Define "Political Correctness" and "Passive-Aggression"

[One Eyed Cat]

In your own words/experience, wtf do these terms mean in 2007. I can only offer the old SCOTUS view on obscenity: I know it when I see it. It's just a musing some of us our having out here. We're off the cuff folks. Do these terms have any substantive meaning to you? Let me know.

JT

[Mr Karl]

political correctness-a way of insulting peoples intellingence by not just saying it as you see it

[One Eyed Cat]

political correctness-a way of insulting peoples intellingence by not just saying it as you see it

Politeness over honesty? That makes sense.

JT

[Donald Rilea]

There are a number of definitions of political correctness-the first of which was as a term of abuse on the New Left on the late '60's and early '70's for someone considered to be too dogmatic in their political approach or adherence to a party line, like those members of the Communist Party, USA or the old Communist Party of Great Britain, for instance.

Then, there's the definition that came about in the late '80's, and which is widely used to-day, meaning a kind of overweening "superior" sort of liberal arrogance that seeks to cover up any term for anyone that might be consider pejorative.

I've a problem with that second definition, and part of that comes from the original sources of that meaning, which is the American Right, as far as I know.

They, and their allies, have used this as a term of abuse for anyone who dares to question their ideologies, intentions, language and actions, whether "moderate", liberal or radical over the past twenty years, with the implication, generally unspoken, that somehow only their opinions, and those held by their ancestors, have any "real" value or meaning, no matter how bigoted or misogynistic.

Well, whaddya know, I think I just spelt out the second part of my problem with the second definition of political correctness without even trying.

So, I'll just leave off that point, then.

Mind you, I've said this, as someone who, at various points in his life, including the recent past, has used bigoted language in anger, and can tell you that it's indeed destructive to both target and aimer alike, though for different reasons.

Whenever someone calls someone else a "******", "****", "wog", "cracker", etc, the idea is to dehumanise the person targeted and reduce them to a kind of un-person that embodies all the supposedly worst characteristics of whatever group they belong to.

In short, whether one means to or not, one reduces the person at whom one's pissed off to a kind of sub-human piece of shit, worthy only of servitude, at best, to one's "betters", or, at worst, to extermination in every sense of the world.

It's a quick, easy and cheap means of turning one's target into, to borrow Lee Ermey as Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann from Full Metal Jacket's line, "grab-asstic pieces of amphibian shit," and asserting one's supposed "superiority" over them.

That's why "un-PC" language, or, Hell, let's just call a spade a spade and say what it really is, boorish, unmannered, bigoted, racist bullshit, can be so destructive, both on the individual and group levels.

Yeah, there are fixations on parts of the American and other English-speaking countries' Lefts with group victimisation, group rights, and group sufferings, sometimes to the point of making one violently ill. Such a fixation can, in turn, lead one to adopt, newer, but not better, forms of bigotry, only this time aimed at the "correct" targets, instead of the "incorrect" ones, whatever they may be.

Either way, the real problem is an attitude of gross, unqualified superiority, for whatever reasons one may care to name, towards others, whether from the Left, Centre or Right.

In some respects, such a person can best be described by an old tv character, from the BBC series The Young Ones(and my apologies to those of you out there who are either too young to have seen it or have never seen the show), Rick, a "People's Poet", who is ostensibly on the Left, but has no more clue about what being "Left" is, than my cats would, but doesn't let that stop 'im.

He is arrogant, full of himself, snide, rude, greedy and an altogether nasty little piece of work, as brilliantly portrayed by Rik Mayall, and, given enough time after graduation, a good job, and all the comforts of a modern middle-class existence, will be as reactionary a Tory as he was a "radical".

There are people like that on every part of the political spectrum, and they are hugely annoying, to say the least.

So, if people who are PC can be best described in simple, good old English just like mother used to make, as arrogant, self-righteous twits, those who are "un-PC" can be best described as arrogant, rude, bigoted bastards.

Manners, I think, are for everyone, not just the members of one's family, ethnic group or social class.

That's it for me. Next!!!

[One Eyed Cat]

There are a number of definitions of political correctness-the first of which was as a term of abuse on the New Left on the late '60's and early '70's for someone considered to be too dogmatic in their political approach or adherence to a party line, like those members of the Communist Party, USA or the old Communist Party of Great Britain, for instance.

Then, there's the definition that came about in the late '80's, and which is widely used to-day, meaning a kind of overweening "superior" sort of liberal arrogance that seeks to cover up any term for anyone that might be consider pejorative.

