Talk:Political correctness

---

Archive

• Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results
• Talk:Political correctness/Archive1

Labels

I have an idea I'm kicking around about discussing the concept of labels, and their importance. People tend to think in terms of symbols anyways, and the labels we choose to refer to each other are thus quite important. I've always found the subject of labels fascinating, since they carry so much weight. Some people even choose to define themselves by the label others give them. I think thats pretty sad, but I don't see how changing the way we label them makes the difference. I think its something inside the person that decides if they are going to define themselves, or if they embrace how they are defined by others. Anyhow, it would be an interesting area to explore. Sam Spade 06:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Labels Pt II

I think the article needs a little fleshing out regarding the conceptual thought behind political correctness. One of the commoner anti PC arguments is that it makes everyday speech difficult as one must keep checking which terms to use. This is an issue that I think is central to any discussion of PC language - that replacing non PC terms with "PC Equivalents" is not just a question of removing words with negative connotations and replacing them with value neutral versions. The heart of the PC project is precisely to make it difficult to apply easy labels to various groups of people. The argument goes something like this: 1) certain people have their rights/opportunities/freedoms restricted due to their categorisation as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype. 2) This categorisation is largely implicit and unconcious, and is facillitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology. 3) By making the labeling terminology problematic people will be made to think conciously about how they describe someone. 4) Once labelling is a concious activity the individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership of a group, will become more apparent.

I also think more could be made of the disparity between what PC supporters and PC critics claim PC is. It's perjorative use clearly encompasses a massive amount of political ideology/thought that has very little to do with actual PC concepts.

User:Dr Headgear 11:30, 31 Mar 2004 (CET)

Mmmmmaybe.... try putting your ideas in the article, and I'll keep an eye for NPOV. Sam Spade 20:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

As no one has objected to removing the NPOV warning after a reasonable time period has passed, I am removing it. If anyone wishes to restore the warning, please discuss it here. --zandperl 23:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Henry Beard Dictionary is not (fully) for real

The article cites Beard's Dictionary.My understanding is that he and his co-author collected up examples of politically correct terminology that had been proposed in all seriouslness, but then mixed these without comment with their own inventions for the purpose of satire. (Beard is an ex-editor of National Lampoon, a satirical magazine) Certianly the book jacket (according to amazon.com contains teh phrase "Includes even more real and satirical definitions to help keep thought cops away."

would seem that some folks,at least were willing to swallow Beard's parody whole - perhaps because PC terminlogy seemed do silly to them that nothing Beard could invent was too preposterous. Certainly the customer reviews on amazon.com suggest that some folks think its real

Shouldn't the article make it clearer that the Dictionary should not be taken (completely) seriously? Chris B 29/3/04

Sure, go ahead and place such caveats, or remove dubious references as needed. Sam Spade 20:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

usage of nigger

I removed an insinuation that 'most people avoid using the term "nigger" '. I havn't found this to be the case, altho most people do avoid using it in mixed company. If anyone has any documentation one way or the other, please feel free to provide it. Sam Spade 20:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PC on "mecca" - please help

REcently I wrote something and mentioned "mecca" as somewhere that people are heading to and looking to for new challenges and profit. I was told that "mecca" is now considered offensive to the middle-eastern religions if used in any other context than "Mecca" as the place..... I would really appreciate any up-to-date feedback on this... Thanks Sandra shanji89@internode.on.net

See the article on Mecca for the gory details. In gist, some Muslims are offended by the use of the name of their holy city in expressions describing a hotbed of sinful activity, such as mecca of gambling. --FOo 13:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Always used mockingly

I think this article is misleading about the nature of the expression "politically correct." At least since the mid-80s (before the term was ever in popular use), no one has claimed or esteemed to be "politically correct." The term is not "sometimes" used mockingly, it is always used mockingly. This article should acknowledge that the expression has no positive sense and that it does not describe a philosophy that anyone would admit to having. From the sloppy flow of the article, I'd say it's already been trough a few too many edit wars and I'm leary of starting another one. Any thoughts? Nathan 11:12, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Even if you had cited the claims you made, they would still need to be expressed in a NPOV manner. Sam Spade 19:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

This obviously can't be cited in the article, but take a look at my recent conversation here where I am advised that P.C. terminology has become the standard. This was a non-mocking usage, and by relatively P.C. folks themselves. Sam Spade 20:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me why I hold the burden to produce citations when this article is already full of uncited nonsense. Even so, the citation you're asking for is presently linked at the bottom of the article, on the linguist page. To disprove that information, I'd like to see one use of PC in a positive sense by anyone that matters (some uninformed leftist rant on a talk page isn't very interesting.) It is a term that, ever since it gained popularity, has been used primarily by detractors of the described behavior. That should be reflected in the article.

Secondly, indiscriminately reversing all of my edits, including those that attempt to standardize spelling from PC to P.C., as it appears at the top of the article, is not reversing a POV edit. It is being a wanton page diva, and it is now clear to me why this page is such a disorganized, poorly written mess. Nathan 09:17, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Keep your insults to yourself, buck-o. I salvaged a couple lines from what you wrote. Smokem peace pipe? Sam Spade 19:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

If by “smokem peace pipe,” you mean work together to improve this article, sure thing! I'll be making minor changes from time to time, and I'll try to discuss anything controversial here first.

Allegations of communist use

Before we accept the communist use story into this page's history section, I have some questions for Mr. "81.249.106.218", who in his edit comment claimed "i have several docs where my members of my were certified as "politically correct')".

Questions: 1) What were you trying to say, "my members of my" what? What? 2) What country, exactly? 3) What language was the term in, and how is it written in that language? 4) Is this your own translation, or have other people linked the term between languages? 5) Is there any evidence of a link between use of the word in whatever communist country you are talking about and the way it has been used in the U.S. for the past two decades? Was it endless talk show fodder there, too? Nathan 09:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Let's just keep this colorful claim here until we have some answers. Nathan 20:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Others have noted that it was used in communist countries, where one had to be certified as politically correct (by supervisors, Party members or whomever the Party trusted) in order to access certain jobs, goods or services. Nomenklatura members were necessarily politically correct, but even ordinary people needed such a testimonial in order to get a passport and travel abroad or to buy a house.

One thing that immediately jumps to my mind is which communist country would have been using english widely enough that the term "politically correct" would have been in official use. Was the term directly translatable to "P.C." or what? Just seems kinda odd to me, the language factor. Sam Spade 20:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Some answers:

1) I wrote "my family" originally, but as this only applied to specific people within, I wanted to fix it as "members of my family" but replaced the wrong word.

2) It was obviously a native expression (English would certainly not be used in official expressions). All the translations I know are word for word the same thing.

3) It is rather the Americans (or the British) who borrowed the expression and translated it. BTW, young generations use the expression in the ironical meaning today, but for older ones, it has a bad taste of Communist "performance evaluations".

4) I think the expression has been borrowed (just as eg. "intelligentsia") and then given back with a modified meaning. It is a pretty standard phenomenon in languages; a lot of old French words come back to France from the English-speaking countries with new meanings.

5) There were no talk shows during communism (!). And this was a serious expression.

6) If you think this is "colorful", you lived too isolated from the outside world.

Ok, this is getting more interesting. But you still haven't said what country you are talking about. And yes, obviously it would be in a “native” language, but why have you still not said which one? That's what made me suspicious in the first place. Can you ask someone in your family, if you do not speak the language yourself, how the expression is written? Then we could link to that language's page on P.C., if it exists. If we had that much information, this could be an interesting note on the expression's probable origins. Until then, it reads more like rumor. And a colorful one from my perspective, linking up a life-or-death Communist party policy to an expression I've only ever heard used in spiteful irony—as much by older generations as younger! Nathan 14:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

whats up?

Does anon have some verification, or what? Shall I assume the above is the last we'll hear on this? Anybody have any citations? Sam [Spade] 05:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

ornery anon

"PC" was never a "movement", it doesn't have "proponents". All it is is a slur people throw at each other. It was invented as a slur! This whole article is filled with snipes against this "straw man" proponent, to whom a variety of things are attached to, such as environmentalism, that have nothing to do with "PC". This article needs a complete overhaul by someone who can tell it from an unbiased POV.

