What is "political correctness?"

[Sisyphus]

I think this actually gets used a lot more up in the northeast part of the country. I'm in the midwest, so we don't really see that much PC nonsense except in writing. You'd have to apply for the bus driver job as a transportation specialist but everyone would say congratulations on your bus driver job.

 

This highlights my point. I'm from the northeast. Lived there all my life. Never heard anything like a "transportation specialist." Why? Because they're bus drivers. This just illuminates the fact that the more ridiculous aspects of PC don't really exist, they're just perceived as existing. "Sure, we don't say that, but those other people do." No, we don't.

 

One of my best friends is from the rural midwest, and I'm continually amazed about what she thinks the northeast is like. What the hell do they TELL you people out there?

 

BTW, what's wrong with "flight attendant?" Isn't that a more accurate and specific job description than "steward/stewardess?"

[ParanoiA]

This highlights my point. I'm from the northeast. Lived there all my life. Never heard anything like a "transportation specialist." Why? Because they're bus drivers. This just illuminates the fact that the more ridiculous aspects of PC don't really exist, they're just perceived as existing. "Sure, we don't say that, but those other people do." No, we don't.

 

One of my best friends is from the rural midwest, and I'm continually amazed about what she thinks the northeast is like. What the hell do they TELL you people out there?

 

BTW, what's wrong with "flight attendant?" Isn't that a more accurate and specific job description than "steward/stewardess?"

 

Well, maybe you and Mokele have a good point then. Maybe the media is ate up with it - because you see it alot on TV - but not the general public. I have to admit, that's where I got the idea.

 

And I agree, I thought "flight attendant" was actually one of the few good ones.

[bascule]

To answer the OP:

 

Being offensively inoffensive

[Mokele]

IMHO, the problem is that the very idea is *rife* with humor potential. The moment it got proposed, everyone latched onto it because they could easily make up some silly PC-term and make themselves seem witty. Pretty soon, the humorous version had more following than the reality, and that's pretty much that.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

BTW, what's wrong with "flight attendant?" Isn't that a more accurate and specific job description than "steward/stewardess?"

 

I don't think anyone is claiming that a changed title is wrong, per se, but what was the motivation behind changing?

[Glider]

I think you missed my point glider:

 

see, this seems inconsistant to me... why is someone who is male 'a male' but someone who is schitzophrenic not 'a schitzophreic'?

 

'male' and 'schitzophrenic' are both attributes that one can possess... why does posessing one attribute make you an <attribute-based-descriptive-noun>, whereas posessing the other makes you an <adjective-form-of-attribute> person?

They are not both attributes of human beings. Sex is an attribute, schizophrenia is not.

 

To be an attribute of a human being, a characteristic needs to be a population parameter; a variable that is possessed by every member of the population. Sex is an attribute of a human being, as is consciousness and self-awareness. Schizophrenia is not an attribute of a person. It is an illness, a pathology.

 

and, change the examples from 'male' and 'bus-driver' to something like 'a dustbin man' or 'a woman', and you start to get them used as 'labels' more... dustbin-men and women both have 'labels' and stigmas attached.

Yes, they do, and it is wrong. Whilst calling a bus driver ‘a bus driver’ is correct insofar as the person is the driver of a bus, to define the person by that label is wrong, as it is not a defining characteristic.

 

Attributes are defining characteristics (see the ‘is a blastocyst a human being?’ debate) but it is common also to define a person by what they do. Surgeon, bus driver, cop, fire fighter, nurse etc.. In many cases, people also define themselves by that they do; “I am a doctor”, “I am a nurse” etc., but people can also choose not to be defined this way “This is what I do, not what I am”.

 

So, defining characteristics are what people are; male/female, conscious, etc.. Added to these are long-term relatively stable psychological characteristics such as extrovert, introvert, and so-on. In addition, people are often (although less correctly) defined by that they do. However, this is not really useful as it is not a defining characteristic. People often do many things throughout their lives. Further, they can choose whether or not to be defined by such criteria.