I've a problem with that second definition, and part of that comes from the original sources of that meaning, which is the American Right, as far as I know.

They, and their allies, have used this as a term of abuse for anyone who dares to question their ideologies, intentions, language and actions, whether "moderate", liberal or radical over the past twenty years, with the implication, generally unspoken, that somehow only their opinions, and those held by their ancestors, have any "real" value or meaning, no matter how bigoted or misogynistic.

Well, whaddya know, I think I just spelt out the second part of my problem with the second definition of political correctness without even trying.

So, I'll just leave off that point, then.

Mind you, I've said this, as someone who, at various points in his life, including the recent past, has used bigoted language in anger, and can tell you that it's indeed destructive to both target and aimer alike, though for different reasons.

Whenever someone calls someone else a "******", "****", "wog", "cracker", etc, the idea is to dehumanise the person targeted and reduce them to a kind of un-person that embodies all the supposedly worst characteristics of whatever group they belong to.

In short, whether one means to or not, one reduces the person at whom one's pissed off to a kind of sub-human piece of shit, worthy only of servitude, at best, to one's "betters", or, at worst, to extermination in every sense of the world.

It's a quick, easy and cheap means of turning one's target into, to borrow Lee Ermey as Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann from Full Metal Jacket's line, "grab-asstic pieces of amphibian shit," and asserting one's supposed "superiority" over them.

That's why "un-PC" language, or, Hell, let's just call a spade a spade and say what it really is, boorish, unmannered, bigoted, racist bullshit, can be so destructive, both on the individual and group levels.

Yeah, there are fixations on parts of the American and other English-speaking countries' Lefts with group victimisation, group rights, and group sufferings, sometimes to the point of making one violently ill. Such a fixation can, in turn, lead one to adopt, newer, but not better, forms of bigotry, only this time aimed at the "correct" targets, instead of the "incorrect" ones, whatever they may be.

Either way, the real problem is an attitude of gross, unqualified superiority, for whatever reasons one may care to name, towards others, whether from the Left, Centre or Right.

In some respects, such a person can best be described by an old tv character, from the BBC series The Young Ones(and my apologies to those of you out there who are either too young to have seen it or have never seen the show), Rick, a "People's Poet", who is ostensibly on the Left, but has no more clue about what being "Left" is, than my cats would, but doesn't let that stop 'im.

He is arrogant, full of himself, snide, rude, greedy and an altogether nasty little piece of work, as brilliantly portrayed by Rik Mayall, and, given enough time after graduation, a good job, and all the comforts of a modern middle-class existence, will be as reactionary a Tory as he was a "radical".

There are people like that on every part of the political spectrum, and they are hugely annoying, to say the least.

So, if people who are PC can be best described in simple, good old English just like mother used to make, as arrogant, self-righteous twits, those who are "un-PC" can be best described as arrogant, rude, bigoted bastards.

Manners, I think, are for everyone, not just the members of one's family, ethnic group or social class.

That's it for me. Next!!!

In fairness, it was/is only used in that context by a buffoonish faction of the American Right. You would generally not hear "PC" used in a strictly political context by, say, folks in The Federalist Society.

I rarely hear it used beyond an ironic fashion by anyone else.

Actually, "left" and "right" are also tenuous labels. They originally referred to seating arrangements in the French Parliament: The aristocracy sat to the right of the speaker. The commoners sat to the left. The aristocracy opposed capitalism and supported the ancien regime (old order, royalty, and the church). The left represented a rising middle class and supported free markets. Then cometh Napoleon!

Socialism and communism were, for better or worse, deemed "left" of the actual left. I believe the use of this binary spectrum stifles us. I refuse to identify as either. My viewpoints on some issues would now be categorized as "left", some would be categorized "right". None would conform to the original meaning of left and right. None could be considered communism/socialism by any who understand these ideologies.

I do see your point though. In musing about this, the term "spitting into the wind" tickled my funny bone as I deconstructed that term.

JT

[Donald Rilea]

Jackie: I was writing from my viewpoint, which is that, on a worm's-eye level, of one who has seen not only the buffoonish side of the American Right, not only in the media, but as practised on an everyday level by so-called ordinary folks.

Even I've said, from time to time, "Am gonna be un-PC here", and quite frankly, that stinks all 'round.

