Politicaly Correct = Denial?

[sly1]

Why is it offensive and insulting to call people/groups/ideals by their obvious description?

Why are fat people offended when you call them fat,obese,overweight,heavy set, etc etc....when THAT is EXACTLY what they are?

I remember back in college It was unpopular to call a "black" person black instead to call them African American...I was thinking to myself why? They ARE BLACK...??

I find it funny that when you call some things by their rightful descriptor or name, if its anything but flattering its not PC or frowned upon in GP eyes.

Is the world really trying to paint a fairy tale picture here ignoring all the "don't go there" or labels? Instead enabling the obese to think their not obese?

I understand that if someone is fat that is not all there is to them but if I or someone has never met them and knows nothing of them...the first descriptor will be something related to their size.

I am curious what the community here thinks about this.

Do sciforums members shy away from PC issues and censor themselves even if its the TRUTH of the matter?

If so why? what are the reasons?

 

[Tiassa]

I still don't get why people have trouble with this

Have you ever noticed that some words are turned into insults?

I've heard this argument of yours for so long it's not even funny even more. Let's see, there was:

"Why can't we say 'nigger'? There's a country called Nigger!"​

No, actually, it's Niger.

There was also:

"Why can't we say 'Negro'? It's the Spanish word for black!"​

And? I mean, it's never been a pejorative, right?

I remember back in college It was unpopular to call a "black" person black instead to call them African American...I was thinking to myself why? They ARE BLACK...??

Very few blacks in the U.S. are actually black. Most of them are varying shades of brown.

To the other, why not call whites "deficients"? After all, they are melanin-deficient. But, to the other, maybe we don't go with that term because it was specifically intended to be insulting? I mean, just maybe?

And as to the obese? There is no insult that goes, "Skinny, skinny, skin-skin!"

It's not a standard that exists in a vacuum. When a word becomes widely accepted in an insulting context, respectable society moves away from the insult.

Is there something that makes the idea somehow difficult to understand?

 

[sly1]

Have you ever noticed that some words are turned into insults?

I've heard this argument of yours for so long it's not even funny even more. Let's see, there was:

"Why can't we say 'nigger'? There's a country called Nigger!"​

No, actually, it's Niger.

There was also:

"Why can't we say 'Negro'? It's the Spanish word for black!"​

And? I mean, it's never been a pejorative, right?



Very few blacks in the U.S. are actually black. Most of them are varying shades of brown.

To the other, why not call whites "deficients"? After all, they are melanin-deficient. But, to the other, maybe we don't go with that term because it was specifically intended to be insulting? I mean, just maybe?

And as to the obese? There is no insult that goes, "Skinny, skinny, skin-skin!"

It's not a standard that exists in a vacuum. When a word becomes widely accepted in an insulting context, respectable society moves away from the insult.

Is there something that makes the idea somehow difficult to understand?

First I am not talking on simplistic childish like terms as you assosiated above with the country called niger etc etc.

I understand that some people DO turn descriptors into insults but that is STILL their description? The tone and manner of which you say it is definately a factor as me saying "joe is fat" is different than me saying "joe is a fat ass" even though in reality joe's ass is probably fat.

As far as getting nit picky with the black/brown/light brown shades its more of a common descriptor that allows for easy communication. Why should I have to say "bill is a very light offset shade of brown" instead of making my life easy and saying "bill is black" both are true to their description one is just more practical. Im more confused as to WHY people are insulted or offended in the first place by their truthfull descriptors?

If someone called me a "deficient pigmented" or whatever I wouldn't be offended or insulted its a very accurate description of my person. Although simply "White" is far easier and more practical the other wouldn't bother me.

If joe is fat and I say "joe you are fat" how on earth can he be insulted when its the reality of his person?

For example I am pretty short at 5'8 and when being described "short" or "shorty" come to mind and neither of them bother me as its an accurate description.

Ive been called short white guy before....never flinched or thought twice of it being an insult....but if you say "fat black man" you might be on some thin ice.

thats what i dont get.

 

[Tiassa]

The luckiest man in America?

... but if you say "fat black man" you might be on some thin ice.

thats what i dont get.

In truth, I've never encountered this problem. Maybe that's because the black people I know aren't simplistic, childish stereotypes.

Or maybe I'm just lucky.

 

[nietzschefan]

Me either. As long as you don't drop N bombs and obvious racial slurs, fuck em if they don't like it.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

In my experience, most black people don't mind being called black and are not offended by it. Other people just think they are so they try not to say it. In fact there is even a growing movement among black young adults called "I'm not African American" since many blacks don't or more truthfully can't identify with Africa. Black culture was created in America. (Off topic). Anyway, I can see why feelings might be hurt when someone is called fat. The word fat has a derogatory feel to it. Since people often use it as an insult. But maybe not, I don't even know what it's like to be a few pounds overweight so I really can't say how those people might feel when someone refers to them as fat.

