Expose the lie

[DoggerDan]

I am SO sick and tired of people being "politically correct."

I am POLITE. That's what my parents and the school systems in which I was raised taught me. They also taught me to be truthful, which, by definition, is the antithesis of being politically correct.

Being politically correct is NOT being truthful. It's a lie. It's adherence to an ideal regardless of the truth. It's not scientific. It violates principles of integrity and of the scientific process. It's an aberration, if not a violation of reality. No sane person of good character would EVER stoop to being "politically correct" when faced with a choice between PC and reality, and even Wikipedia recognizes it as being an "excessive" characteristic.

It's time this monstrous perversion die. By all means, be polite, but by all means, expose the lies, first and foremost that being "politically correct" is right. It's not right. It's wrong, and it's a vicious lie.

[Sticks]

Due to the potentially contentious nature of this topic, this thread is closed pending moderator discussion

[Sticks]

Following moderator discussion, this thread has been re-opened. May I remind all involved of the rules concerning civility

[redshifter]

Who decides what is 'politically correct' and what is 'being polite'? Where do you draw the line? I agree everyone should be civil and respectful of each other, but one person's 'lie of political correctness' is another's example of respect. Perhaps there's a specific example you're referring to regarding your OP?

[Occam]

DoggerDan, I couldn't agree more. Personally, though, when faced with 'politically correct' nonsense, I don't even bother being polite any more.

[Ara Pacis]

It may depend on what you mean by politically correct. Politeness is a subset of it, or was at one time. I recall discussions of certain racial slurs and why it was politically incorrect to use them. That sounds like an issue of politeness and sensitivity to me. If you mean political correctness by adherence to certain policy statements, then it's a harder issue to discuss. Every subculture, so far as I can tell, has their own sensitivities and their own policy doctrines that they do not want discussed or dismissed. After all, one man's "X is true" is another man's "X is not true". History, complicit as it is, is the judge... except when trumped by physics.

[Frog march]

political correctness is abused by some, as a means to control people, and freedom of speech is abused by some as a way to bully people.
I can't see anyway through it, but to have an ongoing debate about what is said in the public domain.

[Selfsim]

Being politically correct is NOT being truthful. It's a lie. It's adherence to an ideal regardless of the truth. It's not scientific. It violates principles of integrity and of the scientific process.

Science doesn't reveal truths ... so there is no truth with which to make comparisons ...

It's an aberration, if not a violation of reality. No sane person of good character would EVER stoop to being "politically correct" when faced with a choice between PC and reality, and even Wikipedia recognizes it as being an "excessive" characteristic.

Creating an ideal is the first step towards creating reality-by-consensus. The consensus leads to a specific type of reality. I know of three different types of reality ... consensus is one of 'em !

It's time this monstrous perversion die. By all means, be polite, but by all means, expose the lies, first and foremost that being "politically correct" is right. It's not right. It's wrong, and it's a vicious lie.

Being 'right' is a monstrous perversion. There would be no 'wrong' if one was not determined to be 'right'.
Lies don't exist without truths ... drop the truth, and the lies disappear in an instant !

Problem solved !

[Perikles]

Being politically correct is NOT being truthful. It's a lie. It's adherence to an ideal regardless of the truth. It's not scientific.

Political correctness is applied mainly in areas which are not scientific, and to call it a lie is far too dogmatic. It often involves the naming of things. One silly example is calling a 'manhole' a 'personnel inspection hatch' because some misguided feminists would take exception to a 'manhole' excluding women, (thereby displaying an ignorance of English IMO, apart from the fact that women never use them). The PC name is not a lie, it is as correct as 'manhole', just stupid.

On the other hand, some PC expressions can be inaccurate, because a 'window' does not really have the only function of 'environment inspection panel'

[grapes]

On the other hand, some PC expressions can be inaccurate, because a 'window' does not really have the only function of 'environment inspection panel'

Some labels have been "jargonized", made to sound more technical or official, but I wouldn't classify that as PC. Or am I missing something in this case?

[Swift]

Of course some "political correctness" is misapplied, like any human system it is subject to human faults. But aspiring to be polite and non-hurtful, in words and deeds, is a noble thing, and raises the human condition.

