Beyond Political Incorrectness
Since I often get frustrated when I hear Transhumanists refer to their own ideas as "politically incorrect," I will post this short rant written by an online acquaintance nicknamed OrangeRevel:
"I can't stand the term 'political correctness' and the way it gets applied by some to the opinions and arguments of others in order to dismiss them out of hand. The accusation of 'being PC' only works one way, right accusing the left (or centre) of it. And because the term gained currency in the first place because of the mythical notoriety of how 'silly' political correctness could be, "standing up against PC" is seen as somehow rebellious, radical and even sexy somehow. And yes, sometimes even those of a leftish persuasion eagerly declare themselves or their opinions "rather un-PC".
My objection is that by buying into the use of the sneering term PC, those who claim to be liberal or leftish seem to forget what those on the right would include by it. What may have looked outlandish to some 20 years ago (e.g. making provision so the disabled can participate in society properly; teaching history from a variety of angles, not just the victors' story; the depiction of minorities as more than just stereotypes) are practical steps towards a better society. But to some, they're infringements on the right to call a nigger a nigger and a faggot a faggot.
Calling all this "PC" suggests some sort of thought police at work, whereas I see what usually counts as "PC" as simply a general practise of considering the sensibilities of others in ones actions, and seeing more than the loudest or most entrenched views on a subject. When a supporter of a nominally socialist or centrist party or organisation joins in the disparagement of this tendency, I'm disappointed.
BTW, I'm largely against censorship too. I don't think a so-called "PC approach" censors anyone. When Trent Lott made positive recollections of segregation on December 5, 2002, nobody censored him; backlash was from the public, the same public who would have seen his remarks as normal 40 years ago. Now, whether the shift in public attitudes has been down to the alleged imposition of PC thinking in the media or something else, I don't know. Either way, I think it's great that it's no longer seen by the majority as a reasonable view to hold.
I don't want peoples' views censored, I want to know what the controversial really think so that I can make up my mind as best I can about them. I also laugh at supposedly 'un-PC' jokes if they're any good, believe those who commit certain crimes ought to be publically strung up... but would never castigate those who object to me as 'just blinded by political correctness'.
In summary: Those who constantly fling accusations of 'PC-ness' act like playground bullies. Easier to stick your fingers in your ears and chant names and mock than consider why some tribe might want their land back, or whatever. This discourages others from looking at issues fairly for fear of being ridiculed too. When a 'leftie' uses their language, they're giving the term some credit when instead they should be exposing and opposing the often hateful way it is bandied about by those who would rather publish attacks on the vulnerable, and those who defend them."
"I can't stand the term 'political correctness' and the way it gets applied by some to the opinions and arguments of others in order to dismiss them out of hand. The accusation of 'being PC' only works one way, right accusing the left (or centre) of it. And because the term gained currency in the first place because of the mythical notoriety of how 'silly' political correctness could be, "standing up against PC" is seen as somehow rebellious, radical and even sexy somehow. And yes, sometimes even those of a leftish persuasion eagerly declare themselves or their opinions "rather un-PC".
My objection is that by buying into the use of the sneering term PC, those who claim to be liberal or leftish seem to forget what those on the right would include by it. What may have looked outlandish to some 20 years ago (e.g. making provision so the disabled can participate in society properly; teaching history from a variety of angles, not just the victors' story; the depiction of minorities as more than just stereotypes) are practical steps towards a better society. But to some, they're infringements on the right to call a nigger a nigger and a faggot a faggot.
Calling all this "PC" suggests some sort of thought police at work, whereas I see what usually counts as "PC" as simply a general practise of considering the sensibilities of others in ones actions, and seeing more than the loudest or most entrenched views on a subject. When a supporter of a nominally socialist or centrist party or organisation joins in the disparagement of this tendency, I'm disappointed.
BTW, I'm largely against censorship too. I don't think a so-called "PC approach" censors anyone. When Trent Lott made positive recollections of segregation on December 5, 2002, nobody censored him; backlash was from the public, the same public who would have seen his remarks as normal 40 years ago. Now, whether the shift in public attitudes has been down to the alleged imposition of PC thinking in the media or something else, I don't know. Either way, I think it's great that it's no longer seen by the majority as a reasonable view to hold.
I don't want peoples' views censored, I want to know what the controversial really think so that I can make up my mind as best I can about them. I also laugh at supposedly 'un-PC' jokes if they're any good, believe those who commit certain crimes ought to be publically strung up... but would never castigate those who object to me as 'just blinded by political correctness'.
In summary: Those who constantly fling accusations of 'PC-ness' act like playground bullies. Easier to stick your fingers in your ears and chant names and mock than consider why some tribe might want their land back, or whatever. This discourages others from looking at issues fairly for fear of being ridiculed too. When a 'leftie' uses their language, they're giving the term some credit when instead they should be exposing and opposing the often hateful way it is bandied about by those who would rather publish attacks on the vulnerable, and those who defend them."
<< Home