So-Called Political Correctness

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Yes! That's so true, and again, it always seems to be progressive or leftist positions which get painted with this crusty, threadbare brush, particularly ones grounded in minority empowerment struggles. Think discrimination still exists? You're just being PC, most likely to get some of that fine PC-loving pussy.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to get some fine pussy. Who doesn't want fine pussy (with the exception of heterosexual women and gay men)?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

take the recent ncaa banning of all native american mascots from national championship play. the florida state seminoles are one such team, even though they have official sanction to use the name from the seminole tribal council.

That reminds me of a local spat over the High School mascot. Some officials want to change the Native american mascot because it's offensive to native americans. Even though multiple polls of the area show native americans supporting the name and being proud of our school, seeing it as a way turn an old racist name into a positive.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

conversely, college universities punish unacceptable speech with a closeminded dogmatic approach, because it is unacceptable thought. things that are deemed offensive. sometimes when the term politically correct is used it is incredibly accurate,

I disagree. Entire countries in Europe have hate speech laws. They're not on the books because governments want everyone to toe the party line. Hell, most of those countries have many, many parties, all with distinctly different lines. They believe that some speech crosses the line into action, that it is damaging as such. If a private institution in the United States shares that belief, I don't see what "PC" has to do with it.

I don't agree with the anti hate speech regs I've seen (although admittedly I've seen them bitched about far more than I've actually seen the regs themselves), but the claim that they're motivated by the ever-nebulous "political correctness" strikes me as easily said and never, ever backed up.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

take the recent ncaa banning of all native american mascots from national championship play. the florida state seminoles are one such team, even though they have official sanction to use the name from the seminole tribal council.

That's an excellent example, actually. Who precisely do you think the NCAA was pandering to when it banned those symbols? Obviously they weren't pandering to the local Seminole council, so what's the "politically correct" element here?

What if they were simply convinced by an argument? I've seen some excellent ones against tribal mascots for sports teams. My favorite for sheer euphonia was when a guy I saw on Oprah once asked if anyone would put up with a football team called the Washington Zulus, nevermind the Washington Darkies.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Ari

That reminds me of a local spat over the High School mascot. Some officials want to change the Native american mascot because it's offensive to native americans. Even though multiple polls of the area show native americans supporting the name and being proud of our school, seeing it as a way turn an old racist name into a positive.

Similar lame situation at my high school. Which was exceptionally stupid, because all the schools in my district had people groups (as opposed to animals) as their mascots. Our cross-town rivals were the Cowboys (Cowboys and Indians, get it?) and the other schools were Centurians and Vikings. I didn't hear anybody talking about the other schools changing their names because they were offensive to our Nordic ancestry or anything lame like that. They were going to call us the Lions, and we were going to show our solidarity by changing the word "Indians" to "Lions" in our Fight Song, but not change any of the other lyrics. The last line of the song actually was pretty offensive: "Bring another scalp back home." Hehe. AFAIK they are still the Indians, though. Yay!

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

What if they were simply convinced by an argument?

No, because they're closed-minded and dogmatic. That's what PC is. We know this because they banned the mascots, and that's PC.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I disagree. Entire countries in Europe have hate speech laws. They're not on the books because governments want everyone to toe the party line. Hell, most of those countries have many, many parties, all with distinctly different lines. They believe that some speech crosses the line into action, that it is damaging as such. If a private institution in the United States shares that belief, I don't see what "PC" has to do with it.

I don't agree with the anti hate speech regs I've seen (although admittedly I've seen them bitched about far more than I've actually seen the regs themselves), but the claim that they're motivated by the ever-nebulous "political correctness" strikes me as easily said and never, ever backed up.

but the idea that some speech is completely unacceptable and should be banned is a bullshit position in my opinion. I am for more freedom not less. hate speech is a leftist position. on the other hand banning immoral speech is a position of the right and I am opposed to both.

Originally Posted by liv

That's an excellent example, actually. Who precisely do you think the NCAA was pandering to when it banned those symbols? Obviously they weren't pandering to the local Seminole council, so what's the "politically correct" element here?

What if they were simply convinced by an argument? I've seen some excellent ones against tribal mascots for sports teams. My favorite for sheer euphonia was when a guy I saw on Oprah once asked if anyone would put up with a football team called the Washington Zulus, nevermind the Washington Darkies.

actually my point was that the ncaa is obviusly not pandering to native americans, as quite a few polls have shown that they dont have a problem with some of the school names. in america we are hypersensitive to african american issues, also I doubt that the washington darkies would get approval by the black community.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

but the idea that some speech is completely unacceptable and should be banned is a bullshit position in my opinion. I am for more freedom not less. hate speech is a leftist position. on the other hand banning immoral speech is a position of the right and I am opposed to both.

