Are we too PC ?

[Lord_Michael]

Come on, people.

I know it's not the real thrust of the original post, but to suggest that the words "snigger" and "niggardly" are somehow un-sayable these days is to demonstrate complete ignorance about the words and what they mean.

"Niggardly," for example, predates the word "nigger" by several hundred years. As Casey Stengel (long-time manager of the Yankees) once said, "You could look it up." In fact, I'll make it easy for you: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word

Please be literate enough to know the difference between homonyms - for example:
to, too and two
site, cite and sight
their, there and they're
etc.

 

[where]

Which is what a lot of people around here seem to miss (as in wishing it were still here). It seems to be an article of faith among some on the American right that behaving like an offensive, exclusionary prick is a right that has been taken away by the socialist left.

scummy commies.

I have niggling doubts about all this.

My chief objection to being PC isn't that I really want to use words that offend people. I don't. But it's a slippery slope to ban words. Ban the word for a thought, ban the thought. That's how Newspeak works, as anyone else old enough to have read Brave New World might remember. Where does it stop? And more importantly, who do you trust to determine the stopping point? I trust no one that far.

And there's the ridiculousness of some manifestations of PC. There was a recent kerfluffle near me because a high school was doing a historical play that employed the word "nigger." None of the write-ups in the newspaper dared utter the word. Instead, they said "the n-word." Give me a break. We all know what that means, and we all translate "the n-word" into "nigger" in our minds.

It's silly. We can't even have a discussion about a word without using a sanitized version of it. And offensive as the word might be, it is a part of our history. Let's not sanitize history.

except that what you describe as 'PC' isn't actually what it originally meant. it wasn't about 'banning' words, it was about showing people, usually those who are comparatively marginalised, a bit of respect. The notion was hijacked by the right to discredit it and claim that it was liberal commie pinkos who were stealing our language and banning words.

Eventually, because the cultural elite who felt under threat from the call to be respectful were so effective in their creation, it ended up with genuinely well meaning people actually believing that they could no longer say 'nigger' even when it was within a historical context, or blacklist and baa baa fucking black sheep, along with the silliness that xmas decorations in offices are banned because they are offensive to muslims etc etc etc.

it's all bullshit.

.

Come on, people.

I know it's not the real thrust of the original post, but to suggest that the words "snigger" and "niggardly" are somehow un-sayable these days is to demonstrate complete ignorance about the words and what they mean.

"Niggardly," for example, predates the word "nigger" by several hundred years. As Casey Stengel (long-time manager of the Yankees) once said, "You could look it up." In fact, I'll make it easy for you: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word

Please be literate enough to know the difference between homonyms - for example:
to, too and two
site, cite and sight
their, there and they're
etc.

this. if I knew you better I'd offer to have your babies.

 

[midwestyankee]

Eventually, because the cultural elite who felt under threat from the call to be respectful were so effective in their creation, it ended up with genuinely well meaning people actually believing that they could no longer say 'nigger' even when it was within a historical context, or blacklist and baa baa fucking black sheep, along with the silliness that xmas decorations in offices are banned because they are offensive to muslims etc etc etc.

it's all bullshit.

Exactly. All the griping and moaning done by folks on the right has simply exacerbated the problem because ordinary people feel that it's a much bigger deal than it really ever was meant to be.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Come on, people.

I know it's not the real thrust of the original post, but to suggest that the words "snigger" and "niggardly" are somehow un-sayable these days is to demonstrate complete ignorance about the words and what they mean.

"Niggardly," for example, predates the word "nigger" by several hundred years. As Casey Stengel (long-time manager of the Yankees) once said, "You could look it up." In fact, I'll make it easy for you: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word

Please be literate enough to know the difference between homonyms - for example:
to, too and two
site, cite and sight
their, there and they're
etc.

That was a joke, but also no joke. Some people have become so deeply bruised and so sensitive to the pain of being called names that they react to anything that sounds like the hurtful, hated word.

Sure, it's problematic for those of us who have a more extensive knowledge of the language. But that's the vintage that's getting trampled. We cannot demand literacy from people who have lived in substandard conditions, who have gone to substandard schools.

And there's the ridiculousness of some manifestations of PC. There was a recent kerfluffle near me because a high school was doing a historical play that employed the word "nigger." None of the write-ups in the newspaper dared utter the word. Instead, they said "the n-word." Give me a break. We all know what that means, and we all translate "the n-word" into "nigger" in our minds.

You are absolutely allowed to translate the word in your head. And sure, everyone does. But refraining from actually using the word sends out a signal: "I respect your identity, and I understand that the daily struggle to maintain it can be more than you can easily bear-- I won't make it that little bit harder on you."

Yanno-- Did you ask to be born white? I didn't. I was born with inoffensively light-colored skin. I don't know one single person who asked to be born with black skin that singled him or her out as a potential threat to the majority. You can't just wake up and decide to change into a white skin for the sake of walking down the street undisturbed by suspicious cops and frightened old ladies.

ETA: not to mention that the newspapers don't want to insult their black readers any more than their white ones. Their advertisers wouldn't like that.

 

[Netzach]

Which is what a lot of people around here seem to miss (as in wishing it were still here). It seems to be an article of faith among some on the American right that behaving like an offensive, exclusionary prick is a right that has been taken away by the socialist left.

While niggardly is, to those in the know, not related, I live on the principle of "why go there?" Why should people around me have to have my vocabulary shown off at the expense of having to do a double-take? If I want to abuse the bourgeoisie I have a job I can do it at all day long.

That said, with a context and a point, I absolutely reject the idea of doing things like banning Huck Finn and forgetting who we are and were as Americans because we're not always nice.

Cheap-ass is more my milieu these days anyway.

 

[culloden]

"You are absolutely allowed to translate the word in your head. And sure, everyone does. But refraining from actually using the word sends out a signal: "I respect your identity, and I understand that the daily struggle to maintain it can be more than you can easily bear-- I won't make it that little bit harder on you.""

I agree with that, more or less, and I never use the word conversationally. I cringe when others do. But I don't think that stricture should apply in what's really an academic discussion.

We don't apply it that rule to other cases. For example, Jews may be the most persecuted people in history. But no one in a discussion of ethnic slurs for Jews would think of saying "the k-word." I could go on, but I'm sure you see the point.

 

[IrisAlthea]

me too!



I use the words snigger and niggardly a fair bit, especially snigger.

in seriousness, every time I hear people moaning about everything being PC, it just sounds like they're pissed off because they can't call a person nigger/paki/poofter/lesbo/chink.

PC is basically a rightwing concept to articulate how the dominant culture has a perceived loss of power.

This!

 

[Stella_Omega]

"You are absolutely allowed to translate the word in your head. And sure, everyone does. But refraining from actually using the word sends out a signal: "I respect your identity, and I understand that the daily struggle to maintain it can be more than you can easily bear-- I won't make it that little bit harder on you.""

I agree with that, more or less, and I never use the word conversationally. I cringe when others do. But I don't think that stricture should apply in what's really an academic discussion.

newspapers don't do academic discussion. Most of them don't do news any more, either. They run ads and therefore are at the direction of their advertisers. If you want academic discussion, go the the blogosphere.

We don't apply it that rule to other cases. For example, Jews may be the most persecuted people in history. But no one in a discussion of ethnic slurs for Jews would think of saying "the k-word." I could go on, but I'm sure you see the point.

When was the last time you saw the word "kike" in a newspaper? I think you'll find it glossed as "a derogatory cultural epithet" or some such.

And the reason is because American Jews have achieved their goal, of putting that word beyond the pale in most parts of society.

Really, the circumstances are very different. If 70% of the men in prison were Jewish, there would be a sense of desperation and anger around the word that just isn't there at this time.

 

[Netzach]

newspapers don't do academic discussion. Most of them don't do news any more, either. They run ads and therefore are at the direction of their advertisers. If you want academic discussion, go the the blogosphere. When was the last time you saw the word "kike" in a newspaper? I think you'll find it glossed as "a derogatory cultural epithet" or some such.