I don't thing this applies to anyone here, but I think that some people who rail against "political correctness" first, don't understand it, and second, are just being resistant to changing their words or actions that knowingly or unknowingly hurt others.

[mike alexander]

Telling a new mother that her babe looks like a reject from a freak show and smells like a sewage treatment plant might also be forthright and honest.

[mike alexander]

And as Woodrow Smith noted:

Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.

[Gillianren]

I think there are also a lot of people who don't realize how their words hurt others and, worse, don't believe their words can hurt others. (I have a female friend who works for the City of Olympia. While I don't know if she's ever used a manhole, I certainly have no reason to assume no woman ever has!) I think we can take limiting our word choices too far, but I think being a little more careful of them is better than blindly using words without thought of their consequences.

[Perikles]

I think there are also a lot of people who don't realize how their words hurt others and, worse, don't believe their words can hurt others.

Yes, but there are times when words can hurt because of a perceived insult where none is intended, or the word is just misunderstood. The word 'manhole' was (presumably) created at a time when work of that type was exclusively male, and is widespread in expressions like 'man the lifeboats' or 'every man for himself' and the like. I just don't understand the objection women could have to using such expressions when clearly 'man' is what is meant by 'person' these days, and still remains as an epicene name of the species. Women are included in the expression 'mankind'. I still see changing these words in deference to a perceived insult to women as misguided. This is PC at its worst.

[swampyankee]

Usually, people seem to complain about "political correctness" when it prevents them from using derogatory speech, such as ethnic slurs.

[Frog march]

I don't like political correctness when it seeks to control how people communicate for no other reason than that someone's need to control people, and a warped sense of right and wrong.

[Paul Beardsley]

A substantial part of the problem with political correctness is its name.

The introduction of a new (at the time) term is unnecessary. We already have the words "considerate", "tolerant" and "respectful". And we already have the negative terms "bigoted", "prejudiced", and all kinds of "-ist" (racist, sexist etc).

Now even if a new term was needed to cover the positive and necessary qualities I listed above, "politically correct" is not the one that should have been coined. It is, I would contend, impossible to say without sounding condescending - and this is the case two decades on. It's a polysyllabic adverb-adjective combination that sounds like it was made up by a jumped-up sociology student or professor, the sort who describes the study of social interactions as "multi-dimensional" because that makes it sound a bit like a science.

But it's the second word, "correct", that is most poisonous. It means that any viewpoint that disagrees with political correctness is, by definition, wrong. Never mind that the proponents might have made a mistake, or that they have arrogantly chosen to speak on behalf of a group that never gave them permission to do so.

I have attended a number of Equal Opportunity and Diversity courses. These were run by people whose hearts were probably in the right place but their brains were not. One told us, very forcibly, that we should not use the term "homosexual" because it means "man sex". I told her she was talking rubbish, that the word did not originate from the Latin "homo" for "(hu)man" but the Greek "hom(e)o" for "same". To her credit she later looked it up and admitted the next day that she had got it wrong, but it was that PC attitude that had given her the certainty that she was right.

I completely agree that some words are derogatory, and they really do cause harm. My approach is to call people what they wish to be called - assuming I need to call them by a group name.

I probably have more to say but dinner has just arrived.

[Gillianren]

I just don't understand the objection women could have to using such expressions when clearly 'man' is what is meant by 'person' these days, and still remains as an epicene name of the species. Women are included in the expression 'mankind'.

Ah, but you see, I object to that stance. I don't feel included in "mankind." I feel that there is an implicit power imbalance in saying that "mankind" means women, too; I think it says that women aren't as important as men. Now, my objection to renaming "manhole" has a great deal to do with the fact that I haven't heard a suggested rename that isn't clunky and difficult to remember. However, I do object to being told that I don't have a right to be unhappy with "man" as a default when you mean "person." "Man" doesn't mean person. "Man" means "man." "Mankind" is longer written and the same length spoken as "humans," so where's the advantage?

[Moose]

I don't have a problem with "inspection hatch" for "manhole cover". It's more accurate and more descriptive. Same number of syllables, too. On the other hand, while "manhole" could be considered less inclusive, it's clearly not intended to be mean. Either way, as one who prefers to pick my battles, this wouldn't be a battle I'd pick.

