You just can't make up crap like this:
Princeton HR department: Don’t use word ‘man’
The trouble with humanism today is that it really isn't. It's a perverse facsimile of its former self. Today's 'humanist' is more ANTI-human than his/her antecedents ever thought of being.
Yes. Hartfire expresses herself quite eloquently, and all WITHOUT the usual brand of passive-aggressive jabs. Even when I disagree with her I like what she says and how she says it.
A minor correction: the plural of congress is vermin. :-)
There was a quote out there that said if they can burn books they can burn people. I feel like this is of a similar nature. The first sign in countries that had previous dictatorships and even seen in countries that have something similar is removal of the right to satire and free speech. Anyone who is the least bit smart knows policing language also comes power.
Hi misanthropicunicorn and Nimitz,
I appreciate your posts here -- your answer here, misanthropicunicorn and your comment, Nimitz. I happened to click on them. As a gay man, I've heard lots of words thrown at me but it's the intention/s behind the words that I pick up on. For example, I've had many people use so-called derogatory, so-called non-PC, (sometimes even possibly disrespectful) words with/to me but the intentions behind those same words are not derogatory or hurtful/disrespectful at all. The person/s using the words meant no disrespect or hurt.
In general, I can understand Princeton's desire to be respectful to all -- that's a good thing. However, as an individual, I have had many so-called PC words/respectful words thrown at my queerness -- and those so-called respectful. so-called PC words mean nothing when the intention is disrespectful. When a person intends to be disrespectful, hurtful, condescending -- it comes across, regardless of the specific words used or not used.
Sometimes, yes, I admit that I have asked someone to be more respectful in how they are speaking to me adn the words they are using -- but, again, I take it by the moment and in context of the situation.
Nimitz -- I quote the one part that stuck out for me because it rings true for me at the moment . . . " . .. until they tell me I mustn't." Yes.
I don't know if I'm making sense.
I just try to be, in general, nice and respectful to others. Sometimes the respect comes back to me from others, sometimes it doesn't. But that's life. :)
I just don''t think it's in my responsibility to tell others how to communicate. And I also am insecure in many ways -- but I still don't demand someone use certain words. (I "ask" maybe -- but not demand) I'd like respect, but who wouldn't?
In other words, I don't think it's my job to tell others the words they "must" use to address me. (It's all the intention behind the words/actions that I find more important -- and, still, all of that is out of my control and whatever it is, I deal with it).
And I also have grown a pair in spite of anxiety.
:)
I fear I've rambled on and on -- but both of you have helped me think about it all a bit today.
:)
What a brilliant point you make, Quentin,
and you're the only one here who has made it.
The truth is, if we had universal respect for one another
it would have been a natural part of the way our language evolved
and a natural part of the feeling with which it is spoken.
And yet there is not a language in the world
which doesn't contain a large lexicon of terms of disrespect.
And the sarcasm which so many call humour is based on nothing but.
In some languages, the grammar must alter according to rank.
If I as a woman spoke to you as a man I would have to use a "you" of respect
or it would not be grammatically correct
but because I am a woman you would have to address me with a diminutive form of "thee."
Some tongues, I believe, have up to six rankings of each singular personal pronoun.
Language helps form attitudes from before we speak our first words.
How easy would it be for such cultures to change those views?
Even so, I love what you say.
It is beautifully expressed.
LOL! Love it!
Thank you, Welby! You just paid me the highest compliment possible. The whole purpose behind my posts and participation here is to get people to think about the controversies, issues, etc. of life--hopefully in unconventional ways.
And that's why language is so important. We think in words and symbols. Once the language tyrants limit the scope of the words we use, they limit the number of words available to our mental lexicons.
I get why, as a person with, shall we say, a "non-normative sexual preference :-)," you might be especially sensitive to trigger words and phraseology, yet the fact that you've transcended all that tells me that you're a pretty solid individual. And being an individualist that's important to me. I'm sick of seeing the smallest minority on earth being tromped on by some group or other. In the attempt to make the world safe from bullies with the advent of the concept of political correctness, all we've done is change bullies.
Amen!
That's a good point, Nimitz.
I had not previously understood the intent of your questions.
I probably straddle the mid-ground on this issue.
I'm in favour of shifting language so that the norms are non-discrimiantory,
unless the intent requires specifying a particular gender, race, orientation etc.
And yet I agree with you on the point that language on its own is not enough.
There is a risk that correctness can sometimes be counter-productive,
driving new forms of hypocrisy and humbug
if it's not rooted in an egalitarian and respectful attitude.
We can argue for these reasons and values.
There's a fine and difficult line between
developing language that helps condition a foundation of respectful attitudes
and legislating to prevent language and speech that incorporates hatred
and leads to abuses of people's rights and opportunities to be themselves
or to become their best selves.
We cannot and must never attempt to coerce
because it would defeat the purpose we strive to achieve.
And yet we must also set limits on behaviors that clearly transgress the rights of others
Precisely. In this discussion at least, you're batting a thousand!
You're welcome, Nimitz.
:)
Thanks for your response to my answer. I appreciate it. Yes, I have to give myself some credit -- in more ways than I realize, I am "a pretty solid individual."
:)
Thanks again!
Thanks for your response to my answer, hartfie! I've liked your responses here and in your original answer, too. Greatly appreciated.
You and Nimitz have added intersting points to my answer.
:)
"There is a risk that correctness can sometimes be counter-productive, driving new forms of hypocrisy and humbug if it's not rooted in an egalitarian and respectful attitude."
