Freedom of Speech(not) and Politically Correct - Part Duex.

Censure has always existed, I think, as long as culture existed - it is part of what makes up daily cultural interactions.

I think PC goes too far when censure actually infringes on cultural behavior that's considered normal - like Christians not putting up decorations, or people restricting themselves in their native dialects - I suppose at some point, the censure might become another part of the culture, but it will not be a painless proccess or have a positive result.

Interesting - I didn't participate in part Un - PC goes too far when it prevents expression of valid comments for fear of their subtext being considered bigoted.

Actual discrimination makes my blood boil but sometimes normality requires that we look at those who are different and comment on that difference - without that we are all deliberately blind to the world.

Overall, I'm sympathetic to the desire to include and embrace rather than excude and insult, which seems to tie in with the purpose of PC in its best form.

KP

One avenue to explore with PC is the differences between intent and effect. Let's give a non-PC example.

When I do something dumb I call it idiotic. Or a brainfart. Or just plain insipid.

When others do or say something dumb I am inclined to use the same descriptors.

I don't mean any offense, but I know that it could be taken and I try to avoid those words. If they were directed at me, I would not mind at all.

And this is what the core of "PC" is to me. Conflict arises when people take up sides based on intent and effect.

If a guy tells a joke, while not meaning to offend, that offends someone there has been a difference between intent and effect. And frankly this is normal. This is not new.

I personally say many things that are not "politically correct". I think the feminist spellings of 'woman' are the height of stupidity. I think jokes comparing feminism to lesbianism are fine.

But I recognize that the sensitivities about those issues come from valid social concerns. I happen to think that the feminist spelling is idiotic but I recognize the deeply seated sexism in language.

I make jokes about how "every woman should try feminism once. You know, if they are at a party, kinda drunk, and they see a girl dancing in the corner..."

The first time I told a raging feminist one of these jokes she got mad. I'd not even realized that I was tapping into very typical ignorance about feminism. Many ignorant men really do think feminism is lesbianism and that it's not about women's rights and equality but just a "butch" movement.

I won't stop saying these things, but I am aware of the difference between my intent and my effect.

And everyone has different hot buttons, some of the things I'd get angry about are things that most would not care about. Having different hot buttons is a normal part of us having different personalities and sensitivities.

But what many of you miss is the deeper meanings behind these words.

Neither "PC" or "un-PC" are movements. But both are immensely political buzzwords.

"PC" is most often used to disparage not just over-sensitive acts but also liberal ideology and civil rights.

It's become a buzz-word used for political use. This is the part that many neglect.

I contend that it is a fallacy. Everything about the arguments used about "PC" is fallacious. "Un-PC" uses the very elements it criticises about PC.

Both are merely censure, and what for heaven's sake you will always have differences between people reacting based on intent or effect. This is axiomatic to human expression and has nothing to do with modern times.

The same thing can be taken two very different ways.

1) "Queen, all your relatives will die and leave you alone in this world."

"Off with his head."

2) "Queen, you will live a long and fruitfull life, outliving all your relatives."

"Why thank you kind knave."

Reacting differently to the way something is couched is a normal.

Of course there are times when sensitivities go overboard. Hell I can cite hundreds of examples (literally).

Like when a newspaper forbids advertising for real estate with terms like "ocean view" so as not to offend blind people.

Thing is, these are not cases of "political correctness" so much as cases of fallacious urban ledgends or simply lack of common sense.

Poor judgement is not a trademark of either side. Either side can be stupid.

There has always been linguistic and cultural sensitivities. Certain words have always been "edgy" and there has always been certain things you would gain censure for saying. In the past there were more cultural sensitivities than there are now. Heck people could show a married couple in the same bed on TV.

Some euphemisms simply sound too indirect. And there will always be those who differ on whether directness or subtlety should be used. This is normal. I call "PC" a fallacy because what it attempts to do is harness the popular appeal of "risqué" and "edgy" and create a disguised appeal to popularity.

