How PC are you?

I have heard arguments similar to joaqin's, and I have to say I don't buy them. I am a White Male who most people would inaccurately describe as a Protestant -- in other words, a WASP, the most hated and reviled racial group on the plant. NOTHING we do is anything other than Horribly Racist, and the world would be a Utopia if we had just never been born. At least, that's what the PC police would say.

I refuse to walk around on eggshells just because a random stranger might have a stick up his anus regarding a word that the vast majority of the world has no problem with. The bottom line to the "as a White guy, I have no idea about what might cause offense and have no right to even think about the topic" argument is basically this: If a minority member is unhappy, it must be because of something a bad, bad White Man did. You know what? FORNICATE that. It's crap. Blaming whites for every problem in the world, real or imagined -- which is what Political Correctness really is at the end of the day -- is utter crap and won't go anywhere toward solving the real problems we have in the world.

My favorite example is the terminology we are supposed to use regarding people of African heritage. "Negro" used to be an acceptable adjective, and to my understanding is simply the Spanish word for the color black. Well, it gor turned into a pejorative and you can't use Negro anymore, and of course not the alteration of the word that rhymes with "trigger". I say fair enough, the majority of the English speaking world feels it's offensive, I don't use it. But people of African ancestry use it all the time with no repercussions. Really? Pretend I came up with a word that I said gave me and my White friends the right to assault a person of African ancestry because it really made us mad when we heard him say it. A word I and my friends used all the time but had declared was "off limits" to Africans. Would anyone buy into that crap? That sort of linguistic apartheid is garbage, just as surely as the water fountain and bus apartheid systems were that discriminated against the Africans.

I could use "Coloured", maybe. But no! Now that word has become invested with negative connotations. But I don't notice those white hating douchebags down at the NAACP changing the "C" in their organization. If the term is THAT offensive they would find the funding to change it. But it really isn't that offensive to them, it's just a convenient excuse to whine and complain about nothing in an effort to dredge up crap from decades ago and blame people who have no intention of insult. They want to keep us on our toes and constantly reminded that we are horrible racists and too stupid to even recognize that's what we are. I call BS on that.

What about "Black"? Still in common use. I have read many articles that refer to Black communities and Black culture. Then I was called down by a woman and told that referring to "Black culture" was offensive. I told her it was a common phrase used by many people in rational and civilized discourse about such issues, she just pitched a hissy. And of course, since I'm White, I MUST be in the wrong.

I have a lot of friends from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. These decent, intelligent people don't spend their time trying to micromanage the speech of others. They live and let live and don't look for unrealistic excuses to get angry. They are good people and we enjoy each others' company. So when someone who is obviously just a whining, puling troublemaker gets angry at something innocent I say, I know that I'm not the one with the problem. And as far as I am concerned, they can go Front themselves (as in Shut The Front Door).

 

I think the term 'black' is not so much offensive as just ignorant.

It's a sweeping generalisation that people who have darker skin than other people can somehow be lumped together into a category, when actually they may have virtually nothing in common, as a Nigerian is as different from an Ethiopian as an Indian is from a Japanese or a Russian is from a Scotsman. Actually, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than all the rest of the world combined, due to the longer history of human occupation of that continent.

 

LKD, you must be the unluckiest person in the world. Where do you manage to meet all these unpleasant people who are offended by things you do or say. I wonder what all these occurences have in common.

As for there being a difference who says a word is quite easy to explain. People of African ancestry haven't used the "n-word" to demean and discriminate against each other, white people have. It is very hard for a group without power to discriminate against a group that does, that is why white people are not offended when other groups call us things. It is like having a very small dog barking at you, possibly a nuisance but there is no chance the dog can hurt you and it is even a little cute to watch it try. Black people though are constantly in an inferiour position, white people calling them things are not a tiny little dog barking but great big slavering mastiff that can easily rip out their throats. Not very cute and a real threat. Power, power and history makes all the difference in who can use what words.

One place where I think we can start to see *real* reverse racism (not the pretend reverse racism that too many people start shouting about as soon as someone of colour is suggested to get the same oppurtunities as whites) is parts of the music industry. When it comes to hiphop, rap, soul, r'n'b and many other genres blacks dominate completely. There black people have the power and I could well imagine being called white, whitey, honkey, cracker or whatever to be real offensive for a budding white soul artist while an investment banker being called that by a street sweeper doesn't have the same sting.

