Political Correctness: A Problem?

[TheGoverness]

I believe this results from there being two schools of thought:

1. Ban the word.
2. Change the meaning of the word.

Even among blacks, individuals might ascribe to either school of thought. Those ascribing to the 'ban it' position would not be happy with anyone using it and I've known blacks that object to other blacks (and whites, even in context) using the word. And then there are those that feel only those oppressed in the word's use can change the word, thereby excluding whites from option 2 above.

Well we have the term 'Nigga' now, which has a entirely different meaning than the N Word even though it was derived from it.

 

[ecofarm]

When I'm talking about context, I'm taking about a situation where a white person simply states that "Person A called Susan a nigger", and somebody getting uncomfortable with them using the word, even though it was used in context. That's what I mean, really.

I thought you meant whites using it as "buddy" or somesuch. Using the term in the discussion of the term is clearly acceptable.

 

[grip]

When I'm talking about context, I'm taking about a situation where a white person simply states that "Person A called Susan a nigger", and somebody getting uncomfortable with them using the word, even though it was used in context. That's what I mean, really.

Oh, I see. Well obviously that's not meant to be offensive but it can believe it or not be taken as politically incorrect. See why my thread? Words can hurt but should they be called stick and stones?

 

[TheGoverness]

I thought you meant whites using it as "buddy" or somesuch. Using the term in the discussion of the term is clearly acceptable.

Oh no no no. Hell no. If I was arguing for that position I'd be so in the wrong. [emoji23]

 

[Kobie]

Your entire position is sophistry. One might even argue an example of "Black Privilege."

"We can use it because it doesn't mean the same thing as when you do."

"We can react in righteous indignation because when you say it you hurt all of us." :roll:

Since when have black people been allowed to act with impunity in response to the n-word? Bonus points for when Chaplinsky was cited in their defense.

 

[ecofarm]

Well we have the term 'Nigga' now, which has a entirely different meaning than the N Word even though it was derived from it.

That's related to option 2, as I described above: changing a word instead of banning it. Honestly, that's the logical course of action as banning a word rarely if ever works (in my opinion). As I'm not in the affected group, I don't feel it's my place to attempt such, so I find myself in the "ban it" camp for the most part.

 

[David_N]

It appears to be an actual problem. Look up "Trigglypuff." LOL.

 

[grip]

I say that once you use the term, 'politically correct' you've created a problem. It's a derogatory term that some low-functioning right whingers use to describe a whole category of social evils. The term has meaning only on a case-by-case basis and only to the far left. Literally nobody who isn't a far-left extremist cares about 'politically correct'.

That's funny and somewhat true.

Just don't forget there is such thing as hate speech, which is illegal and who is the ultimate arbitrator?

 

[TheGoverness]

That's related to option 2, as I described above: changing a word instead of banning it. Honestly, that's the logical course of action as banning a word rarely if ever works (in my opinion). As I'm not in the affected group, I don't feel it's my place to attempt such, so I find myself in the "ban it" camp for the most part.

Agreed. There's no way to ban a word anyways; people are gonna say what they wanna say regardless.

 

[ecofarm]

Oh no no no. Hell no. If I was arguing for that position I'd be so in the wrong. [emoji23]

I've known blacks that accept its non-pejorative use by whites. They understand the problem is the pejorative use, not the existence of the word. They seek to change the word as opposed to banning it.

 

[ecofarm]

But some people still do find a problem with it, though. Some act like that word is 'off limits' to white people, even when used in context.

If we can't discuss the term, no progress can be made. Forcing me to employ "the n-word" during an intellectual discussion is childish.

 

[grip]

Agreed. There's no way to ban a word anyways; people are gonna say what they wanna say regardless.

Free will, God's gift to all us animals, even the lawless.

I guess, recompense is our true lord?

 

[TheGoverness]

I've known blacks that accept its non-pejorative use by whites. They understand the problem is the pejorative use, not the existence of the word. They seek to change the word as opposed to banning it.

Yes, and that's where my line of thinking would align towards as well.

 

[ecofarm]

What about in another environment, such as a communist government, where PC is paramount to crime? Seriously, you don't think we're (USA) headed that way?

I don't think the US is headed towards communism, neither the ideal nor any of its actual manifestations in history or today. I don't accept 'sky falling' arguments as impetus to any position.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, and that's where my line of thinking would align towards as well.

While I agree that changing it is more logical than trying to ban it, I don't feel it's my place (as an unaffected) to engage in such.

 

[Grand Mal]

But some people still do find a problem with it, though. Some act like that word is 'off limits' to white people, even when used in context.