The truth is the overwhelming majority of the US is "un-PC". The "un-PC" movement uses minority examples and makes an appeal to the majority. But not just to reject the poor common sense but to reject the "movement" altogether.

There is really no "PC" "movement" just as there is really no anti-PC "movement". People taking words and comments differently has and always will be with us.

What it is is just cultural tolerance. And frankly the people who use the call against "PC" as a disguised attack on civil rights and tolerance are pernicious. They highlight extremities in the lack of common sense to assail the rights and tolerance that certain peoples have fought hard for.

And the people who simply go for the ride, unknowingly supporting a "backlash" to civil rights are simply idiotic fools.

You are taking a very simple part of communication (misunderstandings and differences between "intent" and "effect") and politicizing it. You are supporting a "backlash" to the tolerance society has simply because like the majority you like to think you are "edgy", just like everyone else.

It's sad and pathetic. Be like everyone else and act like you are different if you want. But don't use this particular idiocy to tap into this "un-PC" trend. By doing so you are buying the great lie.

"Image is nothing, being 'edgy' is everything. So be like everyone else and say you don't like 'political correctness'. Find rare isolated examples of lacking common sense and then use them to assail the cultural tolerance people fought hard for. After all, it makes you feel oh-so-cool and cutting edge to be like everyone else and assail the straw man of 'political correctness' just because there are isolated incidents where common sense lapses."

Well said, Craven.

You are also right that, for all the discussion of "political correctness gone mad" (as many in the UK would have us believe), it only shows its excesses in certain locations - e.g. San Francisco, according to a friend who's just moved there from London.

You are also right that the jokes used by some reflect real views held by others - when context is lost, only then can offense actually be taken (your feminist at the party, who didn't know that YOU know the difference between feminism and lesbianism).

KP

Wow, Craven, glad you got that out of your system. I am not now, nor have I ever been oh-so cool or into any trend one way or another. I asked a question because I'm interested in how people percieve PC. But if you wanna throw grenades at me for asking, go right ahead.
Sorry, I thought A2K was for asking questions, had I known that everytime I hit your particular hot button I would be percieved as 'sad and pathetic' I would not have bothered.

Perhaps this falls along the same lines but another item to look at is the public criticism of word use merely based on word selection. The "typical" PC comments aren't directed at the intended meaning of the word but the word used itself.

A could example of this is the transition from using "negro" to "black" and then to "African American". All three words mean the exact same thing in plain usage. Somewhere along the line it was decided that "negro" held negative connotations so the use of "black" was pushed and anyone that failed to do so was labeled as a racist and a bigot. The same thing happened later on with the transition to "African American" but that one didn't quite stick for any number of reasons and "black" is still used widely.

But when you put a sentence together you can choose any one of the 3 and the sentences all have the exact same meaning so the key here isn't a censure of the idea or meaning, it's simply a censure of word choice.

SKIT: "I didn't throw grenades at you Celi. Stop being so over-sensitive and politically correct."

Do you not see the irony? I was not even talking about you. You have just witnessed the difference between intent and effect.

If you are offended I apologize. But I really should be railing against a "PC" movement to follow the spirit of this thread.

Yes, I really do think the "un-PC" movement is sad pathetic and that the followers act like absolute idiots and are gullible beyond belief. Would you have me say something else to be more "politically correct"? Or did you simply take offense when I intended none for you?

Either way, it is simply a difference between intent and effect. I intended to make a general comment about how insipid and idiotic I find the "un-PC" movement to be. I find this perfectly reasonable considering how you try to label "PC" as an "ugly beast ".

You decided to take it personally. <shrugs>

This is far too ironic.

Why do you think you can call "PC" an " ugly beast" and denigrate it but if I say that the "un-PC" movement is peopled by idiots of the lowest caliber you take offense?

Is your censure "PC"? Do you not get the irony?

I agree that this is one of the huge complexities. Loaded words that obstensibly have the same meaning.

Heck we don't have inherent knowledge that certain words are taken those ways. It's understandable to see confusion.