No one should be put on the defensive for advocating more humane ways of relating to other people than the way our ancestors did, and that's what this second definition of "PC" has become-a catch-all attack phrase used by people who, in turn, don't feel the need to look at the fact that much of what they're defending is indefensible.

Whether one likes it or not, that second definition is how "un-PC" is understood, as code language for saying things that are bigoted or just plain nasty, 'cos we're all White Folks here, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

It's a weaselly way of getting around all the "polite" social taboos on the use of racist, anti-Semitic, sexist and other forms of language that, even as recently as 35 or 40 years ago, were commonly used in "nice" middle-class and "respectable" working-class homes, as well as those belonging to what Americans considered "poor white trash" in the Appalachins, Ozarks, and the Deep South.

But, it also reflects the kind of "Thank God, We're White" attitude of racial superiority that has held sway in much of the Western world since the late 1500's, at least, and that, though far less overtly expressed in public these days, still has a fairly good grip on many people's minds over much of the world.

It's that attitude of unearned superiority that disgusts me, whether it comes from the mouth of an uncouth, rude little shit who has absolutely nothing going for them whatsoever, or, in more polite settings, from the mouths of people who are presumably educated and know better, and most especially, from my own mouth, whenever I have used such terms.

That kind of superiority is found, as I have found in my experiences, all along the political spectrum, and even among those people who are ostensibly apolitical, and it drives me buggy, to say the least.

As for the original definition of Left, Centre and Right, I have heard of its original context and meaning, and appreciate your bringing it up here.

Mind you, I can be all over the political map, depending on which day and in which mood you catch me, but I would say that, as much of the silly carping, rhetorical flourishes, and pseudo-reasoning exhibited by some individuals and groups on what is, in the modern definition, the Left, I like to think that, in my small, disconnected way, I am a part of it.

To me, it has more of the values and ideals that I respect and admire than the Centre, which, at least in my experience here in the US over the past 42 years of my existence, has too often meant, "right-wing, but without the overt nastiness of much of the American Right", and the Right do.

I have very little patience or time for, to use one example, those American libertarian conservatives who go on and on about the " War of Northern Aggression(an old Southern term for the American Civil War)", and how the Confederacy was about State's Rights and so on, as if they were all members of Sons or Daughters of the Confederacy, which I seriously doubt.

To me, that ignores the basic fact that the reason the Confederate States seceded in the first place was in reaction to the election of Abraham Lincoln, whom they perceived as being an abolitionist(he was nothing of the kind before the Civil War), and to protect an economy and way of life built on the exploitation of millions of human beings through racially-based chattel slavery.

Yep, am biased, and will say so, but I think that is just so much pseudo-romantic, "Gone With The Wind", "Birth Of A Nation", "Lost Cause" grade-A, All-American horseshit on a stick, yum, yum.

I realise that such people are a minority, even among libertarian conservatives, but it's that kind of thought, rooted in historical inaccuracy and covert racial prejudice, that makes me want to hit my head against a wall in frustration.

Yeah, there are plenty of historical revisionists all over the political map, but, and I guess that having grown up in a majority libertarian conservative state like Nevada(more culturally than politically), where one encounters beliefs like that more often than in other places, the "right-wing" sort produces far more of a visceral reaction in me than the "left-wing" or "moderate" sort does.

Glad that I helped you, even inadvertently, to get a good laugh or two out of that term.

[One Eyed Cat]

Jackie: I was writing from my viewpoint, which is that, on a worm's-eye level, of one who has seen not only the buffoonish side of the American Right, not only in the media, but as practised on an everyday level by so-called ordinary folks.

Even I've said, from time to time, "Am gonna be un-PC here", and quite frankly, that stinks all 'round.

No one should be put on the defensive for advocating more humane ways of relating to other people than the way our ancestors did, and that's what this second definition of "PC" has become-a catch-all attack phrase used by people who, in turn, don't feel the need to look at the fact that much of what they're defending is indefensible.

Whether one likes it or not, that second definition is how "un-PC" is understood, as code language for saying things that are bigoted or just plain nasty, 'cos we're all White Folks here, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

It's a weaselly way of getting around all the "polite" social taboos on the use of racist, anti-Semitic, sexist and other forms of language that, even as recently as 35 or 40 years ago, were commonly used in "nice" middle-class and "respectable" working-class homes, as well as those belonging to what Americans considered "poor white trash" in the Appalachins, Ozarks, and the Deep South.

