Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Pardon me for attempting rational conversation. Carry on with your shadowboxing.

Jeez, a guy can't have no fun no more.

In case anyone is confused, I was just trying to get in a little joke.

I thought everyone would get the irony of me pretending not to understand the offensiveness of the "f- word".

I wouldn't use the word, and I understand that it is hurtful.

I understood Snood.

But isn't there also room in a discussion of political correctness to discuss hypersensitivity, unintended offense, overreaction, and misunderstandings? Also the expectation that anybody and everybody ought to understand syndrome and therefore nobody should be excused from giving offense whether or not it was intended?

The notion that there could be any substantive or lasting harm form Mitt Romney using the term "Tar Baby" (even if it was intentionally racist) is absurd.

I have no doubt that some people were offended by the use of the word.

So what?

The term is not inherently racist. It does not come close to being in the same league as "jig-a-boo," or "liver-lips," and does any intelligent person really believe that Romney used it in an intentionally racist manner? Websters will, typically, indicate if a word has a social connotation and it does not with Tar Baby.

"Nigger," "Jig-A-Boo," "Liver Lips," do not have usage without racist intent. They are, without question, slurs and their use cannot be misinterpreted.

A common argument is that because someone is offended by a given word (irrespective of its actual meaning and usage) considerate individuals should refrain from using it.

This is ridiculous.

I would like to say I am amazed that the absurd debacle around the use of "niggardly" in Washington DC has been so readily put on a shelf, but I am not. This was the classic example of PC run amok, but apparently it only warrants a footnote in the discussion of so-called offensive language.

A fair argument is that a politician probably should be hyper-sensitive about his or her use of language. I concur, considering that a politician, by nature, wants to make people happy, but should one fail to demonstrate the necessary hyper-caution the conclusion I draw is that

a) He is not a particularly skilled politician
b) He has made a conscious decision not to pander to the PC Police
c) He is deliberately trying to stir up a controversy
d) He is unaware that the term might be considered offensive by some small group

Unless the word used is unquestionably offensive (see above for examples), the conclusion will never be that he is an offensive lout.

Of course as free as Romney should be to use "tar baby" or even "jig-a-boo" if he so chooses, people are equally free to object to his vocabulary.

It is problematic, however, when society feels compelled to reduce its collective vocabulary based on the hyper-sensitivity of a relatively small group of people who seem consumed by finding reasons to be offended.

If someone called me tarbaby I would reassure him that I hadn't been casting around, looking for something to be offended about, and then I'd punch him in the mouth.

Reasonably so if done directly and I'd feel compelled to have your back.

But of course Romney never called anyone a Tar Baby, and so trying to cast the affair in so personal a context is precisely an example of someone looking for an opportunity to be offended. In this case a pretty macho response.

And the "social connotation" in which having someone use that word, not in its literary context, but rather, in its derogatory one directly against someone else--which is the context that snood was illustrating--is itself a "macho" (i.e. characterized by an exaggerated sense of power or strength) action, that would, logically, tend to elicit a "macho" reaction.

The point being that this word does have a "social connotation," Webster's elucidative shortcoming notwithstanding.

And again, Romney did not use the word in the context in which snood and you seem to feel compelled to discuss.

There are words and phrases that have no context other than insult and Tar Baby is not one of them.

I'm not sure why violence is anymore acceptable a response to a racial slur than it is to one which simply denigrates one's intelligence or character, but the fact that there is a usage of a term than can result in an extreme reaction when used with extreme intent, doesn't mean the word needs to be taken out of the public vocabulary. More importantly, it does not automatically brand any user of the world as a bad person and should not require their apology when they use the word in a coventionally acceptable fashion.

That Romney did not use the word in a the context in which snood and I feel compelled to discuss is acknowledged.

But snood's response wasn't to Romney's use. Snood's response was to your post in which you tried to minimize the word's other meaning, it's derogatory and racist one.

Violence isn't necessarily an acceptable response to a racial slur, but it is a response that one can reasonably expect within certain particular situations.

I don't think the word 'Tar Baby' should be taken out of the public vocabulary either, and I agree that it does not automatically brand any user of the world as a bad person and should not require their apology when they use the word in a conventionally acceptable fashion. But one should also expect an extreme response--not necessarily acceptable, but expectable--to the use of the word in its viciously insulting sense, which is itself an extreme provocation.

Infrablue is correct that tarbaby has an acceptable social connotation while also agreeing there is a way to use it unacceptably. He and Finn are correct that we shouldn't "ban" a word because some define it incorrectly or use it inappropriately.

Finn is correct that Romney used the word in its harmless and acceptable social connotation. None of us know whether Romney knew about an unacceptable connotation when he used the term.

Snood and Bill are correct that it would be intended as a personal insult to call somebody a tar baby though even then we couldn't be sure that the insult had racial overtones. (I think there would be a good chance that it would.) I do think it would be extreme overreaction to punch somebody in the mouth because he called you a name, however.

But the questions remain:

Should Romney be excused for using a word in its correct, inoffensive connotation? Or is there no excuse for not knowing that some would see the term as offensive? Honest question.

If Romney is overheard using an offensive term that he intended to be private and off the record, should he be barred from public service because of it? Honest question.

Is there room to forgive a public figure who, in frustration or anger, uses an offensive term? Or is that person unfit for public office? (I'm thinking of things like George Allen's "mucaca" faux pas). Honest question.

Should ANYBODY who commits a racial/ethnic/socially offensive blunder in public lose their leadership credentials. Or will we continue to forgive those aligned politically/ideologically with us and continue to damn those who are not? Loaded question.

Your right it is a loaded question.

When Howard Dean made that disgusting comment about how the only way the GOP would have so many minorities in a room was if they had hotel staff there, at the time I said it was disgusting and indicative of his character and I still believe it. And this despite the fact that at first I admired him because of his stance on Iraq way before anyone else was saying anything.

Calling someone Macaco whose mother is from Northern America where the racial slur is used, again it is indicative of his character. I for one don't care if my elected officials have active sex lives but I do care if they have prejudices against people based on race, religion or sexual orientation because that would affect how they vote or their agendas.

The context in which Romney used the word 'tar baby' wasn't a racially derogatory one. But being a politician, especially a politician, he should have been more prudent in his choice of words. He apologized for having offended anyone by his use of the word. That's good enough for me. I think the fallout from his gaffe has by and large blown over.

The more interesting stories about Romney are that some of his detractors are questioning his conservativeness, with some alleging ties to gay youth conferences, gay judges and abortion rights activists. Also, some people question his ability to win a presidential race because of his Mormonism.

Infrablue writes


Or in other words, a bit of honest analysis along with all the normal stuff the media and some opponents use to demonize somebody via innuendo rather than rate them on their track record, credentials, ideology, vision, etc.

But thank you for being reasonable re Romney's statement and apology. For the intellectually honest, that is the correct take on it no matter who made the statement. If we could approach these things in that manner, we might actually start encouraging better candidates to run for public office. Personally, I think the best wouldn't think it was worth it to stick their necks out there giving the crucify first and ask questions later mentality of modern politics where one inadvertent, misspoken word or phrase can wreck a career.

I suppose it's natural for a politician to apologize for a sin he did not commit if it enhances his political opportunities, but I would have thought more of Mitt if he had not.

An apology should be reserved for true remorse. I can't read Romney's mind any better than anyone else, but I doubt he feels remorse for the comment (nor should he). He may regret he didn't do a better job of emulsifying his vocabulary, but that doesn't equate to remorse.

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe he saw how his words might've caused offense. And since you admittedly don't know what he thought of his apology, saying you think less of him for making it only reflects on you.

Finn and I are on the same side of an argument more often than we are not, but this time I tend to go more with Snood's take except I don't see that Finn's comment reflects anything other than his sense of the situation.

In our culture, it is natural and costs nothing to apologize if somebody is offended whether or not one intended offense or whether the other person should have been offended. That doesn't seem to carry over to message boards much, but in the real world, an "I'm sorry; I didn't intend to offend" will sometimes diffuse an awkward situation unless the other person is a jerk or wants to take advantage of being offended.

On the other hand, I would think Romney would be prudent to explain his definition of the term and that's how he intended it. And, it would demonstrate intellectual honesty and civility for the P.C. police to accept that explanation and then drop it.

And someone might apologize to someone who was on the verge of violence simply to avoid getting thumped, but that doesn't mean the person deserved an apology.

The people who were offended by Romney's use of the terms did not deserve an apology, and apologizing to people who are looking to be offended only encourages them and/or suggests that such thin-skinned attitudes in public life are rational.

Contrast Romney's comment with those of Senator Allen or Rev Jackson.

Whether macacaa was meant to suggest a monkey or has some obscure Algerian meaning; or even if it was a stumbling attempt to say mahatma, it's pretty clear Allen used it to ridicule the individual and and it's pretty tough to imagine it was was not linked in some way to the man's ethnicity or skin color. He could have just as easily used a term like "Pal," or "Buddy," and still singled the guy as someone with less than benign or neutral intent.

Allen owed the man an apology, and his use of the term, at least, reflected poorly on him.

When Jesse Jackson used the phrase Hymie Town, he owed jews an apology and the term reflected poorly on him.

Not the case with Romney.

It is not an issue upon which the fate of the nation is balanced, but then how many issued discussed in this forum are?