Political Correctness

[eyeball]

PC is now a pejorative. Like the word leftist, it says a hell of a lot more about the people who apply the term to someone or thing.

[Shwa]

...I wanted to get a precise concept of what it was exactly and I believe I accomplished that.

...

So basically it is the attempt to "make" things, equal "correcting" injustices and inequities and fostering the concept of equality in future political policy.

So let's then test the precision and exactness of the concept which you describe.

You are very good at trying to illustrate the ends of political correctness, but you fail to show the means. So, through what means was political correctness supposed to achieve this "equality" and "correcting?"

[Pliny]

Correcting inequalities means fostering inequality.

That's the absurdity of it. In this politically correct world, as a WASP male I cannot apply for most jobs with the federal government. Women and visible minorities need only apply. They are busy making things equal, Michael. It's done by discriminating against WASP males.

When the coach of your little league team won't tell you what the score is at the bottom of the 8th. Why do you think that is? The losing team would have it's feelings hurt. It is isn't about winning and losing it's about having fun. The winning team should not revel in their win but be humble. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of the game.

It's called making things equal, Michael. There should be no winners and losers in life. If you think you are a winner well - everyone gets a trophy. So there, Haha.

If I punch you in the face, then offer you a band-aid, am I doing you a favour by offering the band aid ?

Not relevant.

[Pliny]

So let's then test the precision and exactness of the concept which you describe.

You are very good at trying to illustrate the ends of political correctness, but you fail to show the means. So, through what means was political correctness supposed to achieve this "equality" and "correcting?"

Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, the quota system. All means of making things "equal". Not choosing the best candidate for a position but hiring someone because of race or gender. It never can achieve "equality". It is "leveling the playing field". It pits one group against another in doing that and results in reverse discrimination and inequality.

It is associated with the left because they like to level the playing field, redistribute the wealth, and work towards social justice. There is two sides basically and one side is to be denigrated and the other side propped up.

Multiculturalism is another form of political correctness. All cultures are important, well....except the Judeo-Christian North American one. The true North American culture is the Native American and there is no Judeo-Christian culture whatsoever, as some leftists would say.

So the underdog, disadvantaged minority needs social justice to bring them up. The majority needs Human Rights Commissions to ensure social justice compels them.

Now of course a minority that is against equal rights may be disadvantaged but it will never be supported by the politically correct lib-left person, they include racist groups, homophobes, corporations, capitalists and that kind of thing.

Muslims are right now a useful tool for the left and even though they may harbour homophobes, anti-feminist ideas, and other concepts not considered left wing or progressive they are doing a service by bringing down the North American Judeo-Christian majority. As a minority in North America they need to be protected and ensured they have social justice and civil liberties - a level playing field, essentially "equality". The Judeo-Christian may be vilified and it is open season on what he left calls their stupid, anti-scientist, anti-evolutionary, bigotry. Muslims will only be anti-evolutionary, anti-scientist bigots after the stupid, anti-scientist, anti-evolutionary Judeo-Christian bigots no longer have a voice.

That's the absurdity of political correctness.

[Bonam]

You make a good argument here...

Thanks

What we've been left with now is a tautology; and it's unfair even by tautological standards, which are quite low to begin with. The tautology is as follows: political correctness is a leftist phenomenon; the left can scarcely be distinguished from it, because it's part of what they are; and political correctness is (at least mostly) a bad thing.

Therefore, leftists are--automatically, by definition of being leftist--bad, wrong, foolish.

This is not at all representative of the train of thought of people to whom you seem to ascribe it. I, and I imagine most other people who dislike many aspects of "leftist" ideology, have a number of reasons for doing so. Without getting into an argument about the overall merits of leftism, the reasons that I would oppose a typical leftist position are that I view it as excessively collectivist, that it devalues the individual, that it disrupts economic prosperity by interfering with free market dynamics, that it places an ambiguous concept such as "the good of society" above the rights of an individual, that it treats freedom as something flexible rather than as a paramount ideal, etc. The fact that the leftist may also embrace politically correct thought (not all leftists do: some will present potentially viable counter-arguments to politically incorrect statements rather than just trying to shut them down) is only one reason on a long list of reasons that I might disagree with him.

So your argument regarding tautology is definitely flawed. The left may be called "bad, wrong, foolish" (your words) because it embraces ideas that the "rightist" perceives as being "bad, wrong, foolish", not because some leftists defend these ideas by using the rhetorical techniques of political correctness.

But if political correctness, in its contemporary connotation as something bad and unpleasant, is to have any meaning, we have to decide why it is bad. What, exactly, is bad about it.

To say "It's bad because it's leftist"--which is the underlying premise here, though (usually) unspoken--is terrifically insufficient. So we have to determine the properties of it that we don't like.

And put simply, the properties are this: conventional "truths" among a like-minded group of people, any deviation from which is to be treated with hostility, and a method of exclusion, through self-righteous anger that chills the debate, or attempts to do so.

Your definition in the last paragraph quoted above sounds nice, and works for the purposes of your argument. However, it is not what politically correct actually means. From the first paragraph on the wikipedia article:

Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts.

