Wikipedia

Talk:Political correctness/Archive 4

< Talk:Political correctness
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Added paragraph- "difficulty"

Some time last year I proposed a small paragraph on the methodolgy of PC, Sam Spade said he would run a NPOV eye over (please do).

I feel it's important to mention that the PC project isn't merely about replacing one label with another, but is interessested in making labelling itself difficult. So I added this:

Part of the PC programme, however, is an attempt to make discriminatory thought difficult. The theory goes far beyond the replacement of derogatory terms with value neutral terms and instead addresses the very labelling and grouping of people. The argument goes 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'm happy to bow to peer review on this, I originally had hoped that someone could express this more eloquently, but seeing as noone did I just went for it.

I'm not a frequent visitor, I've tried to read up the history of the debate on the talk page(s), so if you've already discussed this then apologies for going all "lone cowboy" with it.

(unsigned, undated, but this appears to be User:Dr Headgear February 12, 2005).

Yep, tis I User:Dr Headgear, apologies for the lack of signature/dating.

culural revolution in china

dont you think the 'cultural revolution' with intense 'thought control' emphasis in china is somehow relevant?

Redundancy

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)

The sentence does sound funny and i think the intended meaning would be understood without "unjust". But for the record the term isnt redundant. The term "discrimination" has now come to have strong negative connotations, because it is often used to refer to racist/sexist/unjust/etc discrimination, but in its original, strict sense discrimination means merely choosing/distinguishing. In some contexts it is also important to distinguish unambiguously bad discrimination from positive discrimination which is the term used for "affirmative action" in many countries.


Iota 17:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The idea that discrimination is solely negative in nature can only be founded in a lack of understanding of the term. See [1]. Almost all discrimination is functional. Sam [Spade] 06:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Liberal and Left-wing

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)


Sam Spade argues, further up this talk page, that the term "liberal" should be avoided and no-one had dissented yet so i was assuming there was a sort of consensus. The problem with liberal is that in popular usage in the United States it has come to be used as a crude synonym for left-wing whereas in much of the rest of the world (and in political philosophy) its meaning is much more complicated.

I think the most common way to use the word in its accurate sense is to make a distinction between "social liberalism" (e.g. "affirmative action", legalising cannabis) and "economic liberalism" (free market economics). The problem is that while social liberalism is left-wing, economic liberalism is right-wing, so liberalism, on its own, can mean either.

I think that "political correctness" is a concept about language and has absolutely nothing to do with economics. But i think many on the right have come to describe as political correctness anything on the left (including social welfare, "big government", etc) that they disagree with. So i think the term left-wing is the correct and more accurate term to use in this article.Iota 22:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, nutter is a term used by English people, usually as a light-hearted insult. It's short for a "nut case". It should probably be replaced with lunatic which is older and more universal. I also think spaz is a bit too modern and culture-specific but i cant think of a good alternative off the top of my head. Iota 22:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)
please review [2] and [3] as well. Sam [Spade] 22:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I kinda figured 'nutter' was an English term. Don't hear it much in Texas, where I am. I think the term 'retard' is a definite insult, even though it is a clinical term in other contexts. But when someone means it in the bad way, you know it. Thanks for the responses guys, they are a help. Even though there's a lot of "slash and burn" (constant editing) going on here, I still think this article is good and informative. --DanielCD 18:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Why is there nothing here on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? Surely this is central to PC? Mark Richards 22:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

I don't think the Sapir-Worf Hypothesis merits a separate section unto itself. This is implying that people actually cite this hypothesis as their reason for designing PC speech. If this is going to be posited, then it requires a serious citation where someone verifies that that is what they are doing. Until then, I think it's ok to be mentioned, but not in its own section.--DanielCD 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll dig out some citations, (here is one [4] 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)
I agree, and look forward to reading your edits/citations. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I've changed the section on the sapir-whorf hypothesis. The previous version stated that the hypothesis' extreme form related to sexism in language. This is not true. The hypothesis talks about language and culture in general and other people have related to specifics (such a sexism). Also Sapir and Whorf did not work independantly of each. And finally, I deleted the reference to orwell's book 1984. I think that reference only perpetuates this article's anti-PC slant. --- hospitalhill