 

So, if defining somebody by what they do is not really correct or useful, then defining somebody by what illness they have is just ridiculous.

 

 

that may be true; but, if one accurately interprets the label as meaning 'a person who posesses this quality, amongst others', then it's ok. If they interpret the label as 'a person who posesses only this attribute', 'this attribue', etc, then it's bad.

Unfortunately, that’s how people tend to interpret such labels. That’s what makes such labels dehumanising. The label comes first; ‘Schizophrenic’ and so is used as a defining characteristic (which it isn’t) and thus determines all subsequent interaction with that person (which really does not help).

 

my question would be, why does 'a cripple' encourage people to incorrectly interpret the label as 'a person who's main defining quality is that they're crippled', whereas 'a crippled person' doesn't?

Because people are ‘cognitive misers’. People use ‘pigeon holing’ and labelling as a fast way of determining interaction. It is faster than learning each time.

 

To a degree, we need to be able to pigeonhole others quickly in order to be able to interact with them quickly and efficiently, for example, working with a colleague you have never met. This can be an efficient way of easing social interaction, but it depends upon accuracy, which in turn depends upon the schemata an individual holds to begin with.

 

At work, you are familiar with what goes on, what people do and so the schema of ‘colleague’ is going to be familiar (based on longer experience) and probably accurate. At a restaurant, your schema of ‘waiter’ is likely to be accurate so you will interact with the waiter in an appropriate manner. You would not ask another client to fetch you more breadsticks. That would not be appropriate.

 

Problems arise as people’s schemata become less accurate and this is usually due to less familiarity with the object of the schemata. People are familiar with waiters, so their schema is accurate and their subsequent pigeonholing is generally acceptable insofar as it determines limited interaction within a specific context “I’ll have the steak please”. However, if you had to interact with that person socially, you would have to learn the person and the previous type of interaction would not be appropriate.

 

As people become less familiar with the object of their labelling, the less accurate their schemata will be. People rarely come into contact with mental illness and so they carry all kinds of bizarre preconceptions and most are negative. Research shows that people fear mental illness (which is why mental illness charities receive so much less than those for cancer or other physical illnesses). So, when people come into contact with someone who has schizophrenia, their schema is way off and thus, so is their label but it still determines their immediate interaction. The same thing happens when people come into contact with a person in a wheelchair. Their label is inaccurate and subsequent interaction is, in many cases, embarrassing to watch.

 

which also illustrates my point: there isn't, afaik, a succinct labelly term for people with AIDS, yet we still have a 'label': someone with aids = aids with some skin and bones wrapped around it, usually that is gay or a junky.

Which perfectly demonstrates my point. The statement “Usually that is gay or junky” is complete bullshit. Yet, should you meet someone with AIDS, it is clear that your interaction with them will be determined by your schema of them as ‘gay or junkie’ and (and you have to trust me on this), that will piss them off.

 

if theres a stigma, incorrect label, or over-emphasis on one attribute of a person, then i can see that that's wrong; however, what i dont see is how calling someone 'a cripple' or 'a crippled person' would affect wether-or-not you're going to make one of those mistakes...

because the label you give them affects how you see them and interact with them (see above)

 

like you said:

 

Changing the terminology doesn't make people any less ignorant.

 

which is why i dont quite get why you're also saying that the term 'a cripple' is incorrect

It’s a start. It’s an attempt to get people to think about what they are saying and its implications for a change. The thing about ignorance is that it seems to be subject to the laws of inertia. It tends not to change unless subjected to an outside force.

[Dak]

They are not both attributes of human beings. Sex is an attribute, schizophrenia is not.

 

To be an attribute of a human being, a characteristic needs to be a population parameter; a variable that is possessed by every member of the population. Sex is an attribute of a human being, as is consciousness and self-awareness. Schizophrenia is not an attribute of a person. It is an illness, a pathology.

