So-Called Political Correctness

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

As a person of Irish decent, I am offended.

My jazz band's name was the Chieftans. Until I read your post, I didn't realize there was a connection to the school's mascot. I thought it had to do with the Irish.

My daughter's school mascots are Chieftans and Lady Chieftans. Better than another high school five miles the other direction from our house, one which my daughter had the option of attending, they are the Chiefs and Maidens. A small town high school just to the west are the Warriors, so is the 5000 student Broken Arrow High School. Then there's the Union Redskins in East Tulsa, a name/mascot at least one Native American Indian group has been trying to get changed, unsuccessfully. There are other Native American Indians who don't see the name or the Indian warrior mascot as offensive and don't want it changed. After all, Oklahoma means "home of red men" from the Choctaw words "okla," meaning people, and "humma" meaning red.

[Rafe Opsimath]

This matter needs to be analyzed in the larger context of the degeneration of political discourse. There’s an advantage to be gained by assuming that issues are merely rhetorical, by binarizing the debate, and by demonizing your opponent instead of responding to what may be valid challenges.

Old-fashioned moralists use these tactics when they advocate censorship based on notions of obscenity or sedition. They advocate that society be allowed to decide which ideas, images, and discourse should be sanctioned or censored, according to their own definitions of what is acceptable. As support, they may invoke scripture or legal precedents based on similarly faulty reasoning to try and paint the debate as being exclusively rhetorical. They may be challenged to define ‘obscene’ in an objective sense; they may be asked whether censorship really solves the problem or exacerbates it. However, they ordinarily refuse to answer such criticisms, preferring to define the issue as an either-or choice between civility, democracy, and righteousness on the one hand, and exploitation, degeneracy, and chaos on the other. By stigmatizing dissent as treasonous or immoral, they effectively silence their opposition.

Unfortunately, moral crusaders can be found throughout the political spectrum. Everyone realizes “PC” is usually a straw man invoked by right-wingers to instill a siege mentality among their faithful, but there certainly are those who use the same tactics as the old-fashioned moralists in order to promote an agenda ostensibly more liberal but in fact just as dangerous to free thought.

By advocating censorship based on notions of hate speech, moralists are endorsing the same approbatory apparatus which will determine which ideas are acceptable in a supposedly free society. As support, they offer the writings of like-minded ideologues. They may be asked to make explicit the objective definition and limits of hate speech; they may be informed that hate-speech statutes have traditionally been used against the people they were intended to protect; they may be criticized for reliance on the very system that created and continues to benefit from the inequalities they’re trying to eradicate; they may be criticized as fostering conformism instead of the diversity they say is their goal. Instead of responding to these challenges, however, the moralists prefer to define the debate as a binary choice between diversity and righteousness on the one hand, and intolerance and privilege on the other. By demonizing anyone who disagrees with them as racist, sexist, or homophobic, they effectively silence opposition.

The question is not how we make people think like us, but how tolerant we need to be concerning opinions which differ from ours. The oppressed and disenfranchised in our society rely on the broadening of discourse and the legitimization of dissent, not in promoting a siege mentality where certain ideas can neither be expressed nor heard.

-Rafe

[livius drusus]

Thank you for your thoughtful first time out, Rafe. You bring up several excellent points and I will respond in detail when I get home this evening.

Welcome to FF.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Rafe Opsimath

This matter needs to be analyzed in the larger context of the degeneration of political discourse. There’s an advantage to be gained by assuming that issues are merely rhetorical, by binarizing the debate, and by demonizing your opponent instead of responding to what may be valid challenges.

Very good point, and although I am tempted to agree with the premesis based solely on my experience of how the mass media handle political issues, I do question whether political discourse is any more degenerate now than it has been.

Old-fashioned moralists use these tactics when they advocate censorship based on notions of obscenity or sedition. They advocate that society be allowed to decide which ideas, images, and discourse should be sanctioned or censored, according to their own definitions of what is acceptable. As support, they may invoke scripture or legal precedents based on similarly faulty reasoning to try and paint the debate as being exclusively rhetorical. They may be challenged to define ‘obscene’ in an objective sense; they may be asked whether censorship really solves the problem or exacerbates it. However, they ordinarily refuse to answer such criticisms, preferring to define the issue as an either-or choice between civility, democracy, and righteousness on the one hand, and exploitation, degeneracy, and chaos on the other. By stigmatizing dissent as treasonous or immoral, they effectively silence their opposition.

No argument here.

Unfortunately, moral crusaders can be found throughout the political spectrum. Everyone realizes “PC” is usually a straw man invoked by right-wingers to instill a siege mentality among their faithful, but there certainly are those who use the same tactics as the old-fashioned moralists in order to promote an agenda ostensibly more liberal but in fact just as dangerous to free thought.

Does everyone actually realize that "PC" is a strawman, though? I see the term bandied about so casually, and more than once people have reacted with wide-eyed shock when I questioned their use of it.

I think the agenda promotion in this case has been extremely successful, so much so that "PC" has become an axiomatic reference in political discourse.

By advocating censorship based on notions of hate speech, moralists are endorsing the same approbatory apparatus which will determine which ideas are acceptable in a supposedly free society. As support, they offer the writings of like-minded ideologues. They may be asked to make explicit the objective definition and limits of hate speech; they may be informed that hate-speech statutes have traditionally been used against the people they were intended to protect; they may be criticized for reliance on the very system that created and continues to benefit from the inequalities they’re trying to eradicate; they may be criticized as fostering conformism instead of the diversity they say is their goal. Instead of responding to these challenges, however, the moralists prefer to define the debate as a binary choice between diversity and righteousness on the one hand, and intolerance and privilege on the other. By demonizing anyone who disagrees with them as racist, sexist, or homophobic, they effectively silence opposition.

I've seen some extensive responses in debates about hate speech, certainly on college campuses which churn out opinionated egotists by the metric ton. I've also seen people from all over the political and economic spectrum advocate hate speech legislation. This variety is particularly notable in Europe, where free speech primacists are perhaps thinner on the ground than here in the United States.

But even accepting that many proponents of speech control do argue in much the same manner you've described, I think "PC" casts a far wider net than that, to the point where people proudly use racist terms and decorate themselves with the Un-PC Iron Cross.

The question is not how we make people think like us, but how tolerant we need to be concerning opinions which differ from ours. The oppressed and disenfranchised in our society rely on the broadening of discourse and the legitimization of dissent, not in promoting a siege mentality where certain ideas can neither be expressed nor heard.

I don't disagree. I just don't see that the chimera of Political Correctness as utilised over the past 10 years has much to do with a genuine beef about the siege mentality of advocates for the disenfranchised.

[Rafe Opsimath]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Does everyone actually realize that "PC" is a strawman, though? I see the term bandied about so casually, and more than once people have reacted with wide-eyed shock when I questioned their use of it.

And what was their answer?

In my first post I argued that there are leftists with legitimate concerns about problematizing discourse in a free society, regardless of the intended aims of the process. This isn't limited to hate speech legislation, but also the belief that words themselves have some sort of power to transform society for better or worse. The line cuts both ways: if moralists aren't allowed to assert that speech can cause corruption or degeneracy, then neither can they assert that speech alone can enslave or oppress.

But even accepting that many proponents of speech control do argue in much the same manner you've described, I think "PC" casts a far wider net than that, to the point where people proudly use racist terms and decorate themselves with the Un-PC Iron Cross.

Like I said, I don't believe that terms themselves are racist, or that their use should be subject to an approbatory process by me or anyone else. It seems futile to try to gauge the intent in each and every case where an offensive term is used, or to assume every use of the term is intended to denigrate and oppress.

We need to keep in mind the aim of the struggle: to end the systematic exclusion of certain groups from the decision-making processes in society. Racism and sexism won't go away just because better terms are sanctioned for their victims.

I just don't see that the chimera of Political Correctness as utilised over the past 10 years has much to do with a genuine beef about the siege mentality of advocates for the disenfranchised.

And thus you prove my point: even after I've made my argument, you assert that any concerns about "PC" must be motivated by right-wing paranoia. The debate has been allowed to become polarized because this benefits both extremes. Right-wingers can concoct an elaborate fantasy where the people their system disempowers are somehow controlling all public discourse, but we shouldn't console ourselves with similar delusions of persecution.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Rafe Opsimath

And thus you prove my point: even after I've made my argument, you assert that any concerns about "PC" must be motivated by right-wing paranoia.

Eh?

[Rafe Opsimath]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Eh?