Yep, I remember the first time I called a black dude "boy". Heck I never use teh word "coloured" but I just recently (a year ago) learned that blacks dislike the term.




Yep, and wanna know somethin'? When I mess up and use a loaded word I am not over-sensitive to its censure.

If people call me a bigot or racist for a linguistic gaffe I shrug it off.

And one more irony is that the ün-PC" crowd exhibits over-sensitivity about censure.



Yep, different loaded words. A linguistic minefield.

And this really has little to do with "PC".

HEck in some areas words are treated differently. Calling a woman a "broad" is not really nice anywhere but in some areas it's a fighting word.

Such is the nature of language. People use different definitions. <shrugs>

I once "moonlighted" for a philosophy professor. Once, while chatting with him and having a coffee before going home, he invited me to listen to and comment on a recording of one of his personal standard lectures. What follows is not a verbatim transcript, but rather a good paraphrase from memory:

"Jack and Sue have a date. After returning to Sue's apartment, she invites Jack in, and while sitting on the couch, she kisses him, they begin to fondle one another, and then Jack removes her panties, and, over her objections, engages in sexual intercourse. Is this rape?"

(Loud assent in mostly female voices, some snickering which sounds like the males.)

"OK, same situation, but when they begin to fondle one another, Sue allows Jack to remove her brassiere, then he removes her panties, and engages in sexual intercourse over her objections. Is this rape?"

(Assent from mostly female voices, but not as loudly as before, more snickering, some male voices saying no.)

"Same situation, but Sue allows Jack to remove all of her clothing, other than her panties, which he removes over her objections, and engages in sexual intercourse, again over her objections. Is this rape?"

(Some shouted "yeses" in female voices, lots of loud "nos" in male and female voices. No one is laughing now.)

"Alright, Jack and Sue are necking on the sofa, Sue begins to vigorously fondle Jack, and allows him to remove her clothing, and then Jack engages in sexual intercourse over her objections. Is this rape?"

(Many loud "nos" in male and female voices. A few "yeses" in female voices, less forceful than before. Sounds of heated argument among the students.)

I won't give any more of the lecture, but he did make even more specific conditions, and the sounds of debate, even of bitter argument among the students was plain. We got into a long discussion of not necessarily rape, but of the changed circumstances of the relations between men and women. This was in the mid-1980's, at a time when there was just beginning to be a reaction to militant feminism which had already become powerful and intrusive on college campuses.

My point in this is more than simply pointing out how an ethical stand can be betrayed by situational considerations. This was the same Univesity at which i had been verbally attacked by a woman during a job interview who accused me of almost every variety of sexism because i had referred to one of the females there as "the lady in the outer office." But the interesting aspect was that the students to whom he had been lecturing, most 18 or 19 years of age, were largely oblivious to the heated cultural debate of feminism which had begun in the late 1960's, about the time most of them had been born. They were responding to his questions more or less honestly based upon their judgment of the situation, as opposed to an ideology which they had embraced, or believed they were obliged to embrace. He contended that in further discussion, those few women continued to object that any scenario in which the fictional couple engaged in sexual intercourse despite Sue's objection constituted rape, while the majority of students pointed to her responsiblity for the degree of expectation on Jack's part.

The dogmatic adherence to political rectitude which grew out of the militancy of the late 1960's has been as rigid, or the attempt to impose it as rigidly applied, as the most fanatical religious observances. The students who were willing to discuss the topic in terms of relative responsibility for the outcome of a situation in which both parties were to some point active participants displayed an attempt to honestly judge circumstances without reference to a code of thought. The few die-hards who contended that the result was rape regardless of the preliminaries seemed to me to have been motivated by a dogmatic adherence to a description of male-female relationships based in a theory of personal control (perhaps one of which they were unaware) which was not grounded in either reality or a concept of justice and responsibility.

