Are People too Sensitive?

[RagnaToad]

As far as I'm concerned, saying "black people" is okay - it's better than saying "coloured" or "brown people".

You mean there's a difference? (Seriously)

Anyway, most things I wanted to say have already been pointed out.

Racism, sexism etc. is way too serious to call anything that can be somewhat offensive racist/sexist.

P.S. I hate the term 'politically correct'. It suggests that we're all into politics and are just a bunch of opportunists, when it's really just a way of making society a fun place for everyone.

[Jin]

You're just mad because you're a racist/sexist/classist. Am I a good forum poster now?

Always have been, always will be.

[Unknown Entity]

You mean there's a difference? (Seriously)

Yes, I mean there is a difference. -__-;

Coloured could be colourful, polka dotted or stripy or whatever. Also, describing someone as brown is just straight up rude. In the same way describing white people as pink is rude. Black and white is simple, and I don't understand why some people have to make it so difficult.

I've thought about this a little more, and I think the answer comes down to this: Common Sense, and tact. Knowing when it is appropriate to say something. Weigh the pros and cons of saying it, and if you find there's really nothing beneficial, but probably detrimental, to saying what you're thinking of saying, to not say it. Is it really worth it to say the f word in front of your mother/a priest/someone else who probably doesn't want to hear it, just because you feel entitled to swearing? Probably not. Think of your "audience," and how they will react.

It's the difference between, 'Eric, one of the guys at my boyfriend's work stole the whole pile of lottery cards' and 'Eric, that Nigerian guy at my boyfriend's work, stole all the lottery cards'. The former sentence reports the crime; the latter reports the crime and suggests that it had something to do with his being Nigerian. His nationality had **** all to do with it. Do you see?

Exactly. When is there a need to say something that could possibly be offensive? There is never a need to bring someone's/a group's sex/sexuality/race/religion into something, especially when you're in a place where you say it allowed and expect everyone to be okay with it.

If you want to use the N word in your own home, by all means say it - no one can tell you what you can/n't say in your own home. But do you think it's right? I'm not talking about your right to use words, but morally right? Do you really need to use these words?

[RagnaToad]

Yes, I mean there is a difference. -__-;

Coloured could be colourful, polka dotted or stripy or whatever. Also, describing someone as brown is just straight up rude. In the same way describing white people as pink is rude. Black and white is simple, and I don't understand why some people have to make it so difficult.

I don't understand why some people care about stuff like this. Of course, calling someone pink rather than caucasian or white is weird, but it's not what I'd call offensive.

And when you can't say brown, I think it's more offensive to divide everything in black and white... What would you call Indian people? People from northern Africa?

It's like saying, we're white, and all the rest is black. O_o

[OceanEyes28]

I often ask people what term minorities, particularly black people, liked used. It comes from a place of genuine curiosity and concern, so I've never offended anyone. Me caring enough to ask is often appreciated. My roommate is fine being referred to as "black" as long as it's used for harmless description and not for put-down purposes. And in fact, she thinks "African American" is kind of weird, because why should you need to differentiate between Americans? She wasn't born in Africa, she was born in America. She's American. My friend Christy is similar. She's indifferent depending on the intention. But I've heard others rail against the term "black" so I always try to be careful. It would be disrespectful (and insensitive) to call someone something they didn't want to be called.

I really don't see what's wrong with being sensitive. Overly-sensitive is a problem, yes, but it's not only demonstrated by the PC crowd. Right-wing media personalities make spectacles out of themselves constantly because of their over-sensitivity and crybaby tendencies. But that doesn't mean we should respond to one extreme with another by being rude for the sake of not being (or being called) sensitive.

[Alpha]

Hegemonic discourses of gender and race don't disappear simply by enfranchising those with no political say.

It feels like you're not giving your own opinion, just describing your perceived (probably accurate) reality. Do you want these gender and racial divides gone, or not? And if enfranchising the disenfranchised isn't the way to go, then what is? Leaving the situation be will just continue an already unjust situation. Political correctness is about being proactive, in a way.

It's not all about politics, at least not in the narrow sense of the word. You'd be a fool to dispute that our culture is gendered, just as you'd be a fool to dispute that our culture is racialized. Hegemonic discourses of what a man is, what a woman is, what a white person is and what a black person is constantly exercise power over those which they define by congealing into so called common sense.

A common sense which plays in favour of heterosexual, white males, which is rarely revealed to said heterosexual white males, so they rebel against what they see as a loss of their rights. Baneheart demonstrated this admirably when he equated political correctness to fascism

Power is exercised over whites and men just as it is over blacks and females, but the problem lies in the difference between the hegemonic discourses: blacks and women are painted as subordinates or inferiors when it comes to the broader definition of politics. This is what the discourse of political correctness seeks to counter; it seeks to become the hegemon. Whether it's able to or not is up for grabs. But that also means that it will exercise power over others all the same. It will just remove gender and race from the mix. In theory anyways.

Political correctness itself seeks to become hegemonic? If so, wouldn't the result be a hegemony of actual equality?

I will now wait for this post to be either ignored or misinterpreted.

Did I pass?

[Jin]

Do you want these gender and racial divides gone, or not? And if enfranchising the disenfranchised isn't the way to go, then what is?

Why does there have to be a way to go? I'm just trying to explain the situation as I understand it. I'm not a big fan of certain racist or sexist discourses, sure, but it would be inaccurate for me to claim that I don't contribute to some of those discourses myself. After all, something cannot exercise hegemony unless others accept it as authoritative. In this case, a lot of these discourses just become common sense that we don't think twice about. To totally reconstruct my world view is not something that I can commit to wanting, nor can I propose any specific way to change the world view of others. My point was that allotting legal equality isn't enough to rid the world of racism or sexism. Cultural changes are required.

A common sense which plays in favour of heterosexual, white males, which is rarely revealed to said heterosexual white males, so they rebel against what they see as a loss of their rights.

I'm confused by this passage. You've framed it (or at least I perceive it) as if you're trying to disagree with me, but the content seems basically to agree. Is this sarcasm?

Political correctness itself seeks to become hegemonic? If so, wouldn't the result be a hegemony of actual equality?

It's difficult to say. After posting my original post I started thinking a bit more about the discourse of political correctness and I'm not sure I can adequately define its intentions. Nor am I certain that it is a single discourse. It is perhaps a myriad of discourses under a similar banner.

Did I pass?

I'll give you a B+ with a chance of increase pending clarification.

[Alpha]

I'm confused by this passage. You've framed it (or at least I perceive it) as if you're trying to disagree with me, but the content seems basically to agree. Is this sarcasm?

It was an echo and attempt at extrapolation. It was also addressed more at Baneheart, which is why my next sentence began with "Baneheart".

It's difficult to say. After posting my original post I started thinking a bit more about the discourse of political correctness and I'm not sure I can adequately define its intentions. Nor am I certain that it is a single discourse. It is perhaps a myriad of discourses under a similar banner.

Like most things, sure. I think it is also an attempt to address past injustices. Which is why it wouldn't generally be considered politically correct to say "nigger", for instance. It aims to never offend, unless you find inoffensiveness offensive, which is weird, but possible. It aims to treat everybody on the same level, which is why one wouldn't bring race into a description if it is not relevant (see Govinda's example). I think these would be it's main intentions, and I struggle to see how this limits anyone's rights, or is undesirable.

I'll give you a B+ with a chance of increase pending clarification.

Huzzah! Thanks, Professor.