Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Regardless of its misuse, political correctness has, or had, earlier in its 'existence', a positive element too. It asks us to treat others with fairness and consideration, maybe even care. What is the term for this positive sentiment, if we (I!) must accept that Political Correctness has the negative meaning discussed and explained here in this topic?

[chewybrian]

Regardless of its misuse, political correctness has, or had, earlier in its 'existence', a positive element too. It asks us to treat others with fairness and consideration, maybe even care. What is the term for this positive sentiment, if we (I!) must accept that Political Correctness has the negative meaning discussed and explained here in this topic?

I don't think you will find what you are after. I don't recall the exact term 'politically correct' ever having a positive connotation, but either way, it now amounts to a slur. Thus, your question amounts to asking something like: "what is the opposite of 'n-word'?'. There is no polar opposite, because fair minded people will not lump others together based on some characteristic beyond those individuals' control. They will not seek to cast the entire group in either a positive or negative light. The closest to an opposite of 'n-word' is something like 'man', 'woman', or 'person'. Someone who doesn't want to use a slur or group people without considering their individual merits or faults will look at each person as an individual. There are no positive slurs, but the ones who use slurs may treat you as an individual if they don't feel any slurs apply to you.

My Dad's buddies at the VFW are apt to get upset today because they can't call the Washington football team the Redskins. They feel oppressed because they can't use a slur against native Americans to describe a football team. If I tried to oppose them in this view, I would be tagged as 'politically correct'. They see it as a sign of weakness if I try to attribute the same value to the life and well-being of someone not like me as I give to other middle-aged white guys. It's ridiculous on its face, but this shows how little effort they've taken to examine their own positions fairly, to consider justice from a somewhat objective perspective.

These guys are used to society giving them a special standing. That standing was only supported in the past by exploitation and discrimination, and we should be ready to hold to a higher standard by now, but no. Only the 'politically correct' are ready to give that a go, and although they are no longer in the minority, their clout does not yet match that of the MAGA crowd. It's wasteful and unfortunate that any gains toward real fairness might have to be hard-won, when we could all be, in theory, concerned with justice.

[Sy Borg]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

[Consul]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

…and the use-mention distinction! Those who think that certain words mustn't even be mentioned or quoted believe in word magic, that is, that the mere uttering of certain words summons evil forces.

[Sy Borg]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

…and the use-mention distinction! Those who think that certain words mustn't even be mentioned or quoted believe in word magic, that is, that the mere uttering of certain words summons evil forces.

Once again, the problem is mechanistic thinking. The more humans deal with computers in their everyday lives, the more they are influenced by them. Increasingly, it will require conscious efforts by individuals to retain their flexibility of thought and ability to cognitively handle apparent paradoxes.

Even the term "triggered" refers to a mechanism. When someone says a naughty word, a "sensor" is tripped and the "outrage subroutine" is run.

Part of me is amused by such goofy mechanistic behaviour, another part of me is worried.

[LuckyR]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

…and the use-mention distinction! Those who think that certain words mustn't even be mentioned or quoted believe in word magic, that is, that the mere uttering of certain words summons evil forces.

Once again, the problem is mechanistic thinking. The more humans deal with computers in their everyday lives, the more they are influenced by them. Increasingly, it will require conscious efforts by individuals to retain their flexibility of thought and ability to cognitively handle apparent paradoxes.

Even the term "triggered" refers to a mechanism. When someone says a naughty word, a "sensor" is tripped and the "outrage subroutine" is run.

Part of me is amused by such goofy mechanistic behaviour, another part of me is worried.

Exactly. In the past, a few famous (perhaps learned) people were able to broadcast their conclusions/opinions having reviewed the data. Data was technically available, but practically speaking required effort to access. Thus there was emphasis in memorization of data in education. If someone lucked into an opportunity to broadcast their own opinion, commonly they would do some background data review so as not to embarrass themselves in a public forum (by another learned spokesperson who also had access to broadcasting pointing out factual errors on their part).

