Is it time to declare war on "political correctness"?

[Stinky The Clown]

edited for language :)
For years all politicians were careful about being politically correct. Words were parsed. New words were invented. Work was done by the best linguists to create gender neutral terms and pronouns. (Where have all the waitrons in our restaurants gone?) The fact is, most people thought the whole notion of political correctness was silly (at best) and insulting (at least). (I contend it was exactly this sort of linguistic silliness that got us quite effectively labeled as "girlie men" by the Gropenator.)

Now, it seems, political correctness is about being "religious" ... or in some more narrow instances, "Christian". No one in any broad forum is calling for us to be Catholic or Pentecostal or Jewish .... yet. Attacking and countering this political correctness is, in my view, a winning issue.

It is my view that most of our citizens find this as odious as "waitrons". I say "most" of our citizens. Surely those who are on the fringe of religiosity are quite happy. But they are by no means the majority.

There have been a number of threads here recently where our leaders and spokespeople have been criticized for being a bit too blunt in their language. (This is not intended to be a Howard Dean thread, but) By way of example, there are several threads that are hot right now about the Doctor's words recently regarding the ...... uh ..... "feeding tube" issue (that was an attempt at political correctness, wasn't it? :) ) and ....... uh ...... "pro choice" issues (more political correctness?)

I think it is long past time for our side to become "plain spoken". Not linguistic stumble bums. Straight talkers. We learned about Wesley Clark calling Bush a rooster crowing at dawn and taking credit for the sunrise. Good. Nice and plain. Not hard at all, was it? Dean said "we're going to use Terri Schiavo .... " Good. Nice and plain. Not hard to understand.

For too long we've been way too wishy washy in our phrasing. It is time to start saying what we mean and meaning what we say.

Yeah, I know ... they do it too.

But we have several huge advantages.

Truth. We really do have the truth on our side. Use it, fer krissakes. Forget the words. Speak the fucking truth. People will understand.

Issues. We are on the right side of the overwhelming majority of issues. Tell people what we believe. In plain words. Don't parse. Don't worry that, if phrased somehow two shades left of blue you may lose Mary from East Bumfuck. Don't worry that if you don't include this minor point and that shade of meaning you'll piss off Tom from Hellhole Gulch.

The people will get it.

Use plain words. Say what you mean. Don't parse.

And fer krissakes, don't lecture. It is time we stopped sounding like eggheads and started sounding like normal people. I honestly think there are vastly more really smart - intellectual, even - people on our side than their side. But yanno, when we talk to ourselves, we're the only ones listening.

Tell **them** ...... k?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. (Not on the two men I cited as examples, but on the concept of political correctness in language.)

[Al-CIAda]

1. I just wished the jellyfish would call liars and crooks

LIARS AND CROOKS!

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Liars and Crooks it is

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Calling someone a liar or a crook will piss off some people. But will please those who think the same thing.

[Jade Fox]

3. It is Middle Class sense of Niceness which is offended....

by "too much" directness, and being plain spoken.

I'm agreeing with you, by the way. :)

[UdoKier]

4. I disclike PC codes or rulebooks.

I think it is important to be civil and aware of the way words you use may make others feel.

But proscribing the use of a given word because someone doesn't like it, no matter what the context is highly counterproductive.

Of course we should be plain and direct. I think it would be refreshing, given the fact that so much of the GOP's rhetoric, although constructed to sound folksy and down-to-earth, is actually veiled racism or class-war talk.

[Eloriel]

7. Proscribing the use of "nigger" because SOME people are offended

is counterproductive? Perhaps you'd like to explain how that is. I'm all ears.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. No one is suggesting we use such patently offensive words.

And to suggest, no matter how obliquely, that I am suggesting we welcome that term back into common use is personally offensive. (This answers your post in a plain spoken fashion, by the way.)

[Blue Moon]

34. Who decides...

What words are offensive? The PC police? Catch-22, no?

[UdoKier]

17. Of course it is. You just used it.

The PC Mandarins would have you tarred and feathered because you failed to call it "The N-word".

But any thinking person would understand the context in which you used it.

Language is highly subjective, and should always be judged subjectively on a case-by-case basis.

[Eloriel]

5. I'm so sick of folks on the left not understanding political correctness

REALLY sick of it.

If YOU don't understand the nexus between language and reality -- how lanaguage shapes how we think and how the content of our thinking shapes our language, then I suggest you get yourself to a library or do some internet research.

In the bad old days when there were only chairmen, only men were thought of as CAPABLE of being chairs of committees, organizations, corporate boards. In those bad old days, the word "chairwoman," or even just "chair" sounded foreign, even contemptuously, ridiculously so. But you know what? When you hear the gender-neutral term "chair" you don't automatically form a mental picture of a chairman.

