browngirl

See, my problem with political correctness is that I find it often is trying to hide an -ism. I'd rather have the -ism out there than shrouded by political correctness. I'd rather them be bold enough in their -ism to state it in plain terms instead of couching in different words.

Because my problem is that being PC makes it harder to separate those that *do* actually care, and are trying to fight against the -isms, with those that realize they can still be an -ist and now get away with it. Especially amongst a crowd of hipsters, who sometimes say -ist things and want it to be taken ironically......

However, I do agree that folks that don't want to bother with being PC are indeed stating they don't want their privilege pointed out to them. (and when I say "them" I also mean "me")

From:

browngirl.livejournal.com

Whereas, from my POV, as long as people can smirk, I can usually tell the sincere from the insincere.

I'd rather them be bold enough in their -ism to state it in plain terms instead of couching in different words.

More and more... I think I don't want to hear it, and feel that tummy-roiling rush of stress hormones. I'd rather people not be bigots, of course, but if they are feel so horribly trammeled by social strictures that they don't use bigoted language, at least that reduces the incidence of other people hearing blatant bigotry and feeling slapped in the face.

And oh, don't get me started on hipster 'irony' such as hipster racism. I might never stop ranting and waving my arms. :)

You know my Happy Everything card? A coworker genially accused me of trying to be PC with it, which helped me to articulate what I'm trying to do with it, the difference between grudgingly including a diversity of concepts and genuinely wanting to.

Edited Date: 2012-01-05 03:59 pm (UTC)

From:

Well, yes. I'd rather people not be -ists to begin with too!

I hope that coworker has been stricken from the card list. I love the card! I know you worked hard to make sure everyone was included, and I even had another card from a friend in a completely different social circle whose card was a picture of their family (similar to mine, Jewish woman married a non-Jew, except they have a baby) and the words "Happy Everything".

So...yeah. Silly co-worker.

From:

Strongly disagree. (So strongly that I don't have enough words to express my vitriol toward the concept, and rely on words of calm and reason.)

Allowing expression in the name of "not being PC" defangs the entire structure of being able to confront the problem of -ism from its roots.

It puts the disprivileged in the position of swallowing the -ism "unless it's bad enough".

And "bad enough" tends to be a standard that becomes harder and harder to meet as one grasps for proof that it *is* -ism and not just some random ass being a random ass, such that the only thing one can complain about is if someone is dead and the body is marked in large clear letters with "I KILLED THIS PERSON BECAUSE THEY WERE $category".

I do not think this is what you intend.

From:

Hrm, I think browngirl put it better by saying she can tell who's being insincere and who isn't. In my experience, most people who use political correctness are insincere about it.

I've worked on this, and for me - I'm rarely in a situation where I need to use politically correct words. For example, if I'm trying to figure out if I should say "person of color", "African American" or "black", most of the time I realize I don't actually need to describe the color of their skin.

I'm privileged and lucky in that that's true for me. But it gets me every so often, like when I'm trying to describe how my mother-in-law ends up hearing racist things that apply to her (she's a self-described half-Italian, half-black, and she and one sister pass as white most of the time, and 2 other sisters pass as black most of the time).

Anyway, my point was that I find the PC language that *I* encounter to be [thinly] veiled -isms, but others around me may perceive it to be acceptable, and when I've tried to call out the speaker on that issue, I end up being wrong and not knowing what I'm talking about because they used PC language.

From:

An addendum - I wrote everything in the context of my experience, and I wasn't suggesting that politically correct language should be abolished. Just that it's not perfect. Perhaps I should have clarified with the fact that in those cases, I'd rather the insincere people be shown as insincere.

Can you (or others reading this) share tips on how to help combat -isms that are veiled within politically correct language? I would appreciate it.

Edited Date: 2012-01-05 04:46 pm (UTC)

From:

And of course, I realize how that sounds, I'm just doing the "can you teach me?" and it's not your job to teach me.

I'm just going to apologize. I'm sorry.

From:

See, my problem with political correctness is that I find it often is trying to hide an -ism. I'd rather have the -ism out there than shrouded by political correctness. I'd rather them be bold enough in their -ism to state it in plain terms instead of couching in different words.

Expression of the -ism in bold words is beyond even a microaggression. The expression *itself* is an assault.

Can you (or others reading this) share tips on how to help combat -isms that are veiled within politically correct language? I would appreciate it.

I am happy to workshop things, probably in my journalspaces rather than Ny's, unless she really wants to host that.

I *think* what you're asking is, "how does one address the issue that putting a pretty window dressing on ugly thoughts does not make the ugly basis any better?"

Does reframing the issue make it any easier?

From:

Actually, I think that would work well...."just because the window has a pretty dressing does not make the ugly thought behind it any better".

From:

It helps to express the actual problem, rather than throwing the PC baby out with the bathwater.

From:

Expressing the actual problem, like this?

"See, my problem with political correctness is that I find it often is trying to hide an -ism."

That was the first sentence of the first comment I made. I went on to explain my point poorly, but that actually was my point.