This is a false dichotomy, bey, and exactly the kind of caricature of real politicals the myth of "political correctness" hath wrought. I am a leftist, for example, and am not a fan of anti-hate speech legislation. The ACLU is practically the Supreme Soviet according to the Rushes of the world, and they are "for more freedom not less".

Meanwhile, colleges all over the country, including conservative ones, regulate all kinds of limitations on speech. Countries all over the world, including ones with conservative governments, implement all kinds of legislation on speech. It's not about left-right, and the people who do advocate hate speech legislation have genuine reasons, so calling it "PC" and implying it's those wacky leftist trying to stifle us all to preserve somebody's tender feelings is a strawman caricature.

actually my point was that the ncaa is obviusly not pandering to native americans, as quite a few polls have shown that they dont have a problem with some of the school names. in america we are hypersensitive to african american issues, also I doubt that the washington darkies would get approval by the black community.

That doesn't answer my question. What does the NCAA's decision have to do with so-called "PC"? If they were simply persuaded that Native American team names and mascots suck, why does that immediately have to be dismissed as some kind of playing politcs pander instead of a genuine decision?

Redskins is a racial slur, no less than darkie and quite a bit more, really, since it describes the bloodied scalps of Indians -- male, woman and child -- brought in for bounty. So really it's more like the Washington Lynched Niggers.

You don't have to be "hypersenstive" to find that offensive, nor do you have to have permission of the NA community to want to change that kind of shit.

PS - I'm so glad you posted on this thread. I knew you'd be all quit your bitching, you PC pinko cunt.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by liv

If a private institution in the United States shares that belief, I don't see what "PC" has to do with it.

I could easily be mistaken, but I think there are puh-LENTY state funded schools that also have similar policies.

[livius drusus]

I'd like to see some actual evidence just because people bandy this kind of shit about a lot without ever backing it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if state schools have regs on hate speech as well.

Again, though, why is that "PC" instead of a genuine, honestly-derived position? That's what I'm railing against in my OP, the idea that people or institutions are "just being PC" because they want to counter discrimination as they see fit.

[D. Scarlatti]

Some state schools have, for example, policies against sexual harassment that conservatives have characterized as "hate speech laws." Free speech isn't absolute, never has been.

[Veritas]

I object to the phrase 'hate crimes'. Aren't all crimes hateful?

Honestly, you'll be bringing out the sexual harassment panda next!

[LadyShea]

polls have shown that they dont have a problem with some of the school names

That word, some, is the crux of the issue. Some of the names are offensive, some aren't. For consistency and ease of enforcement, it seems better to simply disallow all Native American mascot names, rather than conduct polls and studies to figure out which ones are offensive to whom.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I'd like to see some actual evidence just because people bandy this kind of shit about a lot without ever backing it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if state schools have regs on hate speech as well.

Here's the ACLU's position paper on campus hate-speech codes at state funded institutions. Unfortunately it's over 10 years old and doesn't really address the statistics anyway. I'll see if I can find more info about this.

ETA:

Okay, the First Amendment Center has lots of good info on this subject.

'Political correctness'
The Connecticut example, however, raises a far more disquieting issue. The erection of these [speech] codes in the late 1980s and the early 1990s was done, at least in part, in response to dogged pressures brought by groups determined to use the authority of the university to eliminate harassment and discrimination while pressing their own causes. As former university president Sheldon Hackney has observed: “[I]n this kind of argument, one is either right or wrong, for them or against them, a winner or a loser. Real answers are the casualties of such drive-by debate. This may be good entertainment, but it … only reinforces lines of division and does not build toward agreement.”

As so-called political correctness ignited a nationwide debate about what universities could and should restrict, many liberals found themselves in the awkward position of supporting the very limitations on expression that they had fought against during and after the great McCarthy Red Scare of the 1950s and 1960s, and campuses divided into camps for and against. Moreover, states during these years also adopted bans on speakers, most notably those associated with the Communist Party. Hence, a new and left-wing form of political oppression seemed to be replacing an older, right-wing one, with the same effect: The views and voices of some were curtailed.

