# Politically correct



## Dee dee

Thanks for your imput.  What about Political correct?  Would you please give me an example of  the meaning of political correct and example of how it is used in a sentence.


----------



## elroy

Dee dee said:
			
		

> Thanks for your imput. What about Political correct? Would you please give me an example of the meaning of political correct and example of how it is used in a sentence.


 
The expression is "politically correct."  That refers to using euphemisms and "neutral" terms so as not to offend anybody.  For example, saying "his or her" is "politically correct" because it does not exclude anybody of any gender.

By the way, you should start a new thread with new questions.


----------



## timpeac

Dee dee - please start a new thread for a new question - I have split this thread for you this time. Thanks, Tim.


----------



## cuchuflete

Greetings Dee Dee,
Welcome to the nut house forums.

I am an example of the politically incorrect.  I say poor rather than disadvantaged or underprivileged.   When a politician says something that isn't true, I call him a stinking liar, rather than saying that he is accuracy-challanged.

regards,
Cuchuflete


----------



## river

*"Misguided Criminals, Intrinsic Aptitude, and Thought Shower top the list of the most egregious examples of politically correct language found in 2005 by the Global Language Monitor in its annual global survey. This year's list includes words from the US, UK, France and Australia."*
** 
*see here:http://www.udreview.com/media/paper...shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.udreview.com*


----------



## cuchuflete

When a suicide bomber kills civilians, for whatever reason, some people say, with political kerrectitude that borders on blind stupidity, that the perpetrator of the murders is any of...
an insurgent
a member of the resistence
a freedom fighter
etc.

Calling an army a "defense force" may also be politically correct, but it's usually a bucket of hogwash. Armies are trained to kill their enemies. While that's often done to defend something, it's often killing in defense of an oppressive policy. 

Politically correct speech is the antithesis of telling the truth in simple, clear words. So-called liberals use it a lot, and so-called conservatives use it a lot. It is neither liberal, nor libertarian, nor conservative, nor progressive. It's obfuscatory, cowardly, and frequently dishonest speech.

VenusEnvy wrote about a school in which 'student' is not allowed to be used to describe students. Instead, some watered down pc term has been mandated. As I said earlier...hogwash.


----------



## Brioche

Dee dee said:
			
		

> Thanks for your imput. What about Political correct? Would you please give me an example of the meaning of political correct and example of how it is used in a sentence.


 
Quotes from the link that River attached:

_"Paul Payack, president of the GLM, defines political correctness as the alteration of language for a certain political or social goal."_

_"Junior Norm Shelly says political correctness is a ridiculous attempt to appease every group in a society._ [but]
_To go out of your way and try to please everybody is not feasible in today's society.Somebody is always going to be offended."_


----------



## I.C.

There is political correctness. Something is politically correct.

There has always been something akin to it, there will always be something akin to it, even if the term may be recent. There has been and there will be good and bad use of it. It has its place, even if it’s often used out of place. To gloss over problems that won’t go away by refusing to address them.


----------



## Isotta

There is something of evasiveness in political kerrectitude. It reminds me of the "précieuse" phenomenon in 17th century France. "Présiosité," or "preciousness," refered to a group of women who refused to address real situations in favor of "gallantry." The joke is that these women called an armchair "a commodity for conversation," the feet "the suffering flesh," and so on. 

As it is, people already seem to feel that politically correctness is relatively futile and excessive. As you've seen here.

Z.


----------



## nycphotography

The easiest way to understand the true meaning of politically correct is "polite lies".... basically whereby you _pretend_ that black isn't black rather it's green and that all mankind can really live together peacefully if we all just sing kumbaya together and smile a lot.

You can't use any established words that have any clearly established meanings if there is any chance that someone, somewhere, might be able to find a way to be offended by it, if they only try hard enough.

A quick example: If your mother in law is a nasty bi***, you of course, are never allowed to say that, god forbid people who know in their heart that its true but can't bear to admit it will bring a harpy attack upon you... therefore, you say she is "very selective", while groaning inside.

Wife: My mother says blah blah blah de blah.
Husband: Well you know she's a nas... um... very difficult person.

