"Politically Correct is Morally Wrong".

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Jul 23, 2019.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Politically Correct is Morally Wrong.
    Saw that on a bumper sticker few days ago, and it got me wondering.

    Is it? Is it not? And why for either?
    And no, I do not have an opinion because I do not see a direct connection between two, but I could be wrong.

    Your opinions?
     
  2. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    If politically correct implies a lie, yes it's morally wrong as a lie is morally wrong.
    If it's just politeness (= rephrasing a concept so that the least amount of people can misinterpret it as a personal attack), well then it's no problem. That's how I see it.
     
  3. chown33 Moderator

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    bedlam
    #3
    I think they're orthogonal. It mainly depends on what kinds of things one labels as "Politically Correct".
     
  4. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #4
    using the term today "political correct" is meant as a dog whistle and very little else. the term has been so heavily attacked (and often unreasonably) because people who are racist, sexist, xenophobic (or whatever else) were getting upset that they were being told their words were harmful to others.

    So they attacked "political correctness" and bound it up to the term "SJW".

    This is nonsense. what political correctness is, is ensuring that the words you use do not cause undue harm on others. If you are regularly being told that the words you are using are not "politically correct", its because it's a nice way of saying "you're saying hatefull **** that isn't based in reality"

    can political correctness go over the top? Sure, just like everything abusing the term for ones own personal gain is innapropriate. But at the same time, attacking political correctness just because you want to repeat racist, sexist, xenophobic remarks doesn't mean political correctness is bad.
     
  5. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #5
    Since we're kinda philosophizing here, don't you think that this would be an unreasonable/unreachable goal?
     
  6. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #6
    POssibly unreachable. not unreasonable...

    I think we should try in our everyday lives to try and cause no harm on others. it should be paramount. it's the goal.

    like all goals, there maybe reasonable limits to how much of that goal we can achieve. Especially since we are talking about language which is fluid and can change over time.

    That doesn't change the goal however. You don't wake up and go, well, "I can never be 100% kind to 100% of the people so i'm going to be an ass to everyone."

    At the same time, we can also try and correct ourselves if we find ourselves unintentionally causing harms to others through our words. If I were to continously use an offensive term unintentionally and someone told me "please stop", I will stop.

    the problem becomes some people don't stop and turn around and act the victim. Hence why there's a movement that claims to be anti-political correctness. They don't like that others are telling them that their opinions are offensive So instead of stopping and re-examining their opinions, they double down on playing the victim.

    It really comes back to the other conversation about "ignorant opinions". those who attack political correctness often have ignorant opinions that they are completely unwilling to change.


    Iunno. I just think too many have forgotten the golden rule in life.... Treat others the way you wish to be treated. or, as my idols would say... "Be excellent to eachother"
     
  7. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    Agreed.

    hmm, undecided here. I'd say that the goal is to not lie, hide the truth, or water down the truth.

    Well, that's how I think before coffee ;)

    Another interesting point. I'd say that the difficulty of doing what you say increases proportionally to the size of the audience. On a 1 to 1 basis (or 1 to very small group basis) what you say is pretty easy. If your reach is 1M people (either on TV, live, twitter etc.) this becomes much more difficult especially if the topic is controversial.

    yes and no. I do recognize that I am in the particular situation in which I rarely get offended. I mean, for me it's very difficult to feel offended; I can't even remember the last time that it happened. This also brings me in the awkward situation in which it's difficult for me to emphasize with someone that is offended by a Macy's dinner plate. I think that both sides sometimes are very unreasonable and tend to weaponize the conversation.

    This to me is more due to the fact that conversation, including direct disagreement, is not really encouraged in the US, especially in the K-12 system.
     
  8. hawkeye_a, Jul 23, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019

    hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #8
    If speech is the way we negotiate our views with the rest of the world, it is inevitable(or maybe even required) that at some point, we have to contend with contentious and sometimes offensive(to some) issues.

    What does it mean to be "political correct"? If you're "audience" is one person you could attempt to regulate your speech, what if your audience is 10 people, each with varying degrees of sensitivity on a myriad of different issues? How about if it is 100 people or even 1000 people? What if even one person in those samples is hyper-sensitive and *takes* offense?