[D. Scarlatti]

Another excellent resource:

Complete Listing of College and University Speech Codes

(The link at that page takes you off-site, but I recommend bookmarking firstamendmentcenter.org first.)

[viscousmemories]

Crosspost. Brilliant minds and all that.

[D. Scarlatti]

Teehee.

(Kermit L. Hall is a god, by the way.)

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That word, some, is the crux of the issue. Some of the names are offensive, some aren't. For consistency and ease of enforcement, it seems better to simply disallow all Native American mascot names, rather than conduct polls and studies to figure out which ones are offensive to whom.

I think they all suck period. Whether any given Native American finds any given name offensive isn't the standard for me. I think it's a holdover of really crappy old days when Indians were presented either as the Noble Savage or just the plain Savage, when their rituals and symbols were without a second thought used as toys for the amusement of their conquerors.

The name "Braves" may not be as baldly racist as "Redskins", but a glance at the "Chief Wahoo" mascot underscores pretty clearly how callously, carelessly racist the underpinnings of these team names are. Rejecting that kind of baggage isn't coddling other people's "PC" sensibilities, from my perspective. It's just your basic prioritizing of principle.

(I'm not saying you disagree, Shea, btw. Just using your post as a springboard for another rant is all. )

[livius drusus]

Oh coolness! Thank you, vm and Scarlatti. I shall read diligently between desultory bouts of work.

[LadyShea]

The Seminoles is the only name I don't think is offensive in any way as it is a proper name. I don't disagree with the rest of your post, just wanted to clarify my position.

[Clutch Munny]

There are at least two issues running in parallel here: whether speech codes and the like are reasonable or not; and whether it makes any sense whatever to call them "politically correct". Livius, it seems to me, is willing to engage the former but is primarily pissed about the latter.

If we just want to regard the phrase "politically correct" as a string of letters standing for the concept "stuff I think is stupid", it would be nice to have this universally made explicit.

But as long as we understand it to include the English word "politically" and the English word "correct" -- as long as we don't treat these like we treat the string 'cat' as it occurs in 'cattle' -- then anyone who blithely labels this or that politically correct owes some argument for the decision.

And anyone who uses the phrase to describe actions that are politically difficult, or foreseeably politically unpopular, needs his head examined and a free dictionary.

So far as I can see, the main point of using the expression seems to be the conjuration of some huge demographic of stupid liberals being pandered to.

[BDS]

When I was in college outside of Cleveland, my friends and I dreamt of buying the Cleveland Indians and changing the name to the Cleveland Negroes.

Then we would hire the baddest, most malcontented black baseball players to play on the team.

Then we would trade for Pete Rose (who was still playing at the time), and make him sit on the bench.

"But coach," Pete would argue. "I'm better than Curt Hendricks! He doesn't even run out singles! I'll never break Ty Cobb's record on the bench!"

"Just be patient, Pete. You'll get your chance eventually."

By the way, rudeness is rude, but I don't think it should be illegal.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by BDS

Then we would hire the baddest, most malcontented black baseball players to play on the team.

Sort of an Oakland Raiders of baseball.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

But as long as we understand it to include the English word "politically" and the English word "correct" -- as long as we don't treat these like we treat the string 'cat' as it occurs in 'cattle' -- then anyone who blithely labels this or that politically correct owes some argument for the decision.

And anyone who uses the phrase to describe actions that are politically difficult, or foreseeably politically unpopular, needs his head examined and a free dictionary.

What about "politically excessive"? I think that might be what a lot of people are really complaining about when they say "politically correct". For example, from that link I provided above:

These [speech] codes frequently became parodies of themselves and even the subject of satirical skits on late-night television programs such as "Saturday Night Live." As Robert O’Neil points out, perhaps the most notable example came from the University of Connecticut. Its policy, which was struck down by a federal court, went so far as to make “inappropriately directed laughter” and “conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions” violations of its speech policy.

I think I can see how someone would call that "politically correct", when what they really mean is "politically excessive". I think I should probably go look up 'politically' now, though, because it's occuring to me that I'm not really sure what it means.

[Clutch Munny]

Why "politically", vm?

Excessive, maybe. But an Arby's meal isn't politically repulsive. It's just repulsive.

[viscousmemories]

I think of 'political' as of or pertaining to matters of institutional authority. So university speech codes would be a political matter. I'm not sure if that's really what the word means, though, and the dictionary isn't much help. It says political is "Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state."

Aren't mandates from school governments 'political', then?