That would appear to be yourself? First please review NPOV, and please refrain from adding HTML, it is against wki sytle standards. Sam[Spade] 22:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry it that seemed like an outburst. I will print this article out and take a close look at it this weekend. If I can come up with some constructive proposale, I'll voice them here before I do anything. As for the HTML, I don't know how that is getting in there; I am certainly not putting it in deliberately. I'll try to find what the problem is and avoid its happening again. From now on I'll log in as PanzerHier. Thanks... --156.101.1.5 13:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)PanzerHier

No problem. I just want you to understand that there is a regular cycle on this page of people coming in, voicing intense dissent about the article, attempting to overhaul it, and after various edits the concensus being for it to end back up quite alot like it started. It's a controvercial topic, and I reccomend that any extreme changes be discussed at length here in the talk page. Sam [Spade] 13:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't if it's a “consensus” as much as exasperated resignation. I still think this page is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia, but I'm not going to waste my time bickering over every change (or deletion) I'd like to make to it. My feeling is that we need a new policy to rid the Wikipedia of politically charged (and intellectually useless) articles like this one, or at least segregate them. Nathan 15:30, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Actually its a featured article, one of our very best. You will find that an attempt to censor will not go over well, its simply anti-wiki. If there are some specific issues I would be glad to discuss them however. Sam [Spade] 17:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know well that it's featured (makes my stomach turn), I saw when you put that notice up a few weeks back. But since you mention it, how did that happen? I checked the voting history page at that time and didn't see any record of it. Nathan 19:24, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

It has been a featured article for a very long time. It was temporarilly removed due to recent troubles here, which were largely solved. Also the remaining objector left the wiki. Sam [Spade] 19:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So I take it the article wasn't voted in? It was, maybe, pushed in by some persistent long-term Wikipedian? In that case I think it's a stretch to say that being featured qualifies it as one of “our” best articles. Certainly, if it were, I wouldn't be spending as much time on the Wikipedia. Anyway, it looks like the jig is up — the Wikipedia is growing up and it doesn't have room for childish tirades like this article. Props to ArticFrog for explaining (below) what I haven't had time to say myself. Nathan 22:02, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

what exactly is the problem?

There have been repeated complaints about the article, but in my estimation they have been vague, or based on a desire for the article to contain a pro-PC slant. Can any and all objectors articulate themselves to the best of their ability so that we can get to work? I'm not thrilled or disturbed by the article as it now stands, and am perfectly willing to discuss some specific particulars. Sam [Spade] 19:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ArcticFrog: My two cents worth -- I think the use of "proponents" of PC is kind of funny. Are there really any proponents of "PC"ness? The term itself is vague, yet tied to supporters that are always anonymous "proponents". Lets name some "proponents" so the term won't seem so ...empty of meaning.

Also: This quote: "However, the choice of specific racial or ethnic nomenclature depends on both location and time period. For example, in the United States people of both Caucasian and African descent use the term “black” and while the term nigger is generally considered racist and offensive, some younger African-Americans use the term among themselves, but view it as derogatory if it is used by people of other races."

....seems out of place, more fit for a racism article or something. And: is using the word "nigger" really adding anything useful here? It seems to me that sentence is fine just saying "African-American" for "black". The extra here seems...sloppy.

And, in the controversy section, I think comparing PCness to Facism and Doublespeak and such is kinda overkill because there is no group identified putting PCness forth other than the anonymous "proponents".

In short, there needs to be some more definition of things...Is PC really a movement, or just a handy term to slap people with that became popular? An encyclopedia article on PCness should answer this question, or point out that there is no answer (if there is none). My two cents worth...... --ArcticFrog 19:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

Well, the word proponents is not used, but "Advocates" and "supporters" are just as anonymous. I think any actual quotes from actual people defending PC in any way would greatly give the article more feeling of authority and seem less like a single person's narration. --ArcticFrog 20:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

Yes...me again. The one article referred to by Bill Lind is a highly biased article itself, and I question it's value as an authority, though respect it as an opinion. Im not "pro-PC" or anything, Im just trying to help identify the bias and cause of discontent. This article goes into a lot of detail about things that there seem to be no authority on, which makes it sound one sided. Perhaps this should be mentioned...the fact that no one can find sources for these things(PC stuff). --ArcticFrog 20:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