 

this is getting into semantics (actually, i'm not sure thats relevent, given the conversation), but you can refute that by thinking of people as divided into, to choose the one that i can spell, 'cripples' and 'able-bodied' and calling it 'motility', just as you can divide people into 'male' and 'female' and calling it 'sex'.

 

just because a word doesn't exist for, for example, 'non-schizophrenic' (except the misnomerish 'normal') doesn't stop it being persieved as an attribute...

 

Yes, they do, and it is wrong. Whilst calling a bus driver ‘a bus driver’ is correct insofar as the person is the driver of a bus, to define the person by that label is wrong, as it is not a defining characteristic.

 

i agree, but also think that exactly the same could be said about 'a cripple'.

 

note that 'dustbin man' actualy includes the (masculinised) word 'person', as per your suggestion, yet still has this stigma associated.

 

also, by your argument, females, being labelled with a discriptive noun, and having ignorant stigmas attatched, should be reffered to as 'a female person'?

 

Attributes are defining characteristics (see the ‘is a blastocyst a human being?’ debate) but it is common also to define a person by what they do. Surgeon, bus driver, cop, fire fighter, nurse etc.. In many cases, people also define themselves by that they do; “I am a doctor”, “I am a nurse” etc., but people can also choose not to be defined this way “This is what I do, not what I am”.

 

So, defining characteristics are what people are; male/female, conscious, etc.. Added to these are long-term relatively stable psychological characteristics such as extrovert, introvert, and so-on. In addition, people are often (although less correctly) defined by that they do. However, this is not really useful as it is not a defining characteristic. People often do many things throughout their lives. Further, they can choose whether or not to be defined by such criteria.

 

i dunno...

 

i'd object to being defined soley as male, or as an introvert, or as currently unenployed, or as english, or whatever... but, i'd acknowledge that these are attributes that I posess.

 

so, i am, for example, 'a male', but i'd object to being defined as 'just a male'; i assume it's the same with cripples etc.

 

btw, sex is not something that you chose.

 

So, if defining somebody by what they do is not really correct or useful, then defining somebody by what illness they have is just ridiculous.

 

I agree to an extent, but i think it's context-sentsitive.

 

to use your example, in a retaurant, it's entirely acceptable to treat someone as 'a waiter'. outside of work, however, it'd be wrong to treat him as a waiter, as, of all his attributes, this one is no longer relevent.

 

same with cripples: going up stairs, its relevent that they're 'a cripple'; after you're up the stairs, it becomes irrelevent, and should be treated as such.

 

Unfortunately, that’s how people tend to interpret such labels. That’s what makes such labels dehumanising. The label comes first; ‘Schizophrenic’ and so is used as a defining characteristic (which it isn’t) and thus determines all subsequent interaction with that person (which really does not help).

 

that's because most people are idiots.

 

Because people are ‘cognitive misers’. People use ‘pigeon holing’ and labelling as a fast way of determining interaction. It is faster than learning each time.

 

To a degree, we need to be able to pigeonhole others quickly in order to be able to interact with them quickly and efficiently, for example, working with a colleague you have never met. This can be an efficient way of easing social interaction, but it depends upon accuracy, which in turn depends upon the schemata an individual holds to begin with.

 

At work, you are familiar with what goes on, what people do and so the schema of ‘colleague’ is going to be familiar (based on longer experience) and probably accurate. At a restaurant, your schema of ‘waiter’ is likely to be accurate so you will interact with the waiter in an appropriate manner. You would not ask another client to fetch you more breadsticks. That would not be appropriate.

 

Problems arise as people’s schemata become less accurate and this is usually due to less familiarity with the object of the schemata. People are familiar with waiters, so their schema is accurate and their subsequent pigeonholing is generally acceptable insofar as it determines limited interaction within a specific context “I’ll have the steak please”. However, if you had to interact with that person socially, you would have to learn the person and the previous type of interaction would not be appropriate.