Difficult sentence

'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)

English is actually sexist (mainly due to all grammarians being men.) For example, it is grammatically correct that when the sex of a person is unknown "he" should be used ("he entered the dark room and turned on the light.....It was Jessica - she wanted to borrow my razor to shave her pussy.") There's also things about the female versions of words having connotations of being weaker then the male versions (manager, manageress.) I'm sure there are more examples, but I can't remember them. Slizor 10:52, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

You left me hanging! Did you give her the razor? Did she need help? LOL

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)
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)

self-reference

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. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but note there:

If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on - or is a part of - Wikipedia.

This case seems to fall between the examples.

  • It is certainly not content about "Wikipedia's policies or conventions"
  • It on a subject so removed from Wikipdia as Shakespeare. Conversely, it is not as obviously appropriate as a discussion of online communities.
  • It is in a neutral tone.
  • A very minor edit (far short of deletion) would deal with "implying that the article in question is being read on - or is a part of - Wikipedia".

In short, I don't think that standard gives much guidance in this case.

Now, I'm not saying this is a great paragraph that we need to preserve -- if anyone wants to restore it, they'll need to make the case for significance -- but I don't think it clearly violated policy. -- Jmabel 20:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Moved "kotobagari" to its own article

I moved "kotobagari" to its own article.

-- Szczerbiec01

Mao

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

Firefighter

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)

That's a very good point. The firefighter/fireman discussion should be removed for that reason. I would suggest that a new section might be needed to address the tendency of politically correct terms to lose some of the informative meaning of the terms they aim to replace -- e.g. chairperson vs chairman/women. --Rikurzhen 20:57, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Examples of non-PC words for disabled people

see Talk:Political_correctness#Difficult_sentence. There have been two examples for some time. Two ailments are discribed, and so ought two pejoratives be outlined. Also, form an account. Sam [Spade] 22:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In this article, only one example is required, to give a flavour of the kind of thing we are talking about. However, I think there should be a place in Wikipedia for more examples. How about we start a new article Offensive terms for people with disabilities, to explore this interesting topic, on which you are evidently something of an expert! [Raspberry is a fine one I heard recently. It's rhyming slang: raspberry ripple/cripple] GrahamN [not logged in owing to persistent password amnesia]

Two are needed here, in order to give a flavour of what we are talking about. Sam [Spade] 12:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that two examples are necessary, but I suppose there is no actual harm in it. However, don't you think we should include terms that most readers would recognise? Tard and gimp are terifically obscure. (I thought "gimp" meant something else entirely, by the way: maybe I'm wrong.) I've changed them to more recognisable terms. I hope this meets with your approval, Sam. GrahamN 17 Nov 2004


[5]. Your point Re; obscurity is taken, and I switched mad to crazy for a similar reason, mad means angry in the US, and in the UK and elsewhere it has a variety of usages. Crazy is pretty clear as to its usage, and its very common. Will that work? [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 20:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PC is about changing attitudes, not just changing language?

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. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your opinion on this one

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 ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"visually impaired" rather than "blind" or "vertically challenged" instead of "short"

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)

"Visually impaired" usually does not mean blind, it means having very limited eyesight. "Vertically challenged" is, of course a joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, "deaf" and "hearing-impaired" are not the same thing (as far as I know.) I have a hearing impairment - I wear hearing aids. I still hear things, just not as well as normal people. Being 'deaf' means loss of all hearing. Deaf is to 'blind' as visually-impaired is to 'hearing-impaired'.