And the reason is because American Jews have achieved their goal, of putting that word beyond the pale in most parts of society.

Really, the circumstances are very different. If 70% of the men in prison were Jewish, there would be a sense of desperation and anger around the word that just isn't there at this time.

I don't expect to be called a kike in a paper, but I don't think there's a problem with "the assailant referred to Mr. Rabinovitz as a kike prior to hitting him with a tire iron"

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't expect to be called a kike in a paper, but I don't think there's a problem with "the assailant referred to Mr. Rabinovitz as a kike prior to hitting him with a tire iron"

Or:

"The assailant referred to Mrs. Jones as a nigger prior to hitting her with a tire iron."

Or:

"The assailant referred to Mr. Smith as a faggot prior to hitting him with a tire iron."

Or:

The assailant referred to Mr and Mrs. Ngyen as "gooks" prior to hitting them with a tire iron."

ImOnIt claims that the reason to use non-PC words is that they rile people up. And they do-- quite often to physical violence.

 

[Netzach]

Or:

"The assailant referred to Mrs. Jones as a nigger prior to hitting her with a tire iron."

Or:

"The assailant referred to Mr. Smith as a faggot prior to hitting him with a tire iron."

Or:

The assailant referred to Mr and Mrs. Ngyen as "gooks" prior to hitting them with a tire iron."

ImOnIt claims that the reason to use non-PC words is that they rile people up. And they do-- quite often to physical violence.

I don't think that printing them in that context does though. I think it presents reality. I don't think the old old SNL stuff which did race head-on should have been banned because it used some really incendiary language - it worked because it did. I think that "the n word" almost presents a cute infantile diminutive and almost makes it seem less bad.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think that printing them in that context does though. I think it presents reality.

Well yeah-- the reality that those words are often the harbinger of violence. I mean-- how much more graphic do you want?

I don't think the old old SNL stuff which did race head-on should have been banned because it used some really incendiary language - it worked because it did. I think that "the n word" almost presents a cute infantile diminutive and almost makes it seem less bad.

Well, since neither of us are black and therefore not viscerally affected by the "n" word the way our black friends might be, I'm not sure if either of us have the authority to argue the point. All I can do is repeat what I've gleaned from eavesdropping on convos in various communities...

 

[culloden]

newspapers don't do academic discussion. Most of them don't do news any more, either. They run ads and therefore are at the direction of their advertisers. If you want academic discussion, go the the blogosphere. When was the last time you saw the word "kike" in a newspaper? I think you'll find it glossed as "a derogatory cultural epithet" or some such.

And the reason is because American Jews have achieved their goal, of putting that word beyond the pale in most parts of society.

Really, the circumstances are very different. If 70% of the men in prison were Jewish, there would be a sense of desperation and anger around the word that just isn't there at this time.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. We seem to be starting with different assumptions.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. We seem to be starting with different assumptions.

What assumption are you starting with?

 

[Netzach]

Well yeah-- the reality that those words are often the harbinger of violence. I mean-- how much more graphic do you want? Well, since neither of us are black and therefore not viscerally affected by the "n" word the way our black friends might be, I'm not sure if either of us have the authority to argue the point. All I can do is repeat what I've gleaned from eavesdropping on convos in various communities...

I agree, other than the fact that there's no consensus there whatsoever, nor should any be expected. Individuals are tricky like that.

No big shock there, there's no reason there would be. I just agree with a certain subset of people with more right to make the argument, but it's not like I'm going to use that word at all as anything without quote marks, I know my opinion doesn't really matter on this one, but I know what other opinions sit well with me viscerally.

 

[Stella_Omega]

semiotics are a bitch aren't they...

There are no easy answers.

But what I was wondering, to get back to the main topic-- in what way did OP see PC-ness at work in this community, because I really don't think she was talking about "N" words?

 

[DVS]

...But what I was wondering, to get back to the main topic-- in what way did OP see PC-ness at work in this community, because I really don't think she was talking about "N" words?