But, it also reflects the kind of "Thank God, We're White" attitude of racial superiority that has held sway in much of the Western world since the late 1500's, at least, and that, though far less overtly expressed in public these days, still has a fairly good grip on many people's minds over much of the world.

It's that attitude of unearned superiority that disgusts me, whether it comes from the mouth of an uncouth, rude little shit who has absolutely nothing going for them whatsoever, or, in more polite settings, from the mouths of people who are presumably educated and know better, and most especially, from my own mouth, whenever I have used such terms.

That kind of superiority is found, as I have found in my experiences, all along the political spectrum, and even among those people who are ostensibly apolitical, and it drives me buggy, to say the least.

As for the original definition of Left, Centre and Right, I have heard of its original context and meaning, and appreciate your bringing it up here.

Mind you, I can be all over the political map, depending on which day and in which mood you catch me, but I would say that, as much of the silly carping, rhetorical flourishes, and pseudo-reasoning exhibited by some individuals and groups on what is, in the modern definition, the Left, I like to think that, in my small, disconnected way, I am a part of it.

To me, it has more of the values and ideals that I respect and admire than the Centre, which, at least in my experience here in the US over the past 42 years of my existence, has too often meant, "right-wing, but without the overt nastiness of much of the American Right", and the Right do.

I have very little patience or time for, to use one example, those American libertarian conservatives who go on and on about the " War of Northern Aggression(an old Southern term for the American Civil War)", and how the Confederacy was about State's Rights and so on, as if they were all members of Sons or Daughters of the Confederacy, which I seriously doubt.

To me, that ignores the basic fact that the reason the Confederate States seceded in the first place was in reaction to the election of Abraham Lincoln, whom they perceived as being an abolitionist(he was nothing of the kind before the Civil War), and to protect an economy and way of life built on the exploitation of millions of human beings through racially-based chattel slavery.

Yep, am biased, and will say so, but I think that is just so much pseudo-romantic, "Gone With The Wind", "Birth Of A Nation", "Lost Cause" grade-A, All-American horseshit on a stick, yum, yum.

I realise that such people are a minority, even among libertarian conservatives, but it's that kind of thought, rooted in historical inaccuracy and covert racial prejudice, that makes me want to hit my head against a wall in frustration.

Yeah, there are plenty of historical revisionists all over the political map, but, and I guess that having grown up in a majority libertarian conservative state like Nevada(more culturally than politically), where one encounters beliefs like that more often than in other places, the "right-wing" sort produces far more of a visceral reaction in me than the "left-wing" or "moderate" sort does.

Glad that I helped you, even inadvertently, to get a good laugh or two out of that term.

I use it in that sense on occasion. I don't think it's always a preface to bigotry, but it is pretty silly for us to qualify our statements with "I'm being Un-PC". It is always wrong to discriminate based solely on race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, gender (even though our own federal government has yet to fully recognize two of those categories)

Conversely, I do see some folks differ on issues such as affirmative action. While I believe the 14th Amendment clearly states that remedial measures are permissible, some argue that the equal protection clause negates the validity of such programs. I would not necessarily call such people racist, sexist, etc.

Obviously, the "War of Aggression" argument should be rejected outright. If the federal-state balance struck by the 14th Amendment is not to their liking, they are free to attempt to form their own state elsewhere. I have no time or patience for their tripe either.

JT

[Black Spiral Dancer]

Political Correctness at it's core is Common Sense (though where I live, Common Sense is very rarely Common). You don't say something to someone that you think may be construed as offensive. If you go to work and there are 5 people called Dave but only one that is "of African descent", there should be no offence in saying "Can you give this file to Dave." "Which Dave?" "The Black One." There are 3 Johns where I work, not including myself, so if someone says to anyone, "Give this to John" and they ask "Which one?", I am not offended to be referred to as the Goth one or the on with hair or the one that looks like a vampire.
Even the term "Half-caste" is considered to be politcially incorrect, even though I went to school with a boy that considered himself Half-Caste.
What people seem to not take into account is the intention behind the statements. If you are merely using the person's "Uniqueness" to point them out, then it's fine. If you maliciously use that same "uniqueness" in an attempt to insult them, then that is wrong. In essence, the intent behind the statement is what makes it right or wrong.

