Is politically correct (PC) a form of lying?

Euphemism and Politic

The thing about political correctness is that it is just a form of polite discourse. And some people resent any sense of obligation toward being polite.

Viewed through a hostile critique, political correctness is simply a modern term for euphemism.

Most men can recall learning all sorts of nifty words, for instance, denoting women's breasts. Titties, gazangas, melons, rack, and so on. But in my youth, if the question of a women's breast size came up in the presence of elders, one might speak in terms of endowment. Large breasts were described as "well-endowed". I would not, at age twelve, have used the phrase "mondo gazangas" in the presence of my grandmother. It's not some yoke of social slavery, but, rather, being polite according to the company I was in, and also avoiding a distracting family scandal.

In this sense, I've known many who oppose political correctness to abide by it according to their desire. While a man might tell a woman, "I enjoy being with you," or say something about making or sharing love, he might also tell his friends, "I fucked that bitch somethin' hard!"

It's not rocket science in this context; your odds of "getting some tail" decrease in average company if you approach a woman by saying, "Bitch, I wanna fuck you 'til you call me 'Daddy'."

Likewise, one doesn't use certain terms to describe ethnic differences because they have become, over the years, fighting words.

One might use "black" instead of "melanin endowed" or "African American" because it's easier. To the other, is it really necessary to use the word "nigger"?

Political correctness arises as a form of etiquette. It is astounding how many people have problems comprehending that the use of certain terms in, say, the workplace, or a school, create a hostile environment. Part of this is simply the psychology of empowerment. In the 1950s, maybe the boss didn't see a problem with using the word "nigger", or calling his secretary "honey", but if you're a dark-skinned or female employee, such words were a consistent reminder that one should not expect fair treatment.

Over time, what classifies a formerly acceptable word as politically incorrect is the attachment of judgment and condemnation to it. On paper, one might wonder what is wrong with the word "Negro", since it seems to work well enough. To the other, ask anyone who lived through the civil rights era. I was born later, but all it really takes is to hear the contempt packed into the word in order to understand why it falls into the incorrectness column.

In such an extreme context, the question of political correctness as dishonesty seems nearly laughable, as one can rightly wonder what is so honest about words like nigger, spic, wop, wetback, bitch, faggot, and so on.

To the other, the proverbial question of whether or not one looks fat in these jeans is not actually a matter of political correctness. If a relationship cannot survive an honest answer to the question, it is not the fault of political correctness, but, rather, the people in the relationship.

In terms of science, one might say that the data suggests a problem in the hypothesis or method. Whether or not one leaps to accusations of stupidity or dishonesty is a personal decision.

One thing that comes to mind is a system failure in early electric computers. What if the engineers started arguing about how stupid the others were? What of the guy who said, "Well, it's a bug in the system. No, literally. Look here—a moth got fried in one of the circuits closed."

The topic, then, seems to suffer from a problematic definition of political correctness. Perhaps this is a result of a restricted and circumstantially skewed sample. It could, certainly, be a personal issue.

But one thing I've noticed about critics of political correctness is that those who chose to opt out of being polite are inevitably offended when someone calls them an asshole.

Of course, that's sort of the new political correctness, isn't it? If someone goes out of their way to be rude, we shouldn't call them an asshole, but, rather, say that they are "brutally honest".

It cuts both ways. I've noticed that in American politics, it has been conservatives—those who have traditionally lamented political correctness—who have benefitted greatly from strategic euphemization and the transformation of hurt feelings into straw men over the last couple decades. That is, the religious supremacists, racists, misogynists, homophobes, and other determined discriminators are loudly claiming to be the victims. You know, if you can't kick someone out of your restaurant for the color of their skin, or throw them in jail for not being Christian, or use the law to establish the supremacy of your religious beliefs over someone else's, your freedom is under attack.