I think she's saying that even on this forum some members get upset when someone says something that seemingly conflicts with their beliefs. Liberal or conservative, submissive or slave, the world of Gor, 24/7 or weekend warrior, how the word punishment is defined, what is humiliation and what isn't, etc. Even how we treat supposed trolls or maybe even how "you know who" was treated. ~smile~ just to name a few.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think she's saying that even on this forum some members get upset when someone says something that seemingly conflicts with their beliefs. Liberal or conservative, submissive or slave, the world of Gor, 24/7 or weekend warrior, how the word punishment is defined, what is humiliation and what isn't, etc. Even how we treat supposed trolls or maybe even how "you know who" was treated. ~smile~ just to name a few.

You might be right. But in that case, how are we to deal with these conflicts?

My suggestion is to remember that we each of us make a choice in how we incorporate BDSM into our lives.

because fuck yeah, when someone says something like "Women are naturally submissive" I am going to contest that statement. I consider me contesting it NOT a PC thing, but a fight against abysmal ignorance.

If they want to say; "MY sense of womanhood is as a naturally submissive person." then we are all good.

 

[ImOnIt]

I also take slight pleasure from the example below.

*gasp!* You said the fuck word .

Which underlines the idiocy of having an unspeakable word. It makes you talk in knots. (point taken re. advertising).

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

You might be right. But in that case, how are we to deal with these conflicts?

My suggestion is to remember that we each of us make a choice in how we incorporate BDSM into our lives.

because fuck yeah, when someone says something like "Women are naturally submissive" I am going to contest that statement. I consider me contesting it NOT a PC thing, but a fight against abysmal ignorance.

If they want to say; "MY sense of womanhood is as a naturally submissive person." then we are all good.

I think it comes down to whether a person believes in the first or the second statement, and if they can manage to adequately express themselves. Some might mean the second but it comes out sounding like the first. I know I've been guilty of speaking a truth for me as a universal truth. I try harder not to.

I've also learned that some people really don't like to be told they're wrong, when they speak 'universal truths' that they absolutely believe in. lol

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think it comes down to whether a person believes in the first or the second statement, and if they can manage to adequately express themselves. Some might mean the second but it comes out sounding like the first. I know I've been guilty of speaking a truth for me as a universal truth. I try harder not to.

I've also learned that some people really don't like to be told they're wrong, when they speak 'universal truths' that they absolutely believe in. lol

Well, if they can learn a better way to express themselves in mixed company, all the better, yeah?

If someone truly believes the first statement-- that's a whole 'nother problem. Belief is some fucked up shit.

 

[DVS]

You might be right. But in that case, how are we to deal with these conflicts?

My suggestion is to remember that we each of us make a choice in how we incorporate BDSM into our lives.

because fuck yeah, when someone says something like "Women are naturally submissive" I am going to contest that statement. I consider me contesting it NOT a PC thing, but a fight against abysmal ignorance.

If they want to say; "MY sense of womanhood is as a naturally submissive person." then we are all good.

The world gets smaller, every day. Did you feel that? It just got smaller, as I started this post.

There's a give and take in everything and you don't get EVERYTHING your way, because there are other people in the world. If you got everything your way, nobody else would get their way. Trust me...nobody is always correct. We're all different colors, different shapes and sizes and all different languages, not to mention different cultures. We all are entitled to our opinion, but that's really as far as it goes. And if you are entitled to your opinion, so is everybody else. Even if you think their opinion is stupid or childish, silly dribble. You really need to walk a little while in their shoes before you can say they are wrong.

 

[midwestyankee]

The world gets smaller, every day. Did you feel that? It just got smaller, as I started this post.

There's a give and take in everything and you don't get EVERYTHING your way, because there are other people in the world. If you got everything your way, nobody else would get their way. Trust me...nobody is always correct. We're all different colors, different shapes and sizes and all different languages, not to mention different cultures. We all are entitled to our opinion, but that's really as far as it goes. And if you are entitled to your opinion, so is everybody else. Even if you think their opinion is stupid or childish, silly dribble. You really need to walk a little while in their shoes before you can say they are wrong.