[Donald Rilea]

Political Correctness at it's core is Common Sense (though where I live, Common Sense is very rarely Common). You don't say something to someone that you think may be construed as offensive. If you go to work and there are 5 people called Dave but only one that is "of African descent", there should be no offence in saying "Can you give this file to Dave." "Which Dave?" "The Black One." There are 3 Johns where I work, not including myself, so if someone says to anyone, "Give this to John" and they ask "Which one?", I am not offended to be referred to as the Goth one or the on with hair or the one that looks like a vampire.
Even the term "Half-caste" is considered to be politcially incorrect, even though I went to school with a boy that considered himself Half-Caste.
What people seem to not take into account is the intention behind the statements. If you are merely using the person's "Uniqueness" to point them out, then it's fine. If you maliciously use that same "uniqueness" in an attempt to insult them, then that is wrong. In essence, the intent behind the statement is what makes it right or wrong.

Wouldn't disagree with you on either statement, Black Spiral Dancer, especially about common sense not really being that common!!!!

I should know, as there are times I wonder if I ever had any good sense at all. Oh, well .

[Donald Rilea]

[QUOTE=Jackie T.]I use it in that sense on occasion. I don't think it's always a preface to bigotry, but it is pretty silly for us to qualify our statements with "I'm being Un-PC". It is always wrong to discriminate based solely on race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, gender (even though our own federal government has yet to fully recognize two of those categories)

Conversely, I do see some folks differ on issues such as affirmative action. While I believe the 14th Amendment clearly states that remedial measures are permissible, some argue that the equal protection clause negates the validity of such programs. I would not necessarily call such people racist, sexist, etc.

Obviously, the "War of Aggression" argument should be rejected outright. If the federal-state balance struck by the 14th Amendment is not to their liking, they are free to attempt to form their own state elsewhere. I have no time or patience for their tripe either.

Can dig where you're coming from, Jackie.

As for the anti-affirmative action crowd, well, for me, it depends on the premises and content of the argument being made, and by whom.it's being made.

For myself, I believe in it, because I think that, and am speaking as a European-American here, European-Americans do have a responsibility to African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders and others who were, and in some cases, continue to be excluded from full participation in every aspect of the culture.

Our ancestors created the system, our grand-parents and parents helped maintain it, and we have, for the most part, benefited from it in one way or another.

That said, I'm gonna acknowledge that am painting with an over-broad brush here, and that many European-Americans, especially those who were immigrants or came from working-class or poor backgrounds, got it hard, got it right in the neck, and are still getting it shoved at 'em.

But, there have also been many European-Americans, and European immigrants to the US and other parts of the Americas, who bought right into the whole "Thank God We're White" idea, even if they didn't have a pot to piss in, and the only benefit being white ever got 'em was that they didn't have to worry about being lynched(Far from a bad benefit, might I add).

The saddest part of all is that many of those same European-Americans who were getting it right in the neck from their so-called 'betters" turned right around and did something similar, if not worse, to their African-American, Latino and other neighbours.

The worst riots in US history, and you would probably know this a Helluva lot better than I would, Jackie, were the New York Draft Riots of 1863, in which mainly Irish-American workers and such went after African-American individuals and institutions that catered to them in the summer of 1863.

The reasons behind the riots were, from what little I've read about 'em, anger at the weight of the newly-imposed military draft falling on Irish-Americans, many of whom couldn't afford the $300 exemption fee for staying out of military service, and the perception by many of the rioters that they and their loved ones were being sent off to die for the freedom of African-Americans, many of whom, in the New York and Boston areas, at least, were often economic competitors for the same kinds of jobs, and who, in the heavily anti-Irish climate of immediate pre-Civil War America, were often preferred by employers over Irish immigrants.

There may have been more causes for the riots than that, but those are the only two of which I am aware.

An estimated 1,000 people died in the Draft Riots, and US Army units, fresh from the Battle of Gettysburg, had to be called into New York City to help suppress them.

All in all, they were a real disgrace to New York City, and to the US.

Yes, our society has changed tremendously since then, and even since a century after the riots occurring, but I think that there is still quite a bit of bigotry, both open and hidden, in the US, as seen in the phenomenon of "white flight" to the suburbs, beginning in the late '40's and early '50's and continuing right up to to-day, and the racialised tone of much of the recent debate over what to do about illegal immigration, most of which has focused upon illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, even though there are large numbers of illegal aliens coming in from Asia and Eastern Europe, as well.

