Political correctness. Has it gone too far?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

<< TRIGGER WARNING>> :)

 

Trump is the King of the politically incorrect, but are we becoming too sensitive? Could that be feeding Trumps popularity? It's certainly becoming a topic of discussion.

 

Trigger warnings and safe spaces in Universities protecting students from ideas that might be offensive to them seem diametrically opposed to one of higher educations primary goals... to create prepared minds. How prepared are you if you need to be warned about differences of opinion that may offend you? These scenarios do exist. A recent Yale survey found 63% of students wanted trigger warnings before a professor says anything "one" could find offensive.

 

This seems to be going past politeness and good manners and morphing into something unbalanced. Are people lowering the bar so much that minor things can lead to outrage? What would Socrates think of this trend?

 

I think it's a topic that deserves discussion over dismissal.

 

Please keep your comments politically correct. :)

[Guest]

ABSOLUTELY!!

This ridiculous trend of political correctness/over-sensitivity is ruining society. I could expand on that, but I'd probably offend someone.

[Cato 160314]

I see that the University of Chicago has informed its incoming students that it's resolutely opposing the dangerous and anti-intellectual trend to providing warnings about potentially offensive speech etc. This is a brave move in the current climate, but let's hope more institutions resist this latest tendency to infantilize students.

 

 

PS This is unbelievable but true, and recent: According to some, yoga can only be taught (and practised, I guess: I didn't follow the debate closely as I quickly lost interest in it) by practising Hindus. Otherwise we're guilty of 'cultural appropriation'. {Trigger warning about the scare quotes} :)

[Mikeyboy 27134]

Like anything else good or well intentioned, there is such a thing as too far. Too much of anything can be a bad thing. (I'm told that's true even for sex or chocolate but I've yet to confirm either.)

 

I think as an enlightened society, we have a duty to avoid intentionally offending others based on things that they cannot help or change. I think we should even go as far as to reevaluate our language and practices to make sure that we are not using expressions that come from an offensive place even if that is not how we intended it.

 

Being sensitive to others perspective however is not the same thing as censoring ideas. We have to be careful not to let it stifle creative thought or the exchange of ideas. That being said, we should never let that act as an excuse to be prejudiced or behave like Trump has in this campaign. Not acceptable in my books.

[Cato 160314]

Absolutely, Mikeyboy, I'm all for mutual respect, but part of the problem with these overly-protective political correctness approches is that they treat people like children, who have to be screened and protected from views that might trouble them or cause them to rethink their beliefs or 'identities'. Respect and free debate go hand in hand, I think. Respect isn't about sheltering people, but challenging them in a mature and rational way. That's the kind of stimulating debate that's at risk in the current climate.

 

And the idea that yoga 'belongs' to Hindus, or reggae 'belongs' to Rastafarians, is just ridiculous.

[loopie 15358]

For the most part education systems don't really prepare young people for adult life or encourage free thought. It's really just an endless day care.

 

I also find most of my friends who are parents are not very interested in preparing their children for adulthood. They're more focussed on prolonging what they see as the "fun" part of life as long as possible, with the attitude that adult life is a pain.

 

So I wouldn't really say that fostering mature responsible individuals with a sense of perspective is high on our society's list of goals. It seems we want to keep our children adorable puppies as long as possible and try to shelter them from anything that upsets them.

[mrgreen760 37785]

I think it's fashionable to be a faux liberal these days.

 

What matters is.......Who you are when no one's watching?

 

Peace

MG

[capitalCforcougar 16766]

I have perrrrrsonally had it up to my lovely ears with all the fuss about so called political correctness.

that statement alone has ruffled more than a few feathers, but.. I 'explain' myself very simply. I do not intentionally set out to offend or hurt someone, but I always stand behind what I say.

 

I am also bright enough to realise that, almost any time a person opens their mouth, they run the risk of offending someone.. so.. for myself anyway.. I speak my mind (hehe and get flak from moderators for it hehe).. am accountable to myself and those I speak for... and I don't 'worry' about the *need* to be politically correct... it all comes from a good place... and goes to a good place.. and if someone doesn't like my thoughts or opinions.. that's fine.. they don't have to :)

 

In my day to day life.. and even my hobbies and interests.. I am all over the cultural map.... am a belly dancer (Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian, Turkish and tribal).. am a native hand drummer.. a maker of traditional indigenous (hehe) medicines...I practice meditation, yoga (OH NO!) and much more... I even have a 'special needs' receptionist.....and I love it all... and so far as I know, have only outright offended one person.. who attempted to engage me in a sadly uneducated/uninformed argument of why *my* side was wrong.. hehe <swat!> .. I won ;)

 

there are always going to be times when this will happen.. and for years I have been of the school of thought that it is absolutely impossible to be completely and totally 'politically correct'..... so, I say what I mean, mean what I say, and stand behind it every time.

