Expose the lie

[parallaxicality]

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.

The politeness that your parents and schools taught you is not necessarily the politeness that applies today. Politeness changes with time, just as it changes with distance. For instance, if you go to eastern Asia, you take your shoes off before entering the house. You may think this is an arbitrary imposition on an already polite visitor, but it is simply what is considered polite in that location. Before going, you brush up on these things, to make sure you are polite. As a left-hander, I find travel to the Middle East exasperating, but I have done so, and sucked it up, because that was polite.

Same with time. The social interactions of today are not the social interactions of 40 years ago. It is not polite to condescend to black people, as it once was, for instance. We adapt. There are more women and minorities in board rooms, and, rather than asking them to fetch the coffee, we learn new ways to incorporate them into the discourse.

Also, what is wrong with lying? Are you saying that when your wife/girlfriend asks you "Does my butt look big in this?" you say "Yes?" Or if your boss tells you your work is shoddy and he's this close to firing you, and asks you what you think about that, you respond, "I'm thinking of ripping your head off right now?" Politeness IS lying. "Political correctness" is just politeness you're not used to.

[Paul Beardsley]

Also, what is wrong with lying?

What a question to ask on a science board.

Are you saying that when your wife/girlfriend asks you "Does my butt look big in this?" you say "Yes?"

My wife and my girlfriends before her had more sense than to ask my opinion and expect me to lie. I treat her (and treated them) as intelligent people looking for helpful feedback. And before you ask, I've been happily married for over 19 years.

Or if your boss tells you your work is shoddy and he's this close to firing you, and asks you what you think about that, you respond, "I'm thinking of ripping your head off right now?"

I'm not sure what the fallacy is called when you think the only possible choice is between saying that and lying.

Politeness IS lying.

You can be diplomatic and respectful without lying.

"Political correctness" is just politeness you're not used to.

No, it's thinking you know better than others.

Life is complicated enough when you can rely on the data you receive. When people lie, it's a nightmare.

[caveman1917]

I'm not sure what the fallacy is called when you think the only possible choice is between saying that and lying.

A false dichotomy.

[Paul Beardsley]

A false dichotomy.

Thank you.

[R.A.F.]

And before you ask, I've been happily married for over 19 years.

How is this relevant? If length of marriage makes you some type of authority on the matter, then does this mean my opinion should have twice as much "weight", since I've been married almost twice as long??



No...I didn't think so....

[Paul Beardsley]

How is this relevant? If length of marriage makes you some type of authority on the matter, then does this mean my opinion should have twice as much "weight", since I've been married almost twice as long??



No...I didn't think so....

Are you saying I should lie to my wife?

[primummobile]

How is this relevant? If length of marriage makes you some type of authority on the matter, then does this mean my opinion should have twice as much "weight", since I've been married almost twice as long??



No...I didn't think so....

I'm missing where he said that. He was giving an example to which many people would reply with something along the lines of, "I bet you are single." and he was merely heading off that comment before it could be made.

[Paul Beardsley]

I'm missing where he said that. He was giving an example to which many people would reply with something along the lines of, "I bet you are single." and he was merely heading off that comment before it could be made.

Exactly right.

[primummobile]

Exactly right.

And for the record, my wife also knows not to ask me questions that she wants me to lie to. And I've only been happily married for ten years.

[caveman1917]

My experience is that it has almost always been women objecting to this. I think Gillianren has said she objects, and AFAIK she is one of the few women in this discussion. I suppose we could try to change things around and use "woman" to mean the whole, since that would be more acceptable to you anyway. "The rise of woman," and we could all get used to it.

How about it, caveman? :)

I presume you're joking, but just in case the question is real, i don't know why Jens thought that would be more acceptable to me. Quite the opposite, i would be opposed to the term for the whole being replaced by the term for a single gender (either gender). That would be introducing gender inequality.

[Jens]

In the part of the country I live in, it's fairly common to refer to a mixed group as "you guys" in an informal setting, such as a restaurant. My wife and I go out to eat often, and I more often hear that coming from the waitresses than I do the waiters.

It's sort of interesting that that is true, isn't it. It's not strange at all to say "you guys" to refer to a mixed group, whereas saying "you gals" to a mixed group would seem really strange. In many cases women can be subsumed into male words, but I can't think of an example of the opposite. It's like the "ils" versus "elles" in French.

[primummobile]

It's sort of interesting that that is true, isn't it. It's not strange at all to say "you guys" to refer to a mixed group, whereas saying "you gals" to a mixed group would seem really strange. In many cases women can be subsumed into male words, but I can't think of an example of the opposite. It's like the "ils" versus "elles" in French.

Well, I do recall an assistant track coach in college who liked to refer to us as "ladies", especially when we were running stairs. But I think that was more to make us angry.

[grapes]

In the part of the country I live in, it's fairly common to refer to a mixed group as "you guys" in an informal setting, such as a restaurant.

Right, that's the way I remember it, growing up, even just after Guys and Dolls (musical 1950, movie 1955). The 1980-82 movie, the Fabulous Stains, has the main character, a female, address a large crowd of fans, all female, with an appreciative "yooou guys!" That's gotta be definitive.

I presume you're joking, but just in case the question is real, i don't know why Jens thought that would be more acceptable to me.

I was joking--but my offer to you was merely to change your username. :)

Didn't you say something to the effect that guys should be the ones complaining under the current system, because they had to share their designation? I'll try to find the post.

Quite the opposite, i would be opposed to the term for the whole being replaced by the term for a single gender (either gender). That would be introducing gender inequality.

But ... that's nearly the entire issue, isn't it? Other than what has to change?

[primummobile]

But ... that's nearly the entire issue, isn't it? Other than what has to change?

I took that to mean something along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right."

[primummobile]

Right, that's the way I remember it, growing up, even just after Guys and Dolls (musical 1950, movie 1955). The 1980-82 movie, the Fabulous Stains, has the main character, a female, address a large crowd of fans, all female, with an appreciative "yooou guys!" That's gotta be definitive.

Well, it's something... I'm not sure if it is definitive. I'm not good at reading the tone of your posts but if you are being facetious I do find that amusing. In any case, I wasn't offering my personal experience up as being the last word. It's just an observation.

[R.A.F.]

Are you saying I should lie to my wife?

Since I have no patience for those who try and "put words" in my mouth...


Bubye....

[caveman1917]

Didn't you say something to the effect that guys should be the ones complaining under the current system, because they had to share their designation? I'll try to find the post.

Rather because they didn't have their own designation. Or apparently it was removed when the language was codified, with the same effect.

But ... that's nearly the entire issue, isn't it?

If it were so that the universal term got replaced by the male term, yes. Replacing the universal with the female designation is just as bad as replacing the universal with the male designation, both are equally introducing gender inequality. My argument then was against the statement that this has happened with the two meanings of "man", where it was really the other way around.

So it's also not about "two wrongs don't make a right", but that this instance isn't a wrong in the first place. But if one perceives it as a wrong that needs to be rectified, the correct course of action as suggested by the etymology of the word would be to give males their own specific designation, not remove "man" from being the universal. And certainly not replacing the universal with "woman", that's just making it worse (if you see it as broken in the first place, i don't).

[grapes]

I took that to mean something along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right."

Gillian might be happy with this, recognizing it as two wrongs. :)

Well, it's something... I'm not sure if it is definitive. I'm not good at reading the tone of your posts but if you are being facetious I do find that amusing. In any case, I wasn't offering my personal experience up as being the last word. It's just an observation.

A pop movie, sorta, with a huge crowd, all female IIRC, all addressed as "guys". That's certainly a major usage observation, in line with what we were reporting ourselves.

[Jens]

Didn't you say something to the effect that guys should be the ones complaining under the current system, because they had to share their designation? I'll try to find the post.

That was my recollection as well, and that's why I mentioned it. It wasn't really a serious suggestion though. I mean I don't think there would be anything wrong with it, but it's pretty unrealistic. I went back and looked through the messages, but I can't find the phrasing I was looking for.

ETA: I found it. It was post #76.

[Jens]

Rather because they didn't have their own designation. Or apparently it was removed when the language was codified, with the same effect.

You seem to be saying it's just a problem of not having a name. But we see a similar phenomenon in other places as well. Guys is one. Another place we see it is certain professions, where the general term is used for both genders but there is a special term for women. For example, actor and actress. There isn't a specific term for a male actor, so you can call a woman an actor but never a man an actress. A woman can marginally be a chairman but a man can never be a chairwoman. You can have a female god but never a male goddess, and a female waiter but never a male waitress. And the thing is, I've never heard a guy complaining about it, unless you take "guy" to mean a woman as well.

