Political Correctness, Stunting Growth?

[That Dude]

What do you think? I personally think that political correctness is a silent killer of authenticity and also an enabler of a victim mentality.

Now this is not to say that we should be careful what we say and how we say it to our intended audience, but I've seen to many instances where people have defaulted on political correctness rather than trying to build a two way road with communication and break down what the other person is trying to say so you can get to the real meaning of whatever was said.

So basically this thread is your thoughts on political correctness.

With that said, lets remember to keep it civil, because I'm sure that there are going to be some of us with differing views on some things that might be touchy issues on a personal level to individual posters.

[Nate]

I agree with political correctness 100%.

We are called to love our neighbors. If your only response to someone saying "Hey, that hurts me and I find it insulting" is "Suck it up and get over it" or "You don't have the right to not be offended," that doesn't seem like a Christian attitude to have.

People who are against political correctness (as far as I can see) only want to be able to say hurtful and insulting things without having to take responsibility for the pain they cause to others. I'm open to hearing about situations where this is not the case, however.

[Cognitive Gear]

As far as I am concerned, "political correctness" is what allows us to build those bridges of communication. After all, it's very difficult to have a rational conversation with someone if they are insulting you the entire time.

[Jingo Jaden]

To a degree it can be acceptable, but when it appeases people who get offended by christmas trees, or when anti-swear laws come into play then it has frankly goes too far.

[Radical Dreamer]

I agree with political correctness 100%.

We are called to love our neighbors. If your only response to someone saying "Hey, that hurts me and I find it insulting" is "Suck it up and get over it" or "You don't have the right to not be offended," that doesn't seem like a Christian attitude to have.

People who are against political correctness (as far as I can see) only want to be able to say hurtful and insulting things without having to take responsibility for the pain they cause to others. I'm open to hearing about situations where this is not the case, however.

As far as I am concerned, "political correctness" is what allows us to build those bridges of communication. After all, it's very difficult to have a rational conversation with someone if they are insulting you the entire time.

Agreed with the above 100%. XD Being "politically correct" has gotten a bad reputation for some reason, when really, when used correctly it's just being polite and learning how not to make yourself look like a total jerk in public. XD

[MomentOfInertia]

oooh this thread is so getting locked.

The problem with political correctness is just that, its political!
It's defined politically, and used politically, whole subject avoided because someone doesn't want to talk about them.

I would like to see society become more polite, but political correctness is not the way to achieve this.

Politeness is not being offensive. Political correctness is always worrying whether the things you do might offend someone, somewhere, somehow.

Politeness is caution, Political correctness is paranoia.

[Lynna]

I don't like Political corectness because it has the word "Political" in it and I hate politics XD
In seriousness, it makes sense to me. Just because some people have problems with other people doesn't mean they need to go around verbalizing it to the whole world. On the other hand, politicians are a little over criticized for saying something that's not politically corect (Though they did chose that career, and now thinking about it, is it politically incorrect to say that politicians can't be trusted?)

[Cognitive Gear]

To a degree it can be acceptable, but when it appeases people who get offended by christmas trees, or when anti-swear laws come into play then it has frankly goes too far.

I suppose that I don't see these things as political correctness. Generally speaking I think that political correctness only covers exclusionary things, like racism, sexism, agism, etc. The Christmas tree is a secular celebration, and anti-swear laws are censorship.

Regardless, though, I think that the very term "politically correct" is loaded and only functions to divide people these days. I am sure that the large majority of people can agree that we should be polite and ensure that we aren't being intentionally insulting.

[Nate]

The problem with political correctness is just that, its political!

That's a good point. XD But let us see how much we can discuss before the inevitable lock, and how civil we can keep it. :p

Political correctness is always worrying whether the things you do might offend someone, somewhere, somehow.

How is this a bad thing? Should we not be concerned about hurting people? Should we only care if we have hurt someone after the fact, or is it better to prevent someone from being hurt in the first place?

They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's great to have strong, competent firefighters, but isn't the better situation to keep your home safe from accidental fires in the first place? And if the answer is yes, why is hurting people any different?

[Cognitive Gear]

The problem with political correctness is just that, its political!

I suppose that it is, but I felt that the OP made clear that the intention of this thread was to talk about it in a more generalized, social sense rather than a political one, so can we leave that out of the thread in hopes of it staying around?

[That Dude]

This is in regards to Nate's original post.

I will default to Jesus and Paul for my argument.

If you know anything about Jesus, you know that Love defined everything he did. So that includes him telling people that they were "fools" (Luke 11:39-40), him telling them that their daddy was Satan (John 8:44)...He also calls them dirty tombs, bags of snakes, hypocrites...Jesus never shied away from hurting feelings, but he always did it in love.

Paul in Phillipians 3:8 he says he counts worldliness as rubbish which in the original Greek is the equivalent of s**t in our language. Paul also says about the Judiazers who were saying you needed to be circumsized to be saved "I wish they would cut off their junk rather than preach that" (Galatians 5:12).

Also, if you believe God is love you can't overlook the fact that many times he mocks people and nations. Such as Psalm 59:8, 2:4, 37:13, Proverbs 1:23-27...And this is not to mention his mocking of people in Isaiah, Hosea and other places.

God uses frankness and mockery perfectly and lovingly. Sometimes the most loving thing that we can do is talk frankly to someone in order to bring them closer to God. I mean if that's the model Jesus used, why shouldn't we. We just need to remember to never do it from derision, but only for their personal well-being.

[Nate]

That's not really what political correctness is about though. Political correctness (as I've seen it used) is if someone says "That's retarded," and someone else goes "Hey that offends me, I have a cousin who's mentally handicapped," and the first person goes "Oh don't be so politically correct." To use an example related to another current thread.

It's not about telling someone they're wrong about something, it's about trying to belittle people or use language that hurts them, trying to marginalize them. Things like racial slurs, sexist jokes, things like that. And no one is saying to outlaw things like that (because that would be censorship, which I am completely against), but that people should think more and be careful not to hurt and be insulting to others in their speech. Especially us as Christians, for we are called to love others.

I would also take issue with your comments, especially Psalms as those were not written by God, but human beings (and as such are not necessarily the thoughts or actions of God, but merely how the writer views God), but even if you accept them as true, the difference is God is divine and perfect, and we as humans are not. Thus, even if God does use mockery or insults, that doesn't mean it's okay for us to. We're not perfect, after all, so we should avoid trying to insult people because we're not good enough ourselves to do so. So even in your examples, you're further proving my point in that insults are bad and we should not use them, and thus political correctness is still very good and important.

[Radical Dreamer]

This is in regards to Nate's original post.

I will default to Jesus and Paul for my argument.

If you know anything about Jesus, you know that Love defined everything he did. So that includes him telling people that they were "fools" (Luke 11:39-40), him telling them that their daddy was Satan (John 8:44)...He also calls them dirty tombs, bags of snakes, hypocrites...Jesus never shied away from hurting feelings, but he always did it in love.

Paul in Phillipians 3:8 he says he counts worldliness as rubbish which in the original Greek is the equivalent of s**t in our language. Paul also says about the Judiazers who were saying you needed to be circumsized to be saved "I wish they would cut off their junk rather than preach that" (Galatians 5:12).

Also, if you believe God is love you can't overlook the fact that many times he mocks people and nations. Such as Psalm 59:8, 2:4, 37:13, Proverbs 1:23-27...And this is not to mention his mocking of people in Isaiah, Hosea and other places.

God uses frankness and mockery perfectly and lovingly. Sometimes the most loving thing that we can do is talk frankly to someone in order to bring them closer to God. I mean if that's the model Jesus used, why shouldn't we. We just need to remember to never do it from derision, but only for their personal well-being.

I think it's important that we be careful not to assume that because Jesus did something in love, we are always going to do the same. While I'm sure that your motives in correcting someone may be coming from love, that isn't true for everyone. We're human, and our motives can be very corrupt. Even when we try to imitate something God did in love, we can often take a muddied approach, and our motives will end up mirroring something that isn't God, something that's more interested in making ourselves look good. It only further goes to show how broken we are and how much we need Christ, but suffice it to say that if a fellow Christian approached me with mockery, I would be less inclined to listen. It's one thing when it's coming from the mouth of the Creator of the universe; it's something entirely different when it's from another flawed human.

Don't misunderstand me here--I don't mean that God doesn't use people to say harsh things sometimes, where necessary. But it's not something that gives us free reign to throw shocking words around.

[MomentOfInertia]

How is this a bad thing? Should we not be concerned about hurting people? Should we only care if we have hurt someone after the fact, or is it better to prevent someone from being hurt in the first place?

They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's great to have strong, competent firefighters, but isn't the better situation to keep your home safe from accidental fires in the first place? And if the answer is yes, why is hurting people any different?

Yes, to carry you metaphor]I suppose that it is, but I felt that the OP made clear that the intention of this thread was to talk about it in a more generalized, social sense rather than a political one, so can we leave that out of the thread in hopes of it staying around?[/quote]

Well, in its most abstract political correctness is a campaign to make people more polite, which is a nice idea, but the problems lie in its application, which has been rather imperfect mostly for political reasons. it's yet another idea that sounds nice in theory but doesn't quite work in execution.

This is in regards to Nate's original post.

I will default to Jesus and Paul for my argument.

If you know anything about Jesus, you know that Love defined everything he did. So that includes him telling people that they were "fools" (Luke 11:39-40), him telling them that their daddy was Satan (John 8:44)...He also calls them dirty tombs, bags of snakes, hypocrites...Jesus never shied away from hurting feelings, but he always did it in love.

I agree, there will always by subjects which will require ... blunt discussion.

That's not really what political correctness is about though.

Well that depends who you ask.

Political correctness (as I've seen it used) is if someone says "That's retarded," and someone else goes "Hey that offends me, I have a cousin who's mentally handicapped," and the first person goes "Oh don't be so politically correct." To use an example related to another current thread.

It's not about telling someone they're wrong about something, it's about trying to belittle people or use language that hurts them, trying to marginalize them. Things like racial slurs, sexist jokes, things like that. And no one is saying to outlaw things like that (because that would be censorship, which I am completely against), but that people should think more and be careful not to hurt and be insulting to others in their speech. Especially us as Christians, for we are called to love others.

See, that I would define as 'politeness' rather than political correctness. I'd say the first person in that conversation is a jerk.

[Jingo Jaden]

I suppose that I don't see these things as political correctness. Generally speaking I think that political correctness only covers exclusionary things, like racism, sexism, agism, etc. The Christmas tree is a secular celebration, and anti-swear laws are censorship.

Regardless, though, I think that the very term "politically correct" is loaded and only functions to divide people these days. I am sure that the large majority of people can agree that we should be polite and ensure that we aren't being intentionally insulting.

I get the first point you make, but it still just seems to be changing one term for another. Some of the terms being altered had no offensive meanings in the first play and just seems to be changed because of a reputation they develop, whereas some alterations seems downright unessential, and not something that should be required to go through law. It can also move into the field of using relatively relevant words, such as war-zones or targets which is used all the time in marketing. I think norms and words develop just fine socially, rather than having a few elites pick out words or having words removed because group X or Y is discontent with them.

The school I go to is pretty PC. I don't think angry or offensive speech is or ever should be banned, but rather have natural consequences associated. If you are offensive, you degrade only yourself and if you swear, then that is alright in my book. As long as you don't do it in overly-so front of kids. If you are directly hateful, you endanger yourself in terms of legal action. It's a fine balance in my opinion.

[Nate]

2) through construction using flame-retardant materials (accepting a certain amount of jerk-ishness in ones fellow man)

To tear down that analogy a bit, using flame-retardant materials is not really prevention, but rather a limiter on the potential damage. Nobody thinks flame-retardant materials will prevent fires, but rather prevent fires from getting too out of control once they occur.

Prevention, as it is defined, is to not allow something to occur in the first place. If there is no fire, flame-retardant materials serve no purpose, because flame-protardant (is that a word?) materials would work just as well. As you said in the other thread, "retard" as a verb means to slow down. You can't slow down something that doesn't exist at the moment.

It's only when there is already a fire that fire-retardant materials serve a useful purpose, and in that case, it would be akin to someone already saying something insulting. Flame-retardant material would be analogous to "I'm not feeling well, I spoke without thinking," in an attempt to limit the hurt and damage caused by the already existent insult.

So no, there is no need to accept "jerkishness" on the side of anyone, nor is it a two-way street...unless the person who caused offense truly apologizes, in which case, the offended person should forgive...and if they don't, then they are being unreasonable.

I think this analogy has been driven to the point of uselessness now, though.

Well that depends who you ask.

I suppose that's true, too, although I've only ever heard it used in reference to language and excluding people from participating.

EDIT:

I think norms and words develop just fine socially, rather than having a few elites pick out words or having words removed because group X or Y is discontent with them.

And if they're discontent with them, why shouldn't we tell people not to use those words? If it hurts or offends them, it should be discouraged and looked down upon. What you're saying seems to be a more complex way of saying "You don't have the right to not be offended, if I'm hurting you that's your problem, get over it," which again, seems pretty contradictory to the Christian life, since we should love others as ourselves. If you're hurting someone by your speech and you don't care and think they're the ones who have the problem, or you just don't want to stop because you like that word or something, that's being selfish and putting yourself above others, which again seems very contradictory to Christianity.

[That Dude]

[quote="Radical Dreamer (post: 1479641)"]I think it's important that we be careful not to assume that because Jesus did something in love, we are always going to do the same. While I'm sure that your motives in correcting someone may be coming from love, that isn't true for everyone. We're human, and our motives can be very corrupt. Even when we try to imitate something God did in love, we can often take a muddied approach, and our motives will end up mirroring something that isn't God, something that's more interested in making ourselves look good. It only further goes to show how broken we are and how much we need Christ, but suffice it to say that if a fellow Christian approached me with mockery, I would be less inclined to listen. It's one thing when it's coming from the mouth of the Creator of the universe]


Corrie, I totally agree with you. We do muddy things up and even our best intentions can be done wrong. I am not in any way saying that we should mock people brazenly, but what I am trying to say is that there is a Godly place for frankness. I think we should err on the side of caution, but sometimes you miss great opportunities by being too cautious.

Basically I am agreeing with what you say, there is a place for harsh words, but we should always do what's loving, and harshness should only be used in very specific circumstances. Basically always make sure what you are doing is holy and loving, sometimes situations call for harshness, but more often, and what we should default on, is kindness.

Also, I think Inertia said it great. There's a difference between politeness and political correctness, politeness engenders kindness, PC -from my understanding of it- engenders censorship.

[MomentOfInertia]

To tear down that analogy a bit, using flame-retardant materials is not really prevention, but rather a limiter on the potential damage. Nobody thinks flame-retardant materials will prevent fires, but rather prevent fires from getting too out of control once they occur.

Prevention, as it is defined, is to not allow something to occur in the first place. If there is no fire, flame-retardant materials serve no purpose, because flame-protardant (is that a word?) materials would work just as well. As you said in the other thread, "retard" as a verb means to slow down. You can't slow down something that doesn't exist at the moment.

It's only when there is already a fire that fire-retardant materials serve a useful purpose, and in that case, it would be akin to someone already saying something insulting. Flame-retardant material would be analogous to "I'm not feeling well, I spoke without thinking," in an attempt to limit the hurt and damage caused by the already existent insult.

Broken for emphasis.

So no, there is no need to accept "jerkishness" on the side of anyone, nor is it a two-way street...unless the person who caused offense truly apologizes, in which case, the offended person should forgive...and if they don't, then they are being unreasonable.

See now you're being 'contradictory to Christianity.'
Man is fallen, broken. He is not perfect and will inevitably fail. so yes there is a need to accept that no mater how hard people try they will still screw up.

I think this analogy has been driven to the point of uselessness now, though.

Definitely.

[Jingo Jaden]

And if they're discontent with them, why shouldn't we tell people not to use those words? If it hurts or offends them, it should be discouraged and looked down upon. What you're saying seems to be a more complex way of saying "You don't have the right to not be offended, if I'm hurting you that's your problem, get over it," which again, seems pretty contradictory to the Christian life, since we should love others as ourselves. If you're hurting someone by your speech and you don't care and think they're the ones who have the problem, or you just don't want to stop because you like that word or something, that's being selfish and putting yourself above others, which again seems very contradictory to Christianity.