When you hear talk of how mankind progressed through the eons, you don't think of the critical roles women played, or even that their roles were often more than just as helpmate keeping the home fires burning. It took WOMEN to ferret out women's history -- why? Because men not only didn't LOOK for women's contributions to humankind's progress, they didn't THINK in terms of women's contributions and participation at all. Why do you suppose that is -- beyond the fact that it didn't serve their patriarchal self-interests?

You have some good point elsewhere in your post -- you do them a great disservice (not to mention all of the Left and oppressed people of all kinds) with your rhetoric against political correctness.

Bah.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I agree with you

There are terms that inherently limit. Any smart, caring person knows them and will use them. They've fallen into common useage and, indeed, acceptance. Using the term "chair", as you show by way of example, is fine. It is gender neutral. But the example I used, "waitron" is just plain stupid. There's nothing seriously demeaning or limiting in "waiter" or "waitress".

I'm not espousing that we throw the baby out with the bath water. Just the baby shit ... yanno?

[Laughing Mirror]

18. I have never heard the term "waitron" for waiter or waitress

but the neutral term "server," for example, better describes what the person who does that job actually does. The same goes for firefighter (instead of fireman), mail carrier (instead of mail man), occupied space ship (instead of manned space ship), handmade or synthetic (instead of man made), and so on.

Old-fashioned job titles just don't make sense anymore. We live in an age where women and men fight fires and carry mail.

I've seen recent threads on the use of the term illegal immigrant. "Undocumented worker" was suggested as a better term, not just because it is "politically correct," but because it simply more accurately describes the individual who happens to be in that position.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. The word "waitron" was one invented by the restaurant biz

I'm in the foodservice industry. This term was in some narrow use a while ago. Mercifully it met with a quiet and unsung demise. The term "server" has stuck ... and that's fine.

It seems to me "firefighter", "police officer", "mail carrier", etc., have also come into somewhat more common usage. And again, that's fine.

I'm not sure I agree with "undocumented worker" in place of "illegal immigrant". The former implies the person is, indeed, working. What if that person has a non-working spouse with him (assuming the person, of course, is a man, which I suppose is politically incorrect of me to have assumed in the first place, since women are as capable of a border crossing as men ...... ). (Okay, that was purposely snarky to make my point.) The facts (implied) around this term are that the person entered a country (immigrated) without benefit of legal standing (illegally). All the dancing on the head of a pin won't change the underlying facts.

[Laughing Mirror]

23. If you think hard enough

You can always come up with a more accurate way to describe a person on an individual level rather than confine someone to a broad category that many people view as pejorative, such as calling a person who may not be a bread winner an illegal immigrant.

[Eloriel]

30. You're also having a little trouble with yet another stereotype

What if that person has a non-working spouse with him (assuming the person, of course, is a man, which I suppose is politically incorrect of me to have assumed in the first place, since women are as capable of a border crossing as men ...... ).

I have no idea how many "undocumented workers" there are in the U.S. who crossed the Mexican border, but my son married one 2-1/2 years ago who, while Latina, did NOT come here across the Mexican border. She had a visitor's visa ended up staying too long so became illegal as a result. I'm sure she's not unique -- either by accident, inaction, or intention on the part of the "undocumented workers." Nor, by the way, is her family economically disadvantaged (just to sort of kick the underpinnings out from under yet another stereotype).

I'm thrilled to report that she got her permanent green card just a few weeks ago and is well on her way towawrd becoming a citizen. (Her English is coming along very nicely as well.) Happily, with the green card she can FINALLY go visit her family in Colombia and introduce them to her husband of 2+ years. (Prior to this she was absolutely forbidden to leave the U.S. under penalty of basically never being allowed to return.)

[Stinky The Clown]

35. What I am about to say is in no way intended to diminish your story or

be mean spirited toward your daughter-in-law. I'm really very pleased she was able to get her green card and begin to live her life in peace, which I am sure is all she ever really wanted. I suspect we're both on the same side of the immigration issue. With that said, I'm still talking about the language - not the issue or your daughter-in-law, except to use it as an an example that you raised. (Honest :hug: )

The fact is, she failed to meet the US's immigration laws. Whether she crossed the border illegally or her status later became illegal is a side issue and a distraction - and in the extreme, obfuscation. She is an immigrant. She was here illegally. Whether she was working or not ("undocumented worker") she was an "illegal immigrant". In my view that's a fact. It is not meant (in my mind, at least) to be a disparaging term, even if some choose to make it that. It is simply a term of long standing use that describes precisely the circumstance of a group of people. That some have chosen to use it is an insult or a term of derision - or even a racially charged code word - doesn't change the underlying truth in the words.