However.

I saw a documentary a few years back, arguing for inclusive classrooms. The documentary tracked a developmentally delayed kid with acquired behaviors (specifically, hitting and biting) through his transition from an institution to an inclusive third grade classroom. Now, that was the politically correct way of saying it. The non-PC way of as recently as thirty years ago would likely have used the words "bad" and "retarded".

One is clearly mean. The other is clearly not intended to be. (There are legal reasons for being specific with that jargon, as children with these disabilities have had defined certain rights under most western countries' education laws, and communicating accurately helps to communicate certain responsibilities under those laws.)

Back to my point:

Early in the year, 'Petey' had spontaneously referred to himself as "stupid" and "a dummy". He did not spontaneously develop that vocabulary. Somebody told him that. The hitting and biting was also not spontaneously developed. It was behavior acquired from his experiences at the institution.

Sticks and stones can break bones, guys, but words can wound for life.

/ Petey's behaviors were mostly unlearned by the end of the year, largely because his classmates were caring and supportive, even on the more difficult days.

[Solfe]

Overt PC sp33k annoys me, but usually only when the terms obscure the problem. However, what really fires me up is when people implement policies based on PC sp33k. That is just too much for me.

That is usually the point where enforcing politeness becomes an angle for attacking a class of people you do not endorse.

I try to live by MCT - Minimum Correct Thing. It saves a lot of drama.

[HenrikOlsen]

In general I find PC-speak irritating when it becomes moronic in the attempt at being neutral.

"Inspection panel" to replace "manhole cover" makes a lot of sense to me, while "personhole cover" is just plain stupid.

I also get really irritated when gender-neutral pronouns are used for a specific person whose sex is know.

[Swift]

"Inspection panel" to replace "manhole cover" makes a lot of sense to me, while "personhole cover" is just plain stupid.

I agree. On the other hand, I have never in my life heard someone said "personhole cover". I sense it is not a problem.

[PetersCreek]

I'll stick with "manhole cover" for now. "Inspection hatch" lacks enough specificity. Mention it without a fair bit of context and I might not know if you're referring to one on an aircraft, naval vessel, or a rocket. Mention "manhole cover" and I'll look no farther than the street. Perhaps something like "drain hatch" or some such. <tongue-in-cheek> But then how would I order a pizza as big as a manhole cover? </tongue-in-cheek> On the other hand, I much prefer some of the 'de-manified' titles over the old ones. For instance, I think "firefighter" is more descriptive and IMO does a much better job evoking a metal image of that profession than does "fireman", even though I grew up with the latter.

As far as PCness in general goes, I can't see a good reason to rail against it as a whole. The harm or good that it does is in the actual (mal)practice of it, not the concept itself.

[R.A.F.]

I am SO sick and tired of people being "politically correct."

I do not understand why you are having such a strong, (and in my opinion, over the top) reaction to people being "PC".


...and using terms that just do not apply, such as "monsterous perversion", and "vicious lie" in no way "helps" whatever arguement it is that you are making.

[Solfe]

Maybe an example would be helpful, if possible?

I had a near "PC moment" with my kids. They were describing people by color which can be unwelcome or just plain rude, so I wanted to stop it. I figured this would be one of those parenting moments and whatever I said needed to be really good.

In that pause for thought, my son said "Look at that purple guy." My daughter then pointed out the "blue lady". It turns out they were naming one of the colors the person was wearing, not what the actual person looked like.

That was much easier to handle.

[Ara Pacis]

A substantial part of the problem with political correctness is its name.

The introduction of a new (at the time) term is unnecessary. We already have the words "considerate", "tolerant" and "respectful". And we already have the negative terms "bigoted", "prejudiced", and all kinds of "-ist" (racist, sexist etc).

Now even if a new term was needed to cover the positive and necessary qualities I listed above, "politically correct" is not the one that should have been coined. It is, I would contend, impossible to say without sounding condescending - and this is the case two decades on. It's a polysyllabic adverb-adjective combination that sounds like it was made up by a jumped-up sociology student or professor, the sort who describes the study of social interactions as "multi-dimensional" because that makes it sound a bit like a science.