The word 'them' has a very broad definition. There are a lot of 'them' around that will find anything, other than the most neutral of words offensive and have the power to advocate for an public alteration to this. I disagree with this on the same standing that in some references the word 'christian' is seen as derogatory or at the very least a pointer towards the regressive in some contexts. I've talked to a lot of my atheist roommates about science and such, and obviously, when I come to a point of view on which they disagree they reefer to this to try to diminish my weight on the conversation. For me then wanting to go on and alter said definition just because it has picked up some negatives would seem both spineless and counterproductive. If they cannot digest that a lot of Christians have been strong advocates and developers of science then that is their history lesson to catch up on. *On that notice I've always had a great interest for science, albeit not a professional one.*

As far as putting oneself over the majority and being somehow as a result non-christian. It is also arguable to lock horns with the majority and deny a natural social evolution of words in the favor of a social elite. Which is putting a few above many. In the most extreme cases I am for PC treatment, but for the most I leave it up to the public to define what is offensive or not. The public is not too offensive and thus will not endorse offensive speech, and so things naturally will develop on that route. When words like targeting becomes endangered I simply draw the line. I don't care if it would offend the pope, priest or all the scientists in the world. I am still going to use targeting all day long on my professional basis just as I did in my non-offensive intended past. Often tone matters much more than the word itself, and if I define something using a neutral term that suddenly became offensive overnight then I cannot say that I approve of the alteration or sympathies for those who suddenly got offended by it.

[TheMewster]

I'm all for political correctness, but not to the extent where we call computer viruses 'digital microorganisms.' Sorry, used a joke in a serious discussion. Mah bad.

[Nate]

Man is fallen, broken. He is not perfect and will inevitably fail. so yes there is a need to accept that no mater how hard people try they will still screw up.

I think we're clashing on different views of "accept." I think you're using "accept" in the sense of "admitting that it exists," whereas I thought you were using it in the sense of "allowing it to exist."

I agree that we need to admit people will be jerks, and mistakes will be made. However, we should not allow them to be jerks, and should call them out when they are being rude, insulting, or unreasonable. In that sense, no, we should not accept that people are jerks, any more than we should accept that we are not perfect and will fail (the whole even though we know we will sin, we should still try not to bit).

And that is the problem, is that in the past when people who were marginalized and discriminated against were insulted, they would accept it. This is why it took so long for women to gain say, the right to vote, because women just accepted men being jerks about it. Until a few women finally decided, no, we're not going to accept it, we're going to stand up for ourselves and demand we stop being hurt and insulted.

So again, I think I was misunderstanding your use of "accept," and that's why I said what I did. Curse you English language for being so complex!

EDIT:

I don't care if it would offend the pope, priest or all the scientists in the world. I am still going to use targeting all day long on my professional basis just as I did in my non-offensive intended past.

And to me, that seems arrogant and self-centered...which are not qualities that are particularly positive or lauded in Christianity. You don't care about hurting others, you only care that you get to do what you want. This seems extremely against what Christianity teaches, which is to deny the self and look to others and love them.

While offending others can be a positive thing (as noted with the example of Paul), it's not a matter of "Well if I'm offending something I'm doing something right," which is false logic, nor is it okay to say that offending people is fine no matter what.

As far as I'm concerned, unless someone is offended because you're doing what God says, you're doing something wrong.

[TheMewster]

I think we're clashing on different views of "accept." I think you're using "accept" in the sense of "admitting that it exists," whereas I thought you were using it in the sense of "allowing it to exist."

I agree that we need to admit people will be jerks, and mistakes will be made. However, we should not allow them to be jerks, and should call them out when they are being rude, insulting, or unreasonable. In that sense, no, we should not accept that people are jerks, any more than we should accept that we are not perfect and will fail (the whole even though we know we will sin, we should still try not to bit).

And that is the problem, is that in the past when people who were marginalized and discriminated against were insulted, they would accept it. This is why it took so long for women to gain say, the right to vote, because women just accepted men being jerks about it. Until a few women finally decided, no, we're not going to accept it, we're going to stand up for ourselves and demand we stop being hurt and insulted.

So again, I think I was misunderstanding your use of "accept," and that's why I said what I did. Curse you English language for being so complex!

This. THIIIIIISSSS UP THEEEERRREE!!!!!:thumb:

[ClosetOtaku]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised as to how watered-down this phrase has become. If it seems to you that "politically correct" means a choice of words that is not meant to offend, then, yes, who could argue against that?...

