Political Correctness

  • Thread starter Thread starter rockford
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Motive is part of the picture, but not the whole thing. In both motive and actual meaning, the film-makers made a satirical statement. To take their satire seriously or literally and then accuse them of disparaging others is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the statement, in itself a fallacious response, wouldn’t you say?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know what you mean when you say “motive and actual meaning.”

And you don’t have to take their satire literally to find their work offensive. I understand that they have been attempting satire in the case of Apu but I still find the character incredibly offensive. If satire was their goal, I think they failed.
 
And can’t something be bad satire that, despite the best efforts of the author of the work, failed miserably.
 
So you are saying that all that is require is that someone makes a good faith attempt at satire? You are also saying that because The Simpsons’ satire is at times successful we have to accept that all of it is? And, again, this is based on the fact that there was a good faith attempt made at satire?
 
It has definitely gone too far. If you don’t make every single person in the world feel “special” or “accepted”, then you’re a bigot.
 
blackforest said:
It sounds like we agree, for the most part.

But the university is fundamentally not a safe space. If you’re approaching it correctly, being exposed to new ideas that challenge your faith, beliefs, and values and can (and should) be a very unnerving, uncomfortable process. The most I could support in a “safe space” is an extracurricular group. Apart from that, the concept of “safe spaces” is problematic on multiple levels. Opinion | In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas - The New York Times
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. They violate the very underpinnings of the university. However, if an institution wants to create one, it’s not illegal. I don’t like them, don’t champion them, and would discourage any student from asking for one. But they’re not illegal.
 
We are admonished to be careful in our speech, but I don’t want to rip things out of their correct context.

Honestly. I do think there are certain things not to be said in polite company. People say the most raunchy of things, swear, offend some party, and call it humor.

On the other hand, it’s like you don’t know what’s offensive anymore. People can literally (and have!) argue that MILK is bloody offensive or etc. I think we need to meet a compromise
 
Part of me thinks political correctness is just a shoddy replacement for manners. If people were still teaching their kids manners, there would be no need for political correctness.
 
It’s ironic that supposed liberal-minded people are engaged in a very active and explicit fascism: think as we think, act as we expect you to act, or face serious harassment and other social consequences
 
Rhubarb said:
I don’t think that’s true… If one takes the time to educate themselves. And even if they don’t, we all find ourselves in a situation where our mouths get us in trouble. It’s really easy to say “Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t know that was offensive, I’ll stop saying it” even if you just stop around the person in question. What have we lost by saying that?

For instance, I teach high school. Quite a lot I hear the students use the phrase “retarded”. This is not acceptable. Because I often help out in the special ed departments and our special ed students are wonderful people who try their best with the cross they’ve been given. So, when a student goes “you’re retarded” I say “excuse me, that is a hurtful slur, and it’s not appropriate” and the student usually gives a sheepish look and says “Oh, sorry.” That’s all it takes.

As for people flying off the handle - I can see that. Especially if it’s an honest mistake. People fly off the handle all the time for a myriad of topics (you stole my parking space, you stepped on my shoes, you’re looking at my girl, etc), it’s not a problem that’s restricted to people being offended over “PC issues.”

I don’t think it’s so much that people think others are trying to be hurtful (though in the case of pronouns and bathrooms, some definitely are). It’s more they’re upset that people refuse to acknowledge that they’re causing pain, or, think they can inflict it with impunity. But it definitely comes in levels. Racist old Grandpa who still uses the phrase “the coloreds” is different from someone legitimately not knowing a word is hurtful. Or someone who has learned that a word is hurtful, but doesn’t care that it hurts people.
Click to expand...
Retarded was once a legitimate term, completely without pejorative meaning. It was a description of a problem that we now call an intellectual disability. We had to come up with a new term because people grabbed onto the old term and started using that as a weapon. Someday intellectual disability will fall out of favor and a newer, less offensive word or words will take its place.

And how do we deal with a case where a small percentage of the population finds a word to be offensive, but most people to whom it refers aren’t bothered by it at all? Do we necessarily have to cater to the sensitivities of those who are offended? Do we all have to change our language? Obviously, sometimes words and descriptions are clearly offensive e and sometimes they have become offensive because of the way that they are used. But sometimes many people, including those in the supposedly offended group, are left scratching their heads.

I kind of like Charley Pride’s point of view.


From a proud Indian… er… Native American… Okay, let’s just go with Cherokee.
 
Last edited:
jesucated said:
However, it’s entirely different we’re talking about private citizens responding to private citizens. And, tempting as it may be, we can’t simply appeal to a slippery slope argument as that is fallacious reasoning.
Click to expand...
You are correct, ‘bullying’ in virtually any capacity is free speech.

Because it’s legal doesn’t mean it should be actively supported. Defending someone right to free speech includes protecting them from unreasonable bullying. It’s more a moral battle than a legal battle.

This quote describes what I expect:
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”
Click to expand...
This quote describes what we see from liberals of late:
“I Disapprove of What You Say, and I will petition to get you fired or to lose your sponsorships”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I agree with your noting that legality and rightness are different things.

However, I think you’re suggesting a false dichotomy. It’s not the case that I can EITHER defend your right to say something OR petition/boycott/etc. It’s entirely possible I can defend your legal right to say something – that is the fact that you should be able to say it free from harassment by the government — AND petition/boycott/etc.

Let’s consider an example outside the realm of politics. If my daughter/son’s Little League coach is using excessive (or really any) profanity, I can both defend that coach’s right to say such things without being locked up persecuted by the government AND petition that said coach no longer be the coach of the team.

Free speech is not the same as consequence free speech.
 
Pup7 said:
Yes. Virtue policing. Because it’s bogus that my saying “Merry Christmas” to someone who takes offense is somehow my fault and I’m meant to be able to read their mind - or just say nothing.

To put it blunt, it’s stupid.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If I say “Merry Christmas” and somebody replies “Please don’t say that to me–I’m (Jewish/Atheist/whatever)” then I should say, “Oh, okay. Happy Holiday then.” And remember not to tell that person Merry Christmas again.

But I have not committed an offense the first time I say it to that person, unless I was told beforehand not to.
redbetta said:
Or, just last week, a man in Scotland, Count Dankula, almost went to prison because he posted a video on YouTube of him teaching his girlfriend’s dog to give a Nazi salute and react excitedly to “gas the Jews” to piss off his girlfriend who always talks about how cute her little dog is. Nobody reported him because they were offended by it: the authorities themselves deemed it to be offensive. Jewish community leaders in the U.K. even gave their support to Count Dankula. Last time I checked, he got off with a 800 pound fine.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, he should be fined. Regardless his intent, teaching the dog to respond favorably to “gas the Jews” and then posting this on Youtube is offensive to the point of being worth punishment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top