What is being PC?

Something that has always confused me is people saying that being Politically Correct is wrong, or it's "out of control". I don't understand what they mean by this at all. To me, being PC simply means using the right words, and treating people with respect. The key part here, is that it's about making sure people can communicate effectively with each other. What do I mean by this?

Let's say you're taking a math test, and the question is to find x on a triangle. How does this work?



It's not wrong, but it's not what the test was looking for. This is where being PC comes into play. Use the right words, and people will understand what you're saying.

So what am I missing about the whole "PC is bad" debate. Because I don't understand why people would be so dead set against using the right words for the right situation.

 

PC is the failed BS by the left to squelch free speech.

 

You're kidding right? lol

It doesn't. There's no such thing as universally "right words" - words are context dependent.

Just like there's no universally "right" way to dress - while wearing a suit and tie might be expected at wedding, or at the office - it's not expected for just going to Walmart, or going to a fast food place.

PC people typically don't use good critical thought and don't understand the context of what's being said, they simply hear a word they "don't like" and use it as an excuse to be offended - similar to an evangelical Baptist who feels the need to get angry every time he hears someone say "Oh my God".

No it isn't - its an extremely hasty generalization which only caters to those who are most easily and pettily offended - the vast majority of average people don't find a fraction of the things offensive that PC pushers do, which is why 73% of the population is against political correctness according to polls.

Yelling loudly every time something "offends you" is far poorer communication skills than simply using the "wrong word".

That would be like the fundie Christians groups like the American Family Association claim they're just fighting for "effective communication" every time they get up in arms over a TV show or movie showing a gay character.

As mentioned above, PC falsely presumes that it's favoring the "right" words, when in practice it's not - because only a small minority of people are that easily offended.

A lot of Hispanics for example like the Loony Tunes character "Speedy Gonzales" - however some PC people will claim the character is "racially offensive" ignoring that not all, or even most Hispanics find it so, for example. So they're pretending to speak for people who they actually do not.

....because they aren't the "right" words for the "right situation" - they're what a minority wants people to make into the right words.

Your logic would be like saying that homosexuals shouldn't kiss in public, and that this is just about "promoting effective communication" because some angry Christians get offended over it.

But anyway, here's a good example of what being PC is since you don't seem to know much about it:

---

Director Spike Lee was angry over Clint Eastwood not featuring any significant black actors in a movie about the Battle of Iwo Jima (even though in real life, there were no black soldiers in the specific unit which the movie was about).

PC is also a 1-way street only; it presumes that only "minorities" or the "underprivileged" are victims of discrimination, and that they are universally so. PCists however won't touch on issues where reverse discrimination does occur (ex. the white rapper Eminem grew up in Detroit where blacks are 80% of the population and whites are a minority, and he was a victim of racial bullying as a youth - but you won't find a single PC pusher ever mentioning this).

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2008/jun/09/clinteastwoodvsspikeleethenewbattleofiwojima

 

PC is not about the right choice of words. The reason people are saying PC is bad is because it's used as an excuse to not even listen to people and ideas since they're not what's considered 'PC'. This is why colleges are speaking out against it; they're afraid that students will literally not hear the other side of some issues. It doesn't matter if you are right or not, you can't just drown out the other side so that they cannot speak. That's suppression of speech, something I'm sure the same people trying to drown out the non PC stuff would say they are against. PC is little more than mob rule trying to banish those that don't fit the mob.

The worst part is that for the most part the only people who speak out against it are those who are being banished by the PC crowd who have already proven that they are unwilling to listen to them, so it's pointless for them to speak. At some point people need to realize that the reality of the situation is that ideas and speech you may not like cannot be drown out and pushed aside nor should it be. You don't have to go to the klan rally, but you have to provide the stage for it, otherwise you're setting precedence that whatever is not liked by the masses can have no say, no place in society, and that gets pretty bad pretty quick as we've seen through out history.

 

PC is for people who like to ape the latest trend. Those who practice PC don't think for themselves nor do they speak for themselves. Then they want to control what you say. Never let anyone think for you.

 

Why would I make a thread asking a question if I knew the answer to it already?

The timing of words goes into the definition of "right words". So let's go with your example. An evangelical gets upset every time a person says "Oh my God" out of a religious context. This happens one day and he decides to tell him to stop saying that. Why not stop and come up with something else? If there's no real reason to keep saying "Oh my God", why keep saying it?

To be blunt, I don't particularly care what most people think on this issue. Most people don't like Obamacare but like what's in it. There in lies the problem again. I don't see this as anything more then just being respectful to people. Give me an example when "PC has gone amok".