Precisely!!! For those whose intentions are good (e.g., respectful and/or egalitarian), political correctness is INJURIOUS to their cause. If anyone doesn't believe this, all they need do is look at some of the reactions on this very post/thread. As I explained before, people intuitively understand that they're being manipulated, coerced and cowed by PC language tyrants, and they're well and truly sick of it. If language evolves on its own (by way of social consensus), that's fine. Imposing change on others is not.
"We cannot and must never attempt to coerce because it would defeat the purpose we strive to achieve."
YESSS!!!
"And yet we must also set limits on behaviors that clearly transgress the rights of others."
Agreed, but that's the bitter irony here. Political correctness attempts to transgress the rights of others to freely express themselves.
Stop it! If I keep getting compliments like this my head's gonna explode! :-)
...Oh, BTW, I forgot to mention that I used to be a horrible (but strictly verbal) gay basher in my teens and early twenties. And then I discovered that God didn't die and leave me to be the grand arbiter of the universe. (There's a tediously long backstory behind that discovery, but it isn't relevant here. :-))
And why is that important here? Because, even though I've recovered from my former judgementalism and general asshattery, by today's PC standards I could never be forgiven. A society which lacks the capacity to forgive condemns those who might have learned their lessons to remain exactly as they've been judged.
If "hate speech" will never be accepted, then nothing which you or I say will ever be safe. The problem, Marguerite (I love your name, BTW), is that somebody gets to DEFINE what constitutes "hate speech" for everyone else. That might seem great when people who think like you are in charge, but how would you like it if, say, Trump and his minions got to decide.
LOL :D
Sorry - I don't actually go for complete freedom of expression.
I know it's a wicked problem trying to define lines
while avoiding slippery slopes, but I'll try.
Some people believe that they should have the right to say anything they wish, no matter how offensive it is to others. These people often argue that their words cannot cause offense; rather it is others who choose to take offense. The problem with this is, that, unless they are perhaps very young or naive, when they speak this way they do so with the intent to offend. This is usually backed up by tone of voice, context, and other statements. Intent to cause offense is in itself hurtful.
There is an old saying, "Sticks and stones..." you know the one. The trouble is, it is not true.
We are a social species. How we think and feel about one another has a huge effect on our levels of freedom to be ourselves, to feel safe, to choose where we go and what we do. Know one wants to go to a place where they are likely to be abused, or live in one.
The person who speaks offensively may think it's only one instance - especially if they're saying it to a stranger. But if the offense that is one that expresses prejudice, it's very likely to be heard many times a day, year after year, in different forms from subtle to extreme. And that wears like water dripping on a rock. Except that no one is a rock. You have to have the nature of a saint, a person like Nelson Mandela, to endure that kind of constant abuse without cracking.
Young children and teenagers commit suicide over bullying of this nature. It lays the foundations for PTSD when more serious attacks occur.
Discriminatory language is not harmless. It does affect the freedom, choices, and opportunities people have. Perhaps we can say that the instructions to Stanford staff are particularly picky over small details - they have little to do with giving offense - and yet they can set a tone which discourages the possibility of worse offenses.
Here's a parallel. I happen to love graffiti - even the stuff that's badly executed and aesthetically ugly - because it's a fabulous expression of creative freedom, and it often covers even uglier buildings. But where wild grafitti occurs vandalism soon flourishes, and soon after that crime escalates. So when that mayor of New York, Giuliani or some name like that, decided on a policy of no tolerance, within three years of putting an end to graffitti, crime dropped and vandalism ceased, and now New York has an international reputation for being a much safer city and its attracting a lot more tourism.
The denser a population becomes, the more intense the competition for opportunities and resources. The greater the stresses between people, and the more violence occurs.
So where large numbers of people live together the numbers of rules rapidly multiply as a means of attempting to maintain peace. In societies where people willingly choose to comply -- because they agree with the reasoning -- the restrictions become an automatic part of the cultural norms.
It is my belief that "politically correct" language will eventually become normal throughout English speaking countries, even if it takes a century. I think it reflects the predominant drift of our social evolution. Of course there will be reactionaries who fight to hold it back, but that is only, in my view, a matter of generations who will gradually die out. By the time that happens, people will begin to wonder why it was ever called politically correct.
:)
I disagree.
Freedom of speech can easily allow for satire, and yet still embrace tactful and polite language within the normal course of human relationships. Satire sits in a special category because it is a public exposure of serious flaws in government, social trends, and powerful figures -- particularly hypocrisy and fraud.
Congratulations! That's one of the finest apologies for truncating the right to free speech that I've read in months! I only see two problems:
1) To implement legislation which allows for one type of speech while prohibiting another will require amending the Constitution. Good luck with that. :-)
2) Definitions (for 'hate speech' or even 'offensive' or 'prohibited' speech) will change, literally, day by day. That might be OK when people who think like us are in charge, but what happens when the government is in the hands of, say, ultra conservatives?
Are you sure you wanna open that Pandora's box?
I don't suggest what should be done to solve these problems.
I only try to describe some aspects of the nature of them.
I'm Australian, and would not presume to tell people in the USA how you should legislate to protect or evolve your values.
We have had some similar problems over here, but we have legislated against public incitement to hate. The wording allows for keeping pace with changes in language and new forms of intolerance. And it happens to work very well.
We also use gender neutral language in all facets of education and government, and it is slowly having beneficial effects.