But it's the second word, "correct", that is most poisonous. It means that any viewpoint that disagrees with political correctness is, by definition, wrong. Never mind that the proponents might have made a mistake, or that they have arrogantly chosen to speak on behalf of a group that never gave them permission to do so.

It's my understanding that use of the word "correct" is meant to be ironic. The term is generally meant to refer negatively against the people perceived as trying to promote a rule that another group dislikes. The group that actually is promoting the rule generally doesn't call the replacement politically correct, they call the original term "bad" or "wrong" or "insensitive" or "hateful".

[Ara Pacis]

Ah, but you see, I object to that stance. I don't feel included in "mankind." I feel that there is an implicit power imbalance in saying that "mankind" means women, too; I think it says that women aren't as important as men. Now, my objection to renaming "manhole" has a great deal to do with the fact that I haven't heard a suggested rename that isn't clunky and difficult to remember. However, I do object to being told that I don't have a right to be unhappy with "man" as a default when you mean "person." "Man" doesn't mean person. "Man" means "man." "Mankind" is longer written and the same length spoken as "humans," so where's the advantage?

I agree. Some men are so used to white male advantage that they think it's a law of nature and since they haven't experienced discrimination they feel that it's a neutral term.

I'll stick with "manhole cover" for now. "Inspection hatch" lacks enough specificity. Mention it without a fair bit of context and I might not know if you're referring to one on an aircraft, naval vessel, or a rocket. Mention "manhole cover" and I'll look no farther than the street.

I suspect that manhole cover isn't very specific if you don't already know what one is. There are other potential things can could be called "manholes" (no dirty pun intended) and even seeing one in a street doesn't guarantee that the hole beneath is accessible by a man. I think a better word would be "streethole cover". Just as many syllables and even more specific.

[PetersCreek]

I suspect that manhole cover isn't very specific if you don't already know what one is. There are other potential things can could be called "manholes" (no dirty pun intended) and even seeing one in a street doesn't guarantee that the hole beneath is accessible by a man. I think a better word would be "streethole cover". Just as many syllables and even more specific.

Oh, I'll readily concede that manhole is probably as specific as it is only through decades(?) of common usage. To overcome that, I think a gender-neutral alternative would have a much better chance of acceptance if it's approximately as specific as the term it replaces, vis-à-vis my firefighter vs. fireman example. In that regard, I think "streethole cover" achieves that...even if it lacks a certain ring to my ear.

(?) Note: I was curious about how long the term has been in use, so I made a quick check of Wikipedia. I didn't find the answer because I was immediately sidetracked by one of the alternative names: biscuit. It doesn't meet the criteria above but it might be quirky enough to catch on. I like it. Maybe even road biscuit.

[Perikles]

However, I do object to being told that I don't have a right to be unhappy with "man" as a default when you mean "person." "Man" doesn't mean person. "Man" means "man." "Mankind" is longer written and the same length spoken as "humans," so where's the advantage?

I can't argue about how you see the meaning of a word, but I just don't see it like that. If you look in any foreign language dictionary, like the English-Spanish one I'm looking at, and you will find that 'man' very often refers to the species without being specific about sex (I'm old enough to consider 'gender' as being a grammatical issue, by the way). Formal expressions like "no man has the right to take life" (=ser humano) or "a twelve-man crew" (=una tripulación) and of course "Neanderthal Man". The expression "man shall not live by bread alone" is translated as "no sólo de pan vive el hombre" where "el hombre" is clearly just the species as 'man' is in English.

Now you could argue that these expressions were created in a male-dominated society at a time when sexual discrimination was even worse than it is today, so that you don't feel included in 'mankind'. I can't argue with your perception of the word, but ultimately it's just a word. Recently there has been lively debate in Spain about the acceptance of grammatical constructs which some perceive to be discriminatory. For example, adjectival endings are feminine for a group of women, but masculine not only for a group of men but also for a mixed group, i.e. a natural bias towards masculine. Fortunately, a lot of respected female writers and academics were forceful in pointing out that these kinds of linguistic objections were a total red herring (apologies to piscine readers) which actually do nothing to change the macho mentality in Spain (and I'm guessing South America). So whilst new words might as well be neutral, I don't think it makes sense imposing PC pressure to change words like 'mankind' and 'manhole' which already exist.