"temporarily abled"

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)

Dubious substitution

129.24.214.82 recently substituted a lengthy passage on Robert LaFollette for much of the lead section. Much material was removed, and I doubt the relevance of what was added: while the phrase is similar, I don't think it has anything to do (either denotatively or historically) with the current use of "politically correct". I think the edit replaces reasonably substantive content with something merely "curious". I won't revert unilaterally, but consider this an endorsement of anyone else doing so. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think the commentary from Robert LaFollette is almost completely irrelevant to the discussion of political correctness or politically correct speech as we understand it today. The lengthy passage is unwieldy and I agree that it is of limited merit. I will edit it soon, if no one else registers an objection. -Hospitalhill Feb 17, '05

examples PC usefulness

I have restored this section after its deletion by Akidd_dublin. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

PC can be used to communicate a subject which is disliked. the reason might be personal objection or real.

this is done in a way outlining a specific aspect which the subject posesses. to express dislike, it has to be an attribute which is not obligatory.

if PC is applied correctly, it allows to change the circumstances which are the cause for the disliked subject, without applying eradication.

this is done on thought level and has nothing to do with satire or cynism against minorities like native americans.

the effect is that instead of spending time with hate, the subject does not produce a specific reaction anymore.

the japanese language use to describe things rather than to label fully. even if there are words for a specific thing, these are used directly only exceptionally. not to say the japanese people tend to project reverse, describing what something not is. one of the effects is, time by time, a little bit of amusement.

Akidd_dublin 200501301645

You make an interesting point about allowing uncomfrotable topics to be discussed, rahter than ignored. Your point about the ability to express ideas differently in different languages is also apt. The ideas that you are trying to express are not coming through very well in english. I hate to cut your matreial, but it really needs to be at a higher standard for Wikipedia. Two issues are capitals - yes, we use them here and you've been asked before to join the club. The other thing is that we do not allow "original research". Wikipedia:No original research I don't know what special population groups are, and the definition: "shifts the focus to actions which are not desireable by the majority rather than to point on genders within relationships" does not make it any clearer. -Willmcw 20:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This was added, incoherently, to the article. Here's what was placed in the article. If someone can sort this out, go for it. The nowiki element is mine, to preserve weird syntax. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

== examples PC usefulness== see discussion

<end material cut from article> -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DavidWBrooks#strong_language NO I HAVE NOT MADE IT UP. it's similar to say: "if you like it, good- if you do not like it, good". "ghey" as it is in use here is discriminatory, and creates a special population group. the word does not contain information about gender. the pages are in the need to be rewritten.

the source: interview with a boygroup manager, asked for if the occurance would be specifically designed for ghey people to get their money. the answer was that the materials are not designed for special population groups.

originally research: the occurance is years ago and at a key position. in 2014 there are no gheys. Akidd_dublin 200501311117

WTF? This is gibberish. -Willmcw 16:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OMG objection Beneath A Steel Sky. it is not:

Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing. Highly technical or esoteric language. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

there are millions of fans behind this statement, mostly little girls. and gibberish is better than no communication at all.-akidd 1706

If someone understands what Akidd_dublin is saying would you please paraphrase? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:33, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

its not the 1st time. however, most people understand if they are getting subject of a holdup. i try to argue with words, and i am even using dictionaries. and i am not saying ghey to anyone. my writing here is PC related. -akidd 1749

Akidd, is there a different language than English in which you might find it easier to explain what you are saying? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, have you played B.A.S.S.??? we must control our subconscious urges, and indeed it is easier to communicate graphical. whoever gave you the idea there would be a different language which would be more appreciate for me, needs therapy (sentences refurbished from the game) lit OL Akidd_dublin 200502061015

others are allowed to post using the term "ghey", see Dublin. why dont u shout at this special_population_group??Akidd_dublin 200502061019

i mean indeed gibberish. -akidd

Again, does someone else understand what this person is writing? It make no sense to me. Nor does his recent addition to the article. I won't revert, on the offchance that I'm the only one confused, but I would welcome reversion by someone else. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I don't get it either. I think that "special_population_group" may be a generic PC term for any special groups - elderly, kids, gays, etc. I did a Google search and it gets some hits. "Ghey" is also a current usage, apparently, but it's use doesn't appear to be related to political correctness. There's a list of sexual slurs in which it might belong. As for the editor, I think that no matter how well-intentioned his edits may be, his use of language is so non-standard that we can't leave his contributions as-written, and they are too hard to parse in order to re-write. All I can suggest is that they be removed and the editor asked to work with someone (on Wiki or in real life) to compose material which is understandable to a general audience. -Willmcw 01:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_4&oldid=63053588"