Whether one discusses feminism, or race, or ethnicity, or politics, or religion--there is a line to be drawn between the casually offensive remark and the honest statement of dissent or criticism. In another thread, in which i had criticized the religiously fanatical for their attempts to interfer in the lives of others, i was accused of being "liberal critic" indulging in cant. I responded that my criticism was reserved for those who attempted to interfer in the legal activities or expressed opinions of others--that homosexuality is legal, that cohabitation by unmarried couples is legal, that the belief in and teaching of the theory of evolution is legal, etc., etc. What i was accused of is the conservative equivalent of political rectitude. But the situations are not equivalent. If i criticize the religious, without attempting to interfer in their adherence to a set of beliefs, or their expression of their beliefs, that is qualitatively a far different thing from the activities of the religious which attempt to interfer with the legal activities of those with whom they disagree. By the same token, there is significant qualitative difference between criticizing someone who has a job because they are black, or female, or Hispanic, and performs the job poorly--and simply criticizing them with a blanket statement about the ineptitude of blacks, or women, or Hispanics. There is a significant qualitative difference between condemning Jews for being Jews, and criticizing the policies of the state of Israel.

Political rectitude is the child of leftist militancy, but it has come to permeate all of social and political and religious discourse in our society. As often as not, in fact i would say more often than not, it is used to shield those who object from legitimate cricticism for specific behaviors, or failures to act, by accusing the critic of racism, sexism, etc.

Not an easy topic, but nothing in the life of society which is worth one's effort to understand and deal with effectively is ever easy.

Setanta, at what point would you say that the "un-PC" trend is, itself, political rectitude?

Uh, this is about when "No means no" became big, right? And what's wrong with "No means no"? Really. No matter what came first, if Sue expressed objection, it's rape. Is the point of this exercise supposed to be that there are extenuating circumstances? That men get all het up to the point of no return and if a woman changes her mind, that's just too bad?

Anyway, I know that's tangential. But if that is your example of how militant feminism took over college campuses, uh, OK.

I actually selected this quote first to address the part about what these young women supposedly did and didn't know, but I found it hard to pass by that little story without comment.

But to get back to that -- I think I am probably roughly contemporaneous with the group you mention, and the "largely oblivious" part strikes me as a mistaken impression. It was very much a part of the discourse, lots of books by 60's feminists being read, Take Back the Night marches, "If Men Could Menstruate" being read by everyone, etc., etc.

Now, I do have a book called "The Sexual Politics of Meat" that I kept because I was absolutely dumbfounded that such a book would be taken seriously in a college class, and was the resident crank in several women's studies classes. ("All sex is rape... Yes, sozobe, I see you scowling and waving your hand around, you have already interrupted me 500 times today, just let me finish, please?")

But if you're talking about a college professor seeking to prove women wrong for thinking that a situation is rape when a women expressed her objections but but but she allowed this guy to remove her clothing and even... wait for it... vigorously fondled him!!! then perhaps that militant feminism was necessary. Good for those few women who held fast. No means no, it ain't all sloganeering.

I think one of the examples was misstyped or something.

I thought maybe it would switch from girl saying no to guy saying no to examine the differences.

As it stands I agree with soz. In each of the examples I read it's a simply case of imposing one's sexual will over the objections of the woman.

As clear cut a set of cases as I can imagine.

It's not like it's militant feminism of the type that says women should be able to vote or drive or anything. That's when it goes overboard.

Of course my point was not to attack the concept of no means no. You will note that i had pointed out that the professor in question had continued to describe the situation in terms of more and more responsibility for the situation on the part of the fictional Sue. Personally, my ethos includes a concept of "no means no." That does not mean that i am so naive as not to recognize that there are situations in which such behavior is a power trip on the part of the woman involved; or, that there are situations in which a young man who may not have the same ethical standards, or may have none at all, doesn't understand that no means no, or doesn't believe it. You make the point yourself when you refer the the lunatic contention on the part of Brownmiller that all sex constitues rape. In fact, this was the eventual destination of the lecturer, who was, you might recall, teaching philosophy, not women's studies nor mid-20th century political theory. He did not have a brief to defend such behavior after any particular point in the described fictional account; rather, he wished for his students to understand the difference between thinking for oneself, and simply adopting a dogmatic position.