 

[quadraphonics]

The tone and manner of which you say it is definately a factor as me saying "joe is fat" is different than me saying "joe is a fat ass" even though in reality joe's ass is probably fat.

The latter quote is an assertion that joe is an ass, not that his ass is fat.

As far as getting nit picky with the black/brown/light brown shades its more of a common descriptor that allows for easy communication. Why should I have to say "bill is a very light offset shade of brown" instead of making my life easy and saying "bill is black" both are true to their description one is just more practical. Im more confused as to WHY people are insulted or offended in the first place by their truthfull descriptors?

I'm not sure where you've been for the past decade or two, but "black" isn't considered offensive. The phrase "Bill is black", on its own, wouldn't get anyone in trouble.

If someone called me a "deficient pigmented" or whatever I wouldn't be offended or insulted its a very accurate description of my person.

There's something deficient about your skin?

Cause that level of pigment seems perfectly sufficient for life in the winter at certain latitudes, probably including the one you live on. No? So "deficient" hardly seems accurate; deficient compared to what? Somebody who comes down with rickets on an annual basis because they can't produce any vitamin D for half of the year?

Now, if you lived in the tropics, describing your pigmentation as "deficient" might make sense.

If joe is fat and I say "joe you are fat" how on earth can he be insulted when its the reality of his person?

Depends on the context. If it's in response to him asking you "why am I having trouble getting a date?" then sure.

But if it's unprompted, or said in the wrong tone, then you're in trouble. The offense there is not in the descriptor itself - as you say, it's accurate - but the presumption and judgement on your part in applying it. Who are you to go around reminding people of their dietary failings? Would you be offended if joe replied "you are an condescending asshole?"

Because it would be perfectly accurate, after all.

For example I am pretty short at 5'8 and when being described "short" or "shorty" come to mind and neither of them bother me as its an accurate description.

And there's no reason to be bothered, when it is a simple description, without malice. But when was the last time you had call to make a simple, non-prejudicial description of someone? Unless you're an author or journalist or somesuch it's probably been quite some time.

Which points out that most of the "descriptions" that people throw out there are something more than simple statements of fact. They're often expressions of contempt for the category that appears in the description, and the person they're applied to.

Ive been called short white guy before....never flinched or thought twice of it being an insult....but if you say "fat black man" you might be on some thin ice.

Not if you were in a situation where you had call to honestly describe someone as fat and black. But when was the last time something like that actually came up, where it was necessary to relate someone's race/size/features to them? They presumably already know what their race and stature are, so why would you "call" anyone anything, other than as a joke or insult?

People have names. If you don't want to worry about offending them, just call them by their names. Problem solved.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I understand that some people DO turn descriptors into insults but that is STILL their description? The tone and manner of which you say it is definately a factor as me saying "joe is fat" is different than me saying "joe is a fat ass" even though in reality joe's ass is probably fat.

Because the intent and mean-spiritedness behind one's words have social consequences, and certain terms are more likely to have mean-spirited intent behind them than others. If I were to say to an acquaintance "Your mother is chef," he would take no offense (whether his mother was a chef or not) because "chef" is not a term commonly imbued with vitriol in our culture. If I were to say "Man, you are so cheap, you Jew!" he might well take offense even if he is frugal and Jewish, and even though "Jew" is acceptable in a wide variety of contexts, and yet avoided in others. Again, it tends to be avoided in situations where it seems more likely to be taken as a pejoritive against Jews generally.

You do have the right to be prejudiced and mean-spirited, and others have the right to socially ostracize you for it.

The real problem are the cases where the speaker does not intend the word used to be insulting, but the listener takes it that way. In that case neither side is really in the wrong. Language is inaccurate. Sometimes one writes an e-mail and people read what you wrote as criticism, even when no criticism was intended. The fault could alternately be claimed to be a "misreading" by the recipient or as a poor attempt by the author at expressing himself or herself.

The words used, in short, are only "accurate" in the sense that the word without critical context is accurate. The context often adds a real or perceived pejorative element especially where the word is usually or often accompanied by such an element. Some words start out as pejorative and lose that sense. Quaker, Yankee, gay, were all insults originally, and then communities made them their own. The reverse, perjoration, is more common. "Idiot" was common and neutral but became pejorative and was replaced by "moron", which was then itself replaced and today we call idiots and morons the "mentally retarded" or "mentally challenged." "Crippled" was replaced by "handicapped" which was replaced by "physically challenged."

 

[Doreen]

Why is it offensive and insulting to call people/groups/ideals by their obvious description?