It's almost like a bad joke. Recognizing that they cannot defeat the need for civilized interaction within civilization, some instead seem to mock civility as some sort of awful burden. But I don't think it's deliberate. Rather, it seems a stock complex of ego defense mechanisms in response to neurotic pressures.

Everybody seems to want at least some degree of political correctness in the culture. Even sociopaths are offended if you call them inhuman.

The only real question is whether one's antisocial neurotic symptoms are inevitable and indelible. If so, then the assholes should not be offended, but, rather, proud to be so branded. If not, then the antisocials need to decide whether they want to be respected in civilization or simply be proud of their self-imposed alienation; the one thing they shouldn't do is try to convince the rest of civilization that they're actually really nice, good, fair people, because then they're only demanding a new political correctness for themselves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See, you've just demonstrated a form of PC: you didn't actually read what I said.
You skipped a word and the emoticons, and then proceeded to make your point.

PC is often a form of selective ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what word did I skip over?

As for the emoticons, they listed as embarrassed so I really don't see the point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a false dichotomy. It presumes that somebody is always to blame for someone else being disempowered. Are intelligent people oppressors of stupid ones? (exploiters, perhaps, but that will occur whether they're polite about it or not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

A note for Asguard

A Note for Asguard

I wouldn't worry about Wynn, who is one who needs to redefine political correctness in order to denounce it:

But that also raises a longer consideration about the evolution of language. Political correctness, in its contemporary meaning, seems to be a term used to denounce obligations, whether customary or legal, to be polite in civilized society. Previously, it referred to what we might call "conventional wisdom". According to Wikipedia, whatever that's worth in this case, the liberal use of the term that arose in the '70s was satirical and ironic, an inside joke; conservatives began openly using the word as a pejorative in the '90s. On that last, I disagree; there was much conservative complaint about political correctness in the '80s, as I recall. British columnist Polly Toynbee describes the term as "an empty right-wing smear designed only to elevate its user".

Our neighbor Wynn is among those who would demand even further transformation of the term in order to satisfy some preconceived notion. In consideration of that further transformation, see the topic post. As I noted above:

To the other, the proverbial question of whether or not one looks fat in these jeans is not actually a matter of political correctness. If a relationship cannot survive an honest answer to the question, it is not the fault of political correctness, but, rather, the people in the relationship.

In terms of science, one might say that the data suggests a problem in the hypothesis or method. Whether or not one leaps to accusations of stupidity or dishonesty is a personal decision.​

____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Political correctness". January 16, 2012. Wikipedia.org. January 21, 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

 

Right. There's more needed to being conscientious—there's an array of virtues involved. In other words, one must be noble. So it seems to me that these skills of character, these coexisting virtues—the stuff that differentiates the good from the excellent—are absent in the politically correct.

 

In essence the PC crowd are a terror movement. They terrorize anyone who does not believe what they believe in and use the language they deem suitable to use. They fire people from jobs. They harass people who differ from them. They cover up the truth for their ideology. Scientists definitely have no business aligning themselves with PC.

 

Aren't you a bundle of joy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This male-female dynamic helps to describe PC; it is not what it appears on the surface. What is being said has a different meaning from what is implied. One should not listen to what PC says to do, but rather figure out what it means.

 

Inverse Allegorical Truth

More or less.

(That's called sarcasm, or, for the politically correct, inverse allegorical truth.)

You are erroneously blaming individual conduct on the idea of political correctness.

Furthermore, as the question of whether or not a certain dress makes you look fat, or if you are insecure and neurotic, has nothing to do with political correctness.

Deciding whether or not to discuss the dynamics of santorum management and prevention over dinner at the country club is an issue of courtesy, not political correctness. Deciding whether or not to even go to dinner at a segregated country club is a personal matter of general decency, not political correctness. And so on.

It is generally the critics of political correctness who have tried to expand its meaning, in order to make it seem more invasive and troublesome, so that they might continue in their ego defense, pretending that it is more honest—even heroic—to call an African American a nigger, or a homosexual a fairy, or a woman a bitch.

