Has PC Logic Gone To Far?

[SomeRandom]

I swear sometimes people just do these things to troll people. I recall an incident a few years ago about a Primary (elementary) school trying to change the lyrics of an Aussie nursery rhyme in the name of being "sensitive," because of the line "how gay your life must be." To which even gay people responded with, the hell is wrong with you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nah....you're redefining it in a way that avoids what it means.
Ref....
Political correctness - Wikipedia

Read your own link:

The term political correctness(adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is used to describe the avoidance of language or actions that are seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race.[1]

Excluding, marginalizing, and insulting disadvantaged people is an expression of disrespect for those people. Political correctness says "instead of doing that, treat people with respect."

 

[esmith]

Excluding, marginalizing, and insulting disadvantaged people is an expression of disrespect for those people. Political correctness says "instead of doing that, treat people with respect."

The only problem with that is that they have to learn respect before they can be given respect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only problem with that is that they have to learn respect before they can be given respect.

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[esmith]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Well I equate learn with give in this situation. Maybe I should have said "One must earn respect before shown respect". Does that help?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I equate learn with give in this situation. Maybe I should have said "One must earn respect before shown respect". Does that help?

The part I'm having trouble with is where you - apparently - have decided that some group of people - who specifically, you haven't said - don't deserve respect.

Are you employed? If you are, how does your attitude of "I won't show you respect until you show me respect" go over in the workplace?

 

[Stevicus]

I would be livid if I was a member of the Lynch family.

List of people with surname Lynch - Wikipedia

The list includes Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman to be named Attorney General. So, does she have to change her name too?

Then there's David Lynch, the famous film director.

And this was a surprise to me:

• Ernesto Guevara De La Serna y Lynch, the full name of Che Guevara

 

[esmith]

The part I'm having trouble with is where you - apparently - have decided that some group of people - who specifically, you haven't said - don't deserve respect.

Are you employed? If you are, how does your attitude of "I won't show you respect until you show me respect" go over in the workplace?

No you really do not understand do you.
Let's take your "group of people" whomever they could be. If that group is not willing to show respect to others do they deserve respect?

How about reading this then get back to us.
Respect - Earning respect + Respect vs Fear and Obedience

 

[Curious George]

The only problem with that is that they have to learn respect before they can be given respect.

And this happens how. They earn respect by being given respect or by giving respect? Do you feel their are people disrespecting you? Maybe you haven't earned respect. Who is exactly being disrespected with "PC issues?" Forgoing the topic at hand- about what exactly are we talking?

A school renamed? In some situations that might be necessary. In this given situation, I don't think so. But that doesn't mean institutions should not be renamed. The thread topic is has PC gone too far? I don't think so. Should the topic of renaming a school district be off the table? Should renaming a football team be off the table for discussion? What exactly is the problem with discussing such things. If you agree that it is possible that the conditions could arise where the renaming of a institution would be merited, then there is no reason the topic can not be brought up.

The whole get mad over pc thing doesn't resonate with me. Why would you be scared of the conversation. Would you be mad if someone proposed to rename a school after a local war veteran? I understand you saying, hey I don't find this reasoning ligical or sufficient. But that isn't whats happening. You are using politicized rhetoric to villify an amorphous group that is generally associated with "The Left" (insert scary sound effect).

It seems to me that you are trying to make a very different point than "I don't agree with this and here is why."

Were you to use issue specific language, it might be a different story. If I am mistaken, please show me where.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Read your own link:



Excluding, marginalizing, and insulting disadvantaged people is an expression of disrespect for those people. Political correctness says "instead of doing that, treat people with respect."

"that are seen as" In too many cases, including this one, people are seeing offense that isn't there.

This reminds me of that time PETA got bent out of shape regarding a town in the Hudson Valley called Fishkill, because the name appears to promote cruelty to fish.

Perhaps if they used even just a little bit of their critical thinking skills, they'd understand that "kill" is a dutch word for creek.

But no... they wanted to rename the town "Fishsave."

This sort of stupidity deserves ridicule.

 

[Stevicus]

I've never understood the whole PC angst. Okay, so occasionally they get it wrong. Big deal. It is usually some nonsense that never really hurts anyone. But I would much rather live in a PC world where occasionally someone took it too far than in a world where people couldn't be bothered.

I've always somewhat mixed feelings about PC. Yes, I get that it's a way to encourage greater respect and courtesy, although I often found it coming up in discussions I would see about movies which came out before the mid-1980s.

The 70s were also pretty raw in that there really was no "PC" to speak of, although one could say it was still comparatively better than it had been in previous decades. An example might be a TV show like "All in the Family," which was considered rather progressive and liberal in its overall scope. But by the time it was in syndication and being rerun in the 90s and later, it had to carry a disclaimer and warning for some of the subject matter and language.

I've also noticed it in some of the more recent reviews of early 80s movies like "Sixteen Candles," which is attacked for a number of reasons which probably few people even thought of back when the movie came out. "Revenge of the Nerds" is another one like that. Still, the realm of comedy and humor has been given some latitude when it comes to pushing the boundaries of PC.

One thing that I remember rather well in the early years of "PC" is when Jimmy the Greek got fired by CBS.

His remarks may have been the result of drunken buffoonery rooted in ignorance, but he didn't seem to come off as deliberately malicious or hateful. So the question may be asked: Does the PC "punishment" fit the "crime"?

It reminds me of my grandfather and many of his generation who grew up in a completely different time, yet still did not bear any open malice or ill-will towards black people. But they still grew up in a segregated society and were raised with a lot of strange ideas. In his own clumsy way, my grandfather would try to be "nice" but end up putting his foot in his mouth anyway. But he wasn't hateful or mean, nor did he really intend any disrespect.

That's where PC might tend to lose a bit of perspective, since it doesn't make any real distinction between that which is intentionally harmful and malicious versus that which may not be intended to be harmful.

 

[Curious George]

"that are seen as" In too many cases, including this one, people are seeing offense that isn't there.

This reminds me of that time PETA got bent out of shape regarding a town in the Hudson Valley called Fishkill, because the name appears to promote cruelty to fish.

Perhaps if they used even just a little bit of their critical thinking skills, they'd understand that "kill" is a dutch word for creek.

But no... they wanted to rename the town "Fishsave."

This sort of stupidity deserves ridicule.

So someone had a bad idea. And now you are mad an everything "PC" because of it. The same I asked esmith applies to you. What topics do you think should be off the table for discussion?

Is it hard for people to make a logical argument against "Fishsave?" For what exactly are you asking? Against whom exactly are you fighting? Peta on the fishkill argument? Sure. But political correctness? People have ideas all the time. They group with others who have the similar ideas and advocate for those ideas. I like this process, even if I don't like all the ideas.

It seems some people want to live in a world where ideas are ran by them so they can give it their personal stamp of approval before it is advocated. Is that the case here?

 

[Curious George]

I've always somewhat mixed feelings about PC. Yes, I get that it's a way to encourage greater respect and courtesy, although I often found it coming up in discussions I would see about movies which came out before the mid-1980s.

The 70s were also pretty raw in that there really was no "PC" to speak of, although one could say it was still comparatively better than it had been in previous decades. An example might be a TV show like "All in the Family," which was considered rather progressive and liberal in its overall scope. But by the time it was in syndication and being rerun in the 90s and later, it had to carry a disclaimer and warning for some of the subject matter and language.

I've also noticed it in some of the more recent reviews of early 80s movies like "Sixteen Candles," which is attacked for a number of reasons which probably few people even thought of back when the movie came out. "Revenge of the Nerds" is another one like that. Still, the realm of comedy and humor has been given some latitude when it comes to pushing the boundaries of PC.

One thing that I remember rather well in the early years of "PC" is when Jimmy the Greek got fired by CBS.

His remarks may have been the result of drunken buffoonery rooted in ignorance, but he didn't seem to come off as deliberately malicious or hateful. So the question may be asked: Does the PC "punishment" fit the "crime"?

It reminds me of my grandfather and many of his generation who grew up in a completely different time, yet still did not bear any open malice or ill-will towards black people. But they still grew up in a segregated society and were raised with a lot of strange ideas. In his own clumsy way, my grandfather would try to be "nice" but end up putting his foot in his mouth anyway. But he wasn't hateful or mean, nor did he really intend any disrespect.