But that's not what PC means, or at least it's not what it originally meant. Back in the late '80s/early '90s, it was a philosophy, espoused principally on campuses, which tried to regulate speech. Specifically, it targeted speech (and those speakers) who insisted on the existence of any sort of absolute or superior system of opinion or belief -- in some cases, Christian faculty or students who held to certain doctrines that others considered 'discriminatory' or 'bigoted'. It seemed strange that an environment which supposedly encouraged diversity would single out those who disagreed with the 'norm' established through the standard of politically correct speech.

On the other end of the spectrum, many Evangelicals considered PC and its adherents to be siblings to the Antichrist. In 1990, I spoke with two more level-headed campus missionaries about it, and they considered PC a "fad" that would die off in no time. It is clear they were wrong, but PC did not lead to the end of free (read: religious) speech as we know it.

So, here we are twenty years later, and it has morphed into a seemingly innocuous phrase to ward off offensive words.

Well, maybe. And if it has really become that harmless, the more power to it. But I think you are just seeing the remnants of a somewhat successful purge that academia has undertaken to shout down and silence Christian speech and thought. Many of those Christian faculty who want to retain tenure at secular institutions have gone underground and, I think it fair to say, would not dare take a stand on certain issues in a public forum. The mini-conservative revolution seen after 9/11 has perhaps relieved some of the pressure. And, too, the hyperbolic reaction of the Right to PC has helped some see the dangers of limiting expression.

Therefore, consider the history of the phrase for a bit before you denigrate those who express doubts about its wisdom. At one time, the whole PC concept was quite controversial, and some scars over it run very deep.

[MomentOfInertia]

I think we're clashing on different views of "accept." I think you're using "accept" in the sense of "admitting that it exists," whereas I thought you were using it in the sense of "allowing it to exist."

I agree that we need to admit people will be jerks, and mistakes will be made. However, we should not allow them to be jerks, and should call them out when they are being rude, insulting, or unreasonable. In that sense, no, we should not accept that people are jerks, any more than we should accept that we are not perfect and will fail (the whole even though we know we will sin, we should still try not to bit).

And that is the problem, is that in the past when people who were marginalized and discriminated against were insulted, they would accept it. This is why it took so long for women to gain say, the right to vote, because women just accepted men being jerks about it. Until a few women finally decided, no, we're not going to accept it, we're going to stand up for ourselves and demand we stop being hurt and insulted.

So again, I think I was misunderstanding your use of "accept," and that's why I said what I did. Curse you English language for being so complex!

Yes, English is a complex and yet vague language.

EDIT:

And to me, that seems arrogant and self-centered...which are not qualities that are particularly positive or lauded in Christianity. You don't care about hurting others, you only care that you get to do what you want. This seems extremely against what Christianity teaches, which is to deny the self and look to others and love them.

While offending others can be a positive thing (as noted with the example of Paul), it's not a matter of "Well if I'm offending something I'm doing something right," which is false logic, nor is it okay to say that offending people is fine no matter what.

I'm getting more stubbornness in the face of shifting standards, jargon that was standard in the industry when he started is now considered incorrect. a rather abrupt shift it must have been too.

As far as I'm concerned, unless someone is offended because you're doing what God says, you're doing something wrong.

This goes in my sig.

Edit:
I wish I could 'Like' ClosetOtaku's post

[Solid Ronin]

How is this a bad thing? Should we not be concerned about hurting people?

No we shouldn't because people get upset and hurt by the dumbest things. People think eating meat is murder, so I guess I can't eat burgers now. Pain in as important part of life as pleasure is, Yeah you're right we shouldn't be seeking out to hurt someone but if they get hurt we'll its as much our job to apologize as it is theirs to get over it.

And what about child raising? Ya know how many times my feeling were hurt/body was hurt when I was growing up, ALOT! But I got over it and now I'm better off for it.

tl;dr

We should be concerned, but we shouldn't jump through hoops just to make sure it doesn't happen.

[Xeno]

Oh dear what have I stumbled upon? I guess I'll just make a short statement on this. Political correctness certainly has it's place. It's there to prevent us from offending people unintentionally, in situations. However, sometimes people do need to "suck it up" and move on, and if that genuinely is the case there is no reason I shouldn't be allowed to say that to a person. If it hurts their feelings so be it, it's something they have to deal with.

