What is PC?

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: What is PC?

Postby super_dipsy » 02 Jan 2017, 18:34

I'm not sure, but I think I may mean something different to you by PC, Crunkus.
Crunkus wrote:The problem is "politically correct" is a bit like murder. It's wrong, goes too far, etc... by definition. Murder is killing that is disapproved of. "Politically correct stuff" is essentially attempts to do what is by now a pretty broad category of things for a pretty broad range of reasons which the person(s) using the term take issue with for one reason or another.

My interpretation of PC at least in spirit is that it has roots that are not the equivalent of murder in your analogy. It is not necessarily wrong. Let's take some specific examples; personally I would say that requirement (backed up by legislation) to not restrict job offers to people based on non-work related issues (such as sex/colour/religion) is what I would call the true spirit of political correctness. Ruling it is illegal for a baker to refuse to ice a cake with overtly homosexual images as happened here in the UK is to my mind a level that most would agree is extreme. It could be argued that the line between the two is arbitrary and highly subjective, of course. But as I say I think I differ form your statement above. I would absolutely agree that most PC crusades today have evolved into the category you describe, but my comments in my post were based on the idea that some PC stuff is not extreme and 'a good thing'.

Crunkus wrote: But it would have nothing to do with political correctness...that's a wedge word that has long since been diluted beyond useful purpose.

Yes, now I read this, I think I do agree with this assessment. I was picking up above that I think there are examples of PC that I think are sensible and popular, but I do agree that your excellent phrase at the end is right - that is has been 'diluted beyond useful purpose'
Crunkus wrote: Anti-PC IS politically correct by context of that it is CORRECT POLITICALLY.
.
Great way with words! I agree again, and yes political capital is easy to make raging against PC views. I really do hear strong echoes of a lot of the political posturings in the run up to our Brexit vote.

Crunkus wrote:We never start new threads here. If you have something in your craw about something you disagree with somewhere...give us as much information as you can and links to what you're talking about...and let's try to make heads or tails of it. Let's hash it out. Let's...debate in debate forum. Otherwise, we're all just going to continue to be easier and easier to manipulate politically. There's a reason why politicians feel less of a need to explain themselves or make coherent arguments. The public increasingly doesn't care to hear it or doesn't know the difference.

Not sure if this is an invite to open up some specific examples?
User avatar
super_dipsy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10161
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Rating: (921)
Timezone: GMT

Re: What is PC?

Postby Crunkus » 02 Jan 2017, 19:01

My other thought reading this thread was more to do with the freedom of speech angle, which I know deviates from the PC title and so I am hesitant to bring it up. But I have thought for a number of years now that this is another area heavily affected by the arrival of the internet. When you can say things anonymously, it seems to me that it becomes impossible to halt the extremist push mentioned earlier that polarizes and increases splits between parties. I think there is much to be said for a policy of people being allowed to speak freely, as long as they are prepared to stand up when they do so. But does the ability to speak anonymously overbalance the concept? Does it result in much more extreme views being expressed, which in turn weakens the basic values of Freedom of Speech? Is it OK to say that people can say anything they like even when they are not prepared to be identified? Somehow I think this anonymous factor really conflicts with Freedom of Speech, but I don't know there is anything that can be done about it.


Generally speaking I don't really take an issue with anon speech weakening the basic values of Freedom of Speech. It's not clear to me how they do, just because they feel free to be more extreme. There are environments when anon speech is just going to lead to unwanted noise if you are creating an environment of thoughtful discussion. But that's up to the gatekeepers of any given online environment. Thoughtful moderation can accomplish more than eliminating anonymity. But it requires more work. Mostly I think "anonymity" just makes things more complicated. But life is like that.

APOLLINARIS, MEDICUS TITI IMPERATORIS HIC CACAVIT BENE.

It's not an internet thing. People have, for as long as there were walls and writing, been feeling free to scrawl things on walls when no one is looking that they'd never dream saying openly. Sometimes its been quite an important option. Mostly, it's just a bunch of nonsense. But that's true of all freedoms we decide are important.
Participant, Push/Pull Mafia.
User avatar
Crunkus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 17472
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: 953
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: What is PC?

Postby Carebear » 02 Jan 2017, 19:03

JamesCook wrote:Be embracing and try not to judge others as you do not walk in their shoes.

This is a great statement, but I have found that many (most?) just don't get it much less follow it, even if they pay lip-service to the concept. This site is predominantly male with membership in the majority religion and ethnicity from their regions. I frequently see posts that display bias, pre-judging based on group affiliation, complete lack of experience or understanding of discrimination inherent in their environments, and an inability to accept facts on the subject while repeating completely fake or intentionally misleading anecdotes that they have come across.

JamesCook wrote:Remember all people believe they are right and that their opinion is correct.

Sure, but the problem is not everybody can be right. The Republican conservative crowd more so than the Democratic liberal crowd the last several years have made it clear that how they feel "something is" is how they believe regardless of actual facts. This is a big problem for any meaningful discourse or compromise.

JamesCook wrote:PC is just an attempt to discredit other opinions.

Sorry, that is just not the case. PC in general is an attempt to encourage people to not use terms that are derogatory, pejorative, riddled with latent bias, or just plain mean.
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1799
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: (1739)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: What is PC?

Postby Crunkus » 02 Jan 2017, 19:40

super_dipsy wrote:I'm not sure, but I think I may mean something different to you by PC, Crunkus.
Crunkus wrote:The problem is "politically correct" is a bit like murder. It's wrong, goes too far, etc... by definition. Murder is killing that is disapproved of. "Politically correct stuff" is essentially attempts to do what is by now a pretty broad category of things for a pretty broad range of reasons which the person(s) using the term take issue with for one reason or another.