The context is everything. Nigger, faggot, kike, wop, dike, chink, they all have equal weight. They all could be used in a context that isn't hateful but it's not just context in use that matters, but the forum. You could use any of those terms (I mean 'you') in a caregully-written article and there'd still be some who land on the term with both feet and ride your back through the thread, chanting, "Racist! Racist!".

 

[TheGoverness]

While I agree that changing it is more logical than trying to ban it, I don't feel it's my place (as an unaffected) to engage in such.

Why not? You don't think you should be involved in trying to change it?

 

[grip]

I don't think the US is headed towards communism, neither the ideal nor any of its actual manifestations in history or today. I don't accept 'sky falling' arguments as impetus to any position.

I agree that the 'sky is falling' was not a good reason for the erroneous Y2K but it will actually come in human time. And I wouldn't be surprised if a gnat of an argument, like PC, is the progenitor of it all, not that we can stop it.

 

[ecofarm]

That's funny and somewhat true.

Just don't forget there is such thing as hate speech, which is illegal and who is the ultimate arbitrator?

Illegal hate speech in the US is a threat against a specific group with a real chance of that threat being carried out. Yelling 'nigger' does not constitute hate speech in the US, neither does openly supporting the KKK or any other hate group. Europe is different and I do not agree with their policy.

The ultimate arbitrator, in the US, are the questions:

1. Was a threat directed against a specific group or person based on group inclusion.
2. Is there a real chance the threat will be carried out by the target audience.

Let's not confuse outlawing hate-based threats with outlawing words.

 

[ecofarm]

I agree that the 'sky is falling' was not a good reason for the erroneous Y2K but it will actually come in human time. And I wouldn't be surprised if a gnat of an argument, like PC, is the progenitor of it all, not that we can stop it.

PC is simply the opposing of actions that harm society. It's no different than any other movement that seeks to improve society. One could argue, by your "logic" that anything could be the death knell, examples:

I wouldn't be surprised if a gnat of an argument, like Christianity, is the progenitor of it all...
I wouldn't be surprised if a gnat of an argument, like liberty, is the progenitor of it all...
I wouldn't be surprised if a gnat of an argument, like environmentalism, is the progenitor of it all...

Just substitute whatever movement or ideology one wishes to demonize, and claim it (as opposed to individuals) is ruining everything.

 

[Grand Mal]

That's funny and somewhat true.

Just don't forget there is such thing as hate speech, which is illegal and who is the ultimate arbitrator?

Yes, there is hate speech, but that's a bit different from 'politically correct'. Both are bad but not for the same reasons.

 

[grip]

Illegal hate speech in the US is a threat against a specific group with a real chance of that threat being carried out. Yelling 'nigger' does not constitute hate speech in the US, neither does openly supporting the KKK or any other hate group. Europe is different and I do not agree with their policy.

The ultimate arbitrator, in the US, are the questions:

1. Was a threat directed against a specific group or person based on group inclusion.
2. Is there a real chance the threat will be carried out by the target audience.

Let's not confuse outlawing hate-based threats with outlawing words.

I know there's a difference between hollering 'fire' in a theater when none exist, or 'bomb' in an airport. If the words though lead to differential treatment, then it's not just. And I call it for what it is 'political kaka.'

 

[ecofarm]

Why not? You don't think you should be involved in trying to change it?

Primarily 2 reasons:

1. I'm part of the group that created the problem. Sure, it seems logical that I should be part of the solution, but it doesn't appear so in this case.
2. When a black uses the word, it cannot possibly (logically) be assumed to be used as a pejorative against their own race. It is impossible to preclude that possibility when used by a white.

I suppose 1 is a matter for debate, but 2 is inescapable.

 

[Henrin]

Illegal hate speech in the US is a threat against a specific group with a real chance of that threat being carried out. Yelling 'nigger' does not constitute hate speech in the US, neither does openly supporting the KKK or any other hate group. Europe is different and I do not agree with their policy.

The ultimate arbitrator, in the US, are the questions:

1. Was a threat directed against a specific group or person based on group inclusion.
2. Is there a real chance the threat will be carried out by the target audience.

Let's not confuse outlawing hate-based threats with outlawing words.

Threats with the intent to cause bodily harm to an individual or a group of individual are already illegal. Why are hate speech laws needed?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The problem with political correctness arises when certain groups (*cough* SJW's and Feminists *cough*) attempt to censor speakers with whom the disagree (see practically any speech Mill Yiannopoulos has give at a university), usuallt by either A) interrupting the speech and attempting to shout down the speaker, B) request the administration rescend the speaker's invitation, assuming they issued it, C) preventing those who wish to hear the speaker from entering the venue (as occurred during one of Ben Shapiro's talks), or D) all of the above. Further, these same groups often seek to deny facts and propogate lies in the name of political correctness.

surf or sink, it's up to you.