As for the extent to which you personally were aware of the nature of the social discourse with regard to feminism, rape, sexuality, power and personal control which took place in the mid- and late-1960's, i would counter that if you were truly aware of its scope and details at age 18, you were very much an exception. There is a huge difference between knowing that there is feminism, and knowing the details of the terms of the debate which took place at a time when one was an infant or a toddler. Once cannot assume simply knowing that there is feminism and an ongoing debate on the subject is equivalent to knowing of and understanding the theory and dogma of Susan Brownmiller and her militant sisters. Equally, if one is to assume that an 18 year old woman is sufficiently aware to know the basic terms of feminism, that she should equally be aware of the extent to which, in the mid-1980's, feminism was not a part of the ethics of most families, that she should be equally aware that many young men were raised by fathers for whom feminism was not relevant, or who even derided feminism. Without saying that this describes you, i would point out that the student of any complex discipline who does not understand that said discipline is unknown to, vaguely understood or misunderstood, by the majority of the population--is someone who is not living in the real world. The idiot judge who recently made the comment about how unattractive the victim of an alleged rape was is to be heavily censured, because someone on the bench is considered to be well-educated and required to be well-informed, therefore having no defense of not having known better. For a middle aged factory worker to have made the same remark twenty years ago is, however, far more understandable--such a man would be the product of a culture dominated by 16th-century, old world Protestant patriarchical views, views which see women as chattel and not independent persons in their own right.

My point in all of this is not a discussion of the rights or wrongs of the feminist position that no means no; it is rather to point to the extent to which adherence to dogma in any and all situations is either abdication of one's intellectual capacities, or evidence of a lack thereof. To advert directly to the "no means no" issue, any woman who carries on a physically accelerating sexual encounter with a man, which reaches a point at which they are both prone and naked, who then says no, can likely make a legal contention of having been raped if her "no" is ignored. To fail to recognize the injustice of such a position past a certain degree of consenting intimate behavior is to be both intellectually dishonest and blindly dogmatic. To push someone's buttons to the point at which they punch you in the mouth would very likely afford you the opportunity to make a case for assault; it would also be a case in which you had yourself to thank to a great extent for the destruction of your dental work.

The culture of African-Americans is to a large extent misogynistic. Saying as much might well draw down upon me an accusation of racism. It is the quintessence of disingenuous political rectitude not to acknowledge, however, the very real basis for making such a statement. I don't believe in situational ethics, although i understand what those who use such a term intend. I would respond that if one's ethos changes dependant upon the situation, one is not ethical at all. However, not to recognize that the change in situation involves a change in the application of one's ethos is folly as well, as the application of justice depends very narrowly and proximately upon a finitely detailed description of the situation in which one attempts to be just.

I would first ask to what trend you refer. Most objections to political rectitude of which i am aware are simply a reversal of the tenets of what is described as political rectitude: one side or the other in a debate of political polar opposites using the term to bludgeon the other side. I would dispense with political rectitude by simply ignoring it--i consider that one has an obligation to society to attempt to be just with their fellows in that society. That makes life difficult; i've never met anyone who could produce their certificate exempting them from difficulties in life.

Well, naming a trend can be tough.

I've been hearing the railings against 'political correctness' since I was a child.

dlowan says it well.

"Anti-PC is the new PC."



I agree, this is pretty much what I was saying. It's a tactic from either side used to censure.



Amen!

When faced with censure I either voice disagreement, agreement or just ignore the censure as not worth responding to.

Responding to it with censure is odd if censure is what's being objected to.



Yep, reasonable persons can differ on what is or is not just. Everyone will run afoul of someone's sensitivities.

Yes, one cannot avoid "stepping on toes." Tap-dancing on someone's pedal digits is, however, to be condemned.

That's the way I see it.

One of the crucial issues I see is the "did nothing wrong but offended" dillema.

Some things will offend. And when that offense is noted people seem to think that they need to retract what's said in order to be contrite.