It's not a question of percentages. It's a question of dignity to those people. Doesn't the minority have a right to dignity as well?

There is only one episode I ever saw Speedy Gonzales in. He was trying to cross the border and Tom was trying to stop him from doing it. The episode was hilarious, no question about it. But it did reinforce a negative stereotype. Even if something is funny, does it mean they should do that if it's going to disrespect a group? Here's another example. How does a gay character on a show act? He's flamboyant. But that's not true of every homosexual. Why does the Gay character need to be so flamboyant? Why can't he be something else? This is what being PC is about, simply making sure that groups of people are treated with respect.

How did you reach that conclusion? It comes down to dignity of the people involved. Is one person or group being put down because another group has the power to impose standards onto another group?

Let's apply the PC test I just came up with. Is a group being misrepresented in such a way that imposes upon them unfair standards by a stronger group? In this case, I can't say for sure because I have only watched Letters from Iwo Jima. What Lee is saying is that there are no African American actors at all. I don't remember seeing any African Americans in Letters from Iwo Jima. He then claims that this says that African Americans had no major part in the battle of Iwo Jima. The unfair standard in this case is that they had no role, and that it ought to change to include some role. So is Clint Eastwood in the wrong? Depends on what he what he wanted to say with his movies. Was he going for historical accuracy or was he trying to tell a story? Because of that difference right there, this gets muddy. The reason it gets muddy and seems like "PC is running amok" is because he could have changed the story to fit his needs. Take the scene where the Japanese wound an American marine and give him medicine. The marine was white. If he was being historically accurate, maybe the unit the marine would have belonged to was there at that time. But if Clint Eastwood was going for a narrative, then the color of the marine could have easily changed and he could have been black.

To be fair, I don't know anything about Eninem and I try to be PC. It comes down to knowledge of being PC conscious. If people don't know he was bullied as a kid, they're going to treat it as a joke.

 

So what would be a case when this would happen? Being PC to me is about the respect in a debate. If you're trying to communicate a message, make it about respecting other groups instead of degrading them.

- - - Updated - - -

How are they controlling what a person says?

 

PC is Newspeak.
I.E. A way to change the language and way people think.
Think "Thought Control"
Also: PC is Bovine Feces.

 

In other words "If there's no real reason for gays to kiss or hold hands in public, why should they do it if it offends Christians. Nothing's stopping them from doing in private"..

This is why I said "You're kidding right"?

It isn't because people aren't entitled "not to be offended" - they're only entitled to respect in the sense of direct acts of aggression being perpetrated on him.

That would be like you telling an interracial couple that they shouldn't go out in public because a Klansman finds it offensive - problem is the Klansman has no "right" not to be offended so long as no one is directly affecting him, so it's his problem, not theirs, and he's free to go elsewhere if it offends him.

Already did.

No they don't - no one has a "right" not to be offended, if the thing offending them is not a direct assault on them, just something they "don't like".

The KKK minority has no right to expect interracial couples to stay in their homes just because seeing them in public "offends them" - I can't believe you're actually suggesting this.

Yes, they should. In a humorous context it's perfectly acceptable, and the person who is offended the one who's at fault if they choose not to go elsewhere.

Oh and BTW - I find your avatar offensive - therefore you need to change it . I'm not obligated to stop looking at it if I don't like it - you're obligated to accommodate my demands - because I said so.

Why should he? Most gays aren't... astronauts, but what's wrong with a show featuring a gay astronaut? That question makes no sense.

Shows like Will and Grace are very popular with the gay community and many don't find the "stereotypes" offensive at all. Why should some minority of angry gays be allowed to impose their will on the gays who do enjoy it? If they don't like it they're free to watch a different show. And so should you.

No it isn't - it's about catering to intolerant people who are so spoiled and want to deny others respect by forcing them to change their behavior. Just like you want to force gays who like Will and Grace not to watch it just because you don't like flamboyant gay characters being in shows You have no respect for the fact that plenty of gays enjoy it.

Yes, in the case above for example, you are "putting down" gays and HIspanics who aren't offended by shows like Speedy Gonzales and Will and Grace - and allowing a minorty group of offended individuals to disrespect and impose their standards on everyone else (when they could easily just find another show to watch).

This is false - there were African Americans in very small roles.

Then your memory needs fixin.

You're incorrect and aren't familiar with the movie.

It could've been changed to purple too, but there's no reason to do so. Anymore than there is for you to change your avatar because someone "finds it offensive".

