Talk:Political correctness/Archive 4

message: Does anyone else think that "unjust discrimination" is kind of redundant?  Is there such a thing as "just" discrimination?  The word sounds funny there and I wanted to ask before I just removed it. --DanielCD 13:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that discrimination is solely negative in nature can only be founded in a lack of understanding of the term. See . Almost all discrimination is functional. Sam [Spade] 06:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Iota: I used the word "liberal" in the sentence simply to be consistent with the word "conservative" that is used earlier in the sentence.  It seemed right; but many people (me included) seem to be confused about the multitude of meanings between left-wing, liberal, conservative, right-wing, etc.  Why do you think people are avoiding Left-wing?  I don't see whay the word "liberal" wouldn't work in that particular sentence.
Also: unless the article is refering to a cookie, I've never heard the word "nutter" before in this context.  It seems kind of obscure.
--DanielCD 17:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to like "nutter" (as well as "spaz"), since it is appropriately relaxed and informal. Someone put "retard" there in it's place once before, but I objected due to it being a clinical term. "Lunatic" is IMO too formal to encapsel the informality of "political incorrectness". Sam [Spade] 22:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: please review  and  as well. Sam [Spade] 22:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal and Left-wing 

message: Why is there nothing here on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? Surely this is central to PC? Mark Richards 22:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was content, but it was deleted in one of the pages near constant rewrites. I didn't know enough about it then to object, nor now to put it back, but if you put it there I'll prob read up on it ;) Sam [Spade] 22:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I'll dig out some citations, (here is one  but this is a very influential piece of research, and formed the groundwork for a lot of the thought on careful use of language. I think a section on academic research and thought on how language affeects thought and behaviour would improve this article. Mark Richards 16:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and look forward to reading your edits/citations. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That is the sentance as it was originally. I added "(for those who oppose sexism and support radical change)", but the more I think about it, who says any language is sexist? This sentance seems to be based on a foundation of POV. Perhaps you could phrase it differently? Sam [Spade] 22:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: hahaha... OK, but I don't buy it. For me sexism = abusive. I don't find our language abusive. Of course I'm not P.C., and I'll call a gimpy nutter a retarded cripple, or vice versa. For me it all comes down to how you actually treat people, not the jokes you tell or the names you call. I personally strive to be helpful and thoughtful of others, and I think that’s good enough. I shouldn't have to try to change my language in order to conform to someone else’s awkward, humorless parlance. I'd just as soon change my accent to avoid grating your nerves (assuming you can't stand folks who talk the way I do ;) Sam [Spade] 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Slizor claims that English is sexist because almost all grammarians are men. That's just plain wrong. English is sexist because some people perceive it as sexist. "Man" used to be gender-neutral (somewhat like the German man); under the influence of those who want to perceive it as sexist, now it's sexist. There's no central regulating body for English, so there's no bunch of little old men huddled in a small room saying "Hey, let's use the word "Mankind" and shut women out of history completely!" English is a language, and is regulated by the rules that every speaker abides by. The rules aren't sexist, it's feminists and the politically correct who see them as sexist.   thefamouseccles 01:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

message: 'The logical conclusion is that in order to combat sexism, one tactic should be to remove sexist language.'
:That is the sentance as it was originally. I added "(for those who oppose sexism and support radical change)", but the more I think about it, who says any language is sexist? This sentance seems to be based on a foundation of POV. Perhaps you could phrase it differently? Sam [Spade] 22:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: hahaha... OK, but I don't buy it. For me sexism = abusive. I don't find our language abusive. Of course I'm not P.C., and I'll call a gimpy nutter a retarded cripple, or vice versa. For me it all comes down to how you actually treat people, not the jokes you tell or the names you call. I personally strive to be helpful and thoughtful of others, and I think that’s good enough. I shouldn't have to try to change my language in order to conform to someone else’s awkward, humorless parlance. I'd just as soon change my accent to avoid grating your nerves (assuming you can't stand folks who talk the way I do ;) Sam [Spade] 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Slizor claims that English is sexist because almost all grammarians are men. That's just plain wrong. English is sexist because some people perceive it as sexist. "Man" used to be gender-neutral (somewhat like the German man); under the influence of those who want to perceive it as sexist, now it's sexist. There's no central regulating body for English, so there's no bunch of little old men huddled in a small room saying "Hey, let's use the word "Mankind" and shut women out of history completely!" English is a language, and is regulated by the rules that every speaker abides by. The rules aren't sexist, it's feminists and the politically correct who see them as sexist.   thefamouseccles 01:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficult sentence

message: User:Neutrality recently deleted this paragraph with the comment "rm self-reference".
Wikipedia itself has included some amendments to articles that may be PC to some people but not to others. An example is the editing on August 31 2004 of the article Unitarian Universalism which stated Unitarian Universalist churches welcome gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people as well as the handicapped. The last word, handicapped, was changed to differently abled.
I don't see why this is objectionable (and no, I'm not the author of it). Wikipedia itself seems to me to be as good a place as any from which to draw an example for something like this. Neutrality, could you expand on your reasoning? Is this based on a particular policy of which I might be unaware? -- Jmabel 19:10, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
::See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Thanks. Neutrality (talk) 20:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-reference 

message: Should mention Mao and use of term.  --Daniel C. Boyer 22:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao 

message: I'm given to believe that fire departments have preferred the term "firefighter" over "fireman" for some time, without any particular regard for political correctness. A firefighter puts out fires; a fireman tends the furnace in a steam locomotive. —FOo 20:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefighter 

message: Does any else think the term PC has gone beyond alteration of langaguage to include the alteration of attitudes? It is often applied now to left-of-centre reappraisal of old behaviours and conventions. For example sexism, wearing fur coats, etc.
:I agree. Sam Spade Arb Com election 21:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC is about changing attitudes, not just changing language? 

message: This article states: A rule of thumb for determining whether a term may be considered politically incorrect is to question whether one is identifying the individual by an uncontrollable attribute, rather than on his or her unique accomplishments.. This, in my opinion, has little or nothing to do with political correctness. What do you think?
:I don't like the wording, but that seems to be a standard part of their rhetoric. It probably isn't acually a good rule at all, but the concept is PC. I will point out that "rule of thumb" is itself politically incorrect, which is amusingly ironic if the person who wrote that bit was PC (or trying to be) themselves ;) Sam Spade Arb Com election 09:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your opinion on this one 

message: I've always been curious about expressions of this kind: why is calling someone 'impaired' or 'challenged' (with regard, one presumes, to 'the norm') considered 'correct'?
:Because its different, and these wankers want to see if they can alter our thinking. See doublespeak, doublethink and Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ;) Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "visually impaired" rather than "blind" or "vertically challenged" instead of "short"

message: Can anyone cite this being used other than as a joke or possibly a rhetorical figure in an opinion piece? I sincerely doubt it was ever used without irony. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
: No one has responded, I am deleting. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I deleted the {listdev} template because it offers too much temptation to add in these joke terms. These are only examples, not a definitive list. -Willmcw 22:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "temporarily abled"