 

waaaaaay too far overboard with a lot of it the last decade or so, imho

[Brad 49548]

I'm with Mikeyboy on this one.

 

I think political correctness has gotten a bad rap to some extent and that the term is misused, perhaps beyond repair. People latch on to stories of extreme versions of it that just about no one would agree with and it tarnishes the whole thing. Even the term itself is worded in such a way as to put people off it.

 

I'd compare it to how more and more often I see people shy away from calling themselves a feminist and consider that a negative term. In some circles the word feminism has come to mean purely militant, yelling, angry people that hate men. But if you define feminism as a desire and fight for equality, then it's a concept most people can get behind.

 

It's the same here. The Internet loves extreme stories, and so we hear so many of them that it warps the nature of a term and skews our view of people. If political correctness means I can't debate ideas, delve into tricky topics, and must censor reasonable speech from those who would twist the intent of my meaning to find glee in being offended, of course I'm going to be against it.

 

But one person's hate speech is another person's political correctness.

 

What if I came into these threads and made jokes about "spics" or derided any member who identified as bisexual or gay as "faggots"? What if every time a lady expressed a strong opinion I called her a cuunt? What if I insisted on calling a transgender member a shemale because I think "it's" just being sensitive and "I don't mean anything by it" or "I'm just joking around"? How about if I post Halloween pictures where I dress in black face, and then get angry at anyone insulted because I refuse to acknowledge the historical issues with that?

 

I suspect--I hope!--if I did any of those things I'd be called out on them. I hope people would explain to me in no uncertain terms that I was being at best naive and at worst, an ignorant jerk. And I hope I wouldn't get away with it by saying anyone offended is just being politically correct.

 

I'm all for discussion and debate. I believe it's healthy to share ideas outside your bubble. I roll my eyes at folks who go out of their way to be offended. But I am for tolerance and respect.

[Icebreaker 3938]

I very much believe that political correctness has gone way too far.

 

My personal issue are those using social outrage to shut down any views that differ from theirs and vilify those who disagree

 

The Internet fosters so many of these so-called outrage warriors (regardless of their views or political leanings) as it becomes so easy for a person to bask in opinions and information that align only with their own and rarely let in a dissenting thought.

 

By taking political correctness as far as society has, how will people objectively debate issues in society. As was mentioned by Loopie, over-protecting young people does prepare them for the real world and that in my opinion is doing them the greatest disservice of all. It sets such an unrealistic expectation at such a young age that you will forever be protected from any and all offence.

 

Recently I saw that I think was the most ridiculous example of political correctness gone too far: a youth oriented gathering where clapping / applause was prohibited. Instead of clapping only finger snapping was allowed (clapping was considered too scary / aggressive????).

 

With respect to the question if this is feeding Trump's popularity, I think in part it is. If the political correctness pendulum swings too far to one side some will rebel against it and Trump most certainly caters to the other end of the spectrum.

 

Having said that, I firmly believe that we can be kind and respectful to one another without this increasingly trend of political correctness.

[Mikeyboy 27134]

 

With respect to the question if this is feeding Trump's popularity, I think in part it is. If the political correctness pendulum swings too far to one side some will rebel against it and Trump most certainly caters to the other end of the spectrum.

 

 

I simply don't think that a white, male, heterosexual billionaire should be the one who gets to decide when we have had enough political correctness.

[Phaedrus 209521]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

I don't have a problem with some of what people are talking about here. There's value in learning that things you thought were innocuous cause offence to others. But like many good things, it becomes counter-productive when you take it too far. The plague of safe spaces and trigger warnings threatens to leave us with a generation who are unable to cope with the world. Letting people know that something is offensive to you does not, in any way, give you a right to meander through life without ever seeing or hearing anything that may hurt your feelings.

[dread pirate roberts 4036]

I almost did not reply to this thread, because Brad has already put my view very eloquently. But for me it comes to this: no matter what position you adopt, it is possible to take it to the state of absurdity, which means that we should not judge this issue by its extremes on either side. Rather we have to decide this: would we rather lean towards being inclusive and respectful, or lean towards insisting on our right to express ourselves without regard to the feelings of others. I would rather be inclusive than exclusionary, even if that can - like every single other thing in the world - sometimes be taken too far.

 

This is NOT true of anyone commenting in this thread: however, it often feels as though those who claim to have a problem with political correctness really are just longing for the day when their own particular demographic had all the power in society, didn't have to care what any other group thought, and could make offensive jokes, comments or decisions without any backlash. I'd like a perfect world, but that's not possible: given that I have to choose, I'd rather have too much political correctness than too much of that.

[Guest st*****ens**ors]

Some very thoughtful responses in this thread.

 

The term "politically correct" is a loaded one. It implies that the motive for one's choice of words is public advantage, rather than an innate desire to treat people with respect. It's a sort of pandering, and can be taken to extremes.