I would give some more examples, but I really don't need the hate mail in my PM box (nobody cares if you pick on mother in laws).


----------



## river

Isn't it "mothers-in-law," or am I mentally challanged?


----------



## Isotta

river said:
			
		

> Isn't it "mothers-in-law," or am I mentally challanged?



You're right; the plural form is "mothers-in-law." I'm sure it was just a lapse of concentration.

Z.


----------



## cuchuflete

Isotta said:
			
		

> You're right; the plural form is "mothers-in-law." I'm sure it was just a lapse of concentration.
> 
> Z.



Translation: You're right, it's 'harpies' in the plural.  I'm sure it was just a minor expletive deleted.


----------



## nycphotography

To my American ear, it's mother in laws.... probably an (incorrect) extention of the set phrase "in-laws".

I wouldn't challenge an editor on the point... but I might be inclined to ask if it (the phrase, not the editor) was perhaps open for alternate usage?

Anyone?  Is mother in laws clearly wrong?


----------



## I.C.

Would guess "politically correct" statements are polite lies (along the lines of "you’re a bit eccentric at times" - "he’s a complete nutter"), euphemisms not intended to be polite but just to change perception ("collateral damage" is politically correct in its environment I would say), replacement of terms that have become or always have been stigmatising or plain old-fashioned offensive through intentional use ("Negro" would be an example, I guess). 
I lay no claim to authority.


----------



## foxfirebrand

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Anyone?  Is mother in laws clearly wrong?


I learned it was "mothers-in-law" in no uncertain terms.

But "in-laws" is correct and a rock-solid term in the AE lexicon-- your analogy makes sense, and since "mother-in-laws" is already a very common "mistake," I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the usage change.  Hyphenated titles like that exist mostly in history (ladies-in-waiting) or legalese (sergeants-at-arms).

Commanders-in-chief would prove an awkward one to change-- but as a concept it doesn't pluralize either, there being only one "in-chief" in most contexts.
.


----------



## *Cowgirl*

I too was taught mothers-in-law, but often hear mother-in-laws.

In public schools we no longer have Christmas trees, now they must be referred to as holiday trees. Give me a break!

See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/od_nm/holidays_america_dc;_ylt=Ajw6nBIqet4Z3hPIEGrHUEqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-


----------



## timpeac

I would definitely say "mothers-in-law" too, which has a certain logic to it in that you are pluralising the base noun.

Interesting that the logic of that doesn't spread to the possessive form. The plant is "mother-in-law's tongue" not "mother's-in-law tongue"!


----------



## *Cowgirl*

This is what Paul Harvey had to say about "political correctness"

I thought it was quite interesting...



> [...]
> Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done.
> We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.
> We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
> We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
> [...]


 
<Mod Edit.  Remaining text removed to comply with copyright rules.  Click on the above link for the full version.>


----------



## James Stephens

Everything said thus far applies; however, I do not think it was ever meant to be duplicitous or misleading. For me, it is the ultimate cynicism. It is based on the premise that we are not capable of facing realty unless the edges are softened and the suface is varnished. It is sensitivity and politesse run amok. It now borders on the absurd. 

Whatever it is, we're stuck with it. Which of us, for example, has the courage to go back to the masculine as the default pronoun for collective nouns?


----------



## cuchuflete

James Stephens said:
			
		

> Whatever it is, we're stuck with it. Which of us, for example, has the courage to go back to the masculine as the default pronoun for collective nouns?



Woe to him that dare?

I alternate between a collective pronoun, and in my regressive moods, I speak plain English.   He who doesn't like it is free to protest.  And if the 'he' in question is a 'she', then it's up to her to say so.  

Life is too short to spend 97% of it worrying about an offense received where none has been offered.  

At least in Spanish the normally masculine form remains both masculine and neuter, so one doesn't have to invent a new language.


----------



## river

James Stephens said:
			
		

> Everything said thus far applies; however, I do not think it was ever meant to be duplicitous or misleading. For me, it is the ultimate cynicism. It is based on the premise that we are not capable of facing realty unless the edges are softened and the suface is varnished. It is sensitivity and politesse run amok. It now borders on the absurd.
> 
> Whatever it is, we're stuck with it. Which of us, for example, has the courage to go back to the masculine as the default pronoun for collective nouns?


