While certain persons of questionable employment status were describing certain other persons who's livelihood is more..... certain....

as "Nappy-Headed Ho's" I personally saw it as not only racist and sexist (as if that weren't enough) but also the product of a disturbing trend in society.

I've engaged in debates on terminology before. We used to have a thread on media nonsense terms, but I don't think this whopper made the cut.

Allow me.


What is the meaning of the term "politically correct"?

What is more damaging to the discourse in our societies...

Political Correctness?

or the vilification thereof?

Is the term a useful one, or do you agree with me that it has become simply an excuse to speak without thinking?
Edited to Add:
There's an "s" in that title that doesn't belong... I know.... sorry.
Re-Edited to Add more:
The mods are merciful.

I saw this thread this morning and decided not to post to it at that time. I don’t drink, but until I’ve had my shot of coffee, it’s like having a hangover without the headache. Yet I fear this fine thread is going to get lost in all the “best of” threads, so I’m going to reply now.

What is the meaning of the term "politically correct"?

That Turnea is a good question. It’s like asking what "common sense" or "generally accepted" mean.

It’s hard to provide an answer. What encompasses PC changes and grows regularly. It’s sort of like the Steve McQueen movie The Blob as described by a reviewer on Amazon.com.



http://www.amazon.com/BLOB-1950s-Classic-S...3916&sr=1-1

What is more damaging to the discourse in our societies...

Political Correctness?

or the vilification thereof?

I think they are both damaging if taken to extremes. Certainly, we do not want to go around offending people. We don’t want to be “jerks," nor do we want to “jerk” Mark Twain’s books off school library shelves because of “offensive” dialogue consistent with the times.

What is the meaning of the term "politically correct"?



the free dictionary

I think this definition hits the nail on the head. It is a term that evolved in the modern era of social change and efforts at being more open and inclusive. It tends to aim at the white Christian male with expectations of courteous or non-insulting behavior in relation to other groups in society. Following the unwritten code of political correctness can show that one is courteous and empathetic on the surface.

However it is another one of those words from the social revolution of the 1960s and 1970s that has become an emblem of the backlash against said revolution in our current culture wars. (see liberal and feminist)

So definition number from above has become the more often used one. In mainstream media-land in the United States, making an un-pc gaffe can be cause for immediate dismissal. (see Jimmy the Greek, Don Imus, Trent Lott)

What is more damaging to the discourse in our societies...
Political Correctness?

or the vilification thereof?

In the case of PC, the backlash has come about for some good reasons but it has become a way to name call without really saying anything. To dismiss something as pc is to end the conversation often. Once something is labeled pc it is a negative and if there is an opposing opinion in the room that person must defend that negative despite the fact that making a slur in the office may actually be wholly inappropriate, the initial objection raiser must either defend political correctness (now a loaded term) or prove that despite the negative value of being pc the behavior in question is still unacceptable.


On the other hand, the values of political correctness when enforced have a storm that often removes the context or facts from the debate. Under the mantra "the only thing we will not tolerate is intolerance, my liberal brethren can go on a "put his head on a rail hunt" at times when it is not entirely called for.

What I mean here is that hundreds of slurs and comments and comments that cross the line are allowed to pass because they do not intersect at the perfect storm of pc wrath. The person making the comment needs to be notable, generally a white male, it has to get picked up as an incident in the national or international media, and it has to be reduced to a non-contextual phrase. Granted most of the people making these comments need censure, but too often we meet out the death penalty after never having written a ticket.

Once the anger storm has started, the negative publicity (and this is one of the rare cases of negative publicity causing networks, corporations, franchises, political parties etc. to react with extreme prejudice) mounts and throws in with the offender almost anyone who steps up as a defender.

Either way, the victim is honest discourse. We learn what to not to say but not how to engage in a more honest debate about why things like that are said in our society every day.

Is the term a useful one, or do you agree with me that it has become simply an excuse to speak without thinking?

It can be a useful thought tool. It is generally used as an excuse to speak without thinking.

I think this is a good definition as well. The interesting part of this definition, and the part that I think explains the controversy around the term, is its connotation in regards to political change. What exactly is political change? One could successfully argue it is the ability to sway certain voters that they should be supporting one candidate or party over the other. In other words, a political ploy to sway voters. I don't think anyone can argue successfully that this isn't at least a part of the 'political correctness' movement.

I also tend to think the semantics of the phrase itself leads to valid criticism of the concept. Why is the descriptor 'politically' necessary? What is it that makes a term 'politically' correct as opposed to merely 'correct'? Again, this would infer that using one term has political usefulness, whereas another term may not.

Once is too often in my mind, but I must admit I can't really think of many incidents were public figures who were railroaded didn't richly deserve it.

I understand the concern over the possible self-censorship of valuable speech, but most things touted as "politically incorrect" are negatives for the public discourse.

Society loses nothing for radio announcers fearing to call women "nappy-headed hoes."

...a tiny part. It is hard to sway voters by what one doesn't say.

I can see where the movement is an attempt not to alienate voters, but that is nothing new. In some people's eyes there is a difference between politically expedient and PC.