That is much closer to the definition I stated earlier. I will be inclined to use this as an operative definition rather than your statement. Again, I agree with you that similar rhetorical techniques may be used by the right and other groups, but where they deal with other issues or stand in opposition to the "politically correct" position on a certain topic, they are not examples of political correctness, since they do not fit the definition. You are free to point out examples of such rhetorical techniques and decry them as propaganda, ostracization, unfairly shutting down debate, or whatever else, but political correctness they are not.

Anyway I think at this point it is just a matter of definitions.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

That's the absurdity of it. In this politically correct world, as a WASP male I cannot apply for most jobs with the federal government. Women and visible minorities need only apply. They are busy making things equal, Michael. It's done by discriminating against WASP males.

There's no such policy of exclusion.

When the coach of your little league team won't tell you what the score is at the bottom of the 8th. Why do you think that is? The losing team would have it's feelings hurt. It is isn't about winning and losing it's about having fun. The winning team should not revel in their win but be humble. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of the game.

It's called making things equal, Michael. There should be no winners and losers in life. If you think you are a winner well - everyone gets a trophy. So there, Haha.

Not relevant.

Your anecdotes don't really add up to much. You've basically said that correcting inequities amounts to doing somebody a favour. Is that right ?

[Pliny]

There's no such policy of exclusion.

Excuse me!!!!!!

Employment Equity

Honestly though, Not all jobs mention exclusion but the policy exists.

Your anecdotes don't really add up to much. You've basically said that correcting inequities amounts to doing somebody a favour. Is that right ?

No. The whole problem is that someone has been done a favour. Men have been paid more than women for equal work. Blacks have suffered from racist policies. The politically correct solution is to, not eliminate the problem, but continue it by reversing it. So it isn't correcting inequities it is creating inequities in reverse. If you want the actual problem to go away you have to stop doing the same thing over and over. Just stop creating the inequities.

Correcting inequities is not granting privileges to someone else. It is treating everyone equally and not trying to make them equal by continuing a policy of inequity in reverse.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, the quota system. All means of making things "equal". Not choosing the best candidate for a position but hiring someone because of race or gender. It never can achieve "equality". It is "leveling the playing field". It pits one group against another in doing that and results in reverse discrimination and inequality.

Nope, your'e wrong, you score 0%.

"Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, the quota system..." these are all ends. You have failed to show the means to enacting political correctness. And, since you did score a grand total of 0%, I would like to point out that you asserting that you "accomplished" getting the "precise concept" of political correctness is a titch false.

In fact, based upon your total score and subsequent dog-chasing-its-tail rant, I would say you are deluding yourself into a false belief about, not only political correctness, but the points bloodyminded is making throughout this thread.

If you wish to try again, please feel free since take-overs are encouraged at every step of the way.

[Michael Hardner]

Excuse me!!!!!!

This is a page defining people who are designated groups under employment equity:

The statutory requirements are as follows:

* collection of workforce information;

* analysis of the workforce to determine the degree of under-representation of designated group members;

* review of employment systems, policies and practices;

* preparation of an Employment Equity Plan;

* implementation and monitoring of the plan;

* periodic review and revision of the plan;

* provision of information about employment equity to the workforce;

* consultation with employee representatives; and

* establishment and maintenance of employment equity records.

FAQ

This misinformation has been spreading for about 20 years now, so we should start to consider it a lie pretty soon.

Honestly though, Not all jobs mention exclusion but the policy exists.

Someone was actually excluded, and the government concluded that it was improper that that happened, and launched a review.

No. The whole problem is that someone has been done a favour. Men have been paid more than women for equal work. Blacks have suffered from racist policies. The politically correct solution is to, not eliminate the problem, but continue it by reversing it. So it isn't correcting inequities it is creating inequities in reverse. If you want the actual problem to go away you have to stop doing the same thing over and over. Just stop creating the inequities.

So, women are now paid more than men ? Blacks are now paid more ? The issue is that there a historical biases that were ingrained in the system, that needed to be reversed.

Correcting inequities is not granting privileges to someone else. It is treating everyone equally and not trying to make them equal by continuing a policy of inequity in reverse.

There should be no long-term plan to continue these programs. If there were, then you would have some evidence in your favour.

[Pliny]

Nope, your'e wrong, you score 0%.

"Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, the quota system..." these are all ends. You have failed to show the means to enacting political correctness. And, since you did score a grand total of 0%, I would like to point out that you asserting that you "accomplished" getting the "precise concept" of political correctness is a titch false.

In fact, based upon your total score and subsequent dog-chasing-its-tail rant, I would say you are deluding yourself into a false belief about, not only political correctness, but the points bloodyminded is making throughout this thread.

If you wish to try again, please feel free since take-overs are encouraged at every step of the way.

These acts are "means" that defined and promoted political correctness to absurdity.

The means by which these acts were enacted were special interest groups such as the feminist movement, the Black Panther movement, and the LSD love-in movement, anti-establishment civil activists, the failure of the Viet-nam war, and revelations of a long list of government activities and experimentation upon their own citizens in such programs as MK-Ultra.