Why are fat people offended when you call them fat,obese,overweight,heavy set, etc etc....when THAT is EXACTLY what they are?

Actually they are complex individuals. You could call them Joe or Mary or whatever their name is. Or choose a positive adjective, unless for some reason you feel they need to know they are overweight. You are their doctor, sister, whatever.

I remember back in college It was unpopular to call a "black" person black instead to call them African American...I was thinking to myself why? They ARE BLACK...??

Well, no they're not. They are a variety of colors, but not black. But in my experience you can call blacks black, though it depends on the context.

 

[Baron Max]

See? Just more problems with this idiotic "ideal" of diversity of human cultures and races and religions, etc. If human societies were unified and cohesive, with none of the forced integration that we now have, little of this "politically correct" bullshit would be a problem.

Yeah, "fat ass" might be a slight problem even in a unified culture/socieity, but ...well, if she's a "fat ass", call her that and don't worry about it. Ditto with those Downs Syndrome kids or those crazy kids, ...just call 'em retards or whatever you'd like and go on about your business.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

See? Just more problems with this idiotic "ideal" of diversity of human cultures and races and religions, etc. If human societies were unified and cohesive, with none of the forced integration that we now have, little of this "politically correct" bullshit would be a problem.

Is race all you see? Even if there was only one colour, people would still differ in intelligence, attractiveness, weight, height, interests, and a million other personal characteristics.

If you think the only way to insult people is to insult them about their race, you're living in a fantasy land. For example, what if I say you're stupid? That has nothing to do with your race, but I'm sure you'll find it offensive, even if it is an accurate descriptor. Do you really think that all social niceties are no more than "political correctness"? I mean, if you're stupid, should I just come right out and tell you? Don't you think it would just be rude?

Yeah, "fat ass" might be a slight problem even in a unified culture/socieity, but ...well, if she's a "fat ass", call her that and don't worry about it. Ditto with those Downs Syndrome kids or those crazy kids, ...just call 'em retards or whatever you'd like and go on about your business.

Go about your business, then, you bigoted old fool. There. That wasn't offensive at all, was it? To hell with this silly "political correctness". Let's just tell it like it is, right?

 

[quadraphonics]

If human societies were unified and cohesive, with none of the forced integration that we now have, little of this "politically correct" bullshit would be a problem.

You appear to be using "unified and cohesive" instead of the word for what you're talking about: "segregated."

And where is the "force" in this integration?

Yeah, "fat ass" might be a slight problem even in a unified culture/socieity, but ...well, if she's a "fat ass", call her that and don't worry about it. Ditto with those Downs Syndrome kids or those crazy kids, ...just call 'em retards or whatever you'd like and go on about your business.

Not bad advice, so far as it goes. Which is to say, just short of any cares about what anyone thinks of what you say.

The issue that gives rise to these complaint threads about "political correctness" (which, here, is little more than simple respect) is that certain people are not content to ignore what everyone thinks of their speech. Instead, we get these crazy demands that people shouldn't get offended by offensive speech (or, at least, that said offense should not be made apparent to the speaker in any way).

Which is sort of inane: if you care what people think of you, why would you go around calling them "fat ass" or whatever. Just use their name, and keep any other observations or opinions to yourself, unless specifically prompted for them (or if they're flattering and you feel like complimenting someone). It really is that easy.

 

[Norsefire]

Political correctness is nice to an extent, but like the opening post suggests, it quickly becomes denial; and worse yet, denial of the culture. For instance, in the United States there is no doubt that most people are Christian, and yet it is considered 'inappropriate' to say Merry Christmas. That is utterly absurd.

Be politically correct, but not at the expense of your cultural values.

 

[Doreen]

See? Just more problems with this idiotic "ideal" of diversity of human cultures and races and religions, etc. If human societies were unified and cohesive, with none of the forced integration that we now have, little of this "politically correct" bullshit would be a problem.

So how do you see unifying races so we don't need words to describe race? Shall we make people have kids with other races until we magically reach the same look?

Yeah, "fat ass" might be a slight problem even in a unified culture/socieity, but ...well, if she's a "fat ass", call her that and don't worry about it. Ditto with those Downs Syndrome kids or those crazy kids, ...just call 'em retards or whatever you'd like and go on about your business.

And here you are starting to realize that diversity is always present, has always been present and has to be dealt with and accepted.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Political correctness is nice to an extent, but like the opening post suggests, it quickly becomes denial; and worse yet, denial of the culture. For instance, in the United States there is no doubt that most people are Christian, and yet it is considered 'inappropriate' to say Merry Christmas. That is utterly absurd.

Be politically correct, but not at the expense of your cultural values.

