Political Correctness

  • Thread starter Thread starter rockford
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When I hear politically correct, I think of people using words diplomatically. Being respectful and really listening to viewpoints which differ from our own.
 
I think the very way this question about “political correctness” has been framed has poisoned the well. There seems to be a common misconception here that people being offended is something new. I’d invite everyone to consider another possibility—the possibility that the way many people have spoken through the years was always offensive, and that now people finally feel sufficiently empowered to speak up about it. In other words, perhaps the world hasn’t become more “politically correct” and what we are really seeing is a shift in power and privilege.

Further, I think we might also want to reconsider whether or not somebody being offended by what we say is somehow unfair. We all have the right to think and say what we feel, but we can’t then be surprised when other people choose to think and say what they feel in response.
 
But that’s not the whole story.

When it causes problems like the actual examples I’ve listed, it infringes on the rights of others.

The offended don’t get to hold all the cards. I - and everyone else - have rights too.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Apu was created to mock stereotypes and racism. Our society has taken such an anti-intellectual bent that irony and nuance fly over everyone’s heads.
Click to expand...
Cool story, bro, but it’s not true.

“Apu first appeared in the season one episode “The Telltale Head”. Various accounts of the character’s creation claim that while creating the character, the writers decided they would not make him ethnic, as they felt it would be too offensive and stereotypical and did not want to offend viewers” (Jean, Al (2001). The Simpsons season 1 DVD commentary for the episode “The Telltale Head” (DVD). 20th Century Fox.)

“but that the concept stayed because Hank Azaria’s reading of the line “Hello, Mr. Homer” received a huge laugh from the writers.” (Joe Rhodes (2000-10-21). “Flash! 24 Simpsons Stars Reveal Themselves”. TV Guide)

"Azaria, however, has disputed this account, claiming instead that the writers asked him to create a stereotypical Indian accent for the character. " (paltalkscene (2007-12-06), Apu from the Simpsons on Paltalk and DailyComedy, retrieved 2016-05-23) ( “A visitor takes a long look at Apu on a funny, thoughtful Simpsons”. www.avclub. com. 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-05-23)
 
Last edited:
Lifeisbeautiful3 said:
When I hear politically correct, I think of people using words diplomatically. Being respectful and really listening to viewpoints which differ from our own.
Click to expand...
When I hear it used, it’s almost always in the context of assaulting people whose views differ from those of the accuser. “You shouldn’t say that, it’s not politically correct.”

I almost exclusively see the concept used to shut down discussion.

I’m happy for you that you see it that way, ideally that’s what it would look like, but that’s not generally how the concept is applied in society, especially among younger people.
 
Last edited:
No one is denying that.

Do you think the US Army should’ve sat back because they didn’t want to profile Hasan?

That was the reason they did nothing. The actual reason.

Is it okay for someone to tell you that disagreeing with the current abortion law is intolerant?

This is also political correctness.
 
I assume folks here can recognize that in amongst the innumerable examples of PC language going too far/silencing free speech/not being used for its supposed intended purpose, it’s probably good not to use some language today, yes? Should it be illegal to call African-Americans “coons”? No. Should those who use such language be shamed for doing so? Yes. The far messier (and therefore more interesting) question, of course, is where the line is drawn.
 
If someone truly wants to discuss and it’s truly important, they won’t be shutting down the discussion.
Example is legislators or anyone seeking economic benefit who truly wishes to get something done.
90 percent of the “discussion” on the Internet goes nowhere and has no reason to even exist.
 
Last edited:
None of those quotes really dispute their motive for using Apu to mock stereotypes. They explain quite bluntly in one of the earlier episodes, when Homer joined a bowling team, that that is the role his character is to take.

Somebody on CAF wrote an entire thesis on this topic. I’ll try to find and tag that poster.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Actually, the idea that good intentions justify anything is simplistic and therefore anti-intellectual.
Click to expand...
Fortunately I never made that argument.

I also haven’t seen a solid case that The Simpsons “missed the mark.” Satire serves a very specific function, and one’s decision to take the satire seriously or literally is what ultimately misses the mark.
 
Last edited:
No one here has disputed that fact. That’s not the problem, and never has been.

The problem is the pendulum has swung much too far.
 
If you can’t at least acknowledge that satire can have unintended consequences then we literally have nothing to discuss.
 
Yeah, think about old disney movies, they weren’t politically correct at all but they were so funny! 😂
I love a lot of them.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a sinister tool of coercion and control used to enshrine a certain value system and ultimately lead to a criminalisation of views that contradict officially enshrined values.
 
Firstly, can we agree to this definition of satire from Oxford Dictionary: “The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.”

Secondly, can we also agree that the people who are supposed to be exposed/criticized are white Americans?
 
I have no doubt they were funny to you, but they were also deeply hurtful to others. Does this mean that we shouldn’t be able to say what we feel? No, it doesn’t mean that at all. But we also have to recognize that others might feel differently and they are perfectly within their rights to challenge us when we say or do things that they find troubling.
 
You seem to be conflating two things here. On the one hand, you seem to be discussing people being offended by speech and actions and making the fact that they are offended known. If you want the freedom to say what you want to say, and it’s a freedom I support, you also have to accept the freedom of others to disagree with you and to call you out when they think you’re wrong. Free speech goes in both directions.

On the other hand, you also seem to be talking about actions taken by the state or agents of the state in response to some speech. This is a different conversation entirely. Depending on the countries in which we live and the norms of those countries, it may well be the case that agents of the state have taken inappropriate actions as agents of the state in response to speech and actions. However, that’s not the same thing as people being offended and telling others that they are offended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top