Let's not forget the contribution government made by granting special privileges for men and whites previous to the sixties.

That's fine if you see no sense in what I have concluded. But you should see that when political correctness is mentioned the concept of making all equal will probably come to mind. Just as when you mention the word elephant your concept of an elephant is brought to the fore.

What is it with this outright affront to what I presented? Other posters have expressed similarities in their concepts. Even Michael Hardner had some similarity and he's barking at me like a dog as well.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

This is a page defining people who are designated groups under employment equity:

FAQ

This misinformation has been spreading for about 20 years now, so we should start to consider it a lie pretty soon.

The EEA does exactly as I said grants privilege to one group over another. Removing barriers - Can I have some barriers removed please?

So, women are now paid more than men ? Blacks are now paid more ? The issue is that there a historical biases that were ingrained in the system, that needed to be reversed.

They needed to be eliminated. I can't see why you insist upon granting privilege. Certainly, there is no argument that the "majority" enjoyed privileged status in the past and as I have said that is the essence of the whole problem. Your insistence that this granting of privilege be continued in the interests of "equality" is irrational. Wh o in the future shall be granted privilege at the whim of politicians? It's a pandora's box when government shows favour and it has been illustrated quite well by the social problems it created and the resultant politically correct reversals.

There should be no long-term plan to continue these programs. If there were, then you would have some evidence in your favour.

What's this mean? I don't think it relevant.

A couple of you have decided that I am wrong. I don't think so and your concept of political correctness has elements that we have in common.

If you have some other issue like my disagreement with bloodyminded's attempt to describe political correctness as solely some kind of right wing pejorative used as a method to shut down left wing presentations in discussion then say so.

Frankly, I don't care what you think political correctness is. I made my presentation of what I think it is after considerable contemplation of it. You don't have to accept it and can carry on.

Am I missing something in your discussion? I see you trying to pin me down on not being caring and sharing with minorities or women because I don't support them having privileges granted them.

We're all here. It should be on equal terms. Because some bureaucrat politician determines subsidies should be given to corporations or entitlements to gays or preferences to women in the workforce or special consideration to ethnic or racial groups is discriminatory so your whle argument is that politicians should be able to discrimnate at his whim. I don't think you realize what kind of power that is, Michael. My view is that no one should have the entitlement to decide who should and who should not have public privileges granted them.

[Michael Hardner]

The EEA does exactly as I said grants privilege to one group over another. Removing barriers - Can I have some barriers removed please?

You have not yet demonstrated exclusion, or that there are any barriers in your way.

They needed to be eliminated. I can't see why you insist upon granting privilege. Certainly, there is no argument that the "majority" enjoyed privileged status in the past and as I have said that is the essence of the whole problem. Your insistence that this granting of privilege be continued in the interests of "equality" is irrational. Wh o in the future shall be granted privilege at the whim of politicians? It's a pandora's box when government shows favour and it has been illustrated quite well by the social problems it created and the resultant politically correct reversals.

It would make sense to continue such policies at least until the groups that were discriminated against in the past have a presence in the government services that represent them.

Am I missing something in your discussion? I see you trying to pin me down on not being caring and sharing with minorities or women because I don't support them having privileges granted them.

We're all here. It should be on equal terms. Because some bureaucrat politician determines subsidies should be given to corporations or entitlements to gays or preferences to women in the workforce or special consideration to ethnic or racial groups is discriminatory so your whle argument is that politicians should be able to discrimnate at his whim. I don't think you realize what kind of power that is, Michael. My view is that no one should have the entitlement to decide who should and who should not have public privileges granted them.

You made a claim that you're being excluded from employment, etc. Support it with evidence. We have a case where they happened, and it was investigated as abuse.

No one should decide who should or shouldn't have public privileges granted them, unless it is already granted to them... then we should do nothing.

We have talked about African Americans in the 1960s, we have talked about disadvantaged groups and public programs are widely supported to correct social imbalances, especially when the proposed alternative is to let nature run its course.

[Shwa]

These acts are "means" that defined and promoted political correctness to absurdity.

They most certainly are not. You failed again and your score is still a whopping zero.

The means by which these acts were enacted were special interest groups such as the feminist movement, the Black Panther movement, and the LSD love-in movement, anti-establishment civil activists, the failure of the Viet-nam war, and revelations of a long list of government activities and experimentation upon their own citizens in such programs as MK-Ultra.

Nope. Once again have only referred to ends, such as any group is. I am surprised that for someone who purports to know the "precise concept" of political correctness, you cannot easily express it's means.

Let's not forget the contribution government made by granting special privileges for men and whites previous to the sixties.

Are you referring to the 1860's and the Emancipation Proclamation?

That's fine if you see no sense in what I have concluded. But you should see that when political correctness is mentioned the concept of making all equal will probably come to mind. Just as when you mention the word elephant your concept of an elephant is brought to the fore.

Now you are getting somewhere, but only half a point for an incomplete answer. But don't blame me - or anyone else - for your shortcomings please. It is not in keeping with the expected decorum.

What is it with this outright affront to what I presented? Other posters have expressed similarities in their concepts. Even Michael Hardner had some similarity and he's barking at me like a dog as well.

There is no effrontery, you are misreading tone. You say that you have found the "precise concept" - even to go so far as to proclaim it an "accomplishment" - of political correctness and yet when questioned on the simple means by which political correctness operates, you retreat into ranting about the ends. I think when you conceptualize the precise means, you will likely find that to be a more worthy accomplishment and actually may be able to positively contribute to what bloodyminded is proposing.

[Pliny]

You have not yet demonstrated exclusion, or that there are any barriers in your way.

Preference given.. a bit of a barrier

An absolute exclusionMy link

Who can apply: Persons who self identify as Nunavut Land Claim Beneficiaries,

I hope that demonstrates a barrier and an exclusion.

It would make sense to continue such policies at least until the groups that were discriminated against in the past have a presence in the government services that represent them.

That would be rational to you and you see nothing irrational about continuing a policy of discrimination in some form. All representatives in a national government should represent all citizens. Their gender, race, culture, religion, should not enter inthe equation. You are saying that government should be composed of genders, races, cultures and religions that represent only their gender, race, culture, or religion and not all the citizens equally. This is nothing but the promotion of discrimination.

You made a claim that you're being excluded from employment, etc. Support it with evidence. We have a case where they happened, and it was investigated as abuse.

Start the investigation.

No one should decide who should or shouldn't have public privileges granted them, unless it is already granted to them... then we should do nothing.

You mean we should have done nothing about segregation and it should still be on the books? only whites should sit at the front of the bus. Only white males should vote? Is that what you mean by doing nothing?

We have talked about African Americans in the 1960s, we have talked about disadvantaged groups and public programs are widely supported to correct social imbalances, especially when the proposed alternative is to let nature run its course.

Nature did run it's course in the civil rights movement. In the feminist movement. These were not just movements against society. They were movements against discriminatory and unjust laws that fostered social injustices. Blacks and women were second class citizens by law. Had they accepted that, and they did for long enough, then they wouldn't have started any movements. It is the laws that give discrimination any power to continue and it is the laws that must be changed to bring about equality. But policies that continue to discriminate will as you say have to be changed later when nature takes it's course and once again civil unrest is the order of the day.

[Pliny]

Pliny:These acts are "means" that defined and promoted political correctness to absurdity.

They most certainly are not. You failed again and your score is still a whopping zero.

These acts, Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, the quota system. Are all Acts to bring about equality. The concept of being politically correct was just coming into being. These acts did help to further define and promote the concept. They are part of the means in the development of the concept. They are not "ends" or the result of political correctness. They were the lib-left correction of social injustice which was a part of the evolution of the concept of "political correctness" not the ends.

Pliny:The means by which these acts were enacted were special interest groups such as the feminist movement, the Black Panther movement, and the LSD love-in movement, anti-establishment civil activists, the failure of the Viet-nam war, and revelations of a long list of government activities and experimentation upon their own citizens in such programs as MK-Ultra.

Nope. Once again have only referred to ends, such as any group is. I am surprised that for someone who purports to know the "precise concept" of political correctness, you cannot easily express it's means.

Maybe you have a different understanding of "means" and I am trying to explain something to you where we have a difference of understanding.

What do you mean by the "means" of political correctness? I understand "means" to mean the means of its origination.

Pliny:Let's not forget the contribution government made by granting special privileges for men and whites previous to the sixties.

Are you referring to the 1860's and the Emancipation Proclamation?

No. A little more recent. Universal suffrage. Segregation laws that existed into the 1960's.

Now you are getting somewhere, but only half a point for an incomplete answer. But don't blame me - or anyone else - for your shortcomings please. It is not in keeping with the expected decorum.

Wow. Quite the shot, and not one I would expect from someone who feels a sense of decorum is expected and who claims his tone void of effrontery.

There is no effrontery, you are misreading tone. You say that you have found the "precise concept" - even to go so far as to proclaim it an "accomplishment" - of political correctness and yet when questioned on the simple means by which political correctness operates, you retreat into ranting about the ends. I think when you conceptualize the precise means, you will likely find that to be a more worthy accomplishment and actually may be able to positively contribute to what bloodyminded is proposing.

The means by which it operates? I have been describing the means by which I feel it came about.

And it came about because of laws that were discriminatory and because our definition of a "person" has become more inclusive.

The definition of political correctness per wikipedia is:

"Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts."

For my own clarification of what you mean by "means", can you point out in that definition the "means by which it operates"?

I believe that "minimizing social and institutional offense" is achieved by "leveling the playing field" "making" things more equal for all. Would that be the means by which it operates? Political correctness means, in some instances, ignoring the most qualified for a position in favour of a policy of equal opportunity, be that policy regarding race, gender, quota, age, culture, sexual orientation or disability.

Now let me ask, are you really just incensed by my use of terms like "precise concept" and the expressed assurredness of my "accomplishment". Did that just rub you wrong?

Anyway Bonam is correct. He had the most precise concept. All the musings by bloodyminded are simply the result of the incorrect use of the term and a lack of a workable and practical definition of the concept.