I am frustrated that even after all this, you and others think I was advocating "throwing out the PC baby out with the bathwater".

I will work on being more sensitive, and succinct, in the future, to try to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings.

From:

The assumptions contained in your phrasing...I find them problematic.

"The sort of political correctness I have a problem with..." is one thing.

"Political correctness is usually..." (which is what I think you expressed) is maddening, and elicits the response I gave. It's not a problem of succinctness; it's a problem of premises.

The -ism isn't in use or disuse of blatantly -ist words. But the -ist words add a level of hurtfulness, and advocating their use...*personally* I find that hostile and hateful.

From:

browngirl.livejournal.com

A little textual analysis often goes a long way, IME -- point out the meaning people are trying to cloak in seemingly-innocuous but coded language, and explain the code.

From:

sethg

There’s an old saying: “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue”. If I can’t avoid the vice, I at least would appreciate the tribute.

More broadly, there are a whole bunch of other contexts where most people recognize that it is better to grease the wheels of society with ritual lies than to tell others—especially strangers—what you really truly think. (If I am introduced to someone at a party, I say something along the lines of “nice to meet you”, even if I am at the party for reasons of pure office politics and I would much rather be home reading a book.) The norms that are often labelled as “political correctness” are just bringing disadvantaged groups into the circle of people whose interests are respected by courtesy.

From:

Yes. The idea that being polite is not useful, that it should be more acceptable to be blatantly -ist than to at least put a veneer on it...

Ick.

From:

sethg

As a further aggravating factor, a lot of Americans can’t seem to hear the word “politeness” without hearing something like “prissy Victorian formality”. They are perfectly capable of applying the rules of etiquette that they have absorbed (since every culture has rules of etiquette, just like every language has rules of grammar), but they are inihibited from talking about those rules, which makes it an uphill slog to convince them to consciously adopt new rules.

From:

Indeed, politeness is very important. I prefer politeness that's not dishonest, and do so when I can help it. For example, I don't necessarily say "nice to meet you", I'll say "hello".

Sometimes it's unavoidable, if someone asks me how I'm doing I'll usually just say "fine", even (sometimes especially) if I'm not.

From:

Dishonest politeness is the lubricant that allows society to function. Absolute honesty destroys casual relationships and the social fabric as a whole.

From:

I don't advocate for absolute honesty, but I strive for honest politeness. When required to choose dishonest politeness over honest awkwardness, I usually choose dishonest politeness.

This thread being a notable counter-example, of course.

From:

The distinction between this thread and general conversation is "casual" relationships. Once a person has gotten close enough to another person to include significant self-disclosure, honesty becomes more of an important factor. It is important to me if someone I date is genuinely racist in his-or-her thoughts, in ways that it is absolutely unimportant to me for someone I work with.

From:

sethg

Either this thread is drifting from the main topic, or you are agreeing that “PC” language is indeed a good idea, or I don’t understand your position. I mean, “African-American”, “black”, and [certain other words that I don’t need to spell out] all denote (roughly) the same set of people, so a person who chooses to say “African-American” is not sacrificing honesty.

From:

Couldn't disagree more.

What is a racist who expresses no racist sentiments, and takes no racist actions?

"PC" is at the very least, an acknowledgement that "I am aware that some things are totally socially unacceptable."

I don't care if someone hates Jews or Blacks or East Asians or whatever in their heart. I only care what the person says and does.

Similarly, on

bad_rprs_suck, there was just a long thread in which people tried to explain to someone why it was problematic to have a fantasy world which had no Earth cultures, but DID have gypsies, who were listed as a race, with the same lifespan as "humans".

The defense was that the mods weren't racists! Really! They didn't hate people!

Again: intent doesn't matter. Actions do.

A person who does racist things but doesn't hate anyone is a racist. A person who feels racist feelings but doesn't speak or act on them isn't a racist.

Edited: WTF!?!?! I wrote "bad-rprs-suck" in my post. It changed it to rant-rants. WHAT THE FUCK, LJ!?

Edited Date: 2012-01-05 07:58 pm (UTC)

From:

I hear you, and I actually agree that intent doesn't matter and actions do.

Most of the politically correct phrases I hear are still conveying -ist messages, and that's what I was trying to express as *my* problem with politically correct phrases.

It's also my *only* problem with politically correct phrases, and I do acknowledge that in many cases, they are necessary and helpful, and I do not advocate for abolishing politically correct language.

From:

Even so, by couching them so, the speakers are acknowledging that they are aware that society considers those views unacceptable.

From:

Excuse me, but I believe that many of the people you are interacting with in this very journal entry use terms that others would call "PC".

Are you changing the definition of "PC" to something to narrowly mean "windowdressing on ugly thoughts" ?

I use words like "disprivileged" and "African American" (where appropriate). Are you saying that what I say is conveying an -ist message?

Check your assumptions here, please.

From:

"Most of the politically correct phrases I hear are still conveying -ist messages"

Most. Not all.

So to answer your questions, no, and no.

To clarify, nothing in this thread has triggered my feeling that "this person is being politically correct in order to hide an -ism".

From: