|
Post by Nickyboi on Sept 7, 2009 15:45:02 GMT -5
It's certainly interesting that I seem to be able to call to mind a lot of debate (well, tabloid outcry) about political correctness without being able to cite a specific example. That being said, there are frequent Birmingham City Council bulletins concerning guidance on terminology amongst other things. I think the very banner of political correctness is nebulous to the point of being hard to define, but generally stands in my opinion for the erosion of common decency and sense (how very Daily Mail) to the point where people require specific, detailed guidance on things that they really shouldn't. When these stories get into the press, my primary disappointment is that it rams home the fact that actually, some fucking morons need it.
I greatly admire the passion of your arguments, mind.
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Sept 9, 2009 5:28:57 GMT -5
The 'definition' of political correctness is not what an academic decides to define it as, but what people mean when they use the word. You're just being evasive Malcolm, and you understand what we all mean. Meaning is defined by use, and it is both broad and fuzzy. Read some Wittgenstein if you need to understand more.
|
|
|
Post by schadelreich on Sept 9, 2009 15:07:50 GMT -5
The 'definition' of political correctness is not what an academic decides to define it as, but what people mean when they use the word. You're just being evasive Malcolm, and you understand what we all mean. Meaning is defined by use, and it is both broad and fuzzy. Read some Wittgenstein if you need to understand more. Right... I accept that the definition of political correctness is not what an academic defines it as. I know it is based upon the general use of the term. Based on the general use of the term, it comes across to me that political correctness means this: 1. A set of policies by national or local government intended to try and censor people so as to avoid offending ethnic minorities and to help minority groups have a greater advantage in getting jobs. I base this on: 1. Charlotte's talk about "government quotas". 2. Rantings in the right wing media that I've read. 3. Conversations with people I've had about the subject. 4. Opinions expressed by people on television (comedians etc). Generally the nature of these rantings go on about how "idiots in Whitehall" are trying to stop people using certain terms or are giving ethnic minorities an advantage in getting work. As I have explained numerous times, these rants are usually bullshit with little to no evidence and rely on twisting things heavily. Meanwhile, if we are to talk about who is being evasive, if anything I'd say you are being evasive. First of all you appeared to accept the definition given of involving government policy when you were discussing censorship in the work place. I work for the government, at least indirectly, and there is policy as to what we can/can't say. I then explained that for the police that the reason was due to the nature of the work and that it isn't necessarily to do with government policy. I said: "2. They are supposed to be working with communities. If a policeman goes into an Asian community and starts talking about "bloody pakis" or "dirty fuzzy wuzzy camelfuckers" he's going to fuck up any chance of a good relationship with the community." You then appeared to change the definition of political correctness to any policy by any authority to avoid open and blatant racism when you said: Well like it or not, that's what most people would refer to as political correctness. It's political because it has implications in the political realm, after all, the personal is the political. You are the one who is being more evasive, as first of all you agreed that "political correctness" was something that involved government policies on either national or local level, but then decided to change the definition you were using to any policy by any authority to avoid open and blatant racism. You twisted the definition to suit your argument that it exists. The truth: political correctness only exists as an untrue truth of society.
|
|
|
Post by ad on Sept 9, 2009 16:23:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beatende on Sept 9, 2009 18:11:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by schadelreich on Sept 10, 2009 2:00:30 GMT -5
Heh. Yeah, this debate is likely to last to kingdom come. Once Billy has made his response it may be best for us to then end it there, as otherwise it could last a few more months. 
|
|
|
Post by Beatende on Sept 10, 2009 12:13:28 GMT -5
There's always the who would you like to kill thread if you want to resolve the argument for good. 
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 11, 2009 4:32:36 GMT -5
Let's just put those textbooks away and save them for school.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Sept 11, 2009 6:18:57 GMT -5
This is discussion could have been made a lot shorter with: 
|
|
|
Post by ed on Sept 11, 2009 6:28:27 GMT -5
Also, I despise my friends who invited me to see Dorian Gray because "they thought I might want to go and see it". I will poison their drinks with acrylamide.
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Sept 14, 2009 10:55:40 GMT -5
This is really boring.
|
|