Currently essentially everyone on the planet broadcasts their opinion several times a day. Conclusions by experts in the field are drowned out in a sea of inane opinions of self described "experts" who had to consult Google for ten minutes to even understand what the subject matter at hand actually is about. Education doesn't emphasize memorization of data, since anyone can access any data instantly (which is a good thing), however in the time freed up in the classroom somehow critical thinking is not taking it's place. Now no one is afraid to broadcast ridiculous opinions since ridiculous opinions are the norm and those who have them are rewarded for getting more clicks with no downside for being factually incorrect.

I call it (where we are now) the Post Truth era.

[Lagayascienza]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

Yes, context is important.

I regularly use f... in private at moments of moderate annoyance or of surprise. But someone or something has to really invoke extreme anger to merit the c... word, again, uttered only in a very private setting. They're perfectly good words that serve a purpose - for me, they express and diffuse anger. It would not be considered politically incorrect to use these words, although their use in public would generally be frowned upon. These words do not refer to a particular class or group of people in a derogatory way and that is why they are not seen as politically incorrect.

The n..... word is different. It was once used with abandon by whites in areas where racism was considered normal and acceptable. It is a term of disdain, of derision, a derogatory term that lumps African Americans together and expresses how the user feels about people of African American ancestry. It is a term loaded with prejudice and, today, it is hard to think of a situation in which it could be used in public without causing offence. I guess it is possible to imagine an African American using the term jokingly or ironically in reference to himself. It may also be nonproblematically used in discussions about historical and present racism. In all other contexts, I have no problem not using an offensive term such as n……. I wouldn't want to use it, and I don’t see why others should want to use it either. And if someone wants to accuse me of being politically correct by not using the term, then, in this and similar cases, "politically correct" is a badge I'm happy to wear. However, the accusation would reflect badly on the accuser rather than on me.

[Sy Borg]

Education doesn't emphasize memorization of data, since anyone can access any data instantly (which is a good thing), however in the time freed up in the classroom somehow critical thinking is not taking it's place. Now no one is afraid to broadcast ridiculous opinions since ridiculous opinions are the norm and those who have them are rewarded for getting more clicks with no downside for being factually incorrect.

I call it (where we are now) the Post Truth era.

It's post-modernism. Post-modernism is a like drugs. In small doses it can be therapeutic but in large doses it's toxic.

I look forward to seeing what happens when powerful AI encounters such illogic. I would expect a groundswell of "destroy the machines" sentiment. Just as religions hated science for pointing out that the world is 4.6 billion years old and that life evolved from simple microbes, those ascribing to post-modernism will not like AI's focus on facts.

[Sy Borg]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

Yes, context is important.

I regularly use f... in private at moments of moderate annoyance or of surprise. But someone or something has to really invoke extreme anger to merit the c... word, again, uttered only in a very private setting. They're perfectly good words that serve a purpose - for me, they express and diffuse anger. It would not be considered politically incorrect to use these words, although their use in public would generally be frowned upon. These words do not refer to a particular class or group of people in a derogatory way and that is why they are not seen as politically incorrect.

The n..... word is different. It was once used with abandon by whites in areas where racism was considered normal and acceptable. It is a term of disdain, of derision, a derogatory term that lumps African Americans together and expresses how the user feels about people of African American ancestry. It is a term loaded with prejudice and, today, it is hard to think of a situation in which it could be used in public without causing offence. I guess it is possible to imagine an African American using the term jokingly or ironically in reference to himself. It may also be nonproblematically used in discussions about historical and present racism. In all other contexts, I have no problem not using an offensive term such as n……. I wouldn't want to use it, and I don’t see why others should want to use it either. And if someone wants to accuse me of being politically correct by not using the term, then, in this and similar cases, "politically correct" is a badge I'm happy to wear. However, the accusation would reflect badly on the accuser rather than on me.

I'm so bad that I use the c-word as a verb, which I believe may be an innovation, although it might just be that I don't get out enough.

I don't care abut use of the n-word. We all know what he word is so why be cloying about it? We are all grown ups ... aren't we? Whatever, only about ten percent of black Americans have slave descendants. It's not as though all coloured people in the US suffer intergenerational trauma. Most trauma to black people appears to have been inflicted in recent decades, largely by other black people.

Again, context is key. Referring to the word being used is very different to directly using the term to refer to, or insult, black people.