If you know someone celebrates Hanukkah, why would you wish them a Merry Christmas? Especially since you know they won't have a Christmas. That's just obnoxious. Political correctness is often at the expense of one's cultural values. You put yours aside out of respect for someone else's culture. Not wanting to be insulted isn't denial. I'm not in denial about being African American, but that doesn't mean I am perfectly okay with being called any racist slurs.

 

[Norsefire]

If you know someone celebrates Hanukkah, why would you wish them a Merry Christmas? Especially since you know they won't have a Christmas. That's just obnoxious. Political correctness is often at the expense of one's cultural values. You put yours aside out of respect for someone else's culture. Not wanting to be insulted isn't denial. I'm not in denial about being African American, but that doesn't mean I am perfectly okay with being called any racist slurs.

I agree, but the primary culture of the land takes precendence and the others have to understand this; it's absurd when 'political correctness' means you can't say "merry christmas' on TV

 

[TW Scott]

Actually anything can be turned into an insult given the proper tone. Ever heard how some Caucasians, Asian, or Native Americans put a sneer in African American. I'm sure some of those African Americans would almost prefer a cheerfully said n-word on some days.

We are focused on the wrong thing. We are focusing on the word instead of the way it was said thanks to hate or fear. If we addressed the fear and hate and rooted it out of our society one would see less concern over political correctness.

 

[Tiassa]

Poor, oppressed, hypocritical you

Yeah, "fat ass" might be a slight problem even in a unified culture/socieity, but ...well, if she's a "fat ass", call her that and don't worry about it. Ditto with those Downs Syndrome kids or those crazy kids, ...just call 'em retards or whatever you'd like and go on about your business.

And, yet, it would be improper to call you a moronic brute.

Or shithead.

Or goatfucker, even though you have previously expressed your wish to do so.

Or vapid twat.

Craniosmegmatic, asshat, fucktard, God's regret ... regardless of how truly any of these terms might describe you, it would be improper to call you any of them.

So we're left with bland but accurate words that are fast becoming clichés: troll, ignorant, dishonest, hateful, &c.

And, yet, life goes on.

Imagine that.

 

[Baron Max]

Originally Posted by Baron Max: "See? Just more problems with this idiotic "ideal" of diversity of human cultures and races and religions, etc."

Is race all you see? Even if there was only one colour, people would still differ in intelligence, attractiveness, weight, height, interests, and a million other personal characteristics.

What's the matter, James, can't read? How did you pick out "race" when it was mentioned second after "cultures"? And I mentioned "religions", which you just failed to read? And do you know what "etc." means?

So tell me, James, just who is so narrowly focused on race here ....you or me?

If you think the only way to insult people is to insult them about their race, you're living in a fantasy land.

See? Why are you so focused on "race"? I mentioned other things in my post, but you focused on "race"? Why?

Go about your business, then, you bigoted old fool. There. That wasn't offensive at all, was it?

Didn't bother me, James. But isn't it against the rules of Sciforums to make such statements? Oh, wait, you're like, the king or something around here, right? You can make rules and laws, you can disobey those rules and laws any time you want to, right? (Just like the Ugandans want to "disobey" those silly human rights laws, huh, James?) ...LOL!

To hell with this silly "political correctness". Let's just tell it like it is, right?

I agree. Hell, James, I didn't make the freakin' rules around here, YOU did! If you want to get rid of those rules, that's just fine with me.

Oh, when can we start this insulting of members? Soon?

Opps, I see that Tiassa is already insulting people, so I guess it's now okay to begin insulting anyone we want to, right? Oh, wait, Tiassa is some kind of minor ruler around here, too, ain't he? So he can also flaunt the rules, right?

Just tell us when we can all join the fun, James. This is gonna' be soooooo much fun!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

So how do you see unifying races so we don't need words to describe race? Shall we make people have kids with other races until we magically reach the same look?

It'll never happen that way, Doreen. In 50 gazillion years, if a man has one molecule of "black blood", he'll be a "black", and there'll probably be racial conflicts and tensions and hatred. You and others keep forgetting that "blacks" have many other facets that are different beyond that of skin color.

What must happen is that people be allowed to live, work and deal with people that they want around them ...and not be forced to accept or deal with people that they don't like. That just causes conflicts and problems.

And please don't ask me how "we" can accomplish that, because it's not very pleasant for such a nice forum as this. I wouldn't want to shock all these nice, liberal members. ;=)

And here you are starting to realize that diversity is always present, has always been present and has to be dealt with and accepted.

The operative phrase there is "dealt with". With that phrase, you shouldn't have then used "...and accepted." In the old days, people "dealt with" others who were different by using whatever they felt like doing as a unified society. Now, cops with guns, the National Guard with guns, ...FORCE... people to "accept" others that they don't want to accept.

Some of the more foolish in the group see this "force" as voluntary integration!!! ....LOL!

Baron Max