Not so nice words...

[evearael]

There is a BBC article on Tiger Woods using the word 'spaz' in the interview. Apparently, it is a derogatory term for someone with cerebral palsy. I was aghast, because I had never realized the word's history. Are there any 'not so nice words' that do not attack or degrade a particular group? Is political correctness just an overreaction?

 

[Darkdale]

Is political correctness just an overreaction?

Yes! A very, VERY annoying overreaction.

 

[c0da]

Who was it who used the word spaz? What was the context?

Most common insults used today have some sort of history that you may not have guessed.

And yes, political correctness is just a bit annoying nowadays. Taken too far.

 

[evearael]

Here is the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4902432.stm

 

[Draka]

My cat's name is Spaz. Spastic means to have spasms...which can also define a burst of energy or action.

I think PC has gone a little too far. It's to the point now that everyone can take offense to the most remote of things that really have nothing to do with them. Where does it stop?

 

[c0da]

I really don't think it's that offensive really in the context Tiger Woods used it.

If it had been a direct insult at a disabled person or something, it would be offensive, but the above context isn't really that offensive.

 

[atheistthatsme]

I think it's getting to a point of ridiculousness, all this over-political correctness. Examples include Retards not liking being called retards. Like it or not, that is the medical term. Disability, what other words do they want? Perhaps.. "Lack-of-ability-due-to-unfortunate-circumstances-or-events"? That's exaggerated but it emphasises the point that people should toughen up.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I think it's getting to a point of ridiculousness, all this over-political correctness. Examples include Retards not liking being called retards. Like it or not, that is the medical term. Disability, what other words do they want? Perhaps.. "Lack-of-ability-due-to-unfortunate-circumstances-or-events"? That's exaggerated but it emphasises the point that people should toughen up.

Perhaps retards don't like the term - as appropriate or not as it may be, which I wont get into here - because it's been appropriated to be used in a derogatory sense more often than not.

 

[Fluffy]

When I call someone gay in the derogatory sense I do not mean that they are homosexual nor do I mean that homosexuality is bad. I mean that they are being irritating. I believe that this is exactly the same for most situations in which these kinds of words are used. Yes they may have originally meant something more nasty and aimed at a particular group but guess what? Words can have more than one meaning.

I think that it is a good thing that words lose their hateful connections after awhile. I bet that most of the people who use the term "spaz" aren't even aware of its origins. Why should offence be taken when none is being given?

 

[Pah]

I think it's getting to a point of ridiculousness, all this over-political correctness. Examples include Retards not liking being called retards. Like it or not, that is the medical term. Disability, what other words do they want? Perhaps.. "Lack-of-ability-due-to-unfortunate-circumstances-or-events"? That's exaggerated but it emphasises the point that people should toughen up.

Political correctness is a consideration of others and expression of that consideration. Dissapproval of it says more about the failings of an individual that a reflection on society. It used to be called "politeness" and "justice" and "the right thing to do".

Retard has a negative meaning when applied to people. It is not a medical term apart from it's complete retarded. It has been made into a derogatory term when it was shortened and made a noun instead of an adjective.

 

[c0da]

Even when that political correctness costs lots of money to enforce because of the many pointless beurocrats?

Even when it turns a nation into a complete nanny state as it is in britain?

 

[Sunstone]

I think political correctness has gone too far in some instances. But I agree with Pah that political correctness is often no more than politeness, good manners, and common decency repackaged. Most people think there's been a general decline in those values in our society over the last few decades, and I tend to agree with that view. Political correctness seems to be, at least in part, some kind of reaction to that decline.

 

[c0da]

I agree that politeness and good manners are going down the pan (I know they are in Britain!) but I think political correctness is more a reaction to ridiculously liberal pressure groups and politicians trying to do the 'right thing'.

 

[PureX]

It's a very common human behavior, to inflate one's own self-image by denigrating someone else's image. The use of so many negative terms (like "spaz") is a functuon of this behavior, and people who often engage in such behavior tend to get angry about the idea of "political correctness" because such an idea is an attempt at not engaging in such routine slander, and at labeling it for what it really is.

People with low self-esteme naturally tend to engage in such slander most often, and so tend to become angered by the idea and practice of "political correctness". But perhaps if they spent more time looking at themselves, and dealing with their own insecurities, rather than negatively labeling others to escape their feelings of inadiquicy, they wouldn't need the escape of slander, anymore. And then the idea of "political correctness" wouldn't offend them so much.

The truth is that "political correctness" is an attempt at being both more polite and more accurate when discussing groups of people. It can sometimes be misguided, and cumbersome, but the intent is both positive and valuable. Silly though it may sometimes be, I think it's a good endeavor, in general.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[PureX]

I agree that politeness and good manners are going down the pan (I know they are in Britain!) but I think political correctness is more a reaction to ridiculously liberal pressure groups and politicians trying to do the 'right thing'.

Yeah! We sure don't want our politicians trying to do the right thing! *smile*

 

[jonny]

There is a BBC article on Tiger Woods using the word 'spaz' in the interview. Apparently, it is a derogatory term for someone with cerebral palsy. I was aghast, because I had never realized the word's history. Are there any 'not so nice words' that do not attack or degrade a particular group? Is political correctness just an overreaction?

I always used to tell people to keep their "cotton pickin' fingers" off stuff until someone told me it was derogatory. I never made the connection I guess. Also, the words "dink" and "dork" seem to annoy some of the older generation.

 

[PureX]

I want to add this:

I believe that the political right in America, and specifically the George Bush/Carl Rove faction of the republican party, has been stirring up and using American's prejudices, particularly the prejudice of the "conservative Christian right" to get themselves elected. In effect, it has been in their interest to get conservative Americans (Christian or otherwise) as angry as they can at liberal Americans, so that they will vote even for a loser like George Bush just to vote against anything and anyone "liberal". And they have succeeded.

You will note that it's almost always the conservatives that are bad-mouthing "political correctness", and blaming it on "liberal democrats" (they assume there is no other kind of democrat). And the reason for this is that the conservative power base needed to increase anger, resentment, prejudice, and the "joy of slandering the other guy" to stir up voter participation to get themselves elected. And so they have been tirelessly promoting these ideas among their conservative base. The result, now, is that many conservatives feel that it's both good and wise to vent any sort of negative and slanderous resentments against their fellow citizens. In fact, being rude and obnoxious has become a kind of conservative art form on right wing talk radio and TV. People like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly have made millions from celebrating rude and crude and slanderous behavior, and making it acceptable behavior for the politically conservative to engage in.

It's sad that so many Christians have been drawn into this negative exploitation, and have fallen for such a low and uninspired method of political action. Carl Rove is no "genius", he's the worst kind of muck-raker; stirring up the worst in us, against each other, for his own petty political gain.

 

[ChrisP]

In the maelstrom of PC bs, words become literal objects and the intent and context are immediately forgotten. Down with PC bs.

Or alternatively Up with consideration of who is being spoken about and the intent of the comments. (someone told me I should be more positive )

 

[Fluffy]

I think political correctness has gone too far in some instances. But I agree with Pah that political correctness is often no more than politeness, good manners, and common decency repackaged. Most people think there's been a general decline in those values in our society over the last few decades, and I tend to agree with that view. Political correctness seems to be, at least in part, some kind of reaction to that decline.

I think political correctness has gone too far in some instances. But I agree with Pah that political correctness is often no more than politeness, good manners, and common decency repackaged. Most people think there's been a general decline in those values in our society over the last few decades, and I tend to agree with that view. Political correctness seems to be, at least in part, some kind of reaction to that decline.

I, personally, see a very significant difference between the person who chooses to do the right thing because they wish to do the right thing and the person who chooses to do the right thing because of social pressure (or any other motive for that matter). Therefore, for me, political correctness completely fails to address what I view as the important part of the matter.

Politeness, good manners and common decency are all things that I would describe as worthwhile attributes to strive towards. But I feel that real steps can only be made on that journey if the motivations are true to the goal. I feel no guilt in offending others when I do not intend any offence because I do not believe that I am in possession of the necessary responsibility. Therefore, I feel it would be irresponsible for me to strive for something I do not believe in and in the end, pointless as well, since I may as well simply walk backwards instead.

In everyday life, we encounter people with very different boundaries and very different buttons that, when crossed or pressed, intentionally or otherwise, can cause them great distress. The important thing to remember is that everybody has these and they are never the same from person to person. Not being omniscient, it is of course impossible to come to know all of these boundaries and so conflict is an inevitability of human interaction. The question that I feel is central to this issue, that which will decide whether PC is essentially a good or poor concept, is whether the onus is on the offender to limit their vocabulary or the offended to topple their boundaries.

I see no real point in going with an impractical option and so I choose the latter simply because I believe that humanity, en masse, is selfishly motivated. Self improvement is easier to sell, and therefore accomplish, than politeness because it brings motivation with it.

 

[Mathematician]

Wow. Just wow. You know you live in the 21st century when someone is offended by the word "spaz" before they are offended by half-nude women/men prancing around on T.V...