 
Gender-neutral language is not a matter of political correctness which tends to suggest something petty. It is unjust to exclude anyone on the basis of gender, race, culture, nationality or religion.


----------



## lemmego

Suggested reading: "Politically Correct Bedtime Stories" by James Finn Garner.


----------



## cuchuflete

river said:
			
		

> Gender-neutral language is not a matter of political correctness which tends to suggest something petty. It is unjust to exclude anyone on the basis of gender, race, culture, nationality or religion.



Please carry this politically correct absurdity to its well-gelded
logical conclusion: We don't dare use words that had no sexual connotation prior to being deemed sexist, for the risk of leaving anyone out on the basis of whatever.  He or she or any person unsure of their sexuality, for biological and/or emotional and/or other reasons can surely approve of such gender-free usage.

Of course one might say 'one' rather than he or she or whatever, but that runs the risk of offending couples who read together.  Let's make that 'one or more'.

Where we agree is that discrimination is wrong.  Where we disagree is in seeking to contort and obfuscate language in a vain attempt to overcome it with uncertain, mushy, polite words devoid of zip and zest and clarity.  

The point of language is not 'inclusiveness'.  It's communication.


----------



## Black_Mamba

Political correctness is using a term in place of another which could offend others, examples include:
Refuse Collector=Bin man/Rubbish man
Chairperson=Chairman
Mankind=Humankind
Follically challenged=Bald
Vertically challenged=Short
Intellectually challenged=Thick

These are just some examples of the forever widening vocabulary that is PC. To me, certain phrases make sense, but it seems to have gone way too far. One belief of using it is that language controls thought, and so therefore, by using langauge such as MANkind, it creates a male chauvenistic thought. This theory links also with Newspeak in Orwells 1984, an interesting concept, a new controlling language is being created called Newspeak which stops Thoughtcrime (Thinking bad thoughts about the dictator ie. Big Brother) It is said in the book that by taking words out of the language which could be used against Big Brother, for example, bad regime, people won't be able to think that Big Brother has a bad regime because there is no such term for it. You see? It is an interesting theory and certainly one to think about, does language control your thoughts, or do your thoughts control your langauge?


----------



## timpeac

The last three in your list are just mickey takes of political correctness, aren't they? Surely they don't exist in their own right?


----------



## Black_Mamba

Yup they sure do. Studied it for my A-level English Language. There are some better ones than that trust me. Some PC ones quoted often are mickey takes but the above ones are true and I used them in the exam. Another example is calling a female adult 'woman' instead of 'lady', because lady is associated with certain feminine, low skilled jobs, such as Cleaner lady. It's truly unbelievable.


----------



## timpeac

Black_Mamba said:
			
		

> Yup they sure do. Studied it for my A-level English Language. There are some better ones than that trust me. Some PC ones quoted often are mickey takes but the above ones are true and I used them in the exam. Another example is calling a female adult 'woman' instead of 'lady', because lady is associated with certain feminine, low skilled jobs, such as Cleaner lady. It's truly unbelievable.


 
Well, Ok then! Amazing!

In terms of "lady" though I've always found that quite an annoying euphemism - just check out the "ladies" at "ladies' night" at your local club to see what I mean  so if that's being replaced by "women" I think that's quite a sensible one!!


----------



## Black_Mamba

Nah, I think it's over reacting. Personally, I'd rather be called a lady than a woman. The word woman has horrible old connotations for me really, but thats probably just me. The rumours that they're changing the name for black bin bags because its derogatory towards black people aren't true lol. But they are changing the idiom "Black sheep" as in the black sheep of the family to "Bad apple" Because it's not bad towards black people, but surely the apples will get offended though? x


----------



## river

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Please carry this politically correct absurdity to its well-gelded
> logical conclusion: We don't dare use words that had no sexual connotation prior to being deemed sexist, for the risk of leaving anyone out on the basis of whatever. He or she or any person unsure of their sexuality, for biological and/or emotional and/or other reasons can surely approve of such gender-free usage.
> 
> Of course one might say 'one' rather than he or she or whatever, but that runs the risk of offending couples who read together. Let's make that 'one or more'.
> 
> Where we agree is that discrimination is wrong. Where we disagree is in seeking to contort and obfuscate language in a vain attempt to overcome it with uncertain, mushy, polite words devoid of zip and zest and clarity.
> 
> The point of language is not 'inclusiveness'. It's communication.