I highly recommend Beard and Cerf's Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook. It's hilarious and enraging at the same time, until one realizes their outrage is taking some things out of context. And the section on Bureaucratically Suitable language is even better. Indeed, for everyone who might complain about saying "humanity" instead of "man", or become outraged at the notion that feminists might have a sense of humor, considerably fewer, it seems, are distressed or even merely unsettled by dehumanizing institutional language such as "collateral damage".

More than the idea that "wetback" is more honest than "Mexican", or "Mexican" more accurate than "hispanic"—no, really, I once had a discussion with someone about "Cuban Mexicans"—critics of political correctness want to staple onto the idea all sorts of other issues in order to vilify civil conduct as institutional or customary oppression.

 

The US are not the only country in the world. There is PC in Germany too, for example, and some studies say it is of a different brand than in the US.

Given that this is a multi-national, multi-cultural forum, we ought to take culture-specific things with some reserve.

:shrug:

 

What does it indicate and what would it be used for? I'm informationally-challenged.

Thought this was an eloquent post.

When I think of people fighting against political correctness, I think of a few things: people in the comments sections of articles defending the use of nooses as Halloween decorations, or comments defending videos of white girls on YouTube ranting on whatever race they happen to encounter and hate.

Being that this media usually centers around colleges and college-aged kids, seems that their railings against "political correctness" is about the assertion of freedom to act/behave stupid in public without getting flack for it.

I think the older politicians who've used the term, "political correctness" generally use it lamenting the fact that the media immediately checks and marks them off for saying things that show how little interaction they may have with a group. They can't say things in the comfortable old boys' way category that they grew up with. It shows their distance and they want to minimize that vulnerability.

I think if you do happen to show "political correctness", it shows more than just civility, but that you sort of know and respect your demographic and how they want to represent themselves, as opposed to how you want to represent them.

One of the things that people like to complain about is the use of the 'N' word, specifically why black Americans can use it with each other, but others can't use it towards blacks. Simply put, even though were equal, you are not part of the "black Americans" category and haven't really experienced being put into that category.

It would be like a Greek history professor calling a string theory physicists work "pseudo-scientific" and "a waste of time." The Greek history professor is not part of the "string theory physicists" category and hasn't really been experienced being put into that category.

 

Woman has man in it. Replace "wo" with "mail" and voila.

Humanity is also referred to as "mankind" in English, but refers to men, women, and children, not just the males.

I know, it's not quite the same... blah blah blah.

Nothing wrong with denoting gender, as in spokeswoman. Or you can be gender neutral with spokesperson.
Does it matter too much? I don't personally care either way.

People are always looking for a reasons to be offended, it seems. Well, not everyone, but certain types.

Some girl I know got offended when I used the word "queer" and I don't know why, because quite a few people call themselves that. She's apparently not aware of LGBTQ self-labeling. I wonder what she would say if I used queer in place of "strange" or "weird"? Probably would be offended by that as well, I suppose.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, goody! Can we have a revival of "Shoot the Darky"? Bout high time!
Kidding (or am I??? :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) aside, the noose as Halloween decoration, if I recall the sentiments in that thread, are fine and dandy as long as there aren't certain presidents involved. In fact, effigies of any kind regarding darker skinned politicians are a no-no.
That thread had plenty of political correctness.

 

IQ is an indicator of one's ability to take IQ tests.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, there's also a correlation between IQ scores and school performance, job performance, and income, as well as a negative correlation between IQ and a propensity for crime. There are simply too many resources to link to but you can start with Wikipedia or read The Bell Curve. (It's actually an apropos book to discuss because it precisely exposes the clash between a science-minded author and a PC public that didn't like what his work was suggesting.)

 

I think the existence of PC, at least some of its trends, indicates a deeper psycho-sociological problem that has befallen our society: we live together, packed tightly as sardines in a can, but we do not have reliable ways to establish meaningful relationships, nor do we have many meaningful relationships.