I think the nigger part is particularly insightful, and I am the one who added the stuff about PC fascism. If you havn't heard it described that way you obviously havn't been to a gun show recently. Of course its a perjorative, and of course it has proponents (loads of em here on the wiki) but no one famous who I know of is brave enough to come out and call themselves "PC". They'd be endlessly ridiculed, probably long after they left public life in disgrace. I also favor citations, but good luck. I've already had criticism of the paltry few citations we do have on this page as coming from joke books and humorous news events. I thank you for the specifics, and I agree w you about the benefit of citations/verifiablity if nothing else. Sam [Spade] 20:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, who exactly are these 'facists', i.e, PCers? What are the methods of these people who are afraid to admit publicly, to they meet privately? Is this an underground conspiracy? That's what seems to be hinted at here...I think it should be noted that its unknown whether this is a 'movement' or what. OK, so PC generally means left wing...but is the PC thing a method the left wing uses, or a goal they hope to achieve? And I must disagree about the fascism thing, PC conjurs an image of an old black woman having pitty on a crippled student than rows of goose-stepping solders. Fascism is centralizes in a movement...yet we've still to identify what this (or if this) movement is. Its more of a linguistic issue, I believe, than a mind control issue. I think the 'mind control' idea is an exaggeration. I can see the point of how changing speech can change the way we think, and there is psychological research on this (Ill try to find some references that might help). I guess it is worth mentioning it though, since it is a verifiable fact that people see it that way. I'm going to try to find some sources to help, Im really enjoying working on this...

Also: an interesting article I found on the word "nigger" and its uses...might even be worth linking to...http://wrt-intertext.syr.edu/XI/Nigger.html though it's very much from a black man's perspective...But, interesting! --ArcticFrog 21:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

aha...hahahahaha.... hmm... PC means something completely opposite to you, obviously. It is nothing underground, it is a method and a goal of part of the Left. To me it sums up the doublethink and attempts at mass mind control employed by the intellectually dishonest. It is one of the many proof's of the prophetic prowess of George Orwell. A better example of newspeak in action I can't imagine. If you want cites on it being compared to fascism... [1]. I can see we come from different worlds, and thats ok. The important thing is making an article which we can all understand and agree apon. Such is the joy of concensus editing :) Sam [Spade] 22:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

origin of the term

From the article: 'Many leftists allege that the term "political correctness" started as a label jokingly used to describe one's over-commitment to various political causes.' As a person who has been active on the left in the U.S. for a long time, I don't ever remember hearing it used to refer to "over-commitment". As early as the early '80s, when I believe this was still an inside left term, it referred, clearly, to people who were over-concerned with the niggling details of language usage as against what they were actually saying and doing. It was definitely a reference to the fetishization by some members of fringe left parties of having the "correct line" on an issue rather than necessarily, as individuals, thinking about it. The term was particularly likely to be applied to, for example, a white person who seemed to have a lot of "appropriate" jargon to talk about black culture -- e.g. would have a firm commitment to whether "black" or "Afro-American" or "African-American" was the "correct" term to use -- and would have a fixed set of opinions -- e.g. would be very inclined to blame society rather than individual miscreants for any crimes in the black community -- but did not actually have any black friends, listen to any broad range of black music, understand black slang, etc.: someone whose apparent racial sensitivity was, or might as well have been, something he or she got out of a book. (Similarly on other issues, but I most remember it being used in reference to racial attitudes.) I remember, in particular, an incident where several of us were planning an event and someone, describing the band they wanted to bring, called them "soft funk." A rather P.C. white women's studies professor had no idea what the description meant; a much less P.C. white person who hung around a lot more with black people responded, "That means they're black, but they won't scare off the white people." Several white people, including the women's studies professor were rather offended. The several black people at the meeting were all completely amused by the description.

Anyway, I'd like to see something in the article that at least talks about this aspect of the origin of the term ("correct line" rather than "over-commitment"); I'm not sure I'm the one to write it. -- Jmabel 23:19, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like it if you were, you seem particularly insightful and knowledgable about the subject. You also point out an important detail: PC is not a synonym for "left", but rather is a perjorative for some on the left who have an agenda which is rarely embraced, and often even opposed, by others on the "Left". Lots of my friends are lefties, but not one of them is PC, favors censorship, etc..., but rather are more down to earth, sensible well rounded folks w a sense of humor (the opposite of a PC fascist in other words ;).Sam [Spade] 00:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the sentence you last changed has a typo in it: "..based upon perceived or handicaps." I'm not sure how to fix it...just FYI --ArcticFrog 14:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

Beer swillin' rednecks

When I was a teenager, I dated a "crippled" girl, and eventually broke up with her because of her daddy...who was always talking about the "communiss" conspiracy (not to mention that she was an airhead herself). But this man swore that by the year 2000, there would be trains full 'o peeple headed to the concentration camps as the "communiss" took over. Well, 2000 done come and gone, and I'm not on no train going anywhere....So what's my point? I read through this article and I can smell that man's beery breath breathing on me...De "communiss" is coming...de "communiss" is coming." And that man, to be quite un-PC, was a fruitcake. Well, that's what this article is saying..."they" is commin'. Well who they? Does anyone really believe that a citation from that article by Bill Lind belongs in a supposedly neutral, hopefully informative encyclopedia article? The man isn't an authority on anything, he doesn't have a single reference in his article for anything he says. There is something here that smells really..."beery". PC is not a movement; it's not a tactic of the left. The only people I see using the term PC are the people who are raving against...what?...it. Well, what is it? Wouldn't it be nice to use "PC" to start a controversy, just like 'ol McCarthy and "de comuniss" or what-have-you, and rack up a bunch of unconnected nonsense, wrap it in a bag, and cover it with glue so it sticks to whoever you throw it at, regardless of whether they have anything to do with what's in yo bag or not. Then you can say, "de communiss...no the PCiss is commin, de PCiss is commin'. Then all the rednecks who like to hear what they want to hear get behind you with they beers in dey hands and say "Hayll yea!! Iss a conspiracy afoot." Where's the substance here? I see a lot of fluff, and nothing, as in not-a-thing, to back any of it up. Sure there are stupid people out there doing a lot of stupid things, but unless you can show that these silly unconnected incidents of people "enforcing" PCness are in some way connected through a defined group of people, it's all just conjecture. And this article, an encyclopeda article, is telling me conjecture is the fact of the day. Nothing is "matter of fact" in this article.

In short...this article is a damn mess. It should present the facts, and only supportable facts. That's the only way it will be neutral. Get rid of all the superfluous "comuniss" conspiracy theory CRAP. Voice it in other forums, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And asking you politely (please) to cut out biased crap don't mean Im a facist trying to censor and opress you; it's just what's appropriate in this forum.

Also: from the Lind article: He says we in a place and time now where we got to be afraid of what we say....We'll who's afraid?? If I use the word "Homosexual" instead of "gay", or if I use "African-American" instead of "black"..I get afraid someone's goin' to start calling me names and labeling me...(in a whisper)..."a PC comuniss"...just like one time in Germany when they used to whisper the word..."Jew"..right before they started shouting it.

The finger can point both ways, ya know. --PaperTiger 20:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)Paper Tiger

Well... I suppose I might as well come out and admit it, I am the beer swillin' redneck to whom you refer. I suppose I could be offended, and I admit I was pretty worried about what edits your were making to the article, but the edits seem fine, and I'm actually not the type to get offended my being called a redneck (it is my ethnicity after all, and while I'm not swillin' beer at the moment, I do intend to do a bit of that later in the evening...). I'm not really sure what your intent is, if you read above I already agreed that possibly nobody, and more likely an ultra-minority, refers to themselves as PC. It is mainly a pejorative, hurled about (along w others, and among other places) wherever we beer swillers gather, there’s no doubt about that. The question is how we might improve this IMO rather acceptable article. Yelling at me till your blue in the face about the "crap" I've helped create is prob. not the answer. As I said above however, I am plenty open-minded and willing to discuss any specific particulars. Sam [Spade] 22:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I really wasn't referring to anyone in particular, and certainly didn't mean to offend. I certainly don't question your integrity. I just wanted to make a point and thought that was the best way. I guess I made myself look like a din-a-ling, but let's start with a fresh slate. I guess that sounds kinda lame after all that gas I threw on the fire, but my intentions are just to get to the bottom of this issue and to contribute some constructive suggestions. --PaperTiger 22:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)PaperTiger