[Lagayascienza]

LOL !!! I'm just imagining how I might use the c... word as a verb.

[Sy Borg]

LOL !!! I'm just imagining how I might use the c... word as a verb.

Being ADHD I've had rage issues from day one. Every year it would be the same resolution, "I will not lose my temper". So, when I reach peak frustration - often with technology - I am unable to quite find words to adequately express the mini explosion within.

That's one thing what attracted me to science and philosophy - to obtain more of an "aerial view", where everything is fine, because SNAFU is simply the biosphere's modus operandi. When things are FU'd enough, life forms either grow by finding solutions or they become yet another lopped twig in the tree of life. The system works, but it's often not kind.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, same here. It's a battle. But, as you say, science and philosophy somehow provide an "aerial view" - we can be one remove from the all the cr.p.

Like: "Ok, SNAFU. Again! Fine, it's just entropy doing its thing."

That thought gives me a moment to catch my breath, saves my computer from getting kicked and more screwed up, and I can start dealing with the problem a bit more reasonably.

[LuckyR]

Education doesn't emphasize memorization of data, since anyone can access any data instantly (which is a good thing), however in the time freed up in the classroom somehow critical thinking is not taking it's place. Now no one is afraid to broadcast ridiculous opinions since ridiculous opinions are the norm and those who have them are rewarded for getting more clicks with no downside for being factually incorrect.

I call it (where we are now) the Post Truth era.

It's post-modernism. Post-modernism is a like drugs. In small doses it can be therapeutic but in large doses it's toxic.

I look forward to seeing what happens when powerful AI encounters such illogic. I would expect a groundswell of "destroy the machines" sentiment. Just as religions hated science for pointing out that the world is 4.6 billion years old and that life evolved from simple microbes, those ascribing to post-modernism will not like AI's focus on facts.

Oh, it's already happening. AI is "learning" from a lot of the ridiculous opinions that are part of the data set consumed by the AI program. That is, the product of these AI programs is "colored" or swayed by the biased content that it uses to learn what normal is.

[chewybrian]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

I don't think there would have been anything wrong with using that word in the context of the point I was making. My intent was opposed to the common use of the word in the past, and the same goes for "Redskins". I do think that re-naming the team was the right thing to do, though, as we shouldn't casually use words that come with so much baggage. "Redskins" is akin to saying 'savages' or 'gooks' or 'wetbacks'. These terms attribute negative traits to people who may or may not have these traits. They were intended to set in cement the idea that these groups are second-class citizens, if even that.

So, I think that the VFW guys are very self-centered to be upset that the name was changed. I do see your point that we should be better able to understand context, but so many people cannot these days that it just seems safer not to use certain terms, for fear of being misunderstood. Most folks here could see context. However, if your comments are misunderstood on many other forms of social media, you won't even get a chance to walk them back as you are 'down-voted' to oblivion by people who don't even see your point.

[Pattern-chaser]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

I don't think there would have been anything wrong with using that word in the context of the point I was making. My intent was opposed to the common use of the word in the past, and the same goes for "Redskins". I do think that re-naming the team was the right thing to do, though, as we shouldn't casually use words that come with so much baggage. "Redskins" is akin to saying 'savages' or 'gooks' or 'wetbacks'. These terms attribute negative traits to people who may or may not have these traits. They were intended to set in cement the idea that these groups are second-class citizens, if even that.

So, I think that the VFW guys are very self-centered to be upset that the name was changed. I do see your point that we should be better able to understand context, but so many people cannot these days that it just seems safer not to use certain terms, for fear of being misunderstood. Most folks here could see context. However, if your comments are misunderstood on many other forms of social media, you won't even get a chance to walk them back as you are 'down-voted' to oblivion by people who don't even see your point.

Precisely — "Who cares, wins". Courtesy doesn't prevent the discussion of difficult subjects, but it does ask that we do so without throwing personal insults. I think courtesy was invented to promote full and frank discussion without it leading to violence.

For all the negativity of political correctness, as this topic complains about, there is an underlying thread of substance — a simple request that we behave with care and consideration for others. Is that really so much to ask? Does anybody lose out if we do? Or do we all gain...?