So I am forced to fund the purchase of pizza from a particular company because they are not pro-Life? This change was not announced to the parents-- only the kids. It had been going on for a while when I found out about it. It was foisted upon me. Stance towards Life issues shouldn't even have been a consideration. That's what Political Correctness brings about--- baggage that doesn't belong.
So, we can observe political correctness in the wild, so to speak, does anyone want to comment on the reaction to the use to the term 'ghetto pimp' in this thread: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?threadid=65791 ? What exactly is offensive about saying ghetto pimp anyway? Or was it the suggestion that such a person probably wasn't upper class? I'm getting this Rush Limbaugh feeling here.
Politically correct = anything that does not offend liberals. Politically incorrect = anything that offends liberals.
Politically correct = anything that is both reasonable and also threatening to the comfort zone of conservatives. i.e. anything that suggests a mode of existence that post-dates 1955. Politically incorrect = anything that is both absolutely obvious and also threatening to the comfort zone of some conservatives. i.e. anything that suggests a way of thinking that post-dates 1900. This is so fun.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'define' or what you're driving at in particular, but I'll try to accomodate you. A pimp would be a middle man between a prostitute and a john who earns his living on the mark-up of the price. Beyond that, I'd add that they are thought to be generally unscrupulous, of low moral character and exploitative. A ghetto pimp would be such a pimp that operates out of an impoverished urban neighborhood. The ghetto part was an important modifier because it implies that the prostitutues he uses are the most vulnerable to exploitation due to their poverty and the blight that afflicts our inner city. The $200,000 in annual salary was a random number. I don't know how much such a pimp would stand to make. Whatever pimps do make is probably more than they deserve for the contribution they make to our society. Taken in whole, the argument was that one's 'class' is not solely defined by how much money one makes. As a social construct, such a class distinction may not be politcally correct, but I don't think you can talk about class and pretend these distinctions don't exist.
QUESTION: Is it so wrong to not want to hurt someone else's feelings? To NOT want to Offend someone? I don't think it is unreasonable for the REDSKINS to change their name if it offends Native Americans I don't think it is unreasonable to NOT call White People Crackas, honkies, etc Same with other slurs Sometimes - It seems the fight AGAINST political Correctness comes off as THE RIGHT TO BE AN *SS and A JERK Oversensativity. . . I can understand not wanted to bother with it but WHO sets that bar. . . I might think DaDakota is being over sensative if i call him a cracka and he don't like it . . .. vice verse with him calling me the N-word Who would be right or wrong in that? The thing i see is people swing to Extremes. . . while some may say various folx are oversensative they themselves tend to be totally INSENSATIVE which is not good either Most folx maybe only SENSATIVE to their own issues. We need a Medium . . . How do we find that? Communication is the key. Rocket River
Excellent Post! Economically Speak such a Pimp would be middle class Socially Speaking he would not be . . . Look at the class distinction between Nuevo Riche and Old Money? Lot of Old Money Don't see these new rich [See the beverly hillbillies as an exagerated example] as being in the same class as them Rocket River
Haiku River, I think it is important to note the disctinction between being politically correct and not being outright offensive. Being politically correct means calling someone an African American instead of a black. Being outright offensive is calling someone the slurs which you have listed. Don't attempt to mix the two issues and condemn people's aversion to political correctness with your assaunt on being outright offensive. They are two separate issues that must be dealt with independently. Sensitive by Trader_Jorge Sometimes I wonder Is it politically correct To inform someone That they have Misspelled the same word Five times in one post?
You seem like a pretty smart guy, so I'm going to assume you knew precisely what I was driving at. Regardless, since you took the time to construct that response, I'll drop it.
The question was about people with little grasp of history, art, literature, reality etc. It's a fair question because I didn't elaborate in my original post. I said that because I've seen versions of Mark Twain's works totally censored. "Injun' Joe" was changed to "Ugly Joe". First of all the book isn't slandering all indians, but it was being accurate as to a historical way that people may have talked back then. To censor an author's work like that is horrible, and paints a false picture of history. Things weren't peachy, and ugly words were used. To portray history accurately is to help ensure that we learn from our mistakes. Erasing our mistakes is the worst thing that can be done for the cause PC is supposedly trying to help. Another example also from Twain, is the fact that some places don't allow his book because of the name "N(word) Jim." The book was originally banned by racists because it was the first book in American Literature to portray black people as actual people. Jim talked about family, and concerns that whites thought didn't exists for an entire race. It humanized someone who was supposedly just property. Huck Finn even says that being friends with Jim meant going to hell that he guessed he would go to hell. That's the moral of the whole story. Yet because the story is historically accurate in some ways that certain people find offensive it gets banned in places. That's horrible and it deprives a book that is pro civil rights from reaching a larger audience. Then there was a production of the play 'Twelve Angry Men' in NY a few weeks ago. The play title was changed to 'Twelve Angry Jurors' so they could cast women as some of the jurors. From a literary standpoing the flow of the words is totally changed when the title is changed. The rhythm, or meter is totally off with that change. Two possible solutions would be to keep the title and cast women anyway, or just set the play in the time it was written, and be historically accurate. It's these kinds of things that amount to ignorance and censorship. Hiding the truth from history doesn't make things better in the future, in fact it might make them worse. It's also censorship of the writers/artists/directors etc. who created the original work. The list goes on and on from censored children's songs, to the game of hangman being renamed in some elementary schools etc. The best solution would be to teach these works in the historical context they were written in, go in depth with some of the issues, and present the material as the author created it. That way important issues are discussed, people can learn from history as well as great literature/art etc. But in an effort to be politically correct that all gets washed out. Remember that writers often write with the words being intended to role off the tongue in a certain pattern or rhythm, and changing the words for the purpose being PC may damage the integrity and quality of the work. It also may give the students who are learning these things a poorer example to model their works after or to learn from.
The more I think about PC the more angry I get. Whitewashing history and censorship don't make things better. It's best to expose the historical evils and shine a light on them so they can't hide away, only to surface again later. If energy was spent on tackling the issue and in the case of old loony toon violence talking about the difference between real and make-believe actual progress could be made on a number of improtant issues. Instead PC just attempts to cover unpleasant events and traits up. Sorry to double post but I wanted to vent a little bit more.
The OED defines political correctness as "noun - the avoidance of terms or behaviour considered to be discriminatory or offensive to certain groups of people." It's not an avoidance of history, issues, or ideas; it's a way to be able to speak about all of these things without using derogatory language or offensive terms. It's perfectly possible to speak or write about all sorts of extremely controversial subjects eloquently and expressively without using language that offends. In fact, discourse about these sensitive or controversial topics should then be easier and more meaningful since people will be focused on what people say instead of how they say it... But it's become much more than an issue of language, and has turned into sort of a cultural obstacle... So then we see that the other hand, the American Heritage Dictionary defines politically correct (note: now we're talking about the adjective) as " adj. 1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters." The problem arises when some groups or people use the idea of political correctness to avoid whole topics or ideas, and other people or groups reject the whole notion of "politically correct" because they perceive it as some sort of cop-out or oversensitive nonsense. It used to mean something other than what it means today. It's become a loaded term. In Giddyup's example, I would say that the decision to change pizza companies is a political decision, not so much an issue of political correctness.
Hoot owl I guess I was defining it closer to the American Heritage version. However, you mention that things can be written broaching historical matters that are still at top literary value etc. But when books, plays, that are classics and already have been written are being pushed out, It's one of the most horrific things that can happen. Those things are happening now whether you call it Political correctness or something else it doesn't matter. With video games, movies, etc. being blamed for violence, and violence being edited out of old looney tunes cartoons it's gotten out of control. Why not focus on teaching the difference between make-believe and reality. There are better ways to deal with issues than what I see as political correctness. I do take issue with people labelling outspokeness against racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever as being PC. I believe we should be sensitive, but not overly so, and definitely not to censor pieces of literature.
PC - Middle Eastern-American, Anglo-American, African-American Considered okay by most normal people - Arab (enen when sometimes incorrect, like in the case of Persians), white, black Unacceptable to normal people - rag head (also for some reason, slurs related to black slurs with desert modifiers) "the n-word" (writing this makes me feel like a goober - another example of political correctness run amok: you can't say improper words even to point out that they are improper), cracker (many whites, including me, will let you get away with this one, but we have not faced the historical discrimination in this country that blacks have to really charge this word. Using it in any kind of non-casual setting is a big no-no though.)