 

If we ditched the term however, and substituted "respectful" would we have this conversation? Could it separate the questionable motive from the behaviour or statement? Respect isn't pandering, it's simply recognizing the intrinsic worth of others and treating them accordingly.

 

Of course, even then some people could take things to extremes and be obsequious, smarmy, or just plain kiss-asses, and you can be certain that people determined to cling to privilege and disregard the worth of those outside their group would accuse respectful people of being obsequious, smarmy or just plain kiss-asses.

 

And you're back where you started. The language matters less than the attitude and motivation behind it.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I can always count on some very thoughtful responses here. Thanks to everyone. For the record, I don't believe in unnecessarily hurting others feelings but I do have a bit of a rep among friends as enjoying a good argument. Some would rather I just agree all the time. :)

 

PC is a term used to describe a practice whereby no one is offended. Is that reasonable? Surely there is a middle ground between calling someone a "spic"(I know you were just making a point, Brad) and creating safe spaces for coddling young adults. An unwillingness to compromise within society(both left and right) makes finding that middle ground all the more difficult. As you can see from my sig line, I believe moderation in everything... most of the time.

 

I agree that it comes down to your motivation, as stillopensdoors said. What is behind your actions? Are they sincere? Are they misguided? Some people have good hearts but misstep and are doomed in a sometimes too judgemental online world. Others are nasty narcissists.

 

Personally, I prefer debating and being debated. I think having discomfort in your life is one of the best ways to grow spiritually and mentally and to hone worthwhile skills. If that means occasionally having to experience a radically different mindset, look at it as an opportunity.

 

It's not an easy question to answer but it's worth debating and thankfully we still can... for now. :)

[Guest Prufrock Cummings]

Tides ebb and flow. Words come in and out of focus and style.

 

Things started to get PC, I believe back in the late 80's (at least that is what my poor memory recalls); small changes were made at first by just a few words, "handicapped" was replaced by "challenged", "black" (and of course predecessor nasty words) were replaced by "African American". If you go back further to the 70's a wonderful satirical sitcom called "All in the Family" laid it all on the line; the anti-hero Archie Bunker spoke of "Hebs" "Fags" and "Negros" to name a few.

 

I don't know if I have any relevant point or statement here, PC aside or PC ruling, I just want to say, we are all the same. Archie managed to grow in the 70's, I wonder how he would do now.

[piano8950 32577]

<< TRIGGER WARNING>> :)

 

Trump is the King of the politically incorrect, but are we becoming too sensitive? Could that be feeding Trumps popularity? It's certainly becoming a topic of discussion.

 

Trigger warnings and safe spaces in Universities protecting students from ideas that might be offensive to them seem diametrically opposed to one of higher educations primary goals... to create prepared minds. How prepared are you if you need to be warned about differences of opinion that may offend you? These scenarios do exist. A recent Yale survey found 63% of students wanted trigger warnings before a professor says anything "one" could find offensive.

 

 

I feel this topic is massively overblown (this is the word 'low' with a b and an n), and used by people who want a free pass to be offensive to spew out bigoted stuff.

 

On the Yale survey, a study found out that almost no professors bothered with trigger warnings, with barely any one of them getting any sort of backlash, or even complaints. Regulating this whole 'trigger warning' business to something that every keeps hearing about from someone else, but barely see themselves.

 

But the criticism may have outpaced the pro-trigger-warning activists. A new report says that almost no professors are being asked to provide the warnings.

 

...

The vast majority of professors surveyed (85 percent) said students had never asked them for trigger warnings. Thirteen percent of professors had gotten a request once or twice, and only a tiny proportion of professors polled said they received trigger warning requests several times (1.4 percent) or regularly (0.3 percent).

[/Quote]

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I feel this topic is massively overblown (this is the word 'low' with a b and an n), and used by people who want a free pass to be offensive to spew out bigoted stuff.

 

On the Yale survey, a study found out that almost no professors bothered with trigger warnings, with barely any one of them getting any sort of backlash, or even complaints. Regulating this whole 'trigger warning' business to something that every keeps hearing about from someone else, but barely see themselves.

 

 

I admit, I haven't been to a University lately but I do read quite a bit and there is a bit of discussion on this issue from reputable journals, newspaper articles, etc. I'll agree, maybe these trigger warnings are only requested 15% of the time or less(according to your stats) but that still seems to be a high %, especially for an institution where one of it's primary purposes is preparing young minds to face the world.