 

In the past, words such as 'nigger', 'paki' and 'spick' were common place. Thanks to the 'PC crowd', these things have been largely eroded in most civilized parts of the world. 'Political correctness' is at is worst, institutionalized politeness. If there is some small fallout at some point, whereby someone in an office might get in trouble one day for saying something that someone was a bit unsure about because they couldn't decide if it was sexist, homophobic or racist, I think it's a small price to pay for the massive benefits and improvements in quality of life of millions of people that political correctness has made.

 

I'm not like my PCs at all - I don't tend to kill anamolous amounts of critters and shady looking people at all.

 

I know what you are implying, joacqin, and all I can say is that you are wrong. As I mentioned, I strive to avoid obviously offensive words, but when the whole "offended" card is played simply in an effort to silence me when I am politely using what the majority would consider to be neutral terminology, then I do not feel bound to cooperate with that sort of emotional extortion. I see PC nonsense as a leftist attempt to unfarily stifle and marginalize conservative voices. it was wrong when the conservatives did so to the lefties, and it's just as wrong now that the tables are turned.

 

I gave "it" some thought (while being both sober and tipsy, so it must be true) and I think that I'm definitely PC. I just don't want to give in too easily.

Here's a secret to me, in anything: I don't know everything. There may always be flipside.
This is troubling me in forming (and stating) my opinion. I suck at arguing/discussing serious topics. Combine that with English not being my native language and you'll surely understand why I hardly ever engage in the topics of the Alleys.

I don't want to step on someone's toes, so I really try not to do so. But if you ask me for a sincere opinion on something and I happen to have one, don't go meeping after I stated mine and you dind't like it. I can't stand that.
Politicians should watch out how they formulate things, but should also be clear about it. Cartoonists (like the Danish Kurt Westergaard and the Dutch Nekschot) and stand-up comedians (I love Louis CK and many others) should have all freedom to say what they want.

I don't like racists, sexists, adultists, homophobes, bible-bashers, nor "scientific extremists". But I'm still considered a conservative christian by some. And perhaps I am. (That why I put the "I got life"-text there as a signature) But I don't want to give in too easily, because some words are perfectly fine and accurate, while some people just seem to be too easily offended. Frames of references. I guess that's what it all comes down to.

 

Sorry to go back to the 1st page, but I wanted to comment on the term Oriental. I have a friend of Chinese descent, and he claims that the term Oriental is only considered offensive when talking about a person, but it's fine to use it as an adjective to describe something from that part of the world, so long as the "something" isn't a person. So it's fine to say that you own an Oriental rug, or like Oriental food, but not OK to say you have an Oriental friend - the correct term there is Asian.

As for terms like black referring to a person's race, I don't think that's offensive at all. I live in Maryland, where about 1/3 of the population is African American, and many of them would describe themselves as black. Obviously, I'm not offended when someone calls me white, either. I understand that most people who are black are not actually black in color, nor am I white in color, but just because the terms are imprecise doesn't make them offensive.

 

I take much more offense being referred to as a "them" as I do to be referred to as "disabled"

The term disabled only has negative connotations from the simple fact many people will treat anyone with an obvious difference or weakness differently - whether that's good, bad or indifferent it's the bad that stick out much more.

I do not like the term "differently abled" or even worse "diffability". A disability is a health matter which causes an impairment or specific alteration in how they perform daily activities to live at a normal standard. The people who use differently abled are either people who haven't come to terms with their disability yet (and more often than not in denial about their circumstances) or people who feel it is their duty to patronise the disabled by utilising emotional bubblewrap

People without disabilities are all differently abled - throwing confusion and ambiguity into a term does not help the people who live with the label.

As to "their condition" - which condition? Being disabled in and of itself isn't a condition; how could it be? Unless you're speaking of a specific subset there are many disabilities (unless you ask the UK government ) acquired in different ways and effecting different things. They can also be temporary in some fortunate circumstances.

Abled does not just refer to mobility, otherwise it would be dismobile. Someone who is deaf or blind is also disabled, someone with a severe heart defect or a neurological problem can be disabled.

Making it all 'nicer' with "differently abled" could just as easily backfire - after all the oldest and most basic reason for persecuting a group? "They're different"

If you want to do something nice - ask how people themselves prefer to address the issue, whatever that might be.