An option given too little consideration is to be sincerely sorry for the offense but not sorry for what was said.

For example if I were to say that I think militant feminism is silly some would certainly disagree. Others might take offense.

I'd be sorry for offending them but I'd still say it is silly. People can be free to censure me on that if they choose to.

I think that one shouldn't be afraid of censure. And one can still try to avoid offense without giving up on vociferation.

"Sorry for offending, but my opinion remains the same. The Beatles had no talent."

Ah, but they had a great agent.

Call me simple-minded (and sorry for making a step back in the discussion again) - but I'm with Craven and Sozobe: as soon as someone, man or woman, expresses an objection to continuing with sex, then the other has to stop. Period. Like Craven said, clear-cut it is.

I am aware, of course, that though this sounds totally clear-cut to me, it seems there is a generational border across which it sounds wholly different. I had a couple of long discussions about this with my father, an otherwise progressive intellectual, who insisted on "the responsibility of the woman" - who apparently should have realised that you "can't take a man past point X and still expect him to be able to stop".

Such bullshit, I thought then, and still do. What child-like pansies are men who are "not able to stop".

Doesnt mean, of course, that you're, like, necessarily expected to be smiley-faced and apologetic about it. All depends I guess. Anyone (man or woman) is liable to instinctively feel pissed off at being stopped at the last minute. Whether thats gonna show or not - whether you'll just quickly put yourself over that or will sulk or grumble about it, I guess all depends on the situation. Whom it is you're with, whether you care for her/him, what other contextual issues between you it might feed back into, why you think (s)he said "no" at the last moment, how easily you can imagine what many reasons (s)e might have had to say no at the last moment

I mean, you mention women who might go through this routine as some kind of power-trip. Those might well exist, there's plenty nasty people. Personally I think that, when a situation as described by that professor occurs, the last-minute second thoughts are a lot more likely to express a range of other emotions or responses. Say, fear - or something that triggered a traumatic memory, for example. But let's suppose, for the moment, that a woman does go through this routine purely as a kind of power-trip. That might make her a bitch, perhaps. But it still wouldnt make it any more OK to rape her. Or - more relevantly - it doesnt have any bearing on whether it would, in fact, be rape to continue over her objections. My opinion, anyhow. And I think there'd actually be even more "yeses" in a college audience now than in the early eighties.

To finally get to what I think was your point (sorry for the detour) - way I read it, you brought up the example as an illustration of how theoretical dogma doesnt hold up to the situational complexities of individual occurrences. But it doesnt illustrate that well, at all, imho. Whatever the motivation of the woman in the anecdote was to say no at the last moment, it doesnt change the fact that continuing after it equals having sex against the other's objections - ergo, rape. Thats pretty much dictionary-clear. Now you can go into those projected motivations to explain or defend why the guy felt upset at her afterwards or whatever - but I dont see how that touches on the logic of "sex+objections=rape" itself.

I can see your point that, you know, if you take someone into a situation where he is likely to feel angry or disappointed, you are liable to get into trouble, and therefore its wiser not to go there. But your other example about mouth-punching actually already makes the case for PC (if the whole professor-anecdote is to be considered to be about PC).

See, yeh, its not wise to get a mobster drunk and then call him a pussy in public - you might well get your head blown apart. Yet no-one would suggest that, therefore, blowing someone's head apart should, situationally, be any less forbidden - or that the "dogma" that shooting people's brains out is wrong is somehow contextually relative, if you just think about it, yourself. Its PC at its most rational, I'd say: laying down minimum groundlines to adhere to at all times - no matter what the context. No matter how much a macho you are and what dirty words your enemy calls you, you're still NOT to shoot someone - says the law. No matter what a woman does to you or what "cockteaser" she is (thats the word, right?), you're still NOT to continue with sex over her objections, cause thats rape - and the reason it is in the lawbooks now as rape, is thanks to PC having set these new groundrules about it. Thanks to PC you will now be convicted for rape in that anecdote - whereas in 1958 you might well not have been.