One thing I do try and do is explain my terms and use proper definitions that describe a concept. My definitions sometimes don't agree with other people's definitions in which case a dictionary can settle differences. Sometimes I have a concept of a word that varies from the normal usage and my reference to it may have a particular definition.

As an example, I understand socialism to be an evolutionary process towards the attainment of the totalitarian socialist state. It's essentially a means to an end. It won't be described that way. It will be described in it's total sense and does not describe it's means. And the difference between socialism and communism is entirely their means. The totalitarian socialist state can also be achieved through revolution, and revolution is the means of communism.

[bloodyminded]

That's the absurdity of it. In this politically correct world, as a WASP male I cannot apply for most jobs with the federal government. Women and visible minorities need only apply. They are busy making things equal, Michael. It's done by discriminating against WASP males.

I don't know about that. how many positions in the Federal government do you suppose are held by women and visible minorities, compared to those held by white males?

When the coach of your little league team won't tell you what the score is at the bottom of the 8th. Why do you think that is? The losing team would have it's feelings hurt. It is isn't about winning and losing it's about having fun. The winning team should not revel in their win but be humble. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of the game.

I'm inclined to agree that this sort of thing is useless, but it's not the norm. This is the sort of thing that occurs occasionally, not usually.

I think you're taking the minority of situations and transposing them with the majority of situations.

[bloodyminded]

That is much closer to the definition I stated earlier. I will be inclined to use this as an operative definition rather than your statement. Again, I agree with you that similar rhetorical techniques may be used by the right and other groups, but where they deal with other issues or stand in opposition to the "politically correct" position on a certain topic, they are not examples of political correctness, since they do not fit the definition. You are free to point out examples of such rhetorical techniques and decry them as propaganda, ostracization, unfairly shutting down debate, or whatever else, but political correctness they are not.

Anyway I think at this point it is just a matter of definitions.

Sure it is. But the definition is not static. The definition has changed.

And I"m not the one who has revised the definition.

It is, by and large, the political right who has revised it; they have revised it by using it as a pejorative more and more commonly, referring to an enlarging number of scenarios, as I have described.

Your argument is not with me...but with those on the political right who use the term so frequently, as a weapon against anything they perceive as "leftist."

[Shwa]

These acts, Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, the quota system. Are all Acts to bring about equality. The concept of being politically correct was just coming into being. These acts did help to further define and promote the concept. They are part of the means in the development of the concept. They are not "ends" or the result of political correctness. They were the lib-left correction of social injustice which was a part of the evolution of the concept of "political correctness" not the ends.

These "Acts" have as much to do with the concept of political correctness as does the Emancipation Proclamation or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, you really haven't said what that "concept" is and how could you if you are not able to express how something works? You can talk about burnt toast as much as you want, but if you don't know how one goes from bread to toast, it is only whining about the end result, not a "precise concept" of toast.

Maybe you have a different understanding of "means" and I am trying to explain something to you where we have a difference of understanding. What do you mean by the "means" of political correctness? I understand "means" to mean the means of its origination.

No, we don't have a different understanding of means. You are very good and going from A to B, I'll give you that. However what I am trying to determine - to test your "precise concept" - is the way or method by which you have gone. Because if you don't understand the means, then your B simple becomes a whole lot of unsubstantiated blather that is designed to freeze out people from a debate. Or did you not read the OP?

The definition of political correctness per wikipedia is:

"Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts."

So are really saying that your "accomplishment" of determining the "presice concept" of political correctness was to simply read the wikipedia definition?

I believe that "minimizing social and institutional offense" is achieved by "leveling the playing field" "making" things more equal for all. Would that be the means by which it operates? Political correctness means, in some instances, ignoring the most qualified for a position in favour of a policy of equal opportunity, be that policy regarding race, gender, quota, age, culture, sexual orientation or disability.

I am not asking you what political correcteness "means" I am asking you about the "means" of political correctness - HOW it works, by which mechanisms, by what primary and critical processes.

Now let me ask, are you really just incensed by my use of terms like "precise concept" and the expressed assurredness of my "accomplishment". Did that just rub you wrong?

Of course not. I am simply using you as an example of the point that the OP expresses. For clarification, here is the point:

But the term has changed meaning...and become so promiscuously used and unstable in denotation that it has to be looked at in a different way.

No longer is it restricted to issues of identity politics, of leftish 1980's convention of "correct" thought. It is now a weapon waged against the Left...but containing the seeds of its own application to the entire political spectrum, notably the political Right. Let me explain:

"Politically correct" now refers to any number of expressed ideas, of virtually any left-leaning analysis of both domestic and foreign events and policies.

Anyway Bonam is correct. He had the most precise concept. All the musings by bloodyminded are simply the result of the incorrect use of the term and a lack of a workable and practical definition of the concept.

So now Bonam has the "precise concept." However, if you are unsure of how political correctness operates, how would you know the difference between the precise concept or incorrect use of the term? Do you buy cars by the tone of their colour?

One thing I do try and do is explain my terms and use proper definitions that describe a concept. My definitions sometimes don't agree with other people's definitions in which case a dictionary can settle differences. Sometimes I have a concept of a word that varies from the normal usage and my reference to it may have a particular definition.

So now that you have admitted that your "concept...varies from normal usage" are you saying that your "precise concept" of political correctness is not really so "precise" anymore?

Edited September 19, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

I am not asking you what political correcteness "means" I am asking you about the "means" of political correctness - HOW it works, by which mechanisms, by what primary and critical processes.

A wonderfully concise underlining of one of my chief points. Appreciated.

So now Bonam has the "precise concept." However, if you are unsure of how political correctness operates, how would you know the difference between the precise concept or incorrect use of the term? Do you buy cars by the tone of their colour?

Exactly.

And by the way, his summoning of Bonam is not quite fair. Bonam made an actual effort to take on my specific arguments, directly. Pliny pretends they were never said; that my complaint--PC has come to mean "leftist thought", full stop--is in fact worthless, because....that's exactly what political correctness does mean!

It's rather like the idea--arguably unstated, but becoming evident by implication--that terrorism means Islamic terrorism. But obviously "terrorism" can't rationally be a synonym for Islam; terrorism is a thing, denotatively free from a specific agent of its use.

Anyone who commits terrorism is...committing terrorism.

Anyone who uses the alleged "freezing-out" methods of politically correct usage...is using the alleged "freezing-out" methods of politically correct usage.

I'm actually slightly surprised that this is controversial. Perhaps my throwaway remark--that some people cherish "politically correct" as a pejorative weapon--is more meaningful than I had thought.

Edited September 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

These "Acts" have as much to do with the concept of political correctness as does the Emancipation Proclamation or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, you really haven't said what that "concept" is and how could you if you are not able to express how something works? You can talk about burnt toast as much as you want, but if you don't know how one goes from bread to toast, it is only whining about the end result, not a "precise concept" of toast.

If I tell you that "toast" is grilled bread or bread heated and browned, can you get the concept? Is the means by which it becomes toast important? I can say a toaster, an appliance specifically designed for grilling or heating bread is the general "means" used to get toast. The means is unnecessary to the concept. If you understand grilled and you understand bread I think you can get the concept.

The development of a word over time and it's inclusion in the language has several parameters to clear.

I think you are asking for the "means" by which any word develops into a clear concept. It develops by usage and linguists then determine it's usage and develop a description of it's concept.

No, we don't have a different understanding of means. You are very good and going from A to B, I'll give you that. However what I am trying to determine - to test your "precise concept" - is the way or method by which you have gone. Because if you don't understand the means, then your B simple becomes a whole lot of unsubstantiated blather that is designed to freeze out people from a debate. Or did you not read the OP?

Do I get a point here?

So you want the means by which I arrived at this precise concept. If I want to understand a word I generally go to a dictionary and use that definition. In understanding the term political correctness or politically correct I needed to look at instances of it's use and where it was applied. There didn't seem to be at the time a concise enough definition in reference books and I wanted to know the essence of what was meant by it. The only means to determine the correctness or precision of the concept is to take the concept and see if the concept actually is what is meant when it is used.

Political correctness, as a term, definitely has become a pejorative applied to the left wing and falling in line with the caring-sharing, do-good, compassionate adjectives, also used as pejoratives, to describe the attitudes of the left wing. Now it doesn't say in the wiki definition or anyone's definition so far that it is a pejorative does it? It defines it. It is used as a pejorative because the policies that come out of political correctness are ironically discriminatory when discrimination is what it is attempting to correct. Affirmative action, for instance, is argued by the left to have the effect of leveling the playing field for Blacks. As is usual, it is whites who have determined

this is what Blacks need to make them equal. In actual fact it is demeaning because it is saying Blacks are inferior and need the help of policies that will favour them. So they fail in two ways in trying to eliminate discrimination. First of all they continue a policy of discrimination by including "reverse discrimination" and then they determine they know what Blacks need and want and degrade them by implying they are incapable and proceed to enact know-best legislation that is essentially demoralizing.

Is there any doubt the term would become a pejorative?

So are really saying that your "accomplishment" of determining the "presice concept" of political correctness was to simply read the wikipedia definition?

In order to get a full understanding or precise concept you have to look at usage. If you ask enough people what they mean by a term you will get the general idea but if you want a precise concept you have to take what is common in each persons explanation and put the idea into words.

I suppose my original interest in understanding the word was what about it made it a pejorative.

I concluded because of it's failure to accomplish what it intended to accomplish made it a pjorative in line with other pejoratives associated with the left, such as I mentioned earlier, like do-gooder, caring-sharing, know-best meddler.

I am not asking you what political correcteness "means" I am asking you about the "means" of political correctness - HOW it works, by which mechanisms, by what primary and critical processes.

It evolved as any word does. The pejorative use are a result of it's failure to resolve the issues it was intended to resolve.

Of course not. I am simply using you as an example of the point that the OP expresses. For clarification, here is the point:

bloodyminded: But the term has changed meaning...and become so promiscuously used and unstable in denotation that it has to be looked at in a different way.

No longer is it restricted to issues of identity politics, of leftish 1980's convention of "correct" thought. It is now a weapon waged against the Left...but containing the seeds of its own application to the entire political spectrum, notably the political Right. Let me explain:

"Politically correct" now refers to any number of expressed ideas, of virtually any left-leaning analysis of both domestic and foreign events and policies.

The term has not changed meanings the application of concept of "political correctness" in the real world accomplishes the opposite of it's intent so it has developed as a pejorative.

So now Bonam has the "precise concept." However, if you are unsure of how political correctness operates, how would you know the difference between the precise concept or incorrect use of the term? Do you buy cars by the tone of their colour?

I am not unsure of how it operates. Bonam has a good idea of it's basic concept as used in it's definition. Michael Hardner had a close idea as well.

A word is a word, words have concepts, and we need a common understanding of a word if we are going to communicate.

Is it odd to buy a car on the tone of it's colour? Is that a politically correct srtatement? I know of several women who have bought cars based upon the tone of their colour. Are you slighting women that do so? Colour may be a factor but not the entirety of one's decision to buy in most cases.

So now that you have admitted that your "concept...varies from normal usage" are you saying that your "precise concept" of political correctness is not really so "precise" anymore?

No. I am not admitting my concept of 'political correctness' varies from normal usage. I said some words I use will vary from normal usage and gave you an example.

[Shwa]

If I tell you that "toast" is grilled bread or bread heated and browned, can you get the concept? Is the means by which it becomes toast important? I can say a toaster, an appliance specifically designed for grilling or heating bread is the general "means" used to get toast. The means is unnecessary to the concept. If you understand grilled and you understand bread I think you can get the concept.

Exactly!

And so what I am saying is that you your 'precise concept' of toast omits the importance of understanding or knowing what 'grilled' means. And quite possibly bread too.

The development of a word over time and it's inclusion in the language has several parameters to clear. I think you are asking for the "means" by which any word develops into a clear concept. It develops by usage and linguists then determine it's usage and develop a description of it's concept.

Do I get a point here?

Maybe half a point for an incomplete answer.

I am asking for the "means" by which political correctness is conveyed. And by limiting yourself to defintions - even the current popular usage - you are falling into the trap that bloodyminded has illustrated.

So you want the means by which I arrived at this precise concept. If I want to understand a word I generally go to a dictionary and use that definition. In understanding the term political correctness or politically correct I needed to look at instances of it's use and where it was applied. There didn't seem to be at the time a concise enough definition in reference books and I wanted to know the essence of what was meant by it. The only means to determine the correctness or precision of the concept is to take the concept and see if the concept actually is what is meant when it is used.

No one wants the "means by which" you arrived at this precise concept. That is what is being tested - to see if your "precise concept" has any truth to it.

Political correctness, as a term, definitely has become a pejorative applied to the left wing and falling in line with the caring-sharing, do-good, compassionate adjectives, also used as pejoratives, to describe the attitudes of the left wing. Now it doesn't say in the wiki definition or anyone's definition so far that it is a pejorative does it? It defines it. It is used as a pejorative because the policies that come out of political correctness are ironically discriminatory when discrimination is what it is attempting to correct. Affirmative action, for instance, is argued by the left to have the effect of leveling the playing field for Blacks. As is usual, it is whites who have determined this is what Blacks need to make them equal. In actual fact it is demeaning because it is saying Blacks are inferior and need the help of policies that will favour them. So they fail in two ways in trying to eliminate discrimination. First of all they continue a policy of discrimination by including "reverse discrimination" and then they determine they know what Blacks need and want and degrade them by implying they are incapable and proceed to enact know-best legislation that is essentially demoralizing.

Are you talking about the Emancipation Proclamation again? Because you might just as well be.

Is there any doubt the term would become a pejorative?

Should there be?

In order to get a full understanding or precise concept you have to look at usage. If you ask enough people what they mean by a term you will get the general idea but if you want a precise concept you have to take what is common in each persons explanation and put the idea into words.

Have you ever bothered to look at the term 'politcally incorrect' and then do a comparative analysis to 'politcally correct' to determine what both have in common which might suggest something about the two terms and how they are conveyed? One would think that such an examination of the counterpart would be included in a detailed examination required for the sake of precision. I am jusy sayin'...

I suppose my original interest in understanding the word was what about it made it a pejorative.

I concluded because of it's failure to accomplish what it intended to accomplish made it a pjorative in line with other pejoratives associated with the left, such as I mentioned earlier, like do-gooder, caring-sharing, know-best meddler.

Well see here where only knowing some of the ends of political correctness (or political incorrectness) can get you in trouble you see. Political correctness has been very successful - and continues to be - on many levels of all public sectors of life. All you can see is affimative action and equality for all programs. That isn't even half of it.

It evolved as any word does. The pejorative use are a result of it's failure to resolve the issues it was intended to resolve.

Really? But it HAS resolved what it was "intended to resolve" and MORE. I believe what bloodyminded was getting at was that the term 'politically correct' has been usurped as a dead ending for any arguments that involve the differences between people. That alone would suggest a means. If one were not so focused on the ends of course.

The term has not changed meanings the application of concept of "political correctness" in the real world accomplishes the opposite of it's intent so it has developed as a pejorative.

Highly dubious claim there Pliny. Just because some people privately don't like the results of the means of political correctness, doesn't mean there has been any failure publically. In fact, we are coming into an age where most folks are completely unawares of that means because political correctness has been so thoroughly adopted into public life.

I am not unsure of how it operates. Bonam has a good idea of it's basic concept as used in it's definition. Michael Hardner had a close idea as well.

A word is a word, words have concepts, and we need a common understanding of a word if we are going to communicate.

Is it odd to buy a car on the tone of it's colour? Is that a politically correct srtatement? I know of several women who have bought cars based upon the tone of their colour. Are you slighting women that do so? Colour may be a factor but not the entirety of one's decision to buy in most cases.

No. I am not admitting my concept of 'political correctness' varies from normal usage. I said some words I use will vary from normal usage and gave you an example.

Words? Normal usage? Common understanding? OK, let me be more 'precise' about a question I asked earlier, yet received a convoluted say-nothing answer. I will try to use normal usage words that have a common understanding. Let's see how well you do:

Do you choose your car by the tone of its colour?

Edited September 19, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

Maybe half a point for an incomplete answer.

I am asking for the "means" by which political correctness is conveyed. And by limiting yourself to defintions - even the current popular usage - you are falling into the trap that bloodyminded has illustrated.

No one wants the "means by which" you arrived at this precise concept. That is what is being tested - to see if your "precise concept" has any truth to it.

Are you talking about the Emancipation Proclamation again? Because you might just as well be.

Should there be?

Have you ever bothered to look at the term 'politcally incorrect' and then do a comparative analysis to 'politcally correct' to determine what both have in common which might suggest something about the two terms and how they are conveyed? One would think that such an examination of the counterpart would be included in a detailed examination required for the sake of precision. I am jusy sayin'...

Well see here where only knowing some of the ends of political correctness (or political incorrectness) can get you in trouble you see. Political correctness has been very successful - and continues to be - on many levels of all public sectors of life. All you can see is affimative action and equality for all programs. That isn't even half of it.

Really? But it HAS resolved what it was "intended to resolve" and MORE. I believe what bloodyminded was getting at was that the term 'politically correct' has been usurped as a dead ending for any arguments that involve the differences between people. That alone would suggest a means. If one were not so focused on the ends of course.

Highly dubious claim there Pliny. Just because some people privately don't like the results of the means of political correctness, doesn't mean there has been any failure publically. In fact, we are coming into an age where most folks are completely unawares of that means because political correctness has been so thoroughly adopted into public life.

Words? Normal usage? Common understanding? OK, let me be more 'precise' about a question I asked earlier, yet received a convoluted say-nothing answer. I will try to use normal usage words that have a common understanding. Let's see how well you do:

Do you choose your car by the tone of its colour?

Whew!

Nicely said.

[Michael Hardner]

Preference given.. a bit of a barrier

An absolute exclusionMy link

I hope that demonstrates a barrier and an exclusion.

Yes.

That would be rational to you and you see nothing irrational about continuing a policy of discrimination in some form. All representatives in a national government should represent all citizens. Their gender, race, culture, religion, should not enter inthe equation. You are saying that government should be composed of genders, races, cultures and religions that represent only their gender, race, culture, or religion and not all the citizens equally. This is nothing but the promotion of discrimination.

Again, you are looking at corrections of discrimination as discrimination. What are the reasons that there are few male elementary school teachers ? Is this a situation that should continue ? What can be done about it ?

Putting up a poster encouraging men to apply amounts to "discrimination" - if you follow the definition to its logical end. So why should government try to do anything like that ? In your view, they shouldn't.

Start the investigation.

You mean we should have done nothing about segregation and it should still be on the books? only whites should sit at the front of the bus. Only white males should vote? Is that what you mean by doing nothing?

That's what I mean by doing nothing, but government legislation stopped those practices from happening, including private forms of discrimination such as disallowing certain races from entering private establishments.

Nature did run it's course in the civil rights movement. In the feminist movement. These were not just movements against society. They were movements against discriminatory and unjust laws that fostered social injustices. Blacks and women were second class citizens by law. Had they accepted that, and they did for long enough, then they wouldn't have started any movements. It is the laws that give discrimination any power to continue and it is the laws that must be changed to bring about equality. But policies that continue to discriminate will as you say have to be changed later when nature takes it's course and once again civil unrest is the order of the day.

Would desegregation have happened on the same timeline if the federal government didn't get involved ? Of course not.

[Pliny]

Something seems really important to you here but I'm not getting it. And you know why I'm not getting it. You're just too nice a guy to say it straight.

The concept of politically correct that I arrived at is not incorrect and various sources illustrate it.

That's the only point I wish to make, and have made it. If you're questioning my faculty to ever have arrived at it then so be it.

[eyeball]

It is associated with the left because they like to level the playing field, redistribute the wealth, and work towards social justice. There is two sides basically and one side is to be denigrated and the other side propped up.

Maybe it's just me but tilting the field, concentrating the wealth, and working towards social injustice sounds politically retarded.