h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So why is it that the term "politically correct" seems to be used today only in the following two ways:

By a person who actually holds views on a wide range of issues which are actually quite in line with the policies of the people holding power in much of the political, military, and economic apparatus of the western world (and therefore, it seems safe to assume, "correct" according to the present political climate) as a disparaging comment directed at someone who is apparently espousing a position which is asking that fellow human beings be respected for their intrinsic worth.

Or:

As an apologetic, self-deprecating act of self-labelling by someone who is apparently espousing a position which is asking that fellow human beings be respected for their intrinsic worth.


?

As a further illustration, would not George W. Bush's courting of the Religious Right in the U.S. with his rather weird "born-again"ness truly be a case of "political correctness", whereas some congressman on the eve of an election calling for gay rights would certainly not be "politically correct" however morally correct it may be?

It strikes me as an Orwellian twisting of language that ought not to be tolerated by people of education or in people seeking or holding public office.

A meta-question now must be raised: Am I going to be called "PC" for raising this question? If so, what exactly is the polity in which I am being "correct"? To whom is this issue going to appeal? If it is not a huge constituency, how can it be "politically correct"? And if it does appeal to a huge constituency, does it not have a certain utilitarian correctness at least?

As you may realize, this is a subject that has troubled me for some time. I would say that it has disturbed me, but some have taken issue with me using the word "disturbed" for anything less than mortality. Figure that one out.

Ooh, you ask really hard questions!

I don't equate the phrase "politically correct" with your definition. In fact it doesn't mean anything really. But to me it carries connotations of holier-than-thouism which I don't see a need to defend.

Actually, I expected the response to be that I asked really long questions.

Sorry, Hellbound, simulpost.

Fair enough. I guess I've always looked at the term for what it's elements mean, and it has struck me that the sum of the elements means the opposite of what most people seem to direct it at. It doesn't seem to me that "holier than thou" would be terribly "correct" in any "political" sense. I wish people would just use "holier than thou" if that's what they mean. It's a perfectly meaningful term. And it would be much clearer than "politically correct". I mean, if someone is actually trying to be morally correct, not trying to win over a political constituency, than it seems far more meaningful to suggest they are being "holier than thou" rather than "politically correct". Then there could at least be a discussion afterward about the moralities involved (which would be the issue) rather than it just being political name-calling.

Yes that would be a more useful criticism. If I say I'm politically correct what does that mean? I don't use it in a self effacing manner. I guess I would use it to mean that I am sensitive or try to be sensitive to others in my speech and actions or. I don't see anything wrong with that but it would be better to describe myself as "one who tries to be sensitive to others in my speech and actions" rather than saying that I'm "politically correct". That phrase is at once loaded and meaningless to me. The phrase has been around for a long time and I don't remember a time when it was clean and not used in a derogatory manner.

I think it was Dylan Thomas who said that an alcoholic is someone you don't like who drinks as much as you do.

Similarly, when you use roundabout terms which are intended not to insult various minorities, that's a good thing, but if somebody else that you don't like does it, you call it "political correctness" and it is a bad thing.

I don't use the term of myself (except in discussions of the term), but I have heard people say things like "Well, I don't mean to be politically correct, but . . ." and, it strikes me as some sort of apology for taking a moral stand. And that just strikes me as sad.

And I need to get some sleep.

You are making the assumption that George Bush is pandering to the Christian Right for the sake of getting elected. In fact, all the evidence points to his fully believing that he is God's right-hand man in America.

I don't believe that Political Correctness ever got anyone elected. In fact, anything that one would choose to be politically correct about, is usually something that is considered "controversial" (in other words, a hot potato).

If it isn't something that certain factions think is evil and sinful like Gay rights, Women's rights, abortion, funding for the arts (which is invariably equated with giving money to pornographers), AIDS funding....; it is something that certain factions see as a waste of taxpayer's money... like funding for the arts, Immigration and Refugee concerns, foreign aid, and increase in taxes, AIDS research.....

All of these issues are too polemic for any politician to promote just to be politically correct. I would say that any politician who chooses to support these sorts of initiatives must believe in them strongly enough to risk mentioning them at all.

I hate the use of the term "Politically Correct" to refer to what should, in fact, simply be the ethical treatment of other human-beings (of, in fact, other beings).

"Political Correctness" has nothing whatever to do with ethics and everything to do with condescension. Rather than actually do something to, say, improve the ability of the handicapped to conduct reasonably normal lives, we will just not insult them by calling them cripples.... We will make up "nice" things to call them, but God forbid we give tem access to our office buildings.

I like to think of politically correct as feeling all warm and fuzzy about calling black people "African Americans" but not wanting to have your daughter marry one.

On the other hand, ethically and morally correct is to see no reason why African Americans should not be supported in the aspirations they choose.