Proximity without intimacy is very damaging. The normal reason for proximity is intimacy.

We are forced (by our general socio-economic situation) into proximity, but since proximity does not automatically translate into intimacy, we have to justify the proximity in some other way than intimacy, such as by feigning intimacy, and PC is one such avenue for feigning intimacy.

 

It's called etiquette. If you don't use proper etiquette, you are rude and unrefined. As I am.


....and Tiassa, sarcasm is not a politically incorrect term, though I like to use other ways of saying things people often say too.

 

The problem with PC is although it preaches tolerance, it only supports half the herd. If it was designed for everyone to get along, it may have value. But that pitch is smoke and mirrors to disguise agenda. Let me give an example. The idea of gay marriage hurts the feelings of a wide range of people whose religious and social traditions do not accept this. The only feelings PC is interested in are the homosexual feelings. If it really was for all, PC would have made up a different term but with the same benefits. PC likes to make up catchy terms, but it didn't even try. According to PC only democrats and liberals have feelings, all else are hard and cold and lack feelings.

Based on my own observations, PC began with the militant women's liberation movement of the early 80's; femo-nazis. These activists had an agenda, such as break up of the family for careers and other special interests. The way they approached this goal was with language. Men who did not go along were called male chauvinist pigs. It was the beginning of the dual standard feeling game where males have no feelings that count, just the females.

If you said men and women were different you were a male chauvinist pig. If the males had an all male school it was sexist If the female has an all female school it was not sexist. Even though truth was being perverted, language and feeling manipulation was a powerful tool to helped achieve ends. The negative results of this movement like the rise in child poverty.

Other liberal groups, saw the effectiveness of this word feeling game and jumped on the bandwagon and found they could manipulate people this way. Today if you don't fully accept the democratic platform you are a racists (racist chauvinist pig). This is based on the original femo-nazi template. To get that word removed from you, you need to blindly accept bad policy.

The use of language manipulation, to alter reality, had many negative implications such as making people feel dissociated. The idea of diversity means we are all different therefore the glue of integration is dissolved by dissociation. The melting pot meant we all were integrated regardless. The strong family teaches intimacy but the woman's liberation dissociated family is a different animal.

 

PC terms are about justice. I don't give a shit if religious haters have a mythology to justify their hate, it's still basically unfair.

 

@wellwisher:

I support what spidergoat said:

The Congress of 1877 passed the Civil Rights Act because the States were continuing to disobey the new rules, liberating all slaves and giving them legal protection. A whole lot of stuff happened after that, and we arrived in the 1980s when Congress was still mealymouthing the Equal Rights Amendment. And it wouldn't be until 1990 that they finally amended the civil rights laws to include the disabled. And to this very day, the US Supreme Court is still backlogged from plaintiffs unable to get relief because of technicalities - like the woman who'd been underpaid for more than two years, the statute of limitations, but didn't know it because the company didn't disclose pay brackets to her at all. I wonder how she would regard your term "femi-nazi".

And this is why they called it "sensitivity training". Something had to be fundamentally wrong with the early education of these older Americans who had lived through the civil rights era, yet came out of it feeling resentment. So the solution was to effectively give adult education classes to retrain us.

As for the original question you posed in the OP, Asguard addressed my reaction, that she was just asking for feedback. I can't say what her emotional state was, but at a minimum it seems she just wanted your opinion, from your perspective, which is a lot different than looking in a mirror.

As for a solution that doesn't drag in the history of civil rights or the polemic about political correctness, it would be up to you to decide what her frame of mind was. In one case she may just be asking you to come down off your high horse and tell her it binds at the hip, and in another she may have worked hard to look nice and may have wanted some emotional support.

In either case you're damned lucky to have a loyal spouse who asks you the same question she would have asked her parents the first time she went out on a date. Life is precious and even the smallest interactions with a gentle person over the most trivial of mundane matters is still something worthy of being regarded as sacred. So count your blessings and don't worry about the rest.