 
The basic reason for using inclusive language is that it is more precise. _Men_, for example may refer to either male or female, but its clearest meaning refers to the male gender.

"One" is not the only way to avoid exclusivity. There are many ways to achieve gender-neutral language, but it takes thought and often some hard work. Generally, people are resistant to change and think only enough to meet the minimum demands of the situation.


----------



## cuchuflete

_"Men_, for example may refer to either male or female, but its clearest meaning refers to the male gender."

Sometimes this is true, and at times it is informed by context, and clearly means either men or it is devoid of gender.

Reading the words on the page or screen, with comprehension, takes just a little thought and often some hard work.  Many, not all, PC terms are just a generic dumbing down of language for the benefit of readers who are
waiting to pounce on a not sufficiently inclusive turn of phrase, rather than attempting to comprehend what the author wrote.  

Humankind is a more inclusive word than mankind.  It's just as easy to understand.  I use it.  It makes sense.  It doesn't muck up language for the sake of pleasing all people, all the time.  There are cases in which a 'he' or a 'she' can lead to clearer communication than a 'they' or 'them' or 'he or she' or  'she or he'.  In those cases, I use a singular pronoun, of some gender or other.  If that makes the PC crowd squirm or get apoplectic, it's up to them to enjoy their own self-righteousness.

The word 'mankind', as used for hundreds of years, was gender-neutral in both meaning and intent.   If somebody comes along and hangs a sign over it, declaring it to be sexist, uninclusive, or unfair to the rights of three-legged squirrels, that's just balderdash, as well as sloppy and lazy reading.  Revisionist linguistics holds up about as well as revisionist history.

I look forward to the day, coming soon if not already here, when the reading of any pre-1960s text will require a translators' dictionary, just to explain that the words didn't mean what they mean.


----------



## Black_Mamba

hear hear.


----------



## nycphotography

river said:
			
		

> The basic reason for using inclusive language is that it is more precise. _Men_, for example may refer to either male or female, but its clearest meaning refers to the male gender.
> 
> "One" is not the only way to avoid exclusivity. There are many ways to achieve gender-neutral language, but it takes thought and often some hard work. Generally, people are resistant to change and think only enough to meet the minimum demands of the situation.


 
Why can't those who deem it important make the damn effort to read it in a gender neutral manner, rather than mandating every writer on the planet make the effort for them?


EDIT: Just read cuchu's response above... seems we're on the same page.


----------



## jimreilly

Well, if I'm the only person who feels this way, so be it. Here goes:

Cuchuflete says "Politically correct speech is the antithesis of telling the truth in simple, clear words." And there are lots of other negative things in this thread, some of them as silly as some exagerated "politically correct" language.

I think saying "his or her" simply indicates the truth of the matter--that the gender of the person spoken of is unknown. This is not "the antithesis of telling the truth", and "his" and "her" are clear and simple words. Using the expression is a simple courtesy, and reflects changed realities. When I was a child, I had never heard of a woman medical doctor; now many, perhaps even the majority, of the doctors I meet are women. Why, when I speak of a doctor whose gender I do not know, or speak a doctors in general, should I use "he" or "him"? 

Some of the resentment at "politically correct" speech comes from some of its undeniable excesses; I hope that's where all the resentment expressed in this thread comes from. But some dislike of "political correctness" comes from the desire to hold on to prejudices, bigotries, and sloppy thinking about gender, race, ethnicity, class, disability
....

I suppose having grown up in an Italian family (on my mother's side) I learned that some words describing my own ethnic origins could be damned mean. I am told that my German grandmother (my dad's stepmother) pleasantly announced when I was born that there was now "another dago in the family". She was not joking, either, and when my Dad's younger borther married an Italian-American too she refused to go the wedding; "one" was enough. She would not have liked being asked to modifiy her speech or her behavior, either in regard to Italians or to any of the other ethnic groups she disliked. I am glad that her kind of speech is no longer as acceptable as it once was.

There needs to be some balance struck about "politically correct" language. But that balance should include a recognition that there are some good reasons for its existence, and those reasons do not exist only in the past.


----------



## Brioche

jimreilly said:
			
		

> Some of the resentment at "policitically correct" speech comes from some of its undeniable excesses; I hope that's where all the resentment expressed in this thread comes from. But some dislike of "political correctness" comes from the desire to hold on to prejudices, bigotries, and sloppy thinking about gender, race, ethnicity, class, disability
> ....
> .


 
In my case, resentment at PC comes from the holier-than-thou attitude of most of its practitioners, who make a sanctimonious prarade of their moral superiority.

Then there's the assumption that anyone who does not jump to the latest fashion in PC is some sort of uber-racist or male chauvinist pig. 

Some PC's believe, in 1984 New Speak style, that if you remove the politically-incorrect words from the language, you've remove the ability to think politically-incorrect thoughts. What generally happens is that the same old naughty thoughts continue in the new clothes.  

PC does not lead to clearer expression. Many writers and broadcasters avoid  the words _man_/_men_ and _woman_/_women_ and replace them with person/people. So they talk about the _people_ who went down with battleships, when the crew were all _men_.  Even crazier, people talk about "a _person's_ vagina!"


----------



## cuchuflete

Earlier in this thread you may find this statement:



> It is unjust to exclude anyone on the basis of gender, race, culture, nationality or religion.


I will not attempt to demean it by calling it politically correct, despite some possible overlap with PC speech. I believe the writer is sincere, and means exactly what was said. As a social goal, it is plainly good.  I admire the sentiment.  But here on planet Earth, there are circumstances which would have me ignore that admonition, because it clashes with reality, which may or may not be unjust. 

Now...apply that statement to a report about the Icelandic national soccer/football team. I suspect I would refer to its members as "the men of....". There now. How's that for clear writing which excludes women... The odds are fair that one or more other groups are excluded as well.

PC speak would have me say what? "The members of..."?
Is that more or less clear and precise? More importantly, it's straightforward and honest to say "the men" whereas saying
"the members" is neither if I know the members to be men. 

PC speech is very apt to collide with reality, or duck and dodge it. Writing can be sensitive to inclusiveness, when there is a legitimate reason to consider it, without falling prey to PC conventions. However, force-feeding inclusiveness into matters where it is a non-issue is just silly at best, and muddy writing informed by single issue thinking at worst. 

Here's a specific example of what I'm talking about. There is a little restaurant in the town of 1500 to which my village is legally attached. 100% of the staff who serve diners are female/ladies/women (pick whichever you find most accurate and least offensive.) In pc speak, I would have to refer to the waitpersons or waitperson staff, which is absurd contortionism for the sake of PC speak. If I say 'the waitresses at the _____ restaurant, some purist will take great offense, although the term is absolutely accurate and precise. Is it inclusive? Hell yes! It includes 100% of the group of people I'm writing about. Does it include other members of other groups who might potentially become members of the group in question? No. Why should it?

I seek to avoid exclusionary terms when, in reality, not theory, a group includes people of various types. I certainly don't bother trying to force-fit inclusionary terms where they add nothing but adherence to a theoretical objective, and when they result in murky writing. 

The world is unjust. Exclusion exists, sometimes for reasons of mean-spriritedness, ignorance, or stupidity. However there are other forms of exclusion that are totally rational. These may be called selectivity, rather than exclusion. As a useful generality, mental incompetents are not admitted to Ph.D. programs. Hence, I see no reason to use language that encompasses people of all intellectual abilities in writing of the students in a doctoral program. Is that inclusive? Hardly. It's accurate.


----------



## jimreilly

Whatever excesses exist that get some of us so upset, this is common sense and good manners:

If they're all men on the team or on the job, they're "men", "he", "him", etc.

If they're all women, they're "women,", "she", "her", etc.