Thank you for your substantial response.

livius and I seem to be generally in agreement, especially on the subject of hate speech legislation. However, I'm not sure why my argument concerning the polarization of the issue didn't ring true to him. He's correct (as I noted in my first post) that right-wingers overstate the influence of truly disenfranchised people over the tone of public discourse. However, let's not pretend there aren't problems with the way the importance of proper terminology has become paramount in this debate.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Rafe Opsimath

And what was their answer?

Variations on isn't it obvious, mainly, sprinkled with a fair number of vertically challenged strawmen. One person on another board I very occasionally post on replied when I questioned his claim that "PC thought police" had suppressed discussions of race during the OJ trial that "the politically correct thought police in fashion at the time" had as "first priority ... to bash away at the American white male in an attempt 'even the score'."

There just isn't a single part of that claim that is remotely accurate as far as I know, and the person making it was on all other topics eminently reasonable and even-tempered, and this is on a board not widely known for posters with those qualities. My questioning his assumptions about PC, though, really, really pissed him off. It was axiomatic for him, and he just couldn't figure out why I would question him unless I was looking to troll.

In my first post I argued that there are leftists with legitimate concerns about problematizing discourse in a free society, regardless of the intended aims of the process. This isn't limited to hate speech legislation, but also the belief that words themselves have some sort of power to transform society for better or worse. The line cuts both ways: if moralists aren't allowed to assert that speech can cause corruption or degeneracy, then neither can they assert that speech alone can enslave or oppress.

Why is enslavement and oppression the sole standard? I understand that some progressives make the argument that speech and oppression can be inextricably linked, but I haven't seen an assertion that speech alone can enslave or oppress.

I wouldn't agree with such an assertion if I did come across it, but then again, I think respect for others and their self-determined choices, even common courtesy, are reason enough to make the effort to avoid potentially offensive usage. They're certainly reason enough to avoid calling black people "coloreds" in the name of not lowering yourself to those silly PC shenanigans.

Like I said, I don't believe that terms themselves are racist, or that their use should be subject to an approbatory process by me or anyone else. It seems futile to try to gauge the intent in each and every case where an offensive term is used, or to assume every use of the term is intended to denigrate and oppress.

Fair enough, but intrisic meaning is not the issue to me; respect for other people's self-descriptive preferences is.

We need to keep in mind the aim of the struggle: to end the systematic exclusion of certain groups from the decision-making processes in society. Racism and sexism won't go away just because better terms are sanctioned for their victims.

No argument there.

And thus you prove my point: even after I've made my argument, you assert that any concerns about "PC" must be motivated by right-wing paranoia.

I made no such assertion.

The debate has been allowed to become polarized because this benefits both extremes. Right-wingers can concoct an elaborate fantasy where the people their system disempowers are somehow controlling all public discourse, but we shouldn't console ourselves with similar delusions of persecution.

I don't.

(I'm a woman, just for future pronoun references. )

[Morroskye]

I cannot possibly be as eloquent or well read as a majority of the posters here but I too am incensed at conservatives mocking "PC." I see that reaction by reactionaries as their yearning to use racial epithets against blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Arabs once again. To have the freedom once again to openly mock the disabled, elderly and those struggling with mental deficiencies. They can't wait to smack a possible homosexual against a wall and beat the crap out of him. To have the freedom to fire people based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. Interesting that this phenom is exclusively a White Man problem. I can't recall a black or another minority cheering for the pre-PC days. I know this makes me sound like a namby-pamby liberal, but I'll take that title anyday over the alternative spouted by the "Patriotic Right."

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Rafe Opsimath

Thank you for your substantial response.

My apologies. Let's try again.

Originally Posted by Rafe Opsimath

And thus you prove my point: even after I've made my argument, you assert that any concerns about "PC" must be motivated by right-wing paranoia.

The word "thus", in English, normally indicates that an inference is being offered as valid; or, at a minimum, that compelling though non-demonstrative evidence for a conclusion has been adduced. Your use of the term in your remark immediately above, addressed as it was to the quote from livius drusus, is therefore quite baffling. For neither the literal meaning, nor any connotation, nor any sentiment of

I just don't see that the chimera of Political Correctness as utilised over the past 10 years has much to do with a genuine beef about the siege mentality of advocates for the disenfranchised.

could possibly be confused by any competent speaker of English for

any concerns about "PC" must be motivated by right-wing paranoia.

Hence your claim -- that in writing the former livius drusus asserted the latter -- is rationally unrecoverable.



Or, more elegantly...

Eh?