    So better be "politically correct" and not discuss anything worth discussing?

    As the old saying goes.... sticks and stones.... IMHO

    For those who are interested.... Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate(YouTube)
     
  9. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #9
    those are also worthy goals that can include political correctness. as I stated a lot of the anti-political correctness movement is counter to above. its' about hiding truth. it's attacking the messenger essentially because they are unwilling to be truthful, even to themselves about the nature of what their words are.

    I think overall, the term that covers what we are saying is "integrity". if our goal is to have integrity, than we owe it to ourselves, neighbours and anyone we meet in life to treat them firstly with respect. To be truthful. honest and transparent. and to accept criticism should warrant.

    I'm a morning person. you'd probably try and shoot me as I bounce around town saying "GOOD MORNING!" with a giant smile on my face... give it till noon, than i'm runnin on empty and get grumpy.

    Size of the audience doesn't change whether there is truth behind it though. going to raise Hillary as an example of this. Calling out SOME Trumps supporters as "deplorables" might not have been factually incorrect... but it was part of the political suicide.

    a lot of the human rights movements over the generations have often met with loud and violent opposition because it was minority groups speaking to the masses about somethign they didn't want to hear. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't have done it. Sometimes you have to go against the grain in order to make meaningful change.


    I'm often not offended either. I'm one of those *******s who will sit and make racey off coloured jokes about my own heritage. I will tend to brush off ignorant statements and give the speaker benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I'm also willing to call a spade a spade when I see it.

    I do remind myself "just because someone is offended, doesn't mean an offense has occurred". But at the same time, recognize that we are all individuals and I should try my best not to intentionally offend someone, EVEN if I don't think that it is offensive.

    that's sad, and IMHO, further evidences that the US public education system is sorely underfunded and broken. a good, robust, healthy and well educated populace is always going to be the best for everyone.

    with this philosophizing though, I feel like I owe you a drink
    --- Post Merged, Jul 23, 2019 ---
    Except words matter and can have long term devastating affects on people, worse than even broken limbs.

    being ignorant of others mental health because you don't want to take 10 seconds to think your words before you speak is a pretty selfish point of view to take.
     
  10. Solver, Jul 23, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019

    Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    Live and let live works pretty well. But we shouldn’t assume that we are morally superior. For some reason too many people that feel they are morally superior do some really immoral things.
     
  11. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #11
    Live and Let Live only works when those same words aren't also used as discriminatory practices.

    often, they go hand in hand. Someone who has prejudicial views to thep oint that they don't mind espousing them publicly, also likely apply those same views towards others in the workplace and public.

    It's very hard for someone to believe in equality of all while railing against political correctness.

    Live and Let Live is a nice ideal, but in this context it's nothing but a mask for "I should be free to say whatever repulsive thing I want regardless of the consequences those things have against you"

    Arguing against political correctness is a good indicator of prejudicial views.
     
  12. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    What IF all of us stopped using words that offended people?

    I definitely am offended when people use words seriously promoting ideologies that have historically killed hundreds of millions of people. If people wouldn’t use those words, I wouldn’t be as offended.

    Taking it to its logical conclusion it means mankind would slowly and painfully stop speaking, and eventually stop thinking.
     
  13. velocityg4 macrumors 601

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #13
    If one wants to be overly sensitive to the feelings of others. Carefully picking non-offensive terms and avoiding indelicate topics. There is nothing wrong with that.

    When you try to force it on others, yell at them, gang up, berate them, try to get them fired, interrupt, harass, cajole, taunt and so forth until they submit to your 'enlightened view. Then it is morally wrong. Making you no better than them perhaps much worse.
     
  14. Mousse macrumors 68020

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #14
    I'm a simple guy. I eat when I'm hungry, yell when I'm mad, sleep when I'm tired. I don't stand much on ceremony. Being politically correct is something I find difficult at the best of times. BUT, because I'm a simple guy, I won't say whatever repulsive thing I want. Not because any consequences those things have against others, but I don't want my butt handed to me for being a jerk.
     
  15. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #15
    I somewhat agree with what you are saying. For example not saying someone is challenged vs handicapped is fine. It is pretty easy to tell who they are. So no problem there.