That's where PC might tend to lose a bit of perspective, since it doesn't make any real distinction between that which is intentionally harmful and malicious versus that which may not be intended to be harmful.

Is the issue that the demographics are changing? There are consequences for acting a certain way. That has always been the case. If this were the 40s or 50s and famous radio show/ tv personality personality was found promoting interracial marriage, the company would likely fire them. Does the "punishment" fot the social "crime?"because that is about what we are talking. Would you prefer that a powerful central government prohibits companies from making PR decisions such as the firing of Jimmy the Greek for statements?

You see, public approval, is to where this is discussion really comes. I don't think anyone is really mad that a person or group has an idea that they find lame or stupid. Really they are mad that others support such notions and don't think like they do. They are so offended by some of these incidents that a whole group is being villified. It works. People latch on to the idea of this crybaby libtard PC monster that finds offense at every corner. The irony is that the anti PC rhetoric is just other people offended by people taking offense to something they don't like.

We are different. X may get offended by people burning a flag, and Y may get offended by people smoking in public, and Z may get offended by a statue of General Lee. I don't know what ideas or actions offend you, but I am pretty sure there are some. Are you part of the PC movement? Why not?

 

[Poisonshady313]

So someone had a bad idea. And now you are mad an everything "PC" because of it. The same I asked esmith applies to you. What topics do you think should be off the table for discussion?

I don't think anything should be off the table for discussion. I just think people ought to inform themselves before insisting that names be changed for no good reason.

Is it hard for people to make a logical argument against "Fishsave?" For what exactly are you asking? Against whom exactly are you fighting? Peta on the fishkill argument? Sure. But political correctness? People have ideas all the time. They group with others who have the similar ideas and advocate for those ideas. I like this process, even if I don't like all the ideas.

In the following statement, I'm not specifically addressing YOU when I use the word "you". I'm addressing the rhetorical "you".

The man's name was Lynch. If you see that and can't get passed the imagery of lynch mobs, the problem isn't with the name. The problem is with your ability to face reality. Reality doesn't need to change. You do.

It seems some people want to live in a world where ideas are ran by them so they can give it their personal stamp of approval before it is advocated. Is that the case here?

All I'm asking for is for a little bit of critical thinking.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think anything should be off the table for discussion. I just think people ought to inform themselves before insisting that names be changed for no good reason.

but there is a valuatuon in there. To them it is not "no good reason." So, if they subjectively think it is a good reason, they should bring up the idea. Unless it is your valuation they should be using?

In the following statement, I'm not specifically addressing YOU when I use the word "you". I'm addressing the rhetorical "you".

The man's name was Lynch. If you see that and can't get passed the imagery of lynch mobs, the problem isn't with the name. The problem is with your ability to face reality. Reality doesn't need to change. You do.

I would address the argument differently, but I would come to the conclusion that the name should not change for this reason. Doesn't mean that I am offended that it was brought up, or that I disn't get my way.

While your emotional rhetoric may be the best way to sway minds and therefore win the day, I don't think that is any more logical than "people should be offended by Lynch because it is reminds others of lynching people."

All I'm asking for is for a little bit of critical thinking.

This should be for what we are all asking. Emotional appeal is powerful. It is ultimately society that pushes these things. Emotional appeal has been used to advocate for ideas for a very long time. With critical thinking we hope to find truth. But when it is a winner take all, both sides seem readily open to using emotional appeals because they work.

 

[Poisonshady313]

but there is a valuatuon in there. To them it is not "no good reason." So, if they subjectively think it is a good reason, they should bring up the idea. Unless it is your valuation they should be using?

They should do a bit of research and exercise a bit of critical thinking BEFORE bringing up the idea, because while they may perceive a name in a subjective way, there is an objective reality to consider: It was the man's name.

Institutions shouldn't have to change their name to cater to the subjective whim of every emotionally fragile individual who can't handle the world they live in.

I would address the argument differently, but I would come to the conclusion that the name should not change for this reason. Doesn't mean that I am offended that it was brought up, or that I disn't get my way.

While your emotional rhetoric may be the best way to sway minds and therefore win the day, I don't think that is any more logical than "people should be offended by Lynch because it is reminds others of lynching people."