 

My problem is that when someone is talking -- and they are clearly NOT being derogatory, insulting, demeaning, rude, condescending, or cruel, -- there are still some people just waiting to pounce on a commonly used word and start whining "I'm OFFENDED! You are a bigot and you want to commit GENOCIDE!"

I mean, give me a break. It is not too much to ask all people to actually listen to what the person is saying before flying off the handle.

In addition, I know you are someone who has dealt with a lot of hassle because of your health issues, 8people, and I feel for that. What I have concerns about is that I have heard of cases where someone did something nice (like open a door or something) that they would do for ANYONE, and been blasted by a disabled person with a line like "What, you think I'm too useless to open a door? Gotta help out the stupid cripple do you? DON'T PATRONIZE ME YOU INSENSITIVE ****!!"

I agree that it is beneficial to talk to individuals and see how they feel about such things*, but it's not feasible in all circumstances. For example, I almost always hold the door at the bank for the person coming in behind me, even if they are a few steps behind me. I just see that as being polite. It's not reasonable for me to have to ask them "would you be offended if I held this door for you?" A reasonable person doesn't look to find fault in something so obviously innocuous, but there are a lot of unreasonable people out there of all stripes just looking to hide their unreasonableness behind a shield of accusations of bigotry.

*In the case of wheelchairs, for example, I can totally understand why someone in one might not appreciate some person just grabbing it from behind and taking them somewhere without asking or warning. I'm not talking about stuff so obviously patronizing. In such cases, I've asked "do you want me to push you, or do you want to do it under your own steam?" So far I haven't had a problem, but you never know when attempting to do a good deed gets you punished . . .

 

Ignorance is no excuse.

 

I am disabeld, white, christian, old and don't take offence at being called any of those things. While I try not to offend anyone I don't consider an ass unless a person is polite in asking me to use a different term or word the can kiss my old white backside. I do not understand a lot of the PC crap that is out there, too old I guess and wonder why I or others would be offended by polite conversation. I do tend to open doors for the female sex or anyone with a cane or wheelchair. When I was young it was polite and still is. Why someone would get angry at this is beyond my understanding.
Words and usage does change over time and I understand this but not the anger I have seen or the condemnation of a person who means no offence.

I am not PC by any standards!

 

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

 

Ignorance of what will offend someone is not a valid excuse to do it. On the other hand a sincere apology should be adequate for the offended person.

 

Oh I completely agree there, most the people I've met like that in disabled communities are the ones who have acquired disabilities and haven't adjusted properly. I sympathise with them, but it only takes a second to think through "Am I being over sensitive?" having things shaken up can lead to over analysing completely normal things, much like grief over a loved one makes you see signs of them everywhere. No reason to be an utter tit over it, but you get the odd chap who feels the need to overcompensate their sensation of loss with occasional verbal abuse towards others.

I was speaking more in terms of how you refer to something - actions are often reflexive and universal, I still hold doors open for people though it's not often wise

What's reasonable is if you use a term that isn't the cultural norm or being unsure on the correct term to ask. What's unreasonable is telling them off when they use a term to refer to themselves (yes, I've been told off for referring to myself as having a disability. Which frankly strikes me as pretentious) Also assumptions are dangerous - Such as an Israeli classmate who is constantly referred to as "the Indian guy" or my mother who has lost most of her hearing gets assigned to doctors the receptionists believe match her ethnicity to make her feel more comfortable, she ends up feeling humiliated and scared she offended someone if the doctor she is assigned to has a strong accent, her hearing aids can only do so much and she has to ask to be transferred to a doctor with a clearer accent because of her hearing and has often been labelled a racist as a result.

Grabbing a wheelchair with the occupant within it without permission is technically assault. Also pretty damn terrifying if someone just comes up behind you and decides to take over... especially if you're stationary at the time. You'd be surprised what kind of people think is acceptable behaviour.

 

T2, I agree with you up to a point. I think the term "reasonable expectation" is what describes my concept here. I mean, see my rutabaga comment I made earlier (maybe it was in another thread.) No reasonable person could possibly know that a person is offended by the word, and to be honest it is unreasonable to demand someone refrain from using a particular word just because a particular person has a problem with it. In such cases, I don't think an apology is warranted.