    But it has also been weaponized by some who seem to just want to stir up trouble. If I refer to someone who certainly looks feminine as a "she" but is actually a trans male and they get all bent out of shape because I used the wrong pronoun. Even if I didn't do it on purpose, I am the a$$hole. That is where my problem with it is.

    And as you noted, sometimes it can go over the top. And that is where most of the pushback is, not by those who as you claim simply want to use racist, sexist or xenophobic terms.
     
  16. Falhófnir macrumors 68040

    Falhófnir

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    #16
    I'm thinking here of the sort of extreme fringe PC thinking, but I've always thought, for example, those who oppose the use of 'Christmas' in official material because it might 'offend' someone of another faith is doing them a massive disservice. That's basically saying people of minority faiths aren't reasonable or emotionally mature enough to co-exist outside of their own bubble which seems, funnily enough, to be pretty insulting :p
     
  17. hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #17
    The inevitable side-effect of operating purely on "intentions" and ignoring "outcomes".
     
  18. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #18
    You mean like the idea that requiring an ID to vote is bad because it assumes black people aren't smart enough to get an ID?
    --- Post Merged, Jul 23, 2019 ---
    Question for some:

    Why do you worry about what someone calls someone else, when so many on the left have no problem calling Trump Voters Stupid? Is that OK?
     
  19. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
    #19
    and where it is encouraged, most times it is required to be "pc".
     
  20. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #20
    There is a vast difference between choosing the words you use wisely so as to try and reduce reasonable potential offense (PC lite) and mobs of authoritarians that want to compel speech (PC crazy.) Like Jordon Peterson, I fully disagree that any political party should compel speech. It historically does not work out well.
     
  21. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #21
    Most Christians are morally wrong by their own rule book.

    But that's too long for a bumper sticker.

    Sorry for the sidebar.
     
  22. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #22
    To me, that's what PC is. The term is so tainted that I would never call it that, but that's all it means to me. It means not using racial slurs when you know they're likely to offend, not referring to homosexuals as "degenerate perverts", not referring to the Christian God as "sky daddy", treating people and their beliefs with respect and calling people what they want to be called. It's never been a difficult task for me.

    At the same time, when someone does say something offensive, often out of ignorance, then politely let them know. Don't act like they're pure evil for slipping up or not knowing the correct thing to say. When I found out that trans people prefer to be referred to as "trans" rather than "transgendered" (as I had been saying before), it was politely pointed out to me and I've said "trans" ever since. Not a big deal.
     
  23. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #23
    "Political Correctness" is not, and should not be, an end unto itself.

    I'd also note that "political correctness" is not a uniquely liberal or progressive construct. Don't believe me? Why did we decide to call them "freedom fries"? Why do talking heads on Fox News insist on calling it the "Democrat" Party?

    My personal belief is that political correctness is best practiced as a form of civility and good manners. A social lubricant to ease our interaction with our fellow citizens. That means referring to people as they would wish to be called. If someone prefers "William", its presumptuous - to say the least - for me to call him Bill.

    Being polite and considerate to other people can very rarely be considered immoral. Rather the opposite, I would think.
     
  24. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #24
    Exactly. If you berate me for an honest mistake, then F-you (not you ;)) and the horse you rode in on. I will dig in just as hard as you did and it will be ugly. Politely tell me what you prefer and we will get along fine.

    I had no idea that "trans" was preferred over transgendered. Is there a reference book or anything?
    --- Post Merged, Jul 23, 2019 ---
    We called them Freedom Fries as an f-you to France!

    As for the Democrat/Democratic Party term, I honestly had no idea this was a thing. I think I have always referred to it as the Democratic Party, but really never noticed the term Democrat Party being used.
     
  25. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    Like using the live and let live philosophy. Sounds good.
    On an individual basis this is easy. But trying restricting your speech for every possible identity in an innumerable number of different groups so as not to offend anyone, can lead to contradictory insanity.
    A friend of mine hated being called a “colored person” or even a “person of color.“ She wanted to be called, “black.” Just the opposite of what the “morally superior” PC police have collectively deemed.
    Again, it’s about the individual, case by case.
     

Share This Page

62 July 23, 2019