Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Political Correctness - collation and discussion

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6

14:48 / 06.03.06

Good article- I was taken by this paragraph particularly-

Over the last month "political correctness" has been used in the British press on average 10 times a day - twice as frequently as "Islamophobia", three times as "homophobia" and four times as "sexism". Its ubiquity is due in no small part to its flexibility. During that period it has been used to refer to the ill-treatment of rabbits, the teaching of Gaelic, Mozart's opera La Clemenza di Tito, a flower show in Paris and the naming of the Mazda3 MPS. But it's most commonly evoked to suggest that honest conversations are being curtailed by a liberal establishment intent on imposing its ideological beliefs on an unwilling public.

sdv (non-human)

15:58 / 06.03.06

The Yonge piece was very interesting in that it was only a single step away from stating overtly that the governments of the west are really 'uniformaly conservative' (see ted Honderich's Censervatism for justifcation') - the idea of even imagining that the UK for example is governed by a 'liberal elite' is simply absurd. What seems to be on the verge of being recognized is that "conservatives <> neo-liberal" - context...

It does seem odd that those on the thread who are most against the concept of PC are those who appear to believe the definition being produced by the 'neo-liberal establishment'. However there is a contradiction here in that (for example) the new-conservatives in the UK now approve in certain areas of being PC because there appears to be a general acceptance that some things should not be said...(makes one feel quiote hopeful...)

At least nobody here has imagined that Irving went to jail because of PC...

sdv (non-human)

16:12 / 06.03.06

oh damm... i just read the earlier misquote from Orwell.... oh dear oh dear...

I know that Orwell was problematic but the poor-sod does need rescuing from this endless abuse of what were quite reasonable propositions. Actually as I type this it occurs to me that the spectacles use of PC is precisely newspeak. (laughs)

23:06 / 06.03.06

What struck me most, given Barbelith's intense focus on feminism this past week or so (cf. "Feminism 101" in the Conversation), was the discussion of former Harvard president Larry Summers, and the unattributed quotes about feminist critics of Summers engaging in "hysterics" and "getting the vapours." Those lovely ideas belong to George Will and they are a great example of a twisting of feminist ideas against women in order to undercut all feminist perspectives.

I hope anyone who is confused about that whole brouhaha will read that Will column to see a textbook example of why the term, or the implication, "hysterical" is so deeply problematical, even offensive to many women.

I loved this part of Younge's argument: To align yourself with the powerful and then take aim at the powerless takes not one ounce of valour. To prop up prevailing hierarchies and orthodoxies rather than challenge them demands not a scintilla of bravery. True, like Summers, you may run into trouble. But just look who's covering your back. With the prevailing winds of war, prejudice or the state on your side, the odds are with you. Since the privileges you are defending are inherent in the commentariat - how many women, blacks, working-class people or Muslims get to speak, let alone be heard? - your worldview is constantly being reinforced.

That this cowardice misidentified as bravery is all validated by presenting "political correctness" and feminism as "teh great evil empire" (e.g., Shadowsax's arguments in F4J) makes me furious.

14:34 / 08.04.06

In the news (well, the Daily Mirror anyway)-

JUDGE TELLS 'RACE HATE' TRIAL "IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD"

"I was repeatedly called fat at school. Does this amount to a criminal offence? This is political correctness gone mad, it's crazy." And he called on the police and Crown Prosecution Service to drop the case. Mr Finestein told the court: "In the old days the headmaster would have got them both and given them a good clouting.

Ah, the good old days of beatings. (%)Thanks Judge F for that timely reminder and dose of good old fashioned common sense.(/%)
I especially love the way he equates race and being fat. Nice.

14:45 / 08.04.06

Judith Elderkin, of the National Union of Teachers, said the judge was "a bit out of date". She said schools had to report racist incidents to the local education authority. "Racist abuse is not tolerated nowadays."

How politely put.

17:49 / 08.04.06

Aye, but do you really think the ten-year old in question should've had legal charges pressed against him, then? Which, despite the judge's choice of language, appears to have been his major concern, that such a thing not come to pass.