[primummobile]

Since I have no patience for those who try and "put words" in my mouth...


Bubye....

That's exactly what you did to Paul!

[primummobile]

Gillian might be happy with this, recognizing it as two wrongs. :)

A pop movie, sorta, with a huge crowd, all female IIRC, all addressed as "guys". That's certainly a major usage observation, in line with what we were reporting ourselves.

I got that. I just wasn't sure if you were agreeing that it was a valid observation or if you were saying the opposite. It's really not that important.

[parallaxicality]

You can be diplomatic and respectful without lying.

No you can't. You may not consider it a lie, but if you do not say exactly what is on your mind, you are, by definition, lying. Even saying "Fine thanks", when someone asks you "How do you do?" is usually a lie. Just because people use a lie a lot and it is considered socially acceptable to do so doesn't make it less of a lie.

[Paul Beardsley]

No you can't. You may not consider it a lie, but if you do not say exactly what is on your mind, you are, by definition, lying. Even saying "Fine thanks", when someone asks you "How do you do?" is usually a lie. Just because people use a lie a lot and it is considered socially acceptable to do so doesn't make it less of a lie.

Lying is about intentionally causing someone to believe something that you know is not true.

You do not have to say "exactly what is on your mind" to be truthful. If a man is asked how he feels soon after he has learnt that his ex-wife has just remarried, he might reply, "I'm not exactly happy about it but I'll cope." Nobody is asking him to go into any more detail than that.

When people say they are fine, this is generally neither given as nor interpreted as a medical report. Saying you are fine out of habit when you are not might deceive someone but it's not intentional. If you do intentionally say you're fine when you're not (e.g. because you don't want the person to know how much they've hurt you) then it is a lie.

[Paul Beardsley]

That's exactly what you did to Paul!

You noticed too, huh?

(Thanks for your support.)

[HenrikOlsen]

I have to agree with everyone else in stating that Gillianren is wrong in stating that "man" and "men" are a means of labeling a single woman or group of women as a subset of "men."

Please don't claim I agree with you when I have repeatedly said I agree with Gillian.

And you're missing the point, which I think almost everyone here is, it's that the use of man to denote everyone marks men as the standard human from which women are a subset which is different.

You'll see it in medicine as well, the state of a healthy human body is defined as state of a healthy male human, with the state of a healthy woman defined by how they differ from the healthy male.,

Lets just turn this around to something people might understand.
How would you like it if the name for the set of white people was "white", the name for the set of black people was "black" and the name for people in general was "black"?

[HenrikOlsen]

<snip>Living in Washington has made me much more aware of the conflict in terminology between "Indian," "Native American," and so forth. My part of California did not have the debate, because it seldom came up outside movies. However, in both cases, I try to defer to what the people of that group prefer to be called. (Which is the problem I've seen with "Indian" versus "Native American"; there doesn't seem to be a consensus.)<snip>

My problem with "Indian" is that I keep thinking it's about someone from India to the point where I'm likely to use "American Indian" as a generic.

[LookingSkyward]

Which is the problem I've seen with "Indian" versus "Native American"; there doesn't seem to be a consensus.)<

Yep. I used to drum with a Native American Pow-Wow group - they preferred to be called "Indians", although I never encountered anyone who got upset if you called them "Native Americans". I generally tried to avoid generic labels when at all possible - on introductions I'd usually ask what tribe they were from... when the asked me the same I'd just say "human".

[Jens]

Please don't claim I agree with you when I have repeatedly said I agree with Gillian.

Yeah, me too! Woman have be part of "men", but I can't even be part of "everyone".

[Paul Beardsley]

Lets just turn this around to something people might understand.
How would you like it if the name for the set of white people was "white", the name for the set of black people was "black" and the name for people in general was "black"?

There are no linguistic traditions that would bring this about.

Leaving that aside, it is quite normal to say, "There were three women and four men at the conference," whereas it is not normal to say, "There were three blacks and four whites at the conference." So the idea that we might start saying, "There were seven blacks at the conference," isn't really credible.

Leaving that aside, I would be bothered only by the silliness of the convention (in much the same way that I get annoyed by the misuse of the word "organic" when applied to food); as I am not a white supremacist, I would certainly not be worried about being associated with people whose skin colour is different to mine.

And leaving that aside, I don't see much evidence that people are missing the subset point.