 

I don't think anyone here is suggesting it's healthy that we be allowed to purposely hurt others with our words. Ideas are different, we should be able to discuss uncomfortable topics freely and not whitewash our thinking to accommodate a lack of resiliency on the part of others. These do happen. Just try and debate anthropogenic climate change, muslim reformation, rape culture, etc. at some Universities and you will soon see how resilient some of these young minds are. Many do not want further debate as the science is settled for them. We are solely responsible for climate change, we shouldn't question the religion of others, all men are latent rapists, etc. What is so wrong about having heated debates on touchy subjects within Universities? Is this some "Ostrich" philosophy at work... if I don't see it or hear about it, it doesn't exist?

 

A lack of resiliency is not a healthy coping mechanism for someone in a dynamic society. I don't think we are doing these people any favors by coddling them. Again, I'm referring to ideas here. That was the purpose behind my PC post.

 

I appreciate your post and others. They make me think and adjust my views sometimes

[Mikeyboy 27134]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting it's healthy that we be allowed to purposely hurt others with our words.

 

Unfortunately, the Trump camp, who are using the backlash against political correctness for their own agendas, are arguing for just that. It is an excuse to be able to call all Mexicans rapists and murders, all Muslims terrorists, women fat pigs, and even to make fun of the handicapped. This is not simply expressing ideas, it is intentionally hurtful and hateful. Have we ever even dreamed that a presidential candidate could be allowed to get away with these things?

 

I think if we stop using the term "politically correct" and substitute "common courtesy and respect", there would be a lot less people able to argue against it. Obviously anything can be pushed so far that it no longer makes sense, but we can't forget the reasons political correctness started in the first place. Courtesy and respect for others.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Unfortunately, the Trump camp, who are using the backlash against political correctness for their own agendas, are arguing for just that. It is an excuse to be able to call all Mexicans rapists and murders, all Muslims terrorists, women fat pigs, and even to make fun of the handicapped. This is not simply expressing ideas, it is intentionally hurtful and hateful. Have we ever even dreamed that a presidential candidate could be allowed to get away with these things?

 

I think if we stop using the term "politically correct" and substitute "common courtesy and respect", there would be a lot less people able to argue against it. Obviously anything can be pushed so far that it no longer makes sense, but we can't forget the reasons political correctness started in the first place. Courtesy and respect for others.

 

 

Yeah, he's a piece of work. Trumps popularity, and possible presidency, does seem to lend a certain permission for the masses to express bigotry. Of course, bigotry is a 2 way street. Liberals can be intolerant of conservatives and vice versa. I believe we should challenge certain beliefs as opposed to banning their expression, otherwise all that happens is it festers underground. Still, I do get where the other side is coming from.

 

Using "common courtesy and respect" might work for "how" one expresses themselves but it shouldn't mean we whitewash or withhold our opinions out of "respect". That's still PC.

 

The media needs to stop being so tolerant of Trumps bullshit and call him on it every time, and Hilary, of course. Unfortunately, most people get their media updates and news from Facebook and the Internet. More troubling is Facebook's algorithms mean people just receive likeminded opinions in their newsfeed, as opposed to alternate points of view. Confirmation bias on steroids!

 

p.s. Speaking of Trumps bullshit, last weeks Economist magazine had an article "Yes, I'd lie to you" that you could probably google. Sorry, not computer literate enough to post the link.

[Phaedrus 209521]

p.s. Speaking of Trumps bullshit, last weeks Economist magazine had an article "Yes, I'd lie to you" that you could probably google. Sorry, not computer literate enough to post the link.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and

[Cato 160314]

There was a strange item last night on CBC that I didn't fully understand, about proposed new legislation in Canada. From the report, I gathered, I hope wrongly, that it would be a crime not to refer to persons by the pronoun, real or invented, of their choice. I hope that this is not what's in the legislation, but it seemed to be, from the report. If anyone can clarify, I'd be grateful.

[Reddog01 30280]

I saw the same piece. It was an interview with a British author about Gender Politics and the discussion also covered the notion about "trigger warnings" and how students today are easily offended and tend to live in a "protective bubble".

 

"I think it's just becoming hypersensitive," McEwan said [author]. "I think young kids ... should be prepared to hear opinions that are not their own and should not feel threatened by opinions that are not their own."

 

"It means thinking beyond the fragile, threatened, little bubble of the self."

 

Also touched on the topic of using the "correct" pronoun to refer to someone. I believe our government has moved to "protect" transgendered persons to give them the right to be referred to by the pronoun of their choice.

 

Interview can be found through this link:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/entertainment/ian-mcewan-skeptical-of-safe-spaces-gender-politics-talk-1.3784850

[Cato 160314]

Thanks. Yes. It was the item with the Justice Minister that aired before the interview with McEwen that I'm referring to. I'm wondering what exactly is in the law.

[Reddog01 30280]

The Minister was referring to Bill C-16 that seeks to "amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination."

 

It "could" be deemed a crime to discriminate against those that do not identify against the sex in which they were born.

 

General comment:

Just as an aside from a recent survey (CBC quote) 80% of Canadians are afraid to express themselves for fear of offending someone.