It's some vile shit came out the kid's mouth, no doubt, but I don't think it's advisable in this case. I don't think a boy of 10 is answerable for that. I would hope a primary school should be able to handle such matters internally.

All Acting Regiment

19:26 / 08.04.06

Yeah, this happened near me. The 10 year old, I think it's a good idea to remember, was bullying the Asian kid non-stop for a period of six months and using not just "offensive" but threatening language- that immediately takes it out of "he only said a certain word" territory (which is of course highly dubious) and I'm disgusted that the judge is unwilling to take this into account.

As I said on Daily Mail Watch: without knowing what this punishment was (the DM don’t seem to want to tell us beyond “legal action”) it’s hard to say whether or not it was inapropriate.

If it was too harsh a punishment, that would surely be because the boy was too young, not because racism isn’t a serious problem.

Particularly irritating is the Manchester Evening News headline: something along the lines of “Stop this crazy prosecution”. Yeah, uh, you’re supposed to be a newspaper, not an opinionpaper.

14:59 / 10.04.06

On the one hand we shouldn't have ten year olds in the dock, on the other the kid sounds like a little b'stard who ignored the police and forced it to go that far.

15:02 / 10.04.06

The case was adjourned. The boy had refused a final warning from police and was then summoned to court.
Police said afterwards: "We take all reports of crime seriously and remain totally opposed to racism in any form."

A ten year old who refuses a final warning from police probably does need to go to court to learn to take it seriously. Let's remain totally opposed to racism.

Daemon est Deus Inversus

00:33 / 12.04.06

Political correctness does exist; and it is a form of tyranny of the majority. The following statements have nothing to do with racism, sexism, class-snobbery, etc.:

1. Those who commit particulary heinous crimes should be executed; 2. People in ancient Rome did not have nervous breakdowns: these are the product of a neurotic liberal society; 3. War is a rational extension of government policy; 4. Corporal punishment should be allowed in schools; 5. It is oxymoronic to have an intelligence service that does not engage in covert operations; 6. Morality, like mathematics, has its intuitive truths; 7. Our society is in danger of a psycho-social dictatorship by people who cannot even validate their own sub-disciplines.

Intelligent men and women can reasonably disagree with each of the above statements. However, in the present climate, were one to argue in favor of any one of them, society will automatically label one as outside the acceptable parameters of intellectual conformity. This is "political correctness."

01:19 / 12.04.06

I think I'm having trouble figuring out your post there, DEDI. First of all, are you trying to say that people who believe those statements are simply misunderstood? That society has created an asylum for these free-thinkers?

I admit confusion, here. As I intrepret your post, political correctness is a form of prisonment. Is that right?

society will automatically label one as outside the acceptable parameters of intellectual conformity

Here's where I'm confused. Is this a judgement? Are you saying that being a deviation from an intellectual norm is a good or a bad thing? I'm not sure if I'm intrepreting this correctly, so please clarify. Personally, I hope your saying that being outside the conformity is just something that is, and isn't good or bad.

People in ancient Rome did not have nervous breakdowns

What does that have to do with anything? How can you possibly prove that? Or even surmise that? Also, what about people in ancient Greece? Babylon? Egypt? The Vikings? When do nervous breakdowns start historically?

01:22 / 12.04.06

Furthermore, am I to believe that you personally believe those above statements, or are they simply examples? Because if you believe in those statements and you are willing to back them up, we could all happily have a thread on almost all of them.

Daemon est Deus Inversus

01:50 / 12.04.06

I don't necessarily beleive or disbeleive in any of them. I do beleive that intelligent people can reasonably disagree on each one of them. I deliberately selected statements that have nothing to do with racism, sexism, class-barriers, etc. However, in the present climate, expressing them would lead to ostracism. This, I think, is a very bad thing. I think that, in frustration, people label this tyranny of the majority "political correctness."

01:53 / 12.04.06

expressing them would lead to ostracism

I respectfully disagree. Those statements aren't necessarily black and white, which is to say that there is a lot of leeway between the statement and the counterpoint.

For example, Those who commit particulary heinous crimes should be executed

has a very vocal and supportive camp.

All Acting Regiment

04:49 / 12.04.06

Well, DEDI, you're saying that "to be politically correct" means "to conform to an ideology", yeah?

So BNP members are politically correct, for example. It's certainly a provocative riposte, the question for me is how helpful it is.

07:49 / 12.04.06

Dedi, have you read the thread?

As Matt has pointed out to be pro-Capital punishment is hardly an unusual position. Similarly with several of your other examples:

2. People in ancient Rome did not have nervous breakdowns these are the product of a neurotic liberal society.

RD Laing anyone? Though I'm not sure what his views were on ancient Rome.

3. War is a rational extension of government policy

People - includling public intellectuals (I'm thinking of Philip Bobbitt, the guy who wrote "Shield of Achilles") - make pro-War cases all the time.

4. Corporal punishment should be allowed in schools

I've heard any number of parents express the opinion the corporal punishment should be brought back.

5. It is oxymoronic to have an intelligence service that does not engage in covert operations

I've similarly heard people defend the actions of our intelligence services.

None of these are positions that are dying on the vine due to the "tyranny of the majority".

To talk about "political correctness", while specifically attempting to avoid discussing race/class/sex/gender, is I think, missing the point a bit.

All Acting Regiment

08:37 / 12.04.06

Ah. Having re-read Debby, er, DEDI's post, I see they didn't mean what I thought. Right. I thought you were saying that people who act/speak pro authority were as politically motivated as people who speak against it. Thought I'd better make that clear.

All Acting Regiment

08:42 / 12.04.06

That's as in, if someone says "I think we should execute those terrorist suspects without trial", they are being politically correct according ot a certain ideology.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:12 / 12.04.06

If DEDI were to have cast his eyes up, he would have come across alas, a few posts above, saying:

That this cowardice misidentified as bravery is all validated by presenting "political correctness" and feminism as "teh great evil empire" (e.g., Shadowsax's arguments in F4J) makes me furious.

Pretty much the same principle here. DEDI lives in a nation which practises capital punishment, and yet he claims that there is a "tyranny of the majority" which would decry any claim that capital punishment should be practised. Again, the dominant position is claiming victimhood in order to feel heroic, and also to feel justified in taking whatever egregious actions it might wish to take, selling it to itself as a necessity in order to protect an endangered and embattled ideology. Complaining about political correctness means never having to entertain the idea of consensus.

Daemon est Deus Inversus

09:56 / 12.04.06

You just proved my point.

10:02 / 12.04.06

How? Care to unpack that a bit?

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:04 / 12.04.06

Dee Dee, we have standards in the Head Shop, and you are currently running well below them. Your parents didn't slave to put you through law school and then Praemonstrat school just for one-sentence, content-free ripostes, now, did they? Please to read and respond in a coherent fashion, starting by actually reading this thread.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:08 / 12.04.06

You just proved my point.

I don't really see anything above that proves DEDI's point, unless we are to take any form of reasoned disagreement as ostracism and/or tyranny.

13:00 / 12.04.06

We certainly haven't ostracized him. By the way, DEDI, I think I have a good little sidenote for one of your statements. "Ostracize" comes from the Greek for "ostrakon," which is the small rock that they would use to vote people out of the city Survivor-style. It was a way to keep people from being in power far too long. So, if you were voted out, and you had to wander lands that were proven inferior to Athens (according to the Greeks), then wouldn't you be stressed out? Enough to have, say, a nervous breakdown?

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:27 / 12.04.06

Actually, it's a sherd rather than a small rock - you might be thinking of the psephos, the small rock used for voting in trials. You wrote the name of the person you wanted to ostracise on the sherd.

Anyway, that claim is by some distance the most fatuous of a number of fatuous claims, and I would really rather we didn't get sidetracked onto whether or not liberalism causes nervous breakdowns.

Daemon est Deus Inversus

15:47 / 12.04.06

"Dee Dee, we have standards in the Head Shop, and you are currently running well below them. Your parents didn't slave to put you through law school and then Praemonstrat school just for one-sentence, content-free ripostes, now, did they? Please to read and respond in a coherent fashion, starting by actually reading this thread. "

This is nothing more than an ad hominum attack so I would say that he did prove my point. I fail to see what his friend calls "rational argument" in any of this.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:02 / 12.04.06

That was posted after you posted "you just proved my point", so clearly did not prove your point at the point where you claimed to have had your point proved. Thus making your proof pointless.

It was not an ad hominem, incidentally. si non potes intelligere, noli tamen timere, sort of thing. It was a genuine request for you to raise your game, if you are able to do so. If you are not, then your presence in this thread, and indeed this forum, will be unprofitable. If you are cannot be bothered to read threads before posting to them, if what you post to them is of low quality, and if you have no real interest in or toolkit for discussing your own ideas or those of others, you should not be in the Head Shop. If you'd like to know more about this, please read the Wiki. Some of the articles are free, others require a $100 membership, which also gets you access to the secret fora.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

16:06 / 12.04.06

Except that the "you've just proved my point" post came before Haus' supposed ad hominem, rendering your post a little confusing. I'd also suggest that maybe ad hominem is not the correct term, since "You've just proved my point" is indeed a one-liner, arguably content-free, and certainly not the high standard of discussion that we strive for in the Head Shop.

As for reasoned argument: Illmatic makes some good points rebuffing the list posted earlier with examples, various posters point out that supporting the death penalty in a nation which practices capital punishment is scarcely a bold minority position, and refers back to an earlier quote by alas ("cowardice misidentified as bravery," ect) which would seem to be relevant in the context.

16:26 / 12.04.06

si non potes intelligere, noli tamen timere

I'm guessing it means something like "if you can't grok it, don't sweat it". (Based purely on intelligere and timere which looks like temer in spanish and timore in italian). An actual translation would be appreciated though. Cheers.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:31 / 12.04.06

Pretty much bang on, Lurid. It means if you can't understand it, don't (however) fear it in Kennedy's Shorter, a somewhat bastardised dialect of Latin.

17:49 / 12.04.06

I fear Latin.

A little redundant now but DEDI- WTF? Why list a set of statements that not only wouldn't lead to ostracism but are obviously massively supported by millions of people every day? I was going to link to a website for each of those statements in turn to show how riddikulus they were, but it turns out DailyMail.co.uk has them all in one place.

Perhaps you mean on Barbelith supporting these positions would lead to ostracism?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:17 / 12.04.06

Yes, Quants, I believe you are essentially correct. What we're seeing here is the latest iteration of an all too well-established pattern:

1) X is frowned upon or criticised on Barbelith;

2) Opinion on Barbelith is monolithic and homogenous; AND

3) Opinion on Barbelith is an exact reflection of popular opinion in the world outside.

THEREFORE: By espousing X, I am being Brave and Edgy and Iconoclastic. Possibly I am also Coyote/a pookha/ect.

The flaw in this is that X is almost always some concept that would not ruffle a single feather or raise a single eyebrow almost anywhere else, often the stuff of newspaper headlines and laws that are enforced daily. This is utterly familiar and it itsn't getting any less dull with constant repetition.

19:45 / 12.04.06

2) Opinion on Barbelith is monolithic and homogenous; AND

we're trying far too hard to be "politically correct," as the common complaint goes.

I certainly don't think Barbelith represents the commonly held view on things in the English-speaking world. I certainly don't think there is a commonly held belief that one can point to with pinpoint accuracy. Why, even the simplest of moral or ethical questions gets hefty debate in the English-speaking world, or should I say the media. Remember, there are many different political views and many forms of media represent many of those differences.

10:03 / 13.04.06

we're trying far too hard to be "politically correct," as the common complaint goes.

...the common complaint of right-wing hatespeechers, you mean?

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6