This should be for what we are all asking. Emotional appeal is powerful. It is ultimately society that pushes these things. Emotional appeal has been used to advocate for ideas for a very long time. With critical thinking we hope to find truth. But when it is a winner take all, both sides seem readily open to using emotional appeals because they work.

I'm not bothered by people bringing up ideas. Talking about things is how we learn. But when your personal subjective feelings affect the ability of other people to express themselves, there better be a compelling objective reason for it.

 

[Curious George]

They should do a bit of research and exercise a bit of critical thinking BEFORE bringing up the idea, because while they may perceive a name in a subjective way, there is an objective reality to consider: It was the man's name.

There is no way to know that they did not consider this.

Institutions shouldn't have to change their name to cater to the subjective whim of every emotionally fragile individual who can't handle the world they live in.

I don't think it would be catering to every individual. This would turn on public opinion. If public opinion was strong enough to change the name, I see no reason to be upset at the choice. The level of your emotional appeal seems to suggest that doing so would be very upsetting to you. I do not know if this is really emotionally upsetting to you or if you are just elevating the rhetoric because you think it will make your point stronger. But time for some critical thinking.

Can an area choose to name and rename public institutions such as schools? If a group gets the requored signatures to bring the issue up, or if someone wants to propose the issue at a town meeting, or a city hall meeting should they be able. If they can carry the necessary community support should the name change? These are the questions that are necessary. Now someone should ask why should we change the name? Someone should ask why should they leave the name? There should be dialogue and more critical thinking.

While I acknowledge that emotional appeals like yours do sway people, I think they do so by getting people emotionally attached to sides. Now is this productive? I would suggest that people are more likely to use emotional appeals when they are emotionally charged over the issue or their focus is primarily on getting their way.

I'm not bothered by people bringing up ideas. Talking about things is how we learn. But when your personal subjective feelings affect the ability of other people to express themselves, there better be a compelling objective reason for it.

I agree with the first part: talking about things is how we learn. The second part is where we differ. Why does there need to be a pretty compelling objective reason for someone to suggest a change that will affect other's ability to express themselves? They are just bringing it to the table. Talking is how we learn. Hopefully, they will learn that others highly value their ability to express themselves. And hopefully people wanting to express themselves will learn how that expression affects others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No you really do not understand do you.
Let's take your "group of people" whomever they could be. If that group is not willing to show respect to others do they deserve respect?

How about reading this then get back to us.
Respect - Earning respect + Respect vs Fear and Obedience

Again: what on Earth are you talking about? Who do you think is disrespecting you?

Did a member of a marginalized group kick your dog once or something?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"that are seen as" In too many cases, including this one, people are seeing offense that isn't there.

This reminds me of that time PETA got bent out of shape regarding a town in the Hudson Valley called Fishkill, because the name appears to promote cruelty to fish.

Perhaps if they used even just a little bit of their critical thinking skills, they'd understand that "kill" is a dutch word for creek.

But no... they wanted to rename the town "Fishsave."

This sort of stupidity deserves ridicule.

The vast majority of the time, political correctness is about issues of real injustice that significantly affect people's lives. Most of the time, what gets labelled is about things like:

- ensuring a merit-based system where a woman's work is valued as much as a man's.
- attacking racism and the racists who seek to keep disadvantaged groups down.
- allowing people with disabilities to participate fully in society.
- erasing the stigma associated with mental illness.

Do you agree that all of those are real, serious problems?

I understand the implicit message in examples like the one you have: you're trying to imply that because of this slightly whacky stuff out on the fringes, political correctness as a whole is something that should be discarded. You're trying to portray stuff like PETA trying to get "Fishkill" changed to "Fishsave" as representative of what political correctness is generally about. It's not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Read your own link:

Think I didn't?
I'm familiar enuf with it to know that your quoted text below didn't come from it.

Excluding, marginalizing, and insulting disadvantaged people is an expression of disrespect for those people. Political correctness says "instead of doing that, treat people with respect."

Your definition is simply wrong.
It seems you're denying the existence of a term to describe what most
people understand to be political correctness, particularly its excesses,
eg, firing someone for using the 'racist' term, "niggardly".