So I see the term as perhaps politically incorrect, but clearly truthful and accurate. And, again in my view, if we can start a discussion based on terms everyone understands, we may have a better chance of getting our message heard.

And remember, I'm talking about getting our message heard by **them** far more than having it heard by us.

[peace4all]

10. completely agree

language has always been the vehicle for racism, sexism, classism etc.
It should be taken very seriously.

[K-W]

You are blaming the symptom for the problem.

Words are just words. It doesnt do any good to ask people to change the way they talk as if that is going to undue the decades of socialization in a society where gender is not neutral.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Don't you think that that's just a little condescending?

Do you think people really believe you when you tell them that they can't think right (but apparently you can, enough to see the problem and want to fix it), that they are thrown into some kind of confusion, when they hear a word used a certain way that doesn't match up to reality in a wood-literal way but everyone understands what it really means anyways?

[blogbear]

6. 'Girlie men' I still say the obnoxious, mouthy, Austrian 'transplant'..

reminds me of Marie Antoinette..

[LoZoccolo]

8. You can complain about "enforcing PC" all you want...

...but you absolutely must make your point clear if you want to make it. If you run roughshod, expect people confused by the unsubtlety to speak up. You can say over and over again that you shouldn't have to say things this way or that way, but whether or not you're understood happens regardless of what you will or what you think should should have to and should not have to do.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I'm not suggesting we need to be stupid. Just plain and clear.

In the example above in this thread, what's wrong with calling a crook ... a crook? Or calling a liar a liar? One has lied or one hasn't.

I prefer "liar" to "Mr. X may have had issues with veracity at the time he said what he said about that particular aspect of the issue".

Or "misspoke" as a synonym for lie. If my son's name is Tom and his friend's name is John and I call my son John, I misspoke. If my son robs a bank and I say John did it, I lied.

[Telly Savalas]

25. How is it politically incorrect...

to call a crook a crook or a liar a liar?

The point of the so-called "political correctness" movement was to ensure our language was sensitive to the various subgroups in our society. There's a huge difference between being politically correct and talking like a gasbag politician.

[Eloriel]

31. Thank you!! Good grief, we're arguing about something that isn't

even political correctness. Unbelievable.

[MindPilot]

12. "woman's right to choose" is one of those phrases that bugs me

it seems like we try to avoid saying the the last part of that phase which is of course "an abortion". It's like we are afraid to say the words that repluse the right so muc. How about "reproductive rights"?

Of course there have been some monumental changes in the language--especially as it applies to gender--but while some of those chages have clearly altered perceptions, like substituting person for man in many words, and using "server" instead of "waitress" others are just unwieldy. I can't bring myself to call a female in the Air Force an "Airperson" or "Airwoman". And we still have many gender--specific terms that needn't exist. Why is there a gender distiction between male and female performers, actress & actor? Comedian & commediane; why not just comic?

[bloom]

14. I think people need to be aware of sexist, racist, mean-spirited

language that casts oneself as an insensitive clod.


If nobody was a sexist, racist, or mean-spirited, insensitive clod - it wouldn't be a problem. People could speak freely. Those who aren't sexist, racist, or mean-spirited, insensitive clods can speak freely - for instance without worrying about being "politically correct" - because they would already be thinking in a non-rude manner to begin with.

Pointing out that liars are liars, etc. has nothing to do with "PC" language.


Schwarzenegger  would like nothing better than to get the pro-patriarchy forces charged up - that's why he talks the way he does.

Robert Kennedy Jr. on the other hand - makes some great speeches - and I don't think he insults people for being feminine in the process.

[UdoKier]

19. The best (worst) racists can couch racist rhetoric in clever phasing...

that never uses a single ethnic slur, but still gets the racist/classist message across to the intended audience. Better to fight these folks than tear apart innocent people who may have used the word "bitch" or "illegal" in a way you didn't like. God only knows how many allies the left has driven away this way.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Thank you ... that is the essence of my original posit.

"Posit" was the intended word, by the way .... not "post" Just to be clear :)

[kentuck]

16. You should never go to a gunfight with a pair of fingernail clippers.

It is right to be sensitive about calling names, etc. But if the other side is lying to advance their agenda, sometimes you have to use the word "liar". No need to commit suicide for the right wing agenda.

[Orangepeel]

21. most people who whine about "PC" are just mad that they can't be assholes

without being called on it.