But, those latter two groups, as well as students and tourists from Western Europe and elsewhere in the world who over-stay their alloted visa periods, what have you, are very, very seldomly mentioned in this debate, which, from the anti-immigrant side, is heavily fueled by fears of racial and cultural change.

This debate's by no means confined to the US, as in Britain, there are fears about the large numbers of Poles and other Eastern Europeans coming into the country and taking un- or semi-skilled jobs, France, where their government's system of assimilation of immigrants from their former North African and Sub-Saharan African colonies was shown up for being a failure in the 2005 riots that racked that country, and even Mexico, which is having quite a problem with Central American immigrants crossing their southern borders.

In these countries, and others, one can see and hear rather similar rhetoric, though aimed at different targets, used to describe these immigrants, and very similar arguments as to how they pose a threat, or potential, threat to these societies.

But, for me, ultimately, what it comes down to as an American, is that we as a society either at least try to live up to the star-spangled rhetoric about freedom, justice, liberty for all and fairness, especially as it is estimated by the year 2050, the US will no longer be a European-American majority society, or, we should shut up about all that and admit that this is a country, by and for upper-class and upper- middle-class European Americans, and be prepared to reap the consequences of that sort of short-sighted thought when the worm turns, as it surely will.

Personally, I don't want this country to go down the road trodden by Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia, among others. But, and have been saying this for nearly twenty years now, if we continue the sorts of policies and actions we have been engaged in, especially since 1981, we well may end up treading a similar path.

The greatest pity about that, were it to happen, would be the enormous waste of lives, talents, time, resources and potential all 'round.

Anyway, at the end of my first message, I said something about shutting up, didn't I??? Well, here I've gone and done it again, just opened up my big, fat mouth and yapped, yapped, yapped away like Paris Hilton's Chihuahua in heat.

So, THIS time 'round, am really going to shut up here, and give someone else a chance for a change(BTW, got that phrase from an American Public Radio show called "Whaddya Know?").

Take care, Jackie, and be seeing you.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Passive aggression in pretty easy to me. It is a method of disrupting someone without actual confrontation. I can't drive, I forgot my license, that sort of thing. It is sometimes hard to tell when people are doing it because they are not always aware.

Political correctness is a little trickier.These days it is just a buzzword. Like the good old "I am just telling it like it is" it is simply a strawman. I don't know that it ever had a meaning outside of the straw man it has become. I haven't seen it used in any way but the negative sense to tear down legit issues or to excuse a lack of not being an ass.

As a side note, look at who uses the term politically correct most often. That says more about the term than I ever could.

[One Eyed Cat]

Passive aggression in pretty easy to me. It is a method of disrupting someone without actual confrontation. I can't drive, I forgot my license, that sort of thing. It is sometimes hard to tell when people are doing it because they are not always aware.

Political correctness is a little trickier.These days it is just a buzzword. Like the good old "I am just telling it like it is" it is simply a strawman. I don't know that it ever had a meaning outside of the straw man it has become. I haven't seen it used in any way but the negative sense to tear down legit issues or to excuse a lack of not being an ass.

As a side note, look at who uses the term politically correct most often. That says more about the term than I ever could.

Yeah. The passive-aggression convo revolved around MN really. I don't know if you've been to the midwest, but you'll find the folks here are generally very friendly. My query would generally end there. Cordiality - No Mention of who I may be - No problem. A lot have argued it has an undertone of passive-aggression that goes beyond a tactic. They see it as a veneer of politeness which masks some deep-rooted anger. They warn me against taking say sarcasm or what we'd see as joking about on the coast as actual hostility. It's just something I've become aware of. I speak off the cuff so I may offend midwest sensibilities in this regard.

PC - I kept coming to the conclusion that it is almost oxymoronic. In reality, it is simply a missive thrown around by people who wish to disagree but cannot formulate an argument as to why. Bang. We're being self-righteous (even though PC viewpoints would rarely relate strictly to my our your personal interests) The genesis, as you mention, is dead obvious. It came from soundbite jokers like Limbaugh. It should be mocked imo. We all tend to use it albeit most with a bit of irony.

JT

[One Eyed Cat]

As for the anti-affirmative action crowd, well, for me, it depends on the premises and content of the argument being made, and by whom.it's being made.

For myself, I believe in it, because I think that, and am speaking as a European-American here, European-Americans do have a responsibility to African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders and others who were, and in some cases, continue to be excluded from full participation in every aspect of the culture.

