Reply
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 07:16 am
Undoubtedly, huge parts of "Western civilized world" - countries like Canada, UK, France, Germany, basically all Northern America, and Europe excluding
post Soviet block countries, where I am from, is politically correct. I know a lot of people in the West as well as lot in post Soviet block and can compare.
Here, in the "East" people don't care if they say "when somebody buys a car, HE has to ..." We say such things all the time and nobody cares. But when I write or speak English, I make sure I write he or she, or they. I still cannot accept the word "she" when I mean a person in general.
What is interesting, in our country or other post Soviet countries it is still okay to make fun of women, fat women, stupid people etc. But the political correctness is slowly making it here.
Now when I had already thought that every single intelligent educated Western citizen is basically politically correct, I came across bestselling books by Jeremy Clarkson, a popular British journalist and writer. And althouth I thought I was antiracist, antisexist, anti all kinds of discrimination, I noticed I can easily accept his sense of humor and when reading his books, I LOL almost all the time.
He makes fun of vegetarians, Germans, fat women, sick old people, poor people, non smoking people, homosexuals, Americans, village people from Norfolk, all kinds of English people, he makes fun of Wales, Scotland, France, just about everything in the world, you name it. And I clearly realized I have no problem with that kind of humor. I myself don't smoke, don't have to eat meat, respect women of all sizes, am pretty poor, make friends with gay people, but feel immense gratitude that such a person like Clarkson still exists and his books are legally published.
Re: Politically incorrect humor?
stach wrote:
What is interesting, in our country or other post Soviet countries it is still okay to make fun of women, fat women, stupid people etc. But the political correctness is slowly making it here.
.
I apologize. I trust that in time you will come to despise political correctness.... it destroys discourse, weakens societies, it encourages individuals to play the victim as well as be petty little sh*ts.
Re: Politically incorrect humor?
hawkeye10 wrote:stach wrote:
What is interesting, in our country or other post Soviet countries it is still okay to make fun of women, fat women, stupid people etc. But the political correctness is slowly making it here.
.
I apologize. I trust that in time you will come to despise political correctness.... it destroys discourse, weakens societies, it encourages individuals to play the victim as well as be petty little sh*ts.
I feel the same way. There is huge difference between true respect and word games and legal games that are not based on honesty.
And it is not fair that while most Western women expect men to be nice, kind, fair and caring, they in fact prefer those who look and act like old school fellows. I think there is huge contradiction between the nature in us and what we are supposed to do and say. So we should realize both aspects are important - we are not animals any more and should be civilized and caring - on the other hand, inside we are still animals, no matter what. For example my gf did not feel attracted to me because I had told her I am a feminist. She was only interested in me when I had not called her for a month. Then she called and almost forced me to ask for a date.
I read that British women adore Clarkson because he represents the real man they can hardly find in Britain these days - they want their husbands to cook, wash dishes, be clean and polite, sing songs to their kids, but inside they dream about politically incorrect beast that refuses to wash dishes and loudly expresses his desire to sleep with an attractive slim girl.
To them, Clarkson is THE man. THE one they want to be seduced by. Real women don't like sissies, no matter how politically correct they are or no matter how many times they state they are non-smoking vegetarian feminists and grow plants.
stach wrote:they want their husbands to cook, wash dishes, be clean and polite, sing songs to their kids, but inside they dream about politically incorrect beast that refuses to wash dishes and loudly expresses his desire to sleep with an attractive slim girl.
I like that last part...
loudly expresses his desire to sleep with an attractive slim girl
I'm guessing that if a 'politically incorrect beast' as you put it, were to speak, he would use different adjectives to describe the girl he had designs on.
He'd probably say, "I think I'm gonna f*ck that good-lookin skinny bitch over there"
The dishonesty is appalling. It goes deeper than conversational dishonesty, in time people become dishonest with themselves as well. The habit of not seeing things as they really are because speaking the truth is not acceptable in public migrates into self talk as well. Then you get herds of idiots wondering around who don't even know who they are. It is a massive problem.
I see that you have women largely figured out.....Stach, you are a wise man.
it is kind of disappointing that my topic hasn't turned into flamewar
i hoped it would be controversial enough...
stach wrote:it is kind of disappointing that my topic hasn't turned into flamewar
i hoped it would be controversial enough...
You are a couple of years late, the subject has become a legit serious debate. So you were stirring the pot...good to know *files note away for future reference*
Nah, you are late in that long ago, most of the serious people who make such a fuss about "political correctness" realized that they too are trying to tell people how they should communicate.
Anti-political correctness is just as dumb as political correctness.
Robert Gentel wrote:Nah, you are late in that long ago, most of the serious people who make such a fuss about "political correctness" realized that they too are trying to tell people how they should communicate.
Anti-political correctness is just as dumb as political correctness.
Totally ignoring the reality that those who hold to PC tell others how to talk, those who don't say "talk how you want to". Your argument holds no water at all.
hawkeye10 wrote:
Totally ignoring the reality that those who hold to PC tell others how to talk, those who don't say "talk how you want to". Your argument holds no water at all.
My argument is that the "Anti-PC" crowd are just as annoying through their inordinate worry about how people talk. I think it holds plenty of water because yes, the anti-PC crowd
are a bunch of whiny, irritating folk.
