3 ms·

I have an intense dislike of a six letter word used in the times of Mark Twain and others to discuss african-americans. I cannot abide the word, I walk out of c

I have an intense dislike of a six letter word used in the times of Mark Twain and others to discuss african-americans. I cannot abide the word, I walk out of conversations where it comes up, and I avoid its use. The mother of my ex-girlfriend of 7 years had the same attitude about that word. Is this being PC? its what I feel. It matters how those feelings are used. If feelings, like offense, are used as emotional/moral bludgeons and accusations, primarily to silence opponents, then it's dishonest and counterproductive. Likewise, if words are primarily used as emotional sandpaper, to wear away at an opponent, then it's equally dishonest and counterproductive. Nothing said here about PC will rid me of a sense the word is wrong, its use is wrong, and the intentionality using it, strongly disposes me to characterise somebody as belligerent in a power relationship. The solution is rational discussion. I don't think there are productive uses of that word. I also don't think that the majority of accusations of racism and sexism are meaningful, used as they have been as bludgeons in a cultural war of feelings and ideas. What's more the shame, is that I think there is very good reason for discussion. There is racism. However accusations at this point will generally make things worse. The cure for it, which I have seen work in the real world, is interchange. Discussion, watching things together, sharing food, just getting to know people -- this is how toxic -isms are defeated. Acrimony isn't that. Acrimony is the fuel to the in-group/out-group mentality of the mob. Acrimony is the fuel of toxic "-isms."

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
Agreed. A key question is whether or not a person can enter into a public forum, such as a discussion on town policy, use a slur, and continue to be heard and engaged intellectually. If they can, then the process of self-governing can continue. If they can't -- and to the degree they can't -- we are shutting people down and making them lesser citizens because of our desire to be "language police". That's PC. In small groups, of course, there are completely different rules, set by each community. That's how it should be. If combat soldiers are worried over one person's use of bigoted language, they've got their heads in the wrong place. (That language might need to be corrected. It's a decision for each group to make.) If academic or religious groups talk about language, it might be a completely different discussion. Or not. What Political Correctness seeks to do is create a universal language standard for all types of communication, then punish or silence those who fail to abide by it. It's the type of thing that might be spot-on for the local model railroad club or bowling league -- but is completely anathema to the foundations of our way of life if applied universally. Modern communication systems continue to exacerbate rather than mitigate the problem. Many people do not see the big deal, wondering "what's wrong with requiring all of us to be nicer to one another?" These people do not understand the problem and are just making things worse for society overall in their desire to be "nice". Quite ironic.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  If combat soldiers are worried over one person's use of bigoted language, they've got their heads in the wrong place. I was listening to a veteran speak about this. Basically, the squad leader told everyone, okay, you're from all over, and your fellow soldiers are from all over. You're going to encounter racists spouting all sorts of crap. Don't worry. They'll get over it when there's real work to do.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

Agreed. A key question is whether or not a person can enter into a public forum, such as a discussion on town policy, use a slur, and continue to be heard and engaged intellectually. If they can, then the process of self-governing can continue. If they can't -- and to the degree they can't -- we are shutting people down and making them lesser citizens because of our desire to be "language police". That's PC. In small groups, of course, there are completely different rules, set by each community. That's how it should be. If combat soldiers are worried over one person's use of bigoted language, they've got their heads in the wrong place. (That language might need to be corrected. It's a decision for each group to make.) If academic or religious groups talk about language, it might be a completely different discussion. Or not. What Political Correctness seeks to do is create a universal language standard for all types of communication, then punish or silence those who fail to abide by it. It's the type of thing that might be spot-on for the local model railroad club or bowling league -- but is completely anathema to the foundations of our way of life if applied universally. Modern communication systems continue to exacerbate rather than mitigate the problem. Many people do not see the big deal, wondering "what's wrong with requiring all of us to be nicer to one another?" These people do not understand the problem and are just making things worse for society overall in their desire to be "nice". Quite ironic.

stcredzero 9y ago
If combat soldiers are worried over one person's use of bigoted language, they've got their heads in the wrong place. I was listening to a veteran speak about this. Basically, the squad leader told everyone, okay, you're from all over, and your fellow soldiers are from all over. You're going to encounter racists spouting all sorts of crap. Don't worry. They'll get over it when there's real work to do.