When I was young, long before "political correctness", I was taught to be respectful

[bhikkhu]

To not hurt people's feelings if it could be avoided, to not judge people in whose shoes I hadn't walked. I was given the idea that if you understood someone it would be difficult to hate them, and if you hated someone it was probably because you didn't understand them. And that the ability to have compassion was a great strength, while resort to anger showed a great weakness.

This afternoon listening to NPR it was mentioned that Trump's campaign energizes people who are sick of political correctness. It seems to me that, in practice, this means little more than being freely disrespectful, uncaring of people's feelings, judgemental of anyone who doesn't fit a certain mold, and unapologetically hateful toward anyone who shows compassion for people who are different or less fortunate.

I am inclined to think that when "political correctness" is referred to dismissively it has nothing to do with politics and much to do with wishing that the old easy path of anger, hate, narrow self-interest, and childish meanness was somehow ok again. It is disturbing to think that so many people can think that is such a fine thing these days, but those on the right side of the problem, I would hope, should continue to set a good example and have high expectations of anyone who is in a position of representing others, or holding any post of government including teaching or public service.

The ability to respect other people is something well-learned, and one who can show respect is one who can be respected. If a person has no respect, he deserves pity; certainly not airtime, adulation and votes.

(probably preaching to the choir here, but this has been on my mind).

[Xipe Totec]

1. Before you insult someone, walk a mile in his shoes

Then you will be a mile away, and you will have his shoes.

[Roy Rolling]

20. Love it. N/T

[ljm2002]

37. Made me laugh out loud! :-) n/t

[loyalsister]

2. It is a label smacked on decent manners

and respect for others. It's a way of saying "I have a natural right to be as crude, obnoxious, hateful as possible and no one has standing to criticize me because I'm an American.

[ashling]

12. True that

It is related (first cousin I think ... or maybe it's first cussin') to the statement, "I'm going to be brutally honest with you"

I have found that 90% of the time, people who would describe themselves as brutally honest are more enamoured with the brutality than the honesty

[steve2470]

31. so true about the brutality nt

[meow2u3]

44. Isn't that the truth?

Someone being brutally honest are long on brutal and short on honest.

[deafskeptic]

26. that's the impression I get also.

Agreed!

[Nye Bevan]

3. Here's an example of extreme political correctness:

'Brainstorming', the buzzword used by executives to generate ideas among their staff, has been deemed politically incorrect by civil servants because it is thought to be offensive to people with brain disorders.

Instead staff at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) in Belfast will use the term 'thought-showers' when they get together to think creatively. A spokeswoman said: 'The DETI does not use the term brainstorming on its training courses on the grounds that it may be deemed pejorative.'

Sources inside the department said there was concern that the term would cause offence to people with epilepsy as well those with brain tumours or brain injuries.

But the Campaign for Plain English complained that the decision had 'reached the point of real ridicule'. 'You do sometimes wonder if some people haven't got anything better to do with their time,' said spokesman John Wild. 'Do they just sit down and search out enough words until eventually they can say: "I can make that out to be politically incorrect"?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jun/26/uk.politicalnews

[bhikkhu]

6. There's the baby, and there's the bathwater

"brainstorming" is trivial. Respect and compassion are the real issue.

[Nye Bevan]

9. The vast majority of DUers are respectful and compassionate people.

When they complain about "political correctness" it's not about not being able to use the n-word, it's about stuff like people insisting on "Holiday Tree" instead of "Christmas Tree" and phrases like "manhole cover" being declared to be sexist.

[HereSince1628]

39. Brainstorming is a red-herring, isn't bigotry, it doesn't stigmatize non-targets

on the other hand a statement like 'Donald Trump is certifiably mentally ill", is bigoted, overbroad and uses an innocent third party (people with unspecified/broad-brushed mental illness) to represent flaws in Trump.

The result goes beyond merely suggesting Trump has failings of character, but underscores the presence of false pathologies in Trump re unspecified symptoms supposedly present in the third party. Such statements reinforce stereotypes, prejudice and lead to discrimination against the third party.

But such language use shows up regularly herein because, it has been argued (even by DU Admin), that political discourse can't survive without such statements.

We should contemplate what that really means, and I suspect it doesn't evidence problems with opposing Trump or availability of vocabulary but rather the liberal/progressive quality of the degree of enlightenment revealed by writers' choices to endorse and exploit negative social attitudes re the third party.

Adding On Edit... Brain-storming uses storming as in an overwhelming use of force...storming beaches. The weapon of that force is the brains of the storm troops. The notion is coming up with a group of options on how to attack a problem by generating, sharing ideas.

[deathrind]

7. I remember reading this...

and thinking that the PC concept has gone too far. But sure enough we stopped using the term where I work. Now it is referred to as "Let's get the group together and table top this issue for a solutions"

SMH...

[BlueStater]

8. Except that doesn't seem to be what Trump and his supporters think "political correctness" is.

Their idea of "political correctness" is to mock a man who was born with a physical disability which limits the movement in one of his arms and then being rightfully called out as an asshole by decent people. They want to go back to the "good ol' days" when they could be openly hateful to whomever they wanted and not be criticized for it.

[haikugal]

10. This is exactly what they want.

They want to turn the clock back. Ugly people.

[Nye Bevan]

15. The phrase "ugly people" might be offensive to attractiveness-challenged folks.

Please consider rewording or adding a trigger warning.

[haikugal]

16. Oh hell, I thought this was a safe space!

[bhikkhu]

18. Real beauty is on the inside; or not.

Though even if "not", its still there, hidden away or suppressed or taught out of a person. People are basically good, but life can take its toll.

It actually took me a long time to learn that one, to not form opinions based on appearance. The genetics that form our physical appearances are fairly distinct from those that form our minds, and upbringing is independent of both.

[meow2u3]

45. Trump and his supporters want a license to be disrespectful

of anyone who doesn't look or act like them. Which is par for the course, since they have no self-respect.

[Roy Rolling]

23. There are two issues with "brainstorming"

1. It is arrogant of whoever thinks they can unilaterally change the meaning of a well-established word in the English language. Not gonna happen.

2. It's just a stupid rule. Those afflicted by brain disease and behavioral disorders (the REAL term for "mental illness&quot are not offended nor disparaged by the word "brainstorming". There are real issues of insensitivity that political correctness addresses, but this "cry wolf" whining about the term "brainstorming" is not one of them.

[spanone]

4. k&r...

[deathrind]

5. Ditto!

[Yorktown]

11. In addition to respect, PCness also demands to stifle criticism (and gallows humor)

That's where Political Correctness can be overbearing.

[bhikkhu]

22. I think it asks us to be better people

...especially those who represent others, or who stand as examples or public figures. I'm not sure where stifling criticism would come in, though gallows humor (and plenty of comedians I can think of) are pretty much exempt. That's a fairly compartmentalized thing, and has its own more or less complicated ethic.

A Yeats quote I've been fond of: "I have believed the best of every man, and I find that to believe it is enough to make a bad man show him at his best, or even a good man to swing his lantern higher".

Its not about finding the high ground from which to criticize others, but a common ground where we can be better people together. Having grown up among peers who were comfortable with racism, sexism, homophobic slurs, etc, which would alienate a significant portion of any population from "our" group, I'm very pleased to have seen a significant (though incremental) widening of the circle during my lifetime, some evolution toward an end to purposeless exclusion and alienation. The minutiae of language police and rule-making side can trivialize that, and perhaps there are many who prefer rules to understanding, but there is a larger point.

[Yorktown]

25. I'll give you an example of gallows humor that would be censored in public

I won't waste time googling the actual names but there's this anecdote of a journalist who reported a group of actors who are friends and included Samuel Jackson or Morgan Freeman, forgot which, who jokingly called one of the white actors by the N word and got answered back in the same tone.

One can choose to be righteously offended in the name of PC principles or one can use common sense and see intention first, i.e. a group having fun. But I'm pretty sure that had the journalist been one of those people who take PC-ness oh-so-seriously, he would have taken offense.

[NCLefty]

13. Spot on.

I'd buy you a beer for that if we were in a bar :p

[rusty quoin]

14. Good for you and us.

I was telling my wife earlier that I cannot understand these people, how they hold people who have nothing to do with an attack somehow responsible for it.

I guess I understand it on an intellectual level, but my gut cannot believe it's happening.

It's mob behavior.

[passiveporcupine]

17. I agree with you 100%

This was an excellent post. Thank you!

[KT2000]

19. you are so right

what is wrong with being respectful and showing manners. I do not get it - so many people support Trump and doesn't he go against what most of were taught as children? Actually it makes me sad.

[pnwmom]

21. Thank you for your thoughtful post. Yes, another way of putting it is

following the "Golden Rule."

Maybe they're not teaching it anymore in school, but they should be.

[calimary]

24. What a great post!

I think you nailed it, bhikkhu!

[SunSeeker]

27. K & R

[47of74]

28. People who complain about political correctness...

....are usually the same ones who are upset because they can't use the N word in public with impunity.

[safeinOhio]

29. Also they tend to faint or

cry discrimination when gutter-talk is used against them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. the vast majority of times when I hear the term "politically correct" it is an

attempt to justify some kind of discrimination, racism and/or bigotry. Okay, I'll agree that there are people who go overboard looking for things to shout bigotry over - but that is rarely what people mean when they use the term politically correct. Almost always they are bigots who don't to want be restrained in any of their bigotry.

[treestar]

33. This ^^^^^^^

And they are upset at any pushback over the new-found group they believe that can have carte-blanche to feel superior to - Muslims. It's almost like they are surprised. "You're going to defend this group? They are out to kill us. (I thought I had a group I could hate without that stuff)."

[Tanuki]

41. +1000. Yes, it is a term often used by frustrated bigots. n/t

[Sherman A1]

30. Agreed

[brer cat]

34. Excellent post, bhikkhu. nt

[Nye Bevan]

35. Will the Term "Master Bedroom" No Longer Exist?

Some designers, architects, developers are moving towards a more politically-correct term for the largest room in the house.

Would you ever call your master bedroom, an "Owner's Suite"? Or what about "Owner's Bedroom?" An article on Gawker cited a survey from the Washington Business Journal that found some real estate developers in the Washington, D.C. area no longer use the term "Master Bedroom" in their floor plans. Some people believe that there are negative connotations to the term, gender-wise and historically. Of the survey of 10 homebuilders in the D.C. area, six no longer use the word. Instead, they're using "Owner's suite," "Owner's bedroom," or "Mastre Bedroom." In fact, some in the industry, such as Brian Block, managing broker for McLean's RE/Max Allegiance, told the Washington Business Journal that he prefers those terms because they imply a luxurious space with a lavish bath and custom closets.

http://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/fun-at-home/a1087/master-bedroom-politically-incorrect/

[bhikkhu]

40. Perhaps a better understanding, which might elude the majority now

is that science has shown there are, in fact, "male" and "female" brain types, which have subtle differences. The similarities vastly outweigh the differences, but a distinction can still be made.

Further, and more importantly, science has shown that these two types of brain are not necessarily determined by physical gender. The generation I was born into has a great deal of difficulty understanding how this could be. When I talked about it to my kids, it seemed obvious to them - no big news, really.

The language becomes less important if we no longer judge by appearances.

[Nye Bevan]

36. Authors told not to write about sausages or pigs in children's books to 'avoid offence'

Authors of UK-published school books have been asked to take other cultures into account when writing in order to allow their texts to be exported to foreign countries.

Suggested guidelines for authors published by Oxford University Press (OUP) include not portraying the consumption of pork or bacon, which is not eaten in the Muslim world.

A spokesperson for Oxford University Press explained that books needed to be applicable to other cultures in order for them to be exported.

“Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities,” the spokesperson said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/authors-of-school-books-advised-not-to-write-about-pork-9976620.html

[LanternWaste]

38. A consistent reliance on Reductio ad absurdum

A consistent reliance on Reductio ad absurdum is by its very nature, irrational.

[The2ndWheel]

42. Have you walked in their particular shoes?

It seems to me that, in practice, this means little more than being freely disrespectful, uncaring of people's feelings, judgemental of anyone who doesn't fit a certain mold, and unapologetically hateful toward anyone who shows compassion for people who are different or less fortunate.

I am inclined to think that when "political correctness" is referred to dismissively it has nothing to do with politics and much to do with wishing that the old easy path of anger, hate, narrow self-interest, and childish meanness was somehow ok again.

That sounds like judging other people.

[bhikkhu]

46. Yes. And there is a fairly easy way to dismiss that common objection

The objection, most often heard from the right wing, would be that one cannot object to intolerance without being intolerant oneself, or that relativism requires that all viewpoints are valid, so nobody can be criticised. Anyone who's raised kids has probably also heard varieties of that from their children as well.

First, we have values that we hope everyone can share and enjoy - human dignity, compassion, equality, freedom, well-being, justice, respect, happiness, etc. These are things we all learn through experience to value, and arguments for them aren't hard to come by. Again, if you've raised kids (or been a teacher, or anything of that sort) you've probably run through the gamut of arguments. Then we criticize behavior that is contrary to those values. A person within a culture is well suited to criticize the behavior of others within that culture on those terms. Which leads to argument or discussion, which is just fine. That's how people communicate and learn from one another.

I don't judge people, but I do judge behavior, according to the values I hold. As far as what I am comfortable addressing that way, I've walked in those shoes my whole life. I can say from experience that behaving badly leads to bad outcomes, and there are better ways to be, that some behaviors spread hurt and alienation, while others build the bonds of trust and community.

In another sense, human feelings are also human universals: things we all innately have, experience and understand. We all wear those shoes. Human development is also something innate that we all go through, regardless of culture, and with just the details of experience differing from life to life. In early childhood, it is natural to be wholly self-centered, deceitful, even manipulative. It is also natural for children to act reflexively in anger, and various other "bad" things. We learn to do better as we grow up, we all wear those shoes as well.

When the behavior of a child is criticized its is also very natural (and consistently probable, for whatever reason) for the child to try to turn the argument from a criticism of behavior to a criticism of the person. That is, "you think I'm a terrible person", "now you hate me!", and so on. By various means to sidetrack the learning of and the importance of values, and begin a pity party instead.

[Nye Bevan]

43. Animal Academics: Using the Word ‘Pet’ Insults Your Pet, er, Companion

Here’s a frightening thought: The cat ladies are right. Kitties (and their doggie counterparts) are companions, not pets, and calling them otherwise is just plain offensive.

According to a report published in the Journal of Animal Ethics, using “derogatory” terms such as “critters,” “beasts,” and — you guessed it — “pets” when referring to animals of any kind can affect the way they are treated.

In other words, a note for animal caretakers (don’t even mutter the word “owners” — that’s even worse than “pets”) everywhere: You’re doing it wrong.

.....

“Our existing language about animals is the language of past thought – and the crucial point is that the past is littered with derogatory terminology,” the report states. “We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them.”

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/29/animal-academics-using-the-word-pet-insults-your-pet-er-companion/?hpt=T2

[Strelnikov_]

47. Great post n/t