What always irritated me when I was married (not that it still doesn't, but it was closer to home, then) was people who would say "Do you think we should LET the Native People have self-government?" These were the same people who often talked in misty-eyed terms about how wonderful Native culture was.

I would ask them "What do you mean LET? Is your concern that you don't think them capable, or do you object on political grounds?"

If they thought they weren't capable, I would bention that they were doing pretty well governing themselves for thousands of years before the white man came along.

If it was on political grounds, then it isn't up to us, but to the government and themselves to decide.

The same holds true for all of the issues that politicians usually like to sweep under the carpet.

Should we LET the gay people marry?
Should we LET women have abortions?
Should we LET poor people have health care?

No... we shouldn't LET them. We should stop interferring with their right to determine for themselves what is right or wrong for them.

"In fact, anything that one would choose to be politically correct about, is usually something that is considered "controversial" (in other words, a hot potato)."


That is part of my point exactly. Why is the term "politically correct" used about "hot potatoes"? It just doesn't make sense. "Mom and Apple Pie" issues would more sensibly be described as correct in a political sense.

It is my understanding that the term "Politically Correct" has always been a sarcastic and condescending one. As far as I know it originated on U.S. college campuses in the mid-to-late 1980s as a backlash to the calls for bias-free terminology that initially grew out of the women's movement. Woman were more often moving into positions of power finally and some disliked being the chairMAN and preferred ChairWOMAN. Some organizations opted for the neutral but clumsy Chairperson while others went with the often objected to Chair (I am not a piece of furniture)

Various agencies and semanticists got into the act and suddenly people unable to walk were variously referred to as "handicapped," "disabled," "physically challenged," and "differently abled" depending which memo at which campus you looked at. This extended to racial terminology - was the correct term "black" "coloured" "African-American(Canadian)" "person of colour" or "Afro-American"? Should someone be called "Mexican-American" "Latino" or "Hispanic" ?
More insistent linguistic activists demanded 'humankind' instead of 'mankind' etc etc

For the first time, university coduct codes expressly forbid the use of racist language and put some teeth behind such rules.

Right wing dingbats decided this interferred with their god given right to call people 'retards' 'cripples' or other even more objectionable terms - and decried the trend as creeping totalitarianist thought control, comparing it to Orwell's 1984 and pointing to such ill considered extremes as 'personhole' for manhole (Use sewer cover)and feminist demands for 'Herstory' classes. Such language came to be derided as 'politically correct' as a sort of sarcastic reference to Stalin's political purges etc etc.


(I can remember a heated arguement at my university in the student center one day over why it was not nice to tell 'Paki' jokes. Some cement-headed moron didn't see any problem with it, claiming 'its no worse than telling fag jokes, and there's nothing wrong with that!' A Lesbian friend of mine started telling redneck jokes and when they got a little to close to home the idiot got mad and vocal and quickly thrown out of the building - <grinsmiley&gt





It isn't political, its just correct!

The sad thing is, I've read some studies which trace the term to the campus left and internal struggles within that camp.

Nice post, Mudhooks.

Almost everyone I know in RL tends to use the term Politically Correct rather ironically, if not sarcastically.

As in - 'oops, that wasn't very PC of me, was it?' - when they perhaps, for example, refer to a male gay friend as a poof, when they know that said friend calls himself a poof all the time.

Likewise, PC-ers get on my case for still calling myself part Canadian Indian rather than part Canadian Aboriginal (or whatever the new name for Indian is this week).

Going back to Mudhooks excellent posting, well, basically - talk is cheap.


az

I think that if Phil Ochs was alive today, he might have updated this to "Love me, I'm PC"

Love Me, I'm A Liberal
by Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Hi, anhaga, I've only ever heard it here in NZ, in the first sense... i.e., <>

It drives me nuts! Someone had a good letter in the local paper the other day stating that 'Anti-PC is now the new PC'!
S/he was correct...

Interesting song, Mudhooks...

I don't think I have ever heard it used in a way that didn't strike me as disparaging of a concern for simple human dignity, even when people somehow direct it at themselves. The most positive way I've ever heard the term used is as an embarrassed apology for feeling a concern for simple human dignity, which certainly isn't a very positive use. When I hear it directed at someone who is asking for respect, very often the person using the term constructs an imaginary person to aim it at, rather than actually discussing what the target has requested. In other words, it is used as an agressively defensive -- and often downright malicious -- diversion from the subject being raised.

Perhaps sometimes people are using it in the "holier than thou" sense that I had never considered until it came up on this thread. But, again, I wish they'd just say what they mean instead of using such a rhetorical diversion.

Noble Northern Spirit? Never heard of it.

Is anyone here seriously listening to any representative of the most morally bankrupt religion in the world? An organisation that is the world's biggest landowner, which justifies paedophilia, and sanctifies starvation, disease, and the attendant over population that causes it? A group that even it's argueably finest facet the Jesuits struggle to justify?

"Noble Northern Spirit" Tolkien reference.

As to the other question: No.