That's not to say you immediately say that to someone having an issue, but when an issue that is not caused by something thats an uncontrollable force and it begins to hinder their ability to function in life/work/whatever sometimes you have to tell them how it is, regardless of how much it might hurt them.

I don't live my life in fear of if I'm going to offend someone, because for the most part I don't care. I keep my more absurd jokes and stuff to myself if I'm not around a like-minded group of people, but some people just get offended entirely too easy. And someone getting a bit upset because I used this word, or this phrase, or made X statement is not really my problem, it's theirs. Disagree if you will, this is how I see it (mind you, I've been raised in the military by a career soldier, I've got a fairly thick skin and I tend to expect the same thick skinnedness of those around me).

[Nate]

Back in the late '80s/early '90s, it was a philosophy, espoused principally on campuses, which tried to regulate speech. Specifically, it targeted speech (and those speakers) who insisted on the existence of any sort of absolute or superior system of opinion or belief

I remember that. I had the joke-book "Politically Correct Fairy Tales" and I think there was another one about Christmas (but it was called something else because can't say "Christmas" :p).

It seemed strange that an environment which supposedly encouraged diversity would single out those who disagreed with the 'norm' established through the standard of politically correct speech.

To be fair, if a person's diversity consisted of marginalizing particular groups of people, it isn't strange at all that those people would be singled out. I support diversity, for example, but I don't support the KKK. I support their right to exist, and I support their right to say what they believe, but that doesn't mean I agree with it, and it also means I'm going to do everything I can to prevent their beliefs from harming minorities.

In other words, being intolerant of intolerance is not a contradiction, but rather a necessity.

At one time, the whole PC concept was quite controversial, and some scars over it run very deep.

I agree, though I still stand behind it fully and completely, despite its misuse by many groups. The same as I stand behind the Bible, despite its misuse by some groups. I think the problem is that yeah, it's been colored by the people who misused it, rather than the actual term itself (which again, very similar to how people view Christianity).

[Nate]

I'm getting more stubbornness in the face of shifting standards, jargon that was standard in the industry when he started is now considered incorrect. a rather abrupt shift it must have been too.

I can understand it's an abrupt shift, but it still seems like being defiant "just because" when there are other similar words that could be used. If "target" is considered offensive, then use say, "focus." That's a pretty good synonym. Why not just use a similar word that isn't offensive rather than just being stubborn and rude for no real reason that I can see? Sure, it might be inconvenient, but lots of things are inconvenient at work that you still have to deal with. I remember when they shut down the bathrooms at the front of the warehouse for drug testing when I worked there, and it was inconvenient to have to walk all the way to the other side of the building to use the other ones. It was extremely inconvenient! But it's something I had to deal with, I couldn't just push the drug tester out of the way and say "I gotta pee and I don't care what you think about it!" I had to adjust to the inconvenience and deal with it.

And at least in having to use a different word, it's not really as inconveniencing as having to walk an extra quarter of a mile to relieve your bladder.

if they get hurt we'll its as much our job to apologize as it is theirs to get over it.

I agree to a point, but it's like the example I used earlier. I'll take it a bit farther.

Example one:

"That's retarded." "Hey, I have a mentally disabled cousin, that offends me." "Ah, sorry, I didn't know, I'll be more careful about my language in the future." "Sure, no problem."

This is a good scenario. The person responsible apologized, and the other person accepted it.

Example two:

"That's retarded." "Hey, I have a mentally disabled cousin, that offends me." "Yeah well I didn't know that, and besides who cares, I can say what I want, that's what the First Amendment is there for."

The person who was offended does not have to "get over it." They have been hurt, and that's not cool. It's not their place to accept it, they should fight against it.

Example three:

That's retarded." "Hey, I have a mentally disabled cousin, that offends me." "Ah, sorry, I didn't know, I'll be more careful about my language in the future." "Yeah? Well that's not good enough! I demand you make it up to me!"

In this example, the person who was offended is being unreasonable. If the person who offended had a history of apologizing and then acting exactly the same, then the offendee's behavior would be justified, but if this is a one-time offense, then he should accept the apology. If he does not, he is the one in the wrong.

It's all about how the situation goes down.