You claim the anti-PC crowd is merely saying to "talk how you want to" but that is a load of garbage. They also take offense, not just to having people tell others how to talk, but to the very terms they deem too "sensitive".
There are crusaders on both sides of the aisle, some against terms deemed too insensitive and others against terms deemed too sensitive.
Those in the middle who don't care so much about the terms themselves as much as the idiots trying to tell others how to talk will often find both to be a nuisance.
Robert Gentel wrote:
There are crusaders on both sides of the aisle, some against terms deemed too insensitive and others against terms deemed too sensitive.
Those in the middle who don't care so much about the terms themselves as much as the idiots trying to tell others how to talk will often find both to be a nuisance.
Those who argue over language understand the importance of language choices not only in discourse but more importantly in thought. Those who promote PC make the mistake of thinking that they can change reality by controlling what is talked about and how it is talked about, and they deserve condemnation for that. Those who don't care about language control could probably use some exposure to the connection between linguistics and cognitive science so that they could at least understand what all of the fuss is about.
This really ought to get better quick.
You don't mind if I watch, do ya Hack?
RH
I think just about any subject can be a substrate for humor. Thus, for example, a2k's humor forum. That is something of a fairly recent development in my opinion and won't hold up re a full range of subjects, but I'll say that as my immediate general take.
I think calling people unkind words in real life is often thoughtless, often grossly immature or at least tunnel visioned, often cruel on purpose, serving to inflate the ego of the word caller, whether or not the object of derision is at hand. It can easily shut off any possible route of communication other than battling resentments. Still, people have a right to do this, short of liable, etc., in my opinion.
There is a present rule on a2k against using ad hominems in a discussion. Not always followed, certainly, but the tone of the site lends itself to civil communication between posters of wildly varying views. I view most of us here as in the process of learning how to communicate our views and argue well, and ad hominems to someone arguing with you, allowed or not, and gratuitous insults to the subjects of the argument - something near routine - are not particularly useful, especially when repetitive.
On the other hand, I am not proposing a pristine conversational platform.
Just thinking out loud...
Civility is important, rough and unpleasant language should be reserved for when it is important that the language reflect reality. If no good can came of saying something that others don't want to hear then it should not be said...this has been the rule of civility forever, nothing has changed about that.
Rockhead wrote:This really ought to get better quick.
You don't mind if I watch, do ya Hack?
RH
I suppose that I will have to settle for that given that you have proven to be incapable of ever having anything useful to say.
hawkeye10 wrote:
Those who argue over language understand the importance of language choices not only in discourse but more importantly in thought.
This here I can heartily agree with. Most of my interest in languages has more to do with being able to think in them than to speak them, as different languages have made me think differently and sometimes opened up concepts to me that I hadn't yet considered.
Quote:Those who promote PC make the mistake of thinking that they can change reality by controlling what is talked about and how it is talked about, and they deserve condemnation for that.
How exactly do these PC folk "control" speech? At most through condemnation of speech they don't agree with and yet you advocate condemnation against PC speech.
Ultimately, the anti-PC crowd are largely also condemning speech they disagree with and attempting to "control" speech in much the same manner.
Quote:Those who don't care about language control could probably use some exposure to the connection between linguistics and cognitive science so that they could at least understand what all of the fuss is about.
This is a rather weak "Emperor's new clothes" argument. Those who don't think like you:
- Don't care about language
- Are ignorant of some basic concepts of linguistics
While I can see the personal convenience of such dismissal of opposing viewpoints as being inherently inferior in their understanding of language I would like to forward this alternate theory:
Some people's pet peeve is inordinately insensitive language.
Some people's pet peeve is inordinately sensitive language.
A subset of each are willing to be inordinately obnoxious about it.
well, when I came across Jeremy Clarkson's books, I was just really surprised such kind of talk or write is still legal in the West
before J.C. I thought I would simply ridicule myself if I called a 25 year old woman "a girl"
but now I see it is not necessary to take everything so seriously, especially words - words are dangerous when they lead to actual crowd fanaticism or religious fanaticism
i think we don't reveal much about our real human quality when we talk about pretty chicks and nice boobs or when women talk about studs and stuff like that - it just shows that something primitive (and by primitive I don't mean necessarily wrong) is part of our human nature
there are times when we should speak carefully and times for fun and laid back talk
I once asked a group of Scottish women (not knowing one of them was actually not Scottish but English) about their opinion of the English and
the English woman called me "a racist". OMG. I have nothing against the English or Scottish but I believe you can just ask people about their opinions or impressions. People sometimes interpret everything you say or
every face you make not knowing what made you say or do those things.
Ulimately, political rectitude suffers from being what it advertises itself to be--political. To refer to your question, and not the silly attempt here to make this a partisan issue, the question of what constitutes humor is at the heart of your original post.
If what your acquaintance says is genuinely funny, than whether or not someone else contends that it is politically incorrect is meaningless. However, i would add the caveat that simple cruelty does not necessarily constitute humor. To laugh at a woman because she is large, what some people might call "fat" is to laugh at something she likely cannot control, and that's probably simple cruelty, and not humor. At the same time, some of the best jokes i've heard came from people laughing at themselves. The Irish are often capable of this, and one of the best jokes i've ever heard makes fun of a racist. I suggest you attempt to determine if your friend's remarks are genuinely humorous, or just a case of cruelly laughing at others for things they cannot help.
My problem is I only know the punch lines.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace