Is political correctness wrong ? ( Archived) (42)

Hi Jono...

May be the OP could have asked...Has PC gone wrong?

think you're on to something...

So, that would imply the shaming element is the problem, not the political correctness, right?

If I can only buy bread made with refined white flour and no other food, would I be healthier if I didn't eat at all? Wouldn't there be some sort of progress in asking the miller not to refine the flour, rather than blame the flour and destroy it all?

If shame is an element of political correctness which inhibits discussion, is it not better to tackle the issue of shame, rather than destroy the aims of political correctness, if the aims are fair and there is an element of productivity in the concept?

I can think of two ways I've utilised the shame element. The first is to do with empathy and openness to change. If I want to be listened to, I also need to be open to listening; if I would like others to change for my needs to be met, I also need to be prepared to change for the benefit of others. I don't feel ashamed to change for the better and that is intrinsically dependent upon recognising where I may have destructive thinking and behaviours towards others. I can choose whether to run away, or become defensive if I feel shame for my behaviour, or I can use it to make positive changes and move forward. We all can make those choices and so shame essentially comes from within and we do have control over its imposition.

Secondly, shame, or political correctness may be turned inside out and put to good use. I recently completed an online AQ test and scored rather more highly that I expected. When I 'fessed up to this on the forums, a number of others also completed the test, but I still get to refer to myself as the rather politically incorrect CS Spazzer Silver Medallist. I don't much see the point in being ashamed about autism, nor do I see the point in other non-autistic people being ashamed to talk about it. I'd like to talk about it and go on a personal voyage of discovery and I'd like others to throw off any fears they may have about autism. The humour of political in-correctness can be a good way of opening those doors.

The problem comes when political in-correctness is deliberately utilised to belittle, or oppress others. If political correctness is utilised to belittle and oppress others, can it really claim to be politically correct?

Your miller could be insulted by your request to change how he works; is that a reason not to ask?

The fast it is POLITICAL correct in contrary of "just" correct already implies that it is influenced for a reason.
Most common the reason is that a group benefits to maintain the current situation at the expense of another (larger? ) group.
So yes to answer your last statement; yes that is politically correct .

As I understand it, political correctness is precisely the opposite. That is, the current status quo is challenged such that some people do not remain disadvantaged.

The logical fallacy comes in when its thought that equal rights and opportunities are not ultimately to the advantage of all.

Don't know about PC being wrong but it is boring.

Tend to agree with you CC.

Okay, sorry Ro.

'Logical fallacy' means false logic.

Take, for (very simple and possibly stereotyped) example, the traditional gender roles of my childhood and then look at gender equality: if women should have the right to a career, to be an engineer, to not have children without being labelled as unwomanly, those equal rights fought for automatically mean equal rights for men, otherwise it wouldn't be equal.

Some men may feel threatened by these changing gender roles and feel they don't have control over women, particularly if women have their own income and aren't bound to them financially. However, it means that men have more control over their own lives and may choose to be nurses, primary parents, flower arrangers, leave an unhappy relationship, whatever without without being labelled as unmanly.

Obviously, we have a long way to go in many areas to reach this gender equality for both men and women, but the benefits of life choices also means we must find greater emotional intimacy to be able to negotiate our way round each other's choices.

I don't see any great loss for either party, given the advantages.

Err yeh, ok Jaq

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is wrong but I do believe it is a means of control.
SO - I guess it is wrong. People need to get over themselves. If one doesn't like something that is said that's too damn bad. Get over yourself. I think we all should be able to voice our opinion no matter how wrong it may be.

I'd say its neither the vernacular, nor the antiquity of the word 'gal', but referring to women in the diminutive of immaturity which is derogatory. As adults we are responsible for the well being of boys and girls, so referring to adults in many contexts as children implies they are not able to look after themselves and control must be taken over their lives for their own benefit. This was/is also seen with respect to referring to Afro-American men as 'boy'.

Exaggerations are not politically incorrect per se. Its not politically incorrect to say your headache is so bad you think your head is going to explode. Where exaggerations become politically incorrect is when you group people together with one trait and extrapolate another, as in "All/most gypsies are thieves".

I don't understand your reasoning at all here, so I can't comment. Its nonsensical to me, so perhaps you could elaborate?

Continued...

No need to hide Tom, I'm pleased you agree.

from what i can understand "that" characterizes a phenomenon, which isn't that far off, i might be wrong of course so please if you have further info let me know on that, i shall yield.