us, but the question is "What are they providing, and why?". Who do you think taught us to be so servile and believing, accepting, and so meek and docile? :rolleyes:

mathepac

THENORTHSIDER wrote: »

... In England A Special Needs Assistant is known as a classroom assistant and we are following this

And that kind of stuff sickens me. We rename Civil Service Departments, re-align the porfolios of Ministers, rename benefits and social welfare payments in order to comply with the nomenclature of the Brits. Why? They were our former masters; are we preparing for them being our future master?

In the UK the term "tinker" as in "you little tinker" is applied to young children as a term of affection. No-one blinks an eyelid when it's used as TinkerBell features as a character in Peter Pan. So PCness is a local / national thing, and it doesn't translate or travel easily. BTW "tinker" is a skilled trade or profession - a metal-worker who made and repaired metal vessels and cookery items.

mascaput

mathepac wrote: »

And that kind of stuff sickens me. We rename Civil Service Departments, re-align the porfolios of Ministers, rename benefits and social welfare payments in order to comply with the nomenclature of the Brits. Why? They were our former masters; are we preparing for them being our future master?

In the UK the term "tinker" as in "you little tinker" is applied to young children as a term of affection. No-one blinks an eyelid when it's used as TinkerBell features as a character in Peter Pan. So PCness is a local / national thing, and it doesn't translate or travel easily. BTW "tinker" is a skilled trade or profession - a metal-worker who made and repaired metal vessels and cookery items.

Quite right. It's just more of the 'monkey-see monkey-do', rote and sheeple conformity we have adopted as a sort of reaction to a latent inferiority complex that we choose to keep on accepting.

slowburner

mascaput wrote: »

It basically a notional or fanciful thing, something that people start doing because they think they should because some authority figure 'frowns' on not doing it.
In the past, when the Church or the king 'frowned' on something, it was like you'd pooped in your pants...done something deserving disapproval, regardless of the lack of reality of the 'offence' allegedly comitted. It's all about image and impressions, and it's why our national mindset is so impoverished, as we are made to think of ourselves as 'bad' for not accepting what our ideologically perverse masters so thoughtfully provide for us. They do provide for us, but the question is "What are they providing, and why?". Who do you think taught us to be so servile and believing, accepting, and so meek and docile? :rolleyes:

I've no idea.

THENORTHSIDER

mathepac wrote: »

And that kind of stuff sickens me. We rename Civil Service Departments, re-align the porfolios of Ministers, rename benefits and social welfare payments in order to comply with the nomenclature of the Brits. Why? They were our former masters; are we preparing for them being our future master?

In the UK the term "tinker" as in "you little tinker" is applied to young children as a term of affection. No-one blinks an eyelid when it's used as TinkerBell features as a character in Peter Pan. So PCness is a local / national thing, and it doesn't translate or travel easily. BTW "tinker" is a skilled trade or profession - a metal-worker who made and repaired metal vessels and cookery items.

its not us following our neighbours as such its simply what is been used and is being recognised as a standard

mascaput

slowburner wrote: »

I've no idea.

Who teaches belief as being a virtue even if it is based on fantasy? Who tells and encourages us to accept myths and stories of false comfort and the promise of rewards if we invest in them, regarless of the unrealities behind them? Do you not think that both religions and politicians do both of these?

What is belief to you? What is the purpose of it? Acceptance for the sake of emotional and psychological comfort, maybe? To confuse us so that we no longer question, no? To mix and merge fantasy and mere promises with a smidgin of reality to keep us buying into the idea, maybe? Carrot and stick politics and dogmas? What do you think?

mascaput

THENORTHSIDER wrote: »

its not us following our neighbours as such its simply what is been used and is being recognised as a standard

Yes, it is being used as a 'standard', as you say, but the question remains, a standard for what? Confusion?

THENORTHSIDER

Standard terminology in the Social Care Field. Instead of saying a special need assistant one would say a classroom assistant . Hope this eliminates your confusion