And someone getting a bit upset because I used this word, or this phrase, or made X statement is not really my problem, it's theirs. Disagree if you will, this is how I see it

Honest question. How is it their problem? You are the one who said the word or phrase. They find it hurtful. How is finding something insulting or hurtful their problem? How is it not your problem for saying it in the first place?

Why is it more important for you to be able to use a word, than for them to not be hurt and upset? Why is your convenience more important than their feelings? I just don't understand how they are at fault for being hurt by your actions, and why it's so important for you to be able to say something hurtful rather than respecting another person's emotions.

[Cognitive Gear]

This is in regards to Nate's original post.

I will default to Jesus and Paul for my argument.

If you know anything about Jesus, you know that Love defined everything he did. So that includes him telling people that they were "fools" (Luke 11:39-40), him telling them that their daddy was Satan (John 8:44)...He also calls them dirty tombs, bags of snakes, hypocrites...Jesus never shied away from hurting feelings, but he always did it in love.

Paul in Phillipians 3:8 he says he counts worldliness as rubbish which in the original Greek is the equivalent of s**t in our language. Paul also says about the Judiazers who were saying you needed to be circumsized to be saved "I wish they would cut off their junk rather than preach that" (Galatians 5:12).

Also, if you believe God is love you can't overlook the fact that many times he mocks people and nations. Such as Psalm 59:8, 2:4, 37:13, Proverbs 1:23-27...And this is not to mention his mocking of people in Isaiah, Hosea and other places.

God uses frankness and mockery perfectly and lovingly. Sometimes the most loving thing that we can do is talk frankly to someone in order to bring them closer to God. I mean if that's the model Jesus used, why shouldn't we. We just need to remember to never do it from derision, but only for their personal well-being.

I think it is good that you are looking to Christ for your answers, but I definitely think that to say that what Jesus was doing was simple mockery is a misunderstanding of the context in which these things were said.

Just to hit a couple of these:

In Galatians 5, where Paul talks about circumcision, it is clear from the second verse that he is being hyperbolic to make a point. If you must be circumcised for Christ to do you any good, why stop there? What about the rest of the Law? Why not cut it all off?

When Jesus said they were sons of the devil, He was saying this in direct response to their assertion that they were sons of Abraham, and following his words. Later on, they claimed that God was their father, and Jesus essentially said that their actions and desires show that they had a different father: the devil.

He was using their own logic against them.


When Jesus called them white-washed tombs, it was within yet another context. Specifically, he was using it as an analogy to show how... You know what, here's the verse:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

So again, these aren't really insults. They have a certain context and meaning beyond just smacking people over the head.

It should also be noted that the times Jesus uses these words are (AFAIK) always leveled at those in power, be it religious, political, or social. This is important because political correctness is largely about preventing the majority from oppressing the minority with inherently insulting language.

For the record, I don't think that Jesus would use the terms that "politically correct" generally refers to in an offensive way to begin with.

In short: Jesus wasn't insulting anyone, He was using analogies to make a point. These analogies are at times harsh, but they are never malicious, and He never has to apologize for what He says. There is a difference between using strong language to correct someone and using it to insult them.

[Yuki-Anne]

[quote="Solid Ronin (post: 1479685)"]No we shouldn't because people get upset and hurt by the dumbest things. People think eating meat is murder, so I guess I can't eat burgers now. Pain in as important part of life as pleasure is, Yeah you're right we shouldn't be seeking out to hurt someone but if they get hurt we'll its as much our job to apologize as it is theirs to get over it.

And what about child raising? Ya know how many times my feeling were hurt/body was hurt when I was growing up, ALOT! But I got over it and now I'm better off for it.

tl]

It's easy to say "get over it," but some people are genuinely damaged emotionally and psychologically by things that others say. To expect someone to just "get over it" is neither loving nor reasonable, since you aren't in that person's head and you have no idea what sort of psychological and emotional scars they have.

You can get over a scraped knee. You can't "get over" an amputated leg. And that is what a lot of people are suffering from emotionally due to childhood abuse, among other things.

To use an innocuous phrase as an example, you might say to two different people, "Come on, I know you can do better than that." One might be slightly offended, and the other might have intense feelings triggered because that's what his father always said to him right before the beatings.

So expecting someone to "get over it" is a very calloused and unreasonable attitude.