My interpretation of PC at least in spirit is that it has roots that are not the equivalent of murder in your analogy. It is not necessarily wrong. Let's take some specific examples; personally I would say that requirement (backed up by legislation) to not restrict job offers to people based on non-work related issues (such as sex/colour/religion) is what I would call the true spirit of political correctness. Ruling it is illegal for a baker to refuse to ice a cake with overtly homosexual images as happened here in the UK is to my mind a level that most would agree is extreme. It could be argued that the line between the two is arbitrary and highly subjective, of course. But as I say I think I differ form your statement above. I would absolutely agree that most PC crusades today have evolved into the category you describe, but my comments in my post were based on the idea that some PC stuff is not extreme and 'a good thing'.


It doesn't matter what you call it SD. What matters is no one is proposing any of these measures because they are politically correct. That's an after the fact application that you're only applying to things you disagree with.

Your example of PC measures you agree with were not conceived to be politically correct. They are, by and large, policy meant to accomplish a goal that is more than simply an end to advance political capital. Neither were the ones you disagree with. There is no true spirit of political correctness...because no one making those decisions is motivated by being correct politically.

It's just people trying to accomplish one thing or another and either having ideas with how to do that which are worthy or unworthy in one respect or another.

Classifying anyone trying to be fair about anything as politically correct is meaningless. It would literally apply to those trying to combat the so called political correctness JUST AS MUCH. How is trying to be fair by pointing out how some other policy attempting to be fair isn't fair NOT being politically correct by that definition?

It's not clear to me how your usage of the word is any different...without being meaningless such as I understand it.

Again...,I'm not sure what use invoking this term is accomplishing...other than in my experience, failing to discuss the actual details of what we're talking about. At best it is assuming base "political" motivations for something without any real evidence for doing so or without even discussing what the measure was intended to accomplish and is in someone opinion an imperfect tool at accomplishing. That's the issue...it's a wedge word...not something useful for actually intelligently discussing any given issue. If you want to talk about it as a broad category of people trying to be fair...that's fine. I'd offer that's almost meaningless when it comes down to details and doesn't have much to do with what most people mean when they say "that's politically correct nonsense". The original usage of the word was to describe the practice of doing something because it was literally politically useful to do so and not because it was meant to seriously accomplish a goal. It's right there in the words you use.

I don't think it is useful to consider extreme and legitimate "political correctness". For one it ignores completely the origins of the term. For another, it doesn't line up with how people use this word in context. If you want politically correct to mean people attempting to be fair about something, and sometimes doing a good job and sometimes failing, that's fine. But when you discuss "the politically correct agenda is being hijacked" let's break that down. First, you are assuming an agenda that's not borne out in your definition. It doesn't take an agenda to attempt to make fair policy. Do you see what I mean there? The usage of this term basically seek to lump things we vaguely disagree with together, turn it into an agenda, and never discusses the details of any of how that works.

At some point, you need to reject the mindset there and just talk about individual issues. The undiscussed and assumed leaps are the issue here, not the definitions.

There's policy that you argue works or makes sense and policy you argue doesn't. There's productive discussion on these individual topics, and there is unproductive discussion.

Attempting to leap to categorization of the policy as part of a larger, undiscussed problem is, again, putting the cart before the horse...and unwarranted if you truly simply define it as "trying to be fair."

super_dipsy wrote:
Crunkus wrote: But it would have nothing to do with political correctness...that's a wedge word that has long since been diluted beyond useful purpose.

Yes, now I read this, I think I do agree with this assessment. I was picking up above that I think there are examples of PC that I think are sensible and popular, but I do agree that your excellent phrase at the end is right - that is has been 'diluted beyond useful purpose'
Crunkus wrote: Anti-PC IS politically correct by context of that it is CORRECT POLITICALLY.
.
Great way with words! I agree again, and yes political capital is easy to make raging against PC views. I really do hear strong echoes of a lot of the political posturings in the run up to our Brexit vote.


I think politically correct has a place in discussing policy and acts made specifically for political purposes rather than practical non-political ones. I think the term has been hijacked, first to assume such a thing without discussing this motivation, and then to basically just mean anything of a certain stripe people disagree with. I don't think it gets righted by thinking in terms of extreme PCness...the term was never used in a way that lines up with how people attempt to solve anything other than strictly political problems...so when you apply it to why a policy is unfair....it just muddies the water. It also never seems to accompany serious discussion of the details of the issue...which I think is somewhat noteworthy.

super_dipsy wrote:
Crunkus wrote:We never start new threads here. If you have something in your craw about something you disagree with somewhere...give us as much information as you can and links to what you're talking about...and let's try to make heads or tails of it. Let's hash it out. Let's...debate in debate forum. Otherwise, we're all just going to continue to be easier and easier to manipulate politically. There's a reason why politicians feel less of a need to explain themselves or make coherent arguments. The public increasingly doesn't care to hear it or doesn't know the difference.

Not sure if this is an invite to open up some specific examples?


Whatever moves you. I think the words speak for themselves here. I'm not convinced there's an audience here for it anymore to be honest. I'd be happy to be wrong. It used to be what I valued most about this website.
Participant, Push/Pull Mafia.
User avatar
Crunkus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 17472
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: 953
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: What is PC?

Postby JamesCook » 02 Jan 2017, 22:08

As I said above, all people believe they are correct even though they may not be. PC is an attempt to stifle views that are not acceptable to SOME. Nothing more.
Member of The Classicists
JamesCook
 
Posts: 485
Joined: 12 Jun 2010, 19:05
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: 1334
Timezone: GMT-6

Previous

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest