political correctness

What annoys me the most is the knee-jerk reactionists. Those people who jump in with an "Oh this is soooo offensiiive..." anytime someone dares to even bring up a potentially taboo subject. You see them mostly on sites like Youtube, that encourage you to comment without thought. Case in point: These two Australian comedy radio hosts, Hamish and Andy, once spent a week strapped together non-stop to emulate the life of a conjoined twin. At the end of the week they concluded that, yes, it was quite annoying. At no point did they make fun of any actual conjoined twins. Really, by showing how difficult it was they were spreading awareness and consolidarity.

Nevertheless, when the video was put on youtube multiple commenters denounced it as disrespectful. I chose 3 of them at random and asked them in private messages to explain, in no less than 20 words, exactly how it was disrespectful. Didn't get an answer from any of them.

Next time you encounter a knee-jerk "disrespectfuller", ask them to explain their position. Maybe... just maybe you'll get them to question before they comment.

 

That's really good!

And I'll second your thanks for allowing the PC discussion to continue. I don't know if my post is what prompted Cog's concern (I see his post came just following my comment). I thought the OP's question raised valid concerns about how it applies to creative writing & publishing.

 

For me, I'm not PC, however, I do refrain from saying things in public that would offend people simply out of courtesy and respect and the desire to not get punched in the mouth or be involved in a full out fight. Sometimes it's better to just not say anything, as the golden rule points out.

On the other hand, in my writing, I write my characters are they are, not as PC should have it be. People's internal dialog and things they say to people who are close to them will reflect their real feelings, be them PC or totally offensive.

And offense is now not just taken in the realms of gender and race, but mental status too. I've made the comment to a friend about another friend that she was "acting crazy." This other friend of course told the girl that I thought she was crazy, and she got all sorts of bent out of shape, claiming that she has bi-polar and that she can't help her behavior...blah..blah...blah. Sorry, I call it like I see it, I don't care what the DSM-IV says you may have, crazy is as crazy does. But try portraying an ADHD kid in a book, or someone with some other mental problem, and how their bad behavior is the sole problem, and see how fast these groups will jump on you for not being "sensitive" to their feelings.

Offense to me is only taken by people who are insecure about themselves. A straight man comfortable in his heterosexuality isn't
usually offended by being called gay. A woman who is secure in her powerful role as a CEO won't be offended when a client gives her a compliment, or someone calls her a chairman...rather than a chairwoman. So to me, I don't do anything PC in anything I write, though for the sake of living in society, I often bite my tongue in everyday conversation.

 

I think there's a difference b/w PC and common courtesy/respect. A person can generally be polite without resorting to using politically correct terminology. PC seems to be centered largely around the use of euphemisms (extraordinary rendition for torture is a good example I can think of), rather than courteous speaking. That's part of the problem- people think if they aren't being PC, they're being rude, racist, etc., and that's simply not the case most of the time.

 

In my personal life I would never use the N-word. It is not based out of guilt or political correctness. Instead, it's because I find the word to be ugly and I understand that some people are offended by it. It seems, however, that this ability to self regulate is extraordinarily rare. So rare in fact that we pay people to censor us or to tell us what we can and cannot say.

There are some arguments, many are fairly intelligent if you read them, which claims free speech is too free, that it needs to be regulated. There is no such thing as a good extreme - as humans we should strive for balance. So, in theory, regulating free speech is a good thing. Unfortunately, in practice it does little more than create schisms. These schisms eventually amalgamate and soon we have canyons separating us as people. Unfortunately, one side is also higher than the others and suddenly you have to deal with angry peasants sick of their lords telling them how to live.

Political Correctness has taken the lead role of self regulator. We don't need to do it ourselves, instead we have Big Brother helping us along, holding our hand and making sure everyone is happy. The problem is that when you become addicted to a drug your brain stops producing that chemical naturally and soon, once you run out of that drug or stop using it, you spiral into an extreme no one wants to be in. Oh, and by drug I'm talking about anti depressants and the like, not heroin.

If we simply let people experience failure and embarrassment and pain then those people become better. They can suddenly self regulate and they don't need the help of others. Granted, to some people that sounds absurd. They're the people who refuse to believe that others can be as intelligent as they are, they have somehow reached a higher state of being. And there is nowhere, with rare exception, that I can find the mentality of elitism in such great numbers as I can in the writing community. If we don't write a certain way, if we don't use certain words or if we refuse to do as they have then suddenly we're a terrible writer. And what is a better community to instill the idea of political correctness into than one which has such a fondness of behavior control?

 

'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'

In writing, if you have a character which is racist/sexist/tactless, then the things they say will reflect this. Anybody reading the story should understand that these are not the authors values, but the characters. To this extent, writing should not be limited by so-called 'political correctness.' But I think its only respectful and well, decent, to be mindful about the content in writing, and I think a good writer would always be able to find considerate ways and styles when working with sensitive issues.

I honestly don't think it would ever be a good goal to intend to offend somebody. It wouldn't be respectful in real-life, why should it be any different with your writing?

x

 

Spoken like a true white man (no doubt heterosexual, able bodied, middle class?)

There's an implication that "PC idiots" are complete flakes who are about to burst into a flood of tears about the slightest digression.

It's not like that. What is the harm in trying not to perpetuate negative stereotypes and protect peoples' feelings? I personally think racially motivated attacks (and other such attacks on minority groups whether verbal or physical) should take precedence over the feelings of a bloated white man (not mentioning any names) who wants to shout about his ill-considered thoughts under the giuse of 'freedom of speech.'

I've also noticed that people who tend to whine about the erosion of freedom of speech and insidious nature of being 'PC' tend to be the most bigotted of all.
So, is this a matter of "I get to say what I like, however odious and horrible for everyone else and don't you dare make me feel guilty about it"

I wonder if your friend still feels all warm and fuzzy about being called a 'n'

Now, call me emotionally weak.

 

You have a good point there, Peerie Pict, although blunt.

There are people out there who do stereotype PC people as people who are ready to open the floodgates at the mearest sign of an offense.

I consider myself a PC person. I think writers can express their opinions without being racists, and I think they can show that a character is angry without having them spewing out curse words left and right. I will willfully limit my characters' curse-word bank to the very, VERY minor bad words (I'll only use: hell, damn, goddamn, crap. That's it.), but even then, I use it sparingly if at all.

I know this sounds hypocritical, considering my last post here. What I meant was that even though I will limit the behavior and speech of what my characters do, they still must do something so they don't all look like clones of the very nice hero.

And actually, if you do that, then it makes your hero all the more likeable. Like if my sexist character told a woman she was weak and one of my female characters rose up to defend her, it will put my female character in a good light.

 

Yes absolutely, in terms of writing you would definitely need to introduce morally bankrupt characters if you wanted to say something about morality itself.

There are also writing devices which allow you to avoid a litany of curse words - describing the demeanour of the aggressor, their tone, facial expressions etc. It's a sign of a good writer if they can write around these issues and maintain the integrity of the prose. In fact, I think brilliant writers tend to refrain from curse words because it cheapens everything. This isn't to say curse words are commonplace in real life, it's just that on paper they are often distracting and cause unnecessary diversions.

 

^ I disagree, though I do not like it when there is a lot of swaring, I find it fine in dialouge and first person prose so long as it is fitting with the character. It adds a sense of realism for me that I look for; and I never had a problem with it on paper.

 

Yes, and I will not apologise. But I will apologise for any inclination this post may give you of me reacting to that with hostility, not that there should be any.

You're right; the idea behind political correctness isn't bad. That is assuming it came from a think tank, rather than the Frankfurt School.

My girlfriend has missed out on three job opportunities, in the Highlands, when we've just came out of a global economic downturn, although she has more than ten qualifications (most of them in languages). Why? Because she's white, and Harriet Harman has told employers to take positive action (in oldspeak, that would be positive discrimination) and employ candidates from what are now known as 'minority ethnics' over white candidates, even if they are better-qualified.

You're right; the idea behind political correctness isn't bad. But can you claim that a qualified girl, who lives below the poverty line, and who speaks about twenty languages with varying degrees of skill, losing out on a job to a less qualified immigrant who doesn't speak Gaelic or English, is correct? Are jobs that advertise applicants must be of African descent any less racist than 1950s America - are they right? Maybe; but only if the equivalent was allowed for us, which it quite clearly isn't. As reported in the Daily Mail (yes, it's a rubbish paper, but the only one that would write an article on this), there is now no legal right to evict a squatter from your home if you are British-born, and they are not.

There is also damage to free speech. The government has extended political correctness to brand its critics either 'racists' (no, not the BNP - but UKIP and the Conservatives, and the rest of their major political opponents), 'flat-earth climate sceptics' (anyone who thinks that the coldest winter for a hundred years across the Northern Hemisphere isn't evidence of colder weather), 'middle-class fascists' (anyone who doesn't pay the television license). It's also used it to justify the worlds largest DNA database, largely of innocent people, and enforcing terrorist legislation that it always abused to keep track of innocent people and protestors.

Stop a second. Political correctness. Being politically correct - having the correct political opinions. That's what it means.

Everyone has the right to be offensive; everyone else has the right to ignore them. The government should not have the power to pick and choose who is able to speak in public. Yes, they will abuse it - they can now confiscate the private property and track the movements of anyone involved in peaceful protests, under 'terrorist legislation.'

Did I mention that my girlfriend speaks about twenty languages? And how is something that erodes freedom of speech not 'bigoted?'

If that was it, then no-one would have a problem. If they did, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

I have seen the side of PC that Labour don't want you to see, I think that's it's more to do with 'I've worked to get a job, buy a house, and have an opinion, but the job's been taken by a less qualified person simply because of their ethnicity, my house has been occupied and there's nothing I can do to get it back, and I've just been sent a picture of myself at the G20, and a record of where I drove and who I had contact with.'

These things have already happened, and they are legal; it is no longer about politics, it is about discussing the blatantly obvious ways in which PC can be misused (or used for its original purpose) for the benefit of the government. Remember that our government does have Stalinists and Marxists in its ranks; think about that the next time you see a common phrase switched around.

 

Most people I know make all kinds of discriminating choices about others based upon superficial signals they read into appearance, speech patterns, language usage and body language (including the use of words or gestures we might not use ourselves), age, sexual preferences, gender, wealth, handicap, ethnicity, manner of dress, and so forth, many (maybe most) of which are misguided at best and downright stupid at worst. I mean, none of those kinds of features have very much to do with who a person really is at the core and what that person truly believes or whether that person is principled and honest, has good intentions or bad. Still, it’s features like these that we work our way through in order to truly understand who we're dealing with and whether or not a relationship of some kind with that person is something we want to pursue or avoid. Same is true of plausible, fictional characters.

Besides that, a bigoted or chauvinistic writer is likely to reveal that bigotry or chauvinism regardless of whether he chooses to use politically correct language by following some artificial standard in order to get his book published or show deference to a particular readership. And BTW, that deference is likely to be entirely transparent, as well.

The fiction writer already must be committed to writing the very best story he can, regardless of who might or might not be offended. But I think he ought not to be required to ignore these signals in creating characters the reader can find plausible, interesting, and complex. Doesn't mean every possible politically offensive quality is meaningful for a given character or story--just that our human capacity and propensity to factor all kinds of superficialities and misguided notions into the development of a relationship is equally vital to building complex fictional characters.

 

If you think that minority groups get a noteworthy leg up in this world due to positive discrimination then you have a really distorted view of it.

I have a first in law from Edinburgh University and can't get a job as a qualified solicitor in Edinburgh despite getting a good traineeship from a reputable firm. None of my friends are out of work. Do you think I cry at night about it because I think the jobs were were given to someone with darker skin than me or for a lower socio-economic status? That would be completely irrational. I think the fact that I'm finding it difficult to get a job probably does have a lot to do with my disability (and the recession) but slamming other minority groups is completely irrational.

The world is overwhelmingly weighted towards white men/women who are able bodied and heterosexual. The fact that you could blame your girlfriend's joblessness on those less fortunate than this 'norm' is quite frankly disgusting. Do you seriously think Harriet Harman has any weight whatsoever on which employees employers choose? The fact that the Equal Opportunities and Disability Discrimination legislation don't even have any prohibitive sanctions shows that equality of opportunity is merely an ideal. Companies are NOT penalised for not employing people from minority groups. So guess what, they don't. I have first hand experience of that.

And you've totally missed the point about positive discrimination. The idea behind it is where two candidates are EQUALLY qualified, then the person from the minority background should be selected. It's meant to try to balance the overwhelming discrimination that they face in the job market. If you doubt this discrimination you just need to do some rudimentary reading by the Human Rights and Equality Commission. But why would you? You're too intent on blaming those who face the biggest challenges.... This is extremely unwise.

To say this puts white people at a disadvantage is completely proposterous and if you say that, it says a lot about you as a person and your grasp of how society works.

And you don't want to argue with a lawyer about squatter rights. Anyone can get a squatter removed. It takes time but it doesn't mean they own your home and will live in it forever more. It's the kind of propaganda the Mail would write to slam minorities - and you're perpetuating it here.

And as for getting a job, buying a house and having a god given birth right to get a job against someone from an minority group - well done for getting that far and having the finances to be able to do that! I am nowhere near being in that comfortable position and many people who positive discrimination is designed for aren't either.

You said "If that was it, then no-one would have a problem. If they did, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. As I have seen the side of PC that Labour don't want you to see, I think that's it's more to do with 'I've worked to get a job, buy a house, and have an opinion, but the job's been taken by a less qualified person simply because of their ethnicity, my house has been occupied and there's nothing I can do to get it back, and I've just been sent a picture of myself at the G20, and a record of where I drove and who I had contact with.' "

The world isn't just about you mate, we're all in this society together and some of us just want to make it a better place to live.

 

He slammed the system, not the minorities themselves.

 

"Did I mention that my girlfriend speaks about twenty languages? And how is something that erodes freedom of speech not 'bigoted?'"



Really, what are they all? Genuinely interested.

 

You might see a distinction but I don't.

 

The distinction is blatant to me, but I concede that is easier to assume much about a person who's opinion you vehemently disagree with.

 

It's a slippery slope my friend. Gallowglass is correct in his assessment of political correctness. We saw some of it here in America, as we have those who opposed President Obama's platforms turned into, "birthers, bigots, racists, crazy-gun-toting nuts," and any other negative thing you can think of. While some people might not have liked Obama based on his race, the majority of those who opposed his platform did so because of policies and beliefs held by Obama, not based on his race. I wouldn't care if he was purple with pink polka-dots, I wouldn't have voted for him based on his communist tendencies in policy.

People can't have big brother take care of them and remain free. I am staunchly against communism as I am strongly for freedom.

For me political correctness is part of the communist agenda. Make everyone feel equal, but at the same time stifle anyone who is not equal with the norm of the average crowd. If we did that we wouldn't have brilliant scienctists or cutting age technology. Competition is frowned upon in primary schools now, no keeping score in games, no one wins, no one loses, but without competition no one grows and accomplishes anything in life.

Political correctness is not about getting rid of negative offensive terms, it's about making everyone equal. While yes, we are all created equal, how we turn out as adults isn't equal. Our lives shape us, our experiences create patterns of reactions, and what we achieve in life depends on that experience too.

This is where the "it's not fair" attitude came about. My kids start that with me, my response is always the same, "life isn't fair, suck it up." Fairness implies entitlement. A minority person is entitled to a job at this company even if they don't have better qualifications than a non-minority person. That's not fair, it's entitlement, getting something without actually working for it to be the best for the job. That's affirmative action in work. It's giving something to people not because they earned it, but because they are not good enough to earn it on their own. To me that is offensive to any minority, implying that they can't get that job on their own merit.

I refuse to use PC terms, because it is like taking away an identity. It is applying neutral terms to things to make it seem like everyone is equal. But, in life, no one is equal, everyone is an individual with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Political correctness is actually bad if you think about it. If you were advanced in math, but you were forced to only go as fast as the slowest person in the class, how bored would you end up being? Is that person who is not good at math equal to the person who is? It depends on how you define equal. Are they equally matched as far as intelligence? Maybe, in a sense that intelligence is not dictated only by mathematical skills, but a whole slue of things. But in math, these two hypothetical people are not equal. Should either be punished for not being equal? Meaning should the teacher expect the slow learner to hurry up and catch up with the advanced student? Or should the teacher expect the advanced student to hold back and wait for the slower student?

Are both students equal in a sense of worth, worth being their value to society? Well, that depends now doesn't it. Let's hypothetically say that the advanced student moves beyond the classroom and uses their mathematical skills for developing new biological weapons for the military. The slower student ends up becoming an art therapy teacher for kids with learning problems. Who has more worth as a person to society?

Are those two people, as adults, now equal? Does it really matter if either one of them are from a minority?

Everybody can fall into some sort of stereotypical behavior from time to time. We all judge people. We all look for patterns. We all use stereotyping and generalizations to classify people within two minutes of meeting them. Clothes can show a person's personality, be it from the guy in a dark gray suit that chooses a bright purple tie, showing a little bit of his individuality, to the woman who is dressed in sweat pants and no make-up...it tells you something about the person. Clean cut, messy, frazzled, snobish, uptight, loose, or maybe confident and cool, clothing and personal hygiene tells us this about the person. Maybe the woman wearing sweats has two kids, a husband, and a full time job, and on her days off she doesn't put any effort in, but on any other day she is well put together and would give a different first impression. Maybe the guy in the clean cut suit is an utter slob at home with empty beer bottles and pizza boxes scatter across the house. So appearance doesn't mean everything.

We subconsciously observe people's body language and we register tones of voice and language used. We only absorb about 30% of what people say, and what people say is only about 10% of what we communicate. So what we actually say only has a value of 3.3% of our total communication with any person on any given day.

So, no matter what words are changed in the name of equality, the language used really doesn't matter nearly as much as what we hold to be internally true.

 

There's nothing easy about this conversation. There's loads about what this guy said that is extremely upsetting to me and makes me demoralised about my situation to the point that I'd like to give up. He's saying that minorities are given a disproportionate about of jobs and that the luckiest people in society are somehow the most marginalised. I have personal experience that shows the complete opposite.

Slamming a system which tries to redress the balance by trying to (and failing I might add) give disabled people and ethnic minorities the recognition they deserve DOES insult minorities themselves.

 

Just a reminder from you friendly neighborhood mod to keep things in this thread at an academic level.

I realize this reminder seems ironic given the subject matter of the thread, but there are some comments already made that are edging closer to the bashing of individual members than the site rules allow.

At writingforums.org we invite educated discussion on many subjects. Unfortunately, some subjects have a way of bringing out the rock flinging Australopithecus in us all. Discussions that become overly heated or encite inflammatory verbiage from one member to another will be closed and those guilty of said inflammatory verbiage will be infracted.

In other words:

Flaming, pie fights, and general poor behavior will not be tolerated and those guilty of the aforementioned will reap a bitter harvest.

 

I think another term for that sort of thing is reverse racism.

 

Well I have officially lost the will to live.

Suffice to say, positive discrimination is designed to select a candidate from a minority where the qualifications are THE SAME as the other candidate. As I have said before, it is to redress the overwhelming discrimination people face in the job market before you even get onto programs to tackle this. If you want to challenge this, I can provide statistics. If you want to talk about fairness in a more positive way than 'life is unfair suck it up' then I'm fine with that.

Is there anything wrong with squaring up to corruption and trying to make things better for people who don't have every opportunity handed to them?

 

You don't know what you're talking about. Sorry but you need to have a good think about what you're saying.

 

From Wiki:

Reverse discrimination (sometimes called "reverse racism") is, in its simplest form , the practice of favoring members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically advantaged group.

Sound familiar at all?

 

Well, before this thread is closed, I feel like I am sticking up for people who are given the roughest ride in society.

If you find it offensive it says a lot about what kind of person you are not to mention freedom of speech. If you don't like my liberal views, censor me. I've got personal and academic experience of this issue so I'm not going to be apologetic to anyone.

I'm off to shoot myself in the head. This thread has been one of the most mean spirited and demoralising I've ever been subjected to....