The problem, DVS, lies not in varying opinions but in the fundamental worthlessness of opinions. I cannot learn from another's opinion because opinions bear no weight. On the other hand, if someone with extensive experience in the use of electrical stimulation via an anal probe posts his or her observations about how people have reacted to such stimuli in his or her experience, then I can learn from those observations. They're not opinions. If all we do is swap opinions, there's really very little point.

How quickly would we tire of a "discussion" that included only variants of "I think deep dish pizza is the best possible kind of pizza"? Half a dozen posts in and we'd exhaust the possibilities and the thread would did. Especially because any sane individual already knows that Chicago-style deep dish pizza is the best pizza on earth.

Too many people make claims that have no evidence behind them, or which are based on very thin evidence, and expect everyone to accept them because "we're all entitled to our opinion." No, I don't have to accept your "opinion" Mr-Know-it-All-Domly-One if it has nothing behind it but hot air.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The world gets smaller, every day. Did you feel that? It just got smaller, as I started this post.

There's a give and take in everything and you don't get EVERYTHING your way, because there are other people in the world. If you got everything your way, nobody else would get their way. Trust me...nobody is always correct. We're all different colors, different shapes and sizes and all different languages, not to mention different cultures. We all are entitled to our opinion, but that's really as far as it goes. And if you are entitled to your opinion, so is everybody else. Even if you think their opinion is stupid or childish, silly dribble. You really need to walk a little while in their shoes before you can say they are wrong.

Well, that is exactly my point. If someone wants to state their opinion, we can all agree that their opinion is their opinion.

If they state their opinion as a fact, we can challenge them to prove that fact. And you know-- most people don't know the difference between that they think and what is factual.

Likewise, if their opinion affects me, they had damn well better walk a little while in my shoes before they go spouting it.

 

[teknight]

me too!

Nuh-uh. You're Mac with cheese.

The world gets smaller, every day. Did you feel that? It just got smaller, as I started this post.
You really need to walk a little while in their shoes before you can say they are wrong.

I hate to pull the easiest of examples out of the box, so I won't go with history's (eerrr, white history's) whipping boys, the Nazis, and I'll go with Pol Pot's regime instead. Were their opinions "justified"? Do we really need to be in their shoes and would that validate their behaviors? I think not. Granted, my example is extreme to the point of being absurd, but, it's a starting point on a very slippery slope.

The problem, DVS, lies not in varying opinions but in the fundamental worthlessness of opinions. I cannot learn from another's opinion because opinions bear no weight. On the other hand, if someone with extensive experience in the use of electrical stimulation via an anal probe posts his or her observations about how people have reacted to such stimuli in his or her experience, then I can learn from those observations. They're not opinions. If all we do is swap opinions, there's really very little point.

I'd say it's harder to learn from opinions, and what you'd be learning would be more meta-stuff (what'd a proper term here be?).

How quickly would we tire of a "discussion" that included only variants of "I think deep dish pizza is the best possible kind of pizza"? Half a dozen posts in and we'd exhaust the possibilities and the thread would did. Especially because any sane individual already knows that Chicago-style deep dish pizza is the best pizza on earth.

HEATHEN!!

Too many people make claims that have no evidence behind them, or which are based on very thin evidence, and expect everyone to accept them because "we're all entitled to our opinion." No, I don't have to accept your "opinion" Mr-Know-it-All-Domly-One if it has nothing behind it but hot air.

FWIW- it's hard to argue properly.
I agree that hiding behind the "I'm entitled to my own opinion" is a cheap trick. What I'm curious about is the psychological effect of that kind of thinking. Is it a form of mental inoculation, that prohibits one from probing too deep into a contradicting idea?

Having said that though, not until I reached lit did I realize how a term I've been using since HS- "gay"- could be hurtful, even though I've never had any qualms with gay people or gay marriage or what have you. I was however using the term in day to day life to say that XYZ was wrong, ill fitting, strange, etc. And, thanks to Kybs and Stella, I've seen the error of my ways.


Wow, this has been an inchoate and confusing post....