Debate Now Why Is Being "Politically Correct" A Bad Thing To Some People?

[Mac1958]

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

Very well put. The person leveraging PC puts themselves in position of judge & jury.

That does nothing to further the conversation, and merely puts control in their hands.
.

 

[dilloduck]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

Political Correctness tends to water down and lesson the meaning of the words they're meant to replace.
i.e., "Undocumented Worker" in lieu of "Illegal Immigrant"

I've noticed that those that promote such phrasing do not hesitate to label those with a differing view with _____-phobe

Not only water down---completely change the facts. We are asked to look at a banana and call it an apple.

 

[Asclepias]

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

Immigration/ illegal immigration or refugees. seems to be an issue these days but theres lots of others. Theres always race relations. I wonder also if the emmicons people use would also be considered non PC as well as posted images. I suppose so

So what are we doing exactly? Are we counting how many people from each side gets non PC?

Hmm, haven't thought it through enough. May be a good Idea to get some input from others to see if anyone would be up for that or if they have good ideas as well. It may be good at this point just to put that question out there

One thing I am sure of is that it cant be me. LOL! I'm thinking we could use the Current Evnets forum. Maybe we can see who breaks PC rules first and note what caused them to break it Their stance on the issue would be something to note. The intensity of the attack as well?

Dear Asclepias if you already approaching the situation
as a contest to see who can prove the other person is biased first,
that's already a bias of "you vs. them"

I try very hard not to do that though I and all of us are going to come across that way online.

I try to make it clear I see this as a WE situation
and try to work with everyone, faults biases and beliefs as is,
to deal with the material we bring to the table equally to start with.

None of us is going to have perfect language.
it's not a contest to see who can prove the other wrong,
but how can we both give and take, correct points equally on all sides,
and make things right TOGETHER where everyone has points to make.
We all have to get used to ways to say things that work better
for one person but fail with another. And just watch which context or audience we are addressing.

What would be the point of having an experiment if there is nothing to prove? Anyway Yarddog came up with the suggestion. I'm just trying to help flesh it out.

 

[Valerie]

someone seems defensive... i wonder why... (not really)




The weaponization and application of Political Correctness goes far, far beyond disliking it when someone says a nasty word. In fact, that would be among the very last issues I have with it.


Person 2: "You're a racist".
Person 1: "Huh? I'm not a racist, I just...".


Person 2: "You're a racist".
Person 1: "I'm not a racist, I just, oh, never mind."


Person 2: "You're a racist".
Person 1: "Hey, no, I'm just pointing out the facts".

 

[Asclepias]

Nope. You call me a dodo head. I say dont call me that. You call me by my name. Conversation continues. You claim all men are wife beaters. I say thats ridiculous and offensive because you dont know all men. You say ok some men. Its a give and take.

Yes if you use a word that offends me I literally cannot understand it. Yes it victimizes the person because now they cant understand what you are talking about.

That is a lie------you understand non PC words perfectly well...... I KNEW we were going to have to deal with you as a victim again.

Here is a good example right here. Youre telling me what I understand as if you can read my mind which is of course pure nonsense.

A good example of what ?

An example of nonsense and terrible communications skills. Instead of assisting communication you have moved to an area where your comments are counter productive and discredits anything that may have made sense earlier.

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

At some point you have to make a decision (judge) on if the person is serious about the conversation. Both parties can do that at any point. You judge people all the time in this respect continually evaluating if you are merely wasting your time of if there is some progress being made. Its inherent that both people should meet the standards as understood by the other for communication to occur.

 

[Asclepias]

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

Very well put. The person leveraging PC puts themselves in position of judge & jury.

That does nothing to further the conversation, and merely puts control in their hands.
.

You are free to leverage some PC yourself. Its not one sided.

 

[Asclepias]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

Political Correctness tends to water down and lesson the meaning of the words they're meant to replace.
i.e., "Undocumented Worker" in lieu of "Illegal Immigrant"

I've noticed that those that promote such phrasing do not hesitate to label those with a differing view with _____-phobe

Not only water down---completely change the facts. We are asked to look at a banana and call it an apple.

Youre assuming youre correct in believing it is a banana. Your assumption you know whats correct actually tears down your credibility to the other person.

 

[dilloduck]

That is a lie------you understand non PC words perfectly well...... I KNEW we were going to have to deal with you as a victim again.

Here is a good example right here. Youre telling me what I understand as if you can read my mind which is of course pure nonsense.

A good example of what ?

An example of nonsense and terrible communications skills. Instead of assisting communication you have moved to an area where your comments are counter productive and discredits anything that may have made sense earlier.

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

At some point you have to make a decision (judge) on if the person is serious about the conversation. Both parties can do that at any point. You judge people all the time in this respect continually evaluating if you are merely wasting your time of if there is some progress being made. Its inherent that both people should meet the standards as understood by the other for communication to occur.

And you choose to judge people by the words they select to indentify something. If a person does not use the word that you think is appropriate you judge then as unworthy of conversation and end it.

 

[dilloduck]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

Political Correctness tends to water down and lesson the meaning of the words they're meant to replace.
i.e., "Undocumented Worker" in lieu of "Illegal Immigrant"

I've noticed that those that promote such phrasing do not hesitate to label those with a differing view with _____-phobe

Not only water down---completely change the facts. We are asked to look at a banana and call it an apple.

Youre assuming youre correct in believing it is a banana. Your assumption you know whats correct actually tears down your credibility to the other person.

and vice versa

 

[Asclepias]

Here is a good example right here. Youre telling me what I understand as if you can read my mind which is of course pure nonsense.

A good example of what ?

An example of nonsense and terrible communications skills. Instead of assisting communication you have moved to an area where your comments are counter productive and discredits anything that may have made sense earlier.

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

At some point you have to make a decision (judge) on if the person is serious about the conversation. Both parties can do that at any point. You judge people all the time in this respect continually evaluating if you are merely wasting your time of if there is some progress being made. Its inherent that both people should meet the standards as understood by the other for communication to occur.

And you choose to judge people by the words they select to indentify something. If a person does not use the word that you think is appropriate you judge then as unworthy of conversation and end it.

Bingo. If you dont consider the possibility that you have something to learn its a safe bet you are unworthy of conversation and yes that would end it. How can you teach me anything if you think you know it all already or even better you believe to know my motivations and what I think.?

 

[Valerie]

You are free to leverage some PC yourself. Its not one sided.

that might work out if he could ever articulate a valid "C" point...


"I'm not a racist, I just, oh, never mind."

 

[Asclepias]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

Political Correctness tends to water down and lesson the meaning of the words they're meant to replace.
i.e., "Undocumented Worker" in lieu of "Illegal Immigrant"

I've noticed that those that promote such phrasing do not hesitate to label those with a differing view with _____-phobe

Not only water down---completely change the facts. We are asked to look at a banana and call it an apple.

Youre assuming youre correct in believing it is a banana. Your assumption you know whats correct actually tears down your credibility to the other person.

and vice versa

Thats true. So what you have to do is find agreement on what a banana is. You cant do that by pretending you are smarter.

 

[dilloduck]

A good example of what ?

An example of nonsense and terrible communications skills. Instead of assisting communication you have moved to an area where your comments are counter productive and discredits anything that may have made sense earlier.

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

At some point you have to make a decision (judge) on if the person is serious about the conversation. Both parties can do that at any point. You judge people all the time in this respect continually evaluating if you are merely wasting your time of if there is some progress being made. Its inherent that both people should meet the standards as understood by the other for communication to occur.

And you choose to judge people by the words they select to indentify something. If a person does not use the word that you think is appropriate you judge then as unworthy of conversation and end it.

Bingo. If you dont consider the possibility that you have something to learn its a safe bet you are unworthy of conversation and yes that would end it. How can you teach me anything if you think you know it all already?

I'm not going to stop a conversation simply because I don't agree with you.

 

[Asclepias]

An example of nonsense and terrible communications skills. Instead of assisting communication you have moved to an area where your comments are counter productive and discredits anything that may have made sense earlier.

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

At some point you have to make a decision (judge) on if the person is serious about the conversation. Both parties can do that at any point. You judge people all the time in this respect continually evaluating if you are merely wasting your time of if there is some progress being made. Its inherent that both people should meet the standards as understood by the other for communication to occur.

And you choose to judge people by the words they select to indentify something. If a person does not use the word that you think is appropriate you judge then as unworthy of conversation and end it.

Bingo. If you dont consider the possibility that you have something to learn its a safe bet you are unworthy of conversation and yes that would end it. How can you teach me anything if you think you know it all already?

I'm not going to stop a conversation simply because I don't agree with you.

You will if you pretend to know things you cant possibly know. I'm no longer listening to you because you lost credibility.

 

[dilloduck]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

Political Correctness tends to water down and lesson the meaning of the words they're meant to replace.
i.e., "Undocumented Worker" in lieu of "Illegal Immigrant"

I've noticed that those that promote such phrasing do not hesitate to label those with a differing view with _____-phobe

Not only water down---completely change the facts. We are asked to look at a banana and call it an apple.

Youre assuming youre correct in believing it is a banana. Your assumption you know whats correct actually tears down your credibility to the other person.

and vice versa

Thats true. So what you have to do is find agreement on what a banana is. You cant do that by pretending you are smarter.

or that you are somehow politically "correct".

 

[Asclepias]

Political Correctness tends to water down and lesson the meaning of the words they're meant to replace.
i.e., "Undocumented Worker" in lieu of "Illegal Immigrant"

I've noticed that those that promote such phrasing do not hesitate to label those with a differing view with _____-phobe

Not only water down---completely change the facts. We are asked to look at a banana and call it an apple.

Youre assuming youre correct in believing it is a banana. Your assumption you know whats correct actually tears down your credibility to the other person.

and vice versa

Thats true. So what you have to do is find agreement on what a banana is. You cant do that by pretending you are smarter.

or that you are somehow politically "correct".

Being politically correct goes a long way in finding agreement.

 

[dilloduck]

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

At some point you have to make a decision (judge) on if the person is serious about the conversation. Both parties can do that at any point. You judge people all the time in this respect continually evaluating if you are merely wasting your time of if there is some progress being made. Its inherent that both people should meet the standards as understood by the other for communication to occur.

And you choose to judge people by the words they select to indentify something. If a person does not use the word that you think is appropriate you judge then as unworthy of conversation and end it.

Bingo. If you dont consider the possibility that you have something to learn its a safe bet you are unworthy of conversation and yes that would end it. How can you teach me anything if you think you know it all already?

I'm not going to stop a conversation simply because I don't agree with you.

You will if you pretend to know things you cant possibly know.

Wrong---It's always the offended person who shuts down converstation because their feelers got hurt.

 

[Asclepias]

At some point you have to make a decision (judge) on if the person is serious about the conversation. Both parties can do that at any point. You judge people all the time in this respect continually evaluating if you are merely wasting your time of if there is some progress being made. Its inherent that both people should meet the standards as understood by the other for communication to occur.

And you choose to judge people by the words they select to indentify something. If a person does not use the word that you think is appropriate you judge then as unworthy of conversation and end it.

Bingo. If you dont consider the possibility that you have something to learn its a safe bet you are unworthy of conversation and yes that would end it. How can you teach me anything if you think you know it all already?

I'm not going to stop a conversation simply because I don't agree with you.

You will if you pretend to know things you cant possibly know.

Wrong---It's always the offended person who shuts down converstation because their feelers got hurt.

Your actions caused the shutdown. They came prior to the person shutting down. Its simple cause and effect.

 

[dilloduck]

Not only water down---completely change the facts. We are asked to look at a banana and call it an apple.

Youre assuming youre correct in believing it is a banana. Your assumption you know whats correct actually tears down your credibility to the other person.

and vice versa

Thats true. So what you have to do is find agreement on what a banana is. You cant do that by pretending you are smarter.

or that you are somehow politically "correct".

Being politically correct goes a long way in finding agreement.

Maybe if you are speaking with someone who has the same illusions as you do

 

[emilynghiem]

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

Immigration/ illegal immigration or refugees. seems to be an issue these days but theres lots of others. Theres always race relations. I wonder also if the emmicons people use would also be considered non PC as well as posted images. I suppose so

So what are we doing exactly? Are we counting how many people from each side gets non PC?

^ See, Asclepias, if used divisively, it starts this sidetaking, finger pointing, fault counting business
of who can prove the other person made more mistakes. That isn't a mutual sharing process of growth,
but can too often turn into a witch hunt, with fear of judgment projected by one side onto others!

Would you ever recommend this method of communication, say, for marriage counseling?

To have ONE side make a list of how to say things, what you can and cannot use,
and then judge both people by whether they stick to that list.

You'd spend the whole time fighting over
who has the right to dictate what list or words to use, etc. etc.

Instead, where mediation is facilitated correctly, the mediator does not inject or dictate for the two sides.
The mediator facilitates communication, and tries to clarify the points on BOTH sides,
what they want, and what they want to avoid. Then helps the two sides form an agreement
that includes ALL the points they HAVE to have, and then on the points they can't both have,
they agree to give and take equally. If they can't have the whole house painted all red or all blue,
they agree which rooms to paint red and which to paint blue. It isn't one side dominating the
process and telling the other one when you are or are not meeting the given standards.

Both sides work it out together. If they can't agree on language or points,
the moderator can help them to stick to the CONCEPTS they both want,
and work out the language of the contract AFTER they agree in spirit what they want to contain in it.

You don't start off by arguing over the words people use, and/or judging people over that.
You stick to content first, redevelop trust in the process to be MUTUAL,
then the language follows after that, and may still require assistance since people are not perfect.