Talk:Political correctness

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Redundancy

Does anyone else think that "unjust discrimination" is kind of redundant? Is there such a thing as "just" discrimination? The word sounds funny there and I wanted to ask before I just removed it. --DanielCD 13:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The sentence does sound funny and i think the intended meaning would be understood without "unjust". But for the record the term isnt redundant. The term "discrimination" has now come to have strong negative connotations, because it is often used to refer to racist/sexist/unjust/etc discrimination, but in its original, strict sense discrimination means merely choosing/distinguishing. In some contexts it is also important to distinguish unambiguously bad discrimination from positive discrimination which is the term used for "affirmative action" in many countries.

Iota 17:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The idea that discrimination is solely negative in nature can only be founded in a lack of understanding of the term. See [1]. Almost all discrimination is functional. Sam [Spade] 06:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Liberal and Left-wing

Iota: I used the word "liberal" in the sentence simply to be consistent with the word "conservative" that is used earlier in the sentence. It seemed right; but many people (me included) seem to be confused about the multitude of meanings between left-wing, liberal, conservative, right-wing, etc. Why do you think people are avoiding Left-wing? I don't see whay the word "liberal" wouldn't work in that particular sentence.

Also: unless the article is refering to a cookie, I've never heard the word "nutter" before in this context. It seems kind of obscure. --DanielCD 17:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade argues, further up this talk page, that the term "liberal" should be avoided and no-one had dissented yet so i was assuming there was a sort of consensus. The problem with liberal is that in popular usage in the United States it has come to be used as a crude synonym for left-wing whereas in much of the rest of the world (and in political philosophy) its meaning is much more complicated.

I think the most common way to use the word in its accurate sense is to make a distinction between "social liberalism" (e.g. "affirmative action", legalising cannabis) and "economic liberalism" (free market economics). The problem is that while social liberalism is left-wing, economic liberalism is right-wing, so liberalism, on its own, can mean either.

I think that "political correctness" is a concept about language and has absolutely nothing to do with economics. But i think many on the right have come to describe as political correctness anything on the left (including social welfare, "big government", etc) that they disagree with. So i think the term left-wing is the correct and more accurate term to use in this article.Iota 22:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, nutter is a term used by English people, usually as a light-hearted insult. It's short for a "nut case". It should probably be replaced with lunatic which is older and more universal. I also think spaz is a bit too modern and culture-specific but i cant think of a good alternative off the top of my head. Iota 22:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I happen to like "nutter" (as well as "spaz"), since it is appropriately relaxed and informal. Someone put "retard" there in it's place once before, but I objected due to it being a clinical term. "Lunatic" is IMO too formal to encapsel the informality of "political incorrectness". Sam [Spade] 22:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

please review [2] and [3] as well. Sam [Spade] 22:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I kinda figured 'nutter' was an English term. Don't hear it much in Texas, where I am. I think the term 'retard' is a definite insult, even though it is a clinical term in other contexts. But when someone means it in the bad way, you know it. Thanks for the responses guys, they are a help. Even though there's a lot of "slash and burn" (constant editing) going on here, I still think this article is good and informative. --DanielCD 18:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Why is there nothing here on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? Surely this is central to PC? Mark Richards 22:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was content, but it was deleted in one of the pages near constant rewrites. I didn't know enough about it then to object, nor now to put it back, but if you put it there I'll prob read up on it ;) Sam [Spade] 22:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the Sapir-Worf Hypothesis merits a separate section unto itself. This is implying that people actually cite this hypothesis as their reason for designing PC speech. If this is going to be posited, then it requires a serious citation where someone verifies that that is what they are doing. Until then, I think it's ok to be mentioned, but not in its own section.--DanielCD 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll dig out some citations, (here is one [4] but this is a very influential piece of research, and formed the groundwork for a lot of the thought on careful use of language. I think a section on academic research and thought on how language affeects thought and behaviour would improve this article. Mark Richards 16:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and look forward to reading your edits/citations. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Difficult sentence

'The logical conclusion is that in order to combat sexism, one tactic should be to remove sexist language.'

That is the sentance as it was originally. I added "(for those who oppose sexism and support radical change)", but the more I think about it, who says any language is sexist? This sentance seems to be based on a foundation of POV. Perhaps you could phrase it differently? Sam [Spade] 22:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

English is actually sexist (mainly due to all grammarians being men.) For example, it is grammatically correct that when the sex of a person is unknown "he" should be used ("he entered the dark room and turned on the light.....It was Jessica - she wanted to borrow my razor to shave her pussy.") There's also things about the female versions of words having connotations of being weaker then the male versions (manager, manageress.) I'm sure there are more examples, but I can't remember them. Slizor 10:52, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

You left me hanging! Did you give her the razor? Did she need help? LOL

hahaha... OK, but I don't buy it. For me sexism = abusive. I don't find our language abusive. Of course I'm not P.C., and I'll call a gimpy nutter a retarded cripple, or vice versa. For me it all comes down to how you actually treat people, not the jokes you tell or the names you call. I personally strive to be helpful and thoughtful of others, and I think that’s good enough. I shouldn't have to try to change my language in order to conform to someone else’s awkward, humorless parlance. I'd just as soon change my accent to avoid grating your nerves (assuming you can't stand folks who talk the way I do ;) Sam [Spade] 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

self-reference

User:Neutrality recently deleted this paragraph with the comment "rm self-reference".

Wikipedia itself has included some amendments to articles that may be PC to some people but not to others. An example is the editing on August 31 2004 of the article Unitarian Universalism which stated Unitarian Universalist churches welcome gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people as well as the handicapped. The last word, handicapped, was changed to differently abled.

I don't see why this is objectionable (and no, I'm not the author of it). Wikipedia itself seems to me to be as good a place as any from which to draw an example for something like this. Neutrality, could you expand on your reasoning? Is this based on a particular policy of which I might be unaware? -- Jmabel 19:10, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but note there:

If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on - or is a part of - Wikipedia.

This case seems to fall between the examples.

It is certainly not content about "Wikipedia's policies or conventions"
It on a subject so removed from Wikipdia as Shakespeare. Conversely, it is not as obviously appropriate as a discussion of online communities.
It is in a neutral tone.
A very minor edit (far short of deletion) would deal with "implying that the article in question is being read on - or is a part of - Wikipedia".

In short, I don't think that standard gives much guidance in this case.

Now, I'm not saying this is a great paragraph that we need to preserve -- if anyone wants to restore it, they'll need to make the case for significance -- but I don't think it clearly violated policy. -- Jmabel 20:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Moved "kotobagari" to its own article

I moved "kotobagari" to its own article.

-- Szczerbiec01

Mao

Should mention Mao and use of term. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firefighter

I'm given to believe that fire departments have preferred the term "firefighter" over "fireman" for some time, without any particular regard for political correctness. A firefighter puts out fires; a fireman tends the furnace in a steam locomotive. —FOo 20:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The firefighter/fireman discussion should be removed for that reason. I would suggest that a new section might be needed to address the tendency of politically correct terms to lose some of the informative meaning of the terms they aim to replace -- e.g. chairperson vs chairman/women. --Rikurzhen 20:57, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Examples of non-PC words for disabled people

see Talk:Political_correctness#Difficult_sentence. There have been two examples for some time. Two ailments are discribed, and so ought two pejoratives be outlined. Also, form an account. Sam [Spade] 22:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In this article, only one example is required, to give a flavour of the kind of thing we are talking about. However, I think there should be a place in Wikipedia for more examples. How about we start a new article Offensive terms for people with disabilities, to explore this interesting topic, on which you are evidently something of an expert! [Raspberry is a fine one I heard recently. It's rhyming slang: raspberry ripple/cripple] GrahamN [not logged in owing to persistent password amnesia]

Two are needed here, in order to give a flavour of what we are talking about. Sam [Spade] 12:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that two examples are necessary, but I suppose there is no actual harm in it. However, don't you think we should include terms that most readers would recognise? Tard and gimp are terifically obscure. (I thought "gimp" meant something else entirely, by the way: maybe I'm wrong.) I've changed them to more recognisable terms. I hope this meets with your approval, Sam. GrahamN 17 Nov 2004

[5]. Your point Re; obscurity is taken, and I switched mad to crazy for a similar reason, mad means angry in the US, and in the UK and elsewhere it has a variety of usages. Crazy is pretty clear as to its usage, and its very common. Will that work? [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 20:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PC is about changing attitudes, not just changing language?

Does any else think the term PC has gone beyond alteration of langaguage to include the alteration of attitudes? It is often applied now to left-of-centre reappraisal of old behaviours and conventions. For example sexism, wearing fur coats, etc.

Archive