Our ancestors created the system, our grand-parents and parents helped maintain it, and we have, for the most part, benefited from it in one way or another.

That said, I'm gonna acknowledge that am painting with an over-broad brush here, and that many European-Americans, especially those who were immigrants or came from working-class or poor backgrounds, got it hard, got it right in the neck, and are still getting it shoved at 'em.

But, there have also been many European-Americans, and European immigrants to the US and other parts of the Americas, who bought right into the whole "Thank God We're White" idea, even if they didn't have a pot to piss in, and the only benefit being white ever got 'em was that they didn't have to worry about being lynched(Far from a bad benefit, might I add).

The saddest part of all is that many of those same European-Americans who were getting it right in the neck from their so-called 'betters" turned right around and did something similar, if not worse, to their African-American, Latino and other neighbour.

I have never quite understood the imagined unity some profess as to the "white race". In reality, light-skinned folks have offed each other in ways any folks deemed "outsiders" could have possibly accomplished. Think WW2.

I do believe there is a societal responsibility to insure folks of all backgrounds are afforded equal opportunities There have been difficulties faced by immigrants from Eastern Europe. The immigration law in effect from the 19-teens to the 60s was aimed primarily to keep out jews and other folks from Eastern Europe. There is some sentiment there of having "made it on our own" thus the other folks should to. I don't believe this personally. When debating with eastern europeans, one cannot made the argument that "our" ancestors did this. Ours/mine did not. I simply find it a societal obligation.

I'm not familiar with the situation in the U.K. Historically, they have been very liberal in allowing eastern europeans to resettle.

JT

[One Eyed Cat]

Political Correctness at it's core is Common Sense (though where I live, Common Sense is very rarely Common). You don't say something to someone that you think may be construed as offensive. If you go to work and there are 5 people called Dave but only one that is "of African descent", there should be no offence in saying "Can you give this file to Dave." "Which Dave?" "The Black One." There are 3 Johns where I work, not including myself, so if someone says to anyone, "Give this to John" and they ask "Which one?", I am not offended to be referred to as the Goth one or the on with hair or the one that looks like a vampire.
Even the term "Half-caste" is considered to be politcially incorrect, even though I went to school with a boy that considered himself Half-Caste.
What people seem to not take into account is the intention behind the statements. If you are merely using the person's "Uniqueness" to point them out, then it's fine. If you maliciously use that same "uniqueness" in an attempt to insult them, then that is wrong. In essence, the intent behind the statement is what makes it right or wrong.

True. Intent will make the same classification neutral or malicious. What does the term "half-caste" mean though? I don't believe I've heard that term before.

JT

[Bikerpunk]

Political correctness is inverse racism. You're still racist, but you're trying too hard not to show it.

[One Eyed Cat]

Political correctness is inverse racism. You're still racist, but you're trying too hard not to show it.

IE: One who is actually prejudiced against another race but uses rhetoric to hide that fact? You mean in the sense of a hidden racism I take it. That can be more dangerous imo.

JT

[Bikerpunk]

Let's put it this way.

I call my black friends black cause they're black and I don't have a problem with them being black. To me it's like saying that they're tall, or what have you.

The kind of person who tries to spin that into "actually it's that he's Afro-American of Asiatic-assyrian descent" is nine times out of ten compensating for the fact that "black" makes him or her uncomfortable.

That's my 2c.

[One Eyed Cat]

Let's put it this way.

I call my black friends black cause they're black and I don't have a problem with them being black. To me it's like saying that they're tall, or what have you.

The kind of person who tries to spin that into "actually it's that he's Afro-American of Asiatic-assyrian descent" is nine times out of ten compensating for the fact that "black" makes him or her uncomfortable.

That's my 2c.

haha I hear ya. I call my black friends black as well (as do they). I use african-american as an aggregate on occasion.

JT

[Bikerpunk]

Desmond's from Jamaica. Nowhere near Africa.

[One Eyed Cat]

Desmond's from Jamaica. Nowhere near Africa.

Good Point. I usually just let folks self-identify. For example, we have the largest somali-american community here in MPLS. They prefer to maintain this identity. I've met eritreans in Cali that were the same way. Point being: It makes no difference to me.

JT

[helcyon]

Political Correctness: a form of Digital Rights Management... you can ensure to a high degree of certainty that I won't download your band's music for free if you use PC lyrics.

Passive Aggression: Rolling on top of someone or poking them in the eye etc. when you are passed out unconscious drunk