Talk:Political correctness/Archive 2

message: I have an idea I'm kicking around about discussing the concept of labels, and their importance. People tend to think in terms of symbols anyways, and the labels we choose to refer to each other are thus quite important. I've always found the subject of labels fascinating, since they carry so much weight. Some people even choose to define themselves by the label others give them. I think thats pretty sad, but I don't see how changing the way we label them makes the difference. I think its something inside the person that decides if they are going to define themselves, or if they embrace how they are defined by others. Anyhow, it would be an interesting area to explore. Sam Spade 06:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labels 

message: I think the article needs a little fleshing out regarding the conceptual thought behind political correctness. One of the commoner anti PC arguments is that it makes everyday speech difficult as one must keep checking which terms to use. This is an issue that I think is central to any discussion of PC language - that replacing non PC terms with "PC Equivalents" is not just a question of removing words with negative connotations and replacing them with value neutral versions. The heart of the PC project is precisely to make it difficult to apply easy labels to various groups of people. The argument goes something like this: 1) certain people have their rights/opportunities/freedoms restricted due to their categorisation as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype. 2) This categorisation is largely implicit and unconcious, and is facillitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology. 3) By making the labeling terminology problematic people will be made to think conciously about how they describe someone. 4) Once labelling is a concious activity the individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership of a group, will become more apparent.
I also think more could be made of the disparity between what PC supporters and PC critics claim PC is. It's perjorative use clearly encompasses a massive amount of political ideology/thought that has very little to do with actual PC concepts.
User:Dr Headgear 11:30, 31 Mar 2004 (CET)
:Mmmmmaybe.... try putting your ideas in the article, and I'll keep an eye for NPOV. Sam Spade 20:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labels Pt II

message: As no one has objected to removing the NPOV warning after a reasonable time period has passed, I am removing it.  If anyone wishes to restore the warning, please discuss it here.  --zandperl 23:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The article cites Beard's Dictionary.My understanding is that he and his co-author collected up examples of politically correct terminology that had been proposed in all seriouslness, but then mixed these without comment with their own inventions for the purpose of satire. (Beard is an ex-editor of National Lampoon, a satirical magazine) Certianly the book jacket (according to amazon.com contains teh phrase "Includes even more real and satirical definitions to help keep thought cops away." 
would seem that some folks,at least were willing to swallow Beard's parody whole - perhaps because PC terminlogy seemed do silly to them that nothing Beard could invent was too preposterous. Certainly the customer reviews on amazon.com suggest that some folks think its real
Shouldn't the article make it clearer that the Dictionary should not be taken (completely) seriously? 
Chris B 29/3/04
:Sure, go ahead and place such caveats, or remove dubious references as needed.  Sam Spade 20:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Beard Dictionary is not (fully) for real 

message: I removed an insinuation that 'most people avoid using the term "nigger" '.                        I havn't found this to be the case, altho most people do avoid using it in mixed company. If anyone has any documentation one way or the other, please feel free to provide it. Sam Spade 20:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: usage of [[nigger]]

message: REcently I wrote something and mentioned "mecca" as somewhere that people are heading to and looking to for new challenges and profit. I was told that "mecca" is now considered offensive to the middle-eastern religions if used in any other context than "Mecca" as the place.....
I would really appreciate any up-to-date feedback on this...
Thanks
Sandra
shanji89@internode.on.net
:See the article on Mecca for the gory details. In gist, some Muslims are offended by the use of the name of their holy city in expressions describing a hotbed of sinful activity, such as mecca of gambling. --FOo 13:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC on "mecca" - please help 

message: Does anon have some verification, or what? Shall I assume the above is the last we'll hear on this? Anybody have any citations? Sam [Spade] 05:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: whats up?

message: "PC" was never a "movement", it doesn't have "proponents".  All it is is a slur people throw at each other.  It was invented as a slur!  This whole article is filled with snipes against this "straw man" proponent, to whom a variety of things are attached to, such as environmentalism, that have nothing to do with "PC".  This article needs a complete overhaul by someone who can tell it from an unbiased POV.
:That would appear to be yourself? First please review NPOV, and please refrain from adding HTML, it is against wki sytle standards. Sam[Spade] 22:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I just want you to understand that there is a regular cycle on this page of people coming in, voicing intense dissent about the article, attempting to overhaul it, and after various edits the concensus being for it to end back up quite alot like it started. It's a controvercial topic, and I reccomend that any extreme changes be discussed at length here in the talk page. Sam [Spade] 13:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually its a featured article, one of our very best. You will find that an attempt to censor will not go over well, its simply anti-wiki. If there are some specific issues I would be glad to discuss them however. Sam [Spade] 17:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: It has been a featured article for a very long time. It was temporarilly removed due to recent troubles here, which were largely solved. Also the remaining objector left the wiki. Sam [Spade] 19:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ornery anon

message: There have been repeated complaints about the article, but in my estimation they have been vague, or based on a desire for the article to contain a pro-PC slant. Can any and all objectors articulate themselves to the best of their ability so that we can get to work? I'm not thrilled or disturbed by the article as it now stands, and am perfectly willing to discuss some specific particulars. Sam [Spade] 19:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ....seems out of place, more fit for a racism article or something.  And: is using the word "nigger" really adding anything useful here?  It seems to me that sentence is fine just saying "African-American" for "black".  The extra here seems...sloppy.
And, in the controversy section, I think comparing PCness to Facism and Doublespeak and such is kinda overkill because there is no group identified putting PCness forth other than the anonymous "proponents".  
In short, there needs to be some more definition of things...Is PC really a movement, or just a handy term to slap people with that became popular?  An encyclopedia article on PCness should answer this question, or point out that there is no answer (if there is none).  
My two cents worth......
--ArcticFrog 19:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I think the nigger part is particularly insightful, and I am the one who added the stuff about PC fascism. If you havn't heard it described that way you obviously havn't been to a gun show recently. Of course its a perjorative, and of course it has proponents (loads of em here on the wiki) but no one famous who I know of is brave enough to come out and call themselves "PC". They'd be endlessly ridiculed, probably long after they left public life in disgrace. I also favor citations, but good luck. I've already had criticism of the paltry few citations we do have on this page as coming from joke books and humorous news events. I thank you for the specifics, and I agree w you about the benefit of citations/verifiablity if nothing else. Sam [Spade] 20:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: aha...hahahahaha.... hmm... PC means something completely opposite to you, obviously. It is nothing underground, it is a method and a goal of part of the Left. To me it sums up the doublethink and attempts at mass mind control employed by the intellectually dishonest. It is one of the many proof's of the prophetic prowess of George Orwell. A better example of newspeak in action I can't imagine. If you want cites on it being compared to fascism... . I can see we come from different worlds, and thats ok. The important thing is making an article which we can all understand and agree apon. Such is the joy of concensus editing :) Sam [Spade] 22:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  what exactly ''is'' the problem?