If both genders are on the team or on the job, or if we don't know whether they're men or women, then they're "they", "them", "he or she", "him or her", "one", the "player", the "employee", etc. Easy, clear, not at all evasive.

If that makes me part of a "sanctimonious parade of ... moral superiority" I'll go back to my piano practicing and pick some good music to march to. Maybe the members of my professional music "fraternity" (40 women and two men) will help me pick a piece by a good composer, female or male. I never did figure out why it's called a fraternity, but I'm perfectly glad to talk about my "sorority sisters" upon occasion. But that might be (weakly!) funny, and people who like gender-inclusive language are not supposed to have a sense of humor, are we?


----------



## river

_"The world is unjust. Exclusion exists."_  cuchuflete

I agree with you 100%, CC, which is why language should promote inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness and descrimination.


----------



## Gabriele

Hi all,

maybe it is a bit off topic but this discussion reminds of the problem discussed here in Germany whether it should be Frau Bundeskanzler or Frau Bundeskanzlerin, because now we have the first woman on top.

The job was always named: Bundeskanzler and the persons Herr Bundeskanzler (Herr = Mister) because they all were male up to now.

Now we have Mrs. Merkel and she is addressed as Frau Bundeskanzlerin.
The "in" at the end is a female word ending.
Some people here said that this is ridiculous because it is "double female" others said: well done, this would not have been possible some years ago.
And "Bundeskanzlerin" is the German word of the year 2005.

I don´t know what to think 
Is the female ending a kind of PC ? 

Gabriele


----------



## Lizziewoo

Relating to politically correct sentences/descriptions, I thought another example might be interesting:
Someone once said to me, 'You're so skinny' and another person intervened and said, 'Skinny is very un-PC (not politically correct)... you should really say slim'.


----------



## cuchuflete

river said:
			
		

> _"The world is unjust. Exclusion exists."_  cuchuflete
> 
> I agree with you 100%, CC, which is why language should promote inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness and descrimination.


Hi River,

I can find plenty of reasons to both agree and to disagree with your statement. It's a matter of context and intent.

If I'm writing about political, economic or theological objectives, it would seem natural to me to try to use inclusive language. If I'm writing to describe something, I'm more apt to use the most specific words I can find to give an accurate description. In the latter case, I should not be bothered with
questions of exclusivity or inclusivity, as my only interest is accuracy.  

I have no argument with inclusiveness. I practice it. My spat is with idiotic PC speak, which tries to superimpose language patterns where they don't belong, get in the way, and lead to
confusion, watered-down messages, or dumbed-down writing.

I wrote in another thread not long ago of the people who sweep floors in schools. When I was very young, they were called 'cleaning men' or 'cleaning women'. Then there was an attack of early PC, and they were subsequently called janitors.
They swept the floors.

Some years went by, and social conscience and perhaps union
sensitivites became evident.  They were renamed 'custodians'.
They swept the floors.

Finally, the PC wave engulfed all of us, and they became sanitary engineers.  They still sweep the floors.

This is the sort of nonsense I object to.  

Perhaps this is more a topic for another forum. You appear to want to use language to accomplish, or at very least promote, social change. If that is a correct supposition, then you have my agreement when and only when that doesn't lead to useless corruption of the language, just for the sake of PC consistency. 

How PC is something like 'public safety official'? If you mean police, or cop, or constable, or sheriff, why not say so? Now we have 'first responders'. To my way of thinking, the typical first responders to a catastrophe are the witnesses who call the so-called first responders. Or perhaps the victims......

Maybe that's not PC speak, but its first cousin, governmental garble, a.k.a. GG. When PC and GG colaborate, we are all in deep yogurt. 

When inclusive writing is sensible, as in 2+2= >3<5, I will use it. When it serves nothing but inclusivity for its own sake, I will neither dispense with it nor embrace it. Others may take sides. I'll just try to write in a way that lets the reader know what I mean.


----------



## Dee dee

I've got the meaning.  Thanks.  I like the meaning.  I do believe it is not what you say, rather 'how' you say it that matters.  And there will always be a time and place allowed for plain old self -expression of the sort, or 'the way in which I see it', if you will.


----------