 

As people become less familiar with the object of their labelling, the less accurate their schemata will be. People rarely come into contact with mental illness and so they carry all kinds of bizarre preconceptions and most are negative. Research shows that people fear mental illness (which is why mental illness charities receive so much less than those for cancer or other physical illnesses). So, when people come into contact with someone who has schizophrenia, their schema is way off and thus, so is their label but it still determines their immediate interaction. The same thing happens when people come into contact with a person in a wheelchair. Their label is inaccurate and subsequent interaction is, in many cases, embarrassing to watch.

 

i'd assume this is because people assosciate phisical handicaps with mental ones...

 

either way, whilst i agree with most of what you're saying, i still dont see how switching from calling someone 'a cripple' to 'a crippled person' will help.

 

people can, if they're stupid, interpret both 'a cripple' or 'a crippled person' as 'someone who is crippled, and that's all their qualities', or 'someone who is crippled and thus is also <insert crap here>'. I dont see how the phrase 'a crippled person' lends itself to this kind of inaccurate association/over-labelling less than 'a cripple'.

 

Which perfectly demonstrates my point. The statement “Usually that is gay or junky” is complete bullshit. Yet, should you meet someone with AIDS, it is clear that your interaction with them will be determined by your schema of them as ‘gay or junkie’

 

just to clarify, i meant that those associations are commonly believed by people, not that they're believed by me.

 

Im not sure, but, iirc, HIV is more common amoungst strait non-junkies now anyway.

 

because the label you give them affects how you see them and interact with them (see above)

 

yes, but, again, what is it about the label 'a crippled person' that is superior, in terms of affecting how you see and interact with them, than the term 'a cripple'.

 

btw, i think i get your point about 'there being no such thing as a cripple', in that it's an adjective, and not a noun.

 

what i meant about descriptive nouns (as in, adjectives used as nouns), is that it implies a noun... 'a cripple' can't actually exist, as it's an intangable condition, so its required that it implies 'a crippled <noun>' for it to make sence. in this case, it's obvious that the noun is 'person', 'human' etc... so, i guess what i'm saying could be viewd as 'why does explisitly stating "person" make a difference'? does it actually make ignorant perceptions less easy?

 

i think not, as, stated or not, the 'person' bit is there either way, and you can see groups that have no label (hiv-infected-people) or have a label explicitly stating the noun (dustbin men) just as easily inappropriately/ignorantly pidgen-holed.

 

(sorry that was so long)

[Glider]

this is getting into semantics (actually, i'm not sure thats relevent, given the conversation), but you can refute that by thinking of people as divided into, to choose the one that i can spell, 'cripples' and 'able-bodied' and calling it 'motility', just as you can divide people into 'male' and 'female' and calling it 'sex'.

 

just because a word doesn't exist for, for example, 'non-schizophrenic' (except the misnomerish 'normal') doesn't stop it being persieved as an attribute...

No, it doesn’t. It should though, but that would require thought.

 

You’re right, it is largely about semantics. Words carry meaning. They are what we use to make observable the unobservable (our thoughts and feelings). In a sense, language is a mechanism of translation between out internal world (mind and emotion) and the external (social) world. They also carry weight. They carry the ability to affect people. For example, suppose I write the words:

 

“I think you are a stupid, ignorant twat”.

 

The minute you read those words, you would have undergone physical changes. There will be a measurable galvanic skin response and other autonomic changes associated with sympathetic arousal. Using words, I have just changed your physiological function and elicited a negative emotional state. Words and semantics are important. Plus, there is a reciprocal feedback system between thought and language. The words we use not only express our thought, they influence the way we think.

 

I really do not think you are a stupid, ignorant twat. It was just an example. Sorry if you took offence, but it needed to be offensive to work.

 

Political correctness started as an attempt to get people to think, to consider the words they used and the effects of their words on others. However, IMO, the original idea has become corrupted beyond all reason and it’s just FUBAR now.

 

As has been said before, now all it does is to force bigotry underground. It doesn’t address the problem, it just hides it.

 

i agree, but also think that exactly the same could be said about 'a cripple'.

 

note that 'dustbin man' actualy includes the (masculinised) word 'person', as per your suggestion, yet still has this stigma associated.

 

also, by your argument, females, being labelled with a discriptive noun, and having ignorant stigmas attatched, should be reffered to as 'a female person'?

No, just person. The attribute ‘female’ in the majority of everyday contexts is not relevant.

 

i dunno...

 

i'd object to being defined soley as male, or as an introvert, or as currently unenployed, or as english, or whatever... but, i'd acknowledge that these are attributes that I posess.

 

so, i am, for example, 'a male', but i'd object to being defined as 'just a male'; i assume it's the same with cripples etc.

It is, as it is with females, people who are ill, different races, etc. etc.. All people acknowledge they possess the attributes they do, they just (quite rightly) don’t like being defined by them. Hence people who are crippled don’t like to be thought of as ‘cripples’.

 

I agree to an extent, but i think it's context-sentsitive.

 

to use your example, in a retaurant, it's entirely acceptable to treat someone as 'a waiter'. outside of work, however, it'd be wrong to treat him as a waiter, as, of all his attributes, this one is no longer relevent.

 

same with cripples: going up stairs, its relevent that they're 'a cripple'; after you're up the stairs, it becomes irrelevent, and should be treated as such.

Precisely. But that’s not to say they become ‘a cripple’ the second they are confronted by stairs. They’re the same person, they just need help with the stairs.

 

 

that's because most people are idiots.

Cynical, but probably true *sigh*..

 

i'd assume this is because people assosciate phisical handicaps with mental ones...

Yes, because they’re cognitive misers and haven’t bothered to work out that it’s only this person’s legs that don’t work. Instead, they just stick them in the pigeonhole labelled ‘cripple’ which carries the attributes of not being able to do much of anything, including think, hear or talk for themselves.

 

either way, whilst i agree with most of what you're saying, i still dont see how switching from calling someone 'a cripple' to 'a crippled person' will help.

 

people can, if they're stupid, interpret both 'a cripple' or 'a crippled person' as 'someone who is crippled, and that's all their qualities', or 'someone who is crippled and thus is also <insert crap here>'. I dont see how the phrase 'a crippled person' lends itself to this kind of inaccurate association/over-labelling less than 'a cripple'.

Moving from ‘a cripple’ to ‘a crippled person’ doesn’t help much. Moving from ‘a cripple’ to ‘a person’ helps a lot. Or it would, if people could be bothered to work out why.

 

just to clarify, i meant that those associations are commonly believed by people, not that they're believed by me.

 

Im not sure, but, iirc, HIV is more common amoungst strait non-junkies now anyway.

Much more common, and still growing. It’s largely due to the fact that so many people still believe it’s a problem only for gays and junkies (and therefore ‘not my problem’).

 

yes, but, again, what is it about the label 'a crippled person' that is superior, in terms of affecting how you see and interact with them, than the term 'a cripple'.

Very little, except that it contains the term ‘person’ which tends to get ignored when discussing ‘a cripple’. It would be better just to think ‘person’ and forget the condition altogether. It’s rarely relevant.

 

btw, i think i get your point about 'there being no such thing as a cripple', in that it's an adjective, and not a noun.

 

what i meant about descriptive nouns (as in, adjectives used as nouns), is that it implies a noun... 'a cripple' can't actually exist, as it's an intangable condition, so its required that it implies 'a crippled <noun>' for it to make sence. in this case, it's obvious that the noun is 'person', 'human' etc... so, i guess what i'm saying could be viewd as 'why does explisitly stating "person" make a difference'? does it actually make ignorant perceptions less easy?

Not unless you could drop the term ‘cripple’ altogether and just use ‘person’, as with anybody else. Many people just need to be reminded that they’re dealing with real, live, thinking, feeling people, not the cognitive construct ‘cripples’. In most contexts, the physical state of a person is not relevant, so why insist on the label?

 

Changing the terms used doesn’t make a difference until it affects thinking, which, in too many cases, it doesn’t. This is my thing against PC. Forcing people to use particular terms for things doesn’t change their thinking unless they understand why. The increasing abuse of political correctness just breeds resentment and people start ‘digging in’ and become more entrenched, defending their way of thinking and using the inconsistencies and surreal bollocks of modern PC to excuse it “Look how ridiculous political correctness is! If it’s so wrong, I must have been right all along!”.

[Dak]

I really do not think you are a stupid, ignorant twat. It was just an example. Sorry if you took offence, but it needed to be offensive to work.

 

No worries

 

Precisely. But that’s not to say they become ‘a cripple’ the second they are confronted by stairs. They’re the same person, they just need help with the stairs.

 

i'd say that they were allways a cripple, but that it only becomes relevent when, say, navigating stairs. at all other times, it's a 'background fact'.

 

and, obviously, being a cripple doesnt prevent them from simultaniously being other things.

 

Not unless you could drop the term ‘cripple’ altogether and just use ‘person’, as with anybody else. Many people just need to be reminded that they’re dealing with real, live, thinking, feeling people, not the cognitive construct ‘cripples’. In most contexts, the physical state of a person is not relevant, so why insist on the label?

 

ah, i was talking about reffering to them as, eg, 'a cripple' only when the crippleness is relevent.

 

eg, if you're making arrangements for a trip, you might ask if there are any cripples going (so you could check if the bus and venue are wheel-chair accessable), any vegitarians (so that you can make sure the after-venue restaurant has a veggie meal), etc.

 

in this case, i, personally, wouldnt care what else the cripple/veggie was, as, as far as arrangements are concerned, the fact that they're a cripple/veggie is the only relevant thing. the cripple is 'just a cripple', the veggie 'just a veggie', and the others 'just numbers'.

 

if your going to label them as 'cripples' whenever you, say, speak to them, then i can see that that's a problem. but, still, i dont see how 'a crippled person' is any better than 'a cripple' at stopping people doing this.

 

obviously, actually speaking to them, i would place less/no emphasis on the fact that they're a cripple/veggie.

 

sorry to harp on about this, but i'm still not understanding your OP:

 

Mindless labelling is still a problem. A good example is where a person 'becomes' their condition. For example, ParanoiA says "To call a cripple(d) person physically challenged is not entirely accurate". This is true, but note that the term ParanoiA used was 'a crippled person', i.e. a person who is crippled. That, I believe, is acceptable because it is very different from 'a cripple'. The latter use depersonalised the individual and they become primarily their condition and how you see a person does affect how you interact with them.

 

im still thinking that not seeing the justificaton behind the suggestion that 'crippled person' is acceptable whilst 'cripple' isn't.

[CallumM]

I personally feel that political correctness is the response of a phobia regarding insulting somebody and therefore ruining a reputation. I would personally agree with political correctness being erradicated completely from at least England, where I live; I think it is causing more problems than it is solving and is generally making living or speaking very difficult as there is huge potential for insulting someone - most likely extreme hypersensitivity. Colloqialisms such as using "gay" as a derogatory term in the place of "silly", or "stupid", are being challenged more and more now, especially where users and persons are not used to such usages: This leads to more challenges of intention, more arguments insuing from those, and generally more upset. What we could "get away with" a few years ago, we cannot now. I think the world has started to tiptoe around the issues that are so important in the world today leading to the problems not being properly addressed, or in the most appropriate manner, especially if a hard-line approach is desperately needed.

That's my take on it anyway