There's nothing PC or not PC about speaking plainly and/or colorfully, like the examples you cite.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Maybe this discussion would be better served if we changed it a bit.

And maybe I should have stated it as being about plain spokenness. That gets to what I really see as an issue. The PC aspects of plain spokenness get sorted out, but the inherent good in some parts of the larger PC issue are not thrown away.

[Orangepeel]

36. plain spokenness is a different animal

and I agree, our politicians should be plainer spoken.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Let's go to peace with it, instead.

Bigger fish to fry.

[pretzel4gore]

27. the ratwingers practice karate, with language, with facts

with truth.... when someone pushes (see nig***) they pull *(see niggard)!...it's a child's way of winning at all costs; and because of human nature when liberal decency is the norm, they get away with it. There's no such thing as political correctness: but there is widespread politically motivated thuggery practiced by the RATWING, (not the left) if only because the rats control the medium, news/info medium...that's plain fact. And if anyone noticed, the rats deny even that (see 'liberal' media)...
the ratweiners are liars, they control the medium of popular communications and thus their lies pollute truth, poisoning the well, possibly destroying forver the hope of a unified nation....even if/when such unity may be vital to individual survival. The rats are shitting on their own kids future (which makes the bush phenomenon enjoyable to a burnt out old hippie admirer such as meself:)) and are so busy beating up on non existant liberals (which are the best kind for chickenhawks) they do not notice!
Let's just say 'nothing fail like success when you're working for the devil!' and cheer the bastards on
hahaha

[solinvictus]

28. I'm tired of our mealy-mouthed elected officials..

If Bush lies, call him a liar. If a piece of legislation will hurt the American people, call them out on it. I'm so tired of minced words.

[Cats Against Frist]

29. Ah, yes -- the Republican Propaganda Machine already has the antidote

to any plainspeaking of the Democrats -- and it's the "style-over-substance" logical fallacy, which they have pretty much perfected.

Instead of attacking the MESSAGE, which would cause them to have to 1. Address the message in terms of someone else's framing or 2. Thing rationally as to how to respond to the argument -- and, instead of blatant "ad hominem" attacks, which are far easier for your opponent to call you out on -- and are far more effective coming from the Swift Boat Vets, who Bush can safely "denounce," -- keeping your candidate "above the fray," they simply whip out the "style-over-substance" logical fallacy, which attacks the TIMING, TONE, VEHICLE or DELIVERY of a message. Examples:

1. How can you criticize American when our troops are at war?

2. How dare they turn Paul Wellstone's funeral into a political event. Why, the bad taste of the Democrats is appauling.

3. How dare the Democrats speak ill of Ronald Reagan so soon after his death.

4. How dare John Kerry invoke the gay daughter of Dick Cheney, what a bad, bad man. (This one was coupled with a false dilemma, which was particularly skillful.)

5. The Democrats' over-arching message is null and void because Osama Bin Laden agrees with some of their points.

6. The soldier's question to Rumsfeld, at the press conference, on why, out of hundreds of billions of war dollars, the U.S. military can't armor the troops' vehicles, was irrelevant, because the questioner was reminded to ask his question, by a journalist.

In effect, the GOP has created their own, very twisted PC system, which is based on logical fallacy, that is called style-over-substance, but I have, personally re-named, The GOP "Rules of Discourse" Fallacy.

In addition, their whining about Christian persecution isn't so different (well it is DIFFERENT, because the only think they're being "persecuted" from doing is teaching my child superstitious hoke in the public schools) -- but it's "victimized group" crowing of the worst kind.

Which brings me to whining and "appeal to emotion," which if anyone has ever listened to Hannity or Santorum puke out a syrup-y "but whuuut about the famileeees?," or wax sentimental over the military or 9-11, then you have seen "liberal whining and emotion" at work.

At any rate -- keep watching out for these "mirror world," phenomena, and realize that ending the war on PC, and becoming more "plain spoken" could be a trap, when the logical fallacy squad is already on the case.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. I think you're talking more about the echo chamber and not PC or language

Well, not exactly that Perhaps it may be better said that you're talking about another part of the larger issue. I call your examples obfuscation more than I'd call it political correctnoess ... or not.

What they're doing is ignoring what we're saying and using/repeating their talking points over and over again. And since they own the media, they can control the message. Maybe what our side needs to do is essentially the same thing ... at least as far as the discourse goes. Ignore guys like Hannity and his "faaaamiliiieees" bullshit and say what's on our mind. Just ignore the asshole's question and give our own answer ... plain and clear.

[BeFree]

33. Damn fine piece of deconstruction

Damn fine. You need to start a new thread with this Cats, folks need to read this.