A person doesn't need to change anything just because "they're no reason not to" - the burden is on the person suggesting the change to provide a good reason to do so, and "I just don't like it" isn't a good reason. Just like an accused person does not have to "prove they didn't commit a crime, the prosecutor has to prove they did do it.

That's not something to be proud of.

Being PC is no different than being neurotic and so afraid of "what others think of you" that you try to change yourself to accommodate others demands, even when their demands are unreasonable.

People of this mindset get easily taken advantage of, and in the long run it harms them in life, since psychology shows that not being assertive enough due to fear of "offending people", and not knowing the difference between justified and unreasonable offense is psychologically and socially unhealthy in the long run.

 

It's actually more like the Brownshirts, than "mob rule" - because mob rule implies that a majority subscribe to it, when according to polls over 73% of the population opposes political correctness.

So it's more akin the KKK burning crosses while claiming to speak on behalf of "white people" - it doesn't even have the claim of being legitimate mob rule, but rather astroturfed mob rule

 

Being politically correct will mesh with the main stream media's mindset and you won't get in trouble for your speech. Although the 1st amendment protects all American's right to speak their mind, it pertains to the State. That is, the State cannot even abridge the right of free speech. This does not however, pertain to a powerful politically liberal monolithic media that will certainly punish anyone using what they consider to be unutterable.

 

PC is just the left-wing version of "interracial couples shouldn't hold hands in public because Klansmen find it offensive"

 

Yep, Racists exist in all colors. Al Sharptounge is a racist for example. But then saying that is not 'PC' now is it?

 

Being PC is not going out of your way to be gratuitously offensive. Replace "PC" in a sentence with "polite", and you get the meaning.

 

...offensive to sissies who'd be scared of their own shadow that is, but not the majority of the population lol. If most population was as PC as the far-left we'd probably be speaking German, because we'd have been too worried about being offensive to Germans and Japs to bother even fighting the war.

 

Political correctness is the same expectation of courtesy and manners we've always had only everyone is allowed to expect to receive it, not just the special snowflakes who like to think they are socially superior to others. That's really all it is. It's the, if you can't say something nicely don't say anything at all of the 21st century. Nobody (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ed about it when it was in Bambi though.

 

Agreed, those gays who kiss in public have a real nerve offending Westboro Baptist Church - doesn't matter that they're the only ones complaining - those gays need to start showing some respect and keep it private - they can keep it in the bedroom. Who cares if 99% of people think the Westboro people are idiots - they deserve courtesy too even if they're a minority!

I never watched Bambi because it was too PC. It's basically a masturbatory aid for PETA members.

 

'Gratuitously offensive' is up for interpretation and it is mostly interpreted by powerful main stream media moguls.

 

I'd say the same rules should apply for everyone. No gay folks kissing in public means that straight folks kissing should be met with the same response. Personally that's what I prefer anyway. I don't have a problem with embraces and shorter kissing, but no heavy petting. Man I don't want to see that. I might want to be doing it with my wife but I don't want to see other people doing it. There's a valve for that kind of thing and it's called the internet. I can find all the kissing I want on here. Incidentally I don't but I could. I'm sure there are whole websites just for strange kissing fetishes. I bet there are websites for people who are turned on by being turned off by PDA.

But in any case I can't really see how there should be different standards for different folks.

I watched that movie semi-daily for a period of my childhood and I'm firmly in the meat eater camp. I just had a sandwich with three different meats on it. And mayonnaise(eggs).

 

OK, I'll keep it simple. Being PC is merely not being an ********.

 

No...being PC means not uttering anything that can be deemed incorrect by the MSM. Being labeled an '********' only means one is not politically correct according to the Main Stream Media which controls much of what people think in the U.S.

 

It's some giant leftist conspiracy to socially engineer right winger's uniquely accurate conclusions and expressions of freedom and democracy and turn them into willing Obamadrones who will march the Jews straight into Iranian ovens, as mandated by the UN and supported by Euroweenies and sundry other terror appeasing orgs who aren't fit to lick John Wayne's American Dreaming boots and thus attempt to take guns away from white men who don't in the slightest sexualise their adoration of the long, smooth, generally blackened barrel.

Obviously.

 

I'm not required to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what words other people want me to use.

That's why PC is bad.

 

You are not. But if you're talking to another person, that person has dignity. So show them respect. Wouldn't you agree that this is a good way to talk to other people?

 

I have limits.

If someone starts insisting I'm being disrespectful for saying "black" instead of "person of colour", I stop caring about their definition of respect.