|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Political correctness
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
What is the nature and purpose of political correctness? Do you perceive it as a threat to Christianity?
[ 10. April 2013, 05:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."
It is a weasel word used by poltroons.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."
It is a weasel word used by poltroons.
Hear hear.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
My understanding - largely derived from workplace Diversity Training - is that PC is about raising awareness of the unthinking stereotyping of people on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, physical capacity etc. Or as one of our participants put it: 'Why can't I call them poofs or spazes - that's what they are.'
I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
My understanding - largely derived from workplace Diversity Training - is that PC is about raising awareness of the unthinking stereotyping of people on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, physical capacity etc. Or as one of our participants put it: 'Why can't I call them poofs or spazes - that's what they are.'
I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.
Considering that our church organist refers to 'poofter marriages' in a non-ironic way (and we're an AffCath church with a gay priest!), you would be surprised ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
<tangent> Our organist is much more conservative than our church (he apparently just likes playing the organ that much ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) and attends the evening service of a local uber-Calvinist con-evo church, which I find very weird. </tangent>
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."
It is a weasel word used by poltroons.
I hoped I would get this answer.
Political correctness has nothing to do with good manners at all. It is precisely to do with making a certain set of opinions on contentious moral matters compulsory for adherence. The words 'racist' and 'sexist' often don't mean what they are supposed to mean, and the word 'homophobic' almost never does.
Irrational bigotry on grounds of race, which I am sure does exist in some quarters, is almost never the ground upon which the word 'racist' is employed. It is often misattributed to people who, for example, disagree with mass immigration on entirely different grounds other than race. The word is used because then listeners will then see that the target is a 'bigot' of some description and therefore his opinions are not worthy of being considered.
This also happens to be the case when people express orthodox opinions about sexual morality. They are branded 'sexist' or 'homophobic'. Laurie Penny recently stated that opposition to abortion was an 'inherently sexist' position. Of course, Penny is on the fringes, but that is becoming more and more the opinion of a large number of powerful people.
I suspect political correctness, by changing the vocabulary, attempts to change people's ideas and move them away from their conventional Christian beliefs. 'Diversity' days at work often attempt to infuse the idea that all religions are somehow equal, which runs counter to the previously held notion that if one is true, the others must be fals, and the true faith must be the one which society allows certain privileges.
Political correctness is a comprehensive phenomenon. It seems to do a lot to control what we think and say, and as much to control what we do. Certain opinions are now being conflated with bigotry solely on the basis of a new vocabulary, which has been created and employed by radicals to displace conservative opinion and practice.
It has nothing to do with being polite. Using racial slurs and other unkind words, and treating people discourteously, is contrary to any respectable system of belief. Political correctness did not bring about a polite society. It brought about a society scared to ask questions, and ignorant of the answers because they are not allowed to hear them any more.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just as I suspected, you were trolling. Oh, and thanks for being "Exhibit A" for exactly what I said.
[ 16. January 2013, 22:29: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just as I suspected, you were trolling. Oh, and thanks for being "Exhibit A" for exactly what I said.
Care to actually tackle anything I have said here? Calling someone a 'troll' is probably another example of exactly what I am talking about.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I largely agree with you, Indifferently, but if you're so certain of the answer I'm not sure why you asked the question in the way you did.
(And unless my memory is playing tricks on me, haven't we had a thread on this same subject very recently?)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Why should I tackle anything you said? You clearly came hear to preach, not to discuss, as is evident from your glee at my first response.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.
That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
I hoped I would get this answer.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
It also strikes me that these are the same forces attempting to make the Church of England commit apostasy. I saw the very phenomenon during a recent debate on a dead horses matter, where all the arguments on the one side were secular and informed by a certain trend of 'equality' dogma, but on the other side were actually the sort of thing you would expect from Christians. Of course, it is quite obvious which was the tolerant and which the intolerant, and the reaction in Parliament was even worse.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Yeah, modern life sucks, doesn't it?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
I have to agree with Mousethief. You usually hear accusations of "politically correct" when someone wants to get away with name calling or being just plain rude. People want to be able to call names, make judgments on or tell jokes that make fun of certain groups or nationalities of people. Political correctness is no threat to Christianity as rudeness, insults or ridiculing people has no place in the church. There are disagreements over certain points of theology and there should be healthy discussion of such and respect for both sides. Sadly, what I see now is both sides insulting the other to the point of calling into question the salvation of the other. It's one huge reason the church has very little credibility with non believers.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."
It is a weasel word used by poltroons.
What mousethief said.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
'Diversity' days at work often attempt to infuse the idea that all religions are somehow equal
But, my dear, they are. From the POV of a secular society - which, like it or not, is what the UK is.
You wish to privilege certain viewpoints on faith, morality etc on the grounds that historically they were favoured by the establishment. Well, tough. You're over - get used to it.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
It would be lovely to think that in heaven, no one will call me a fucking queer.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I have to agree with Mousethief. You usually hear accusations of "politically correct" when someone wants to get away with name calling or being just plain rude.
While no doubt the 'political correctness defence', if I can call it that, is raised by people who are rude, is it always that?
In those instances where 'blackboard' has given way to 'chalkboard' or 'black coffee' has given way to 'coffee without milk'* those who object to the new terms or steadfastly use the old ones aren't necessarily rude, rather there is a legitimate difference of opinion.
*These are the best examples that I can think of at nearly midnight. They probably aren't very strong ones and these particular PC terms may really date from the 80s rather than today, but I think my point sort-of stands.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.
That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.
Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?
Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I have to agree with Mousethief. You usually hear accusations of "politically correct" when someone wants to get away with name calling or being just plain rude.
While no doubt the 'political correctness defence', if I can call it that, is raised by people who are rude, is it always that?
In those instances where 'blackboard' has given way to 'chalkboard' or 'black coffee' has given way to 'coffee without milk'* those who object to the new terms or steadfastly use the old ones aren't necessarily rude, rather there is a legitimate difference of opinion.
*These are the best examples that I can think of at nearly midnight. They probably aren't very strong ones and these particular PC terms may really date from the 80s rather than today, but I think my point sort-of stands.
Those two examples having nothing to do with political correctness. When I was at school, our chalkboards were dark green so it would make no sense to call them blackboards, and nowadays coffee seems to be taken with milk by default so 'coffee without milk' makes sense. Furthermore I ask for black coffee all the time with no problem.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently
Political correctness is a comprehensive phenomenon. It seems to do a lot to control what we think and say, and as much to control what we do.
Thank you for putting up this thread, and I certainly don't think you are either trolling or preaching.
You have made some very valid points.
The key word in the term "political correctness" is "correctness": a notion of moral correctness which is entirely inflexible, and ironically constructed by a society which turns its nose up at what could loosely be termed "traditional morality".
I find it interesting that the person who called you a 'troll' also champions PC! And apparently PC is all about not insulting people!! That says it all, for me. PC is a whitewash. It is not about politeness but control, because the moment the advocates of PC are challenged we see how committed to politeness they really are.
I notice that another contributor has tried to kill the discussion with the snide comment: "Nothing to see here folks. Move along." They don't want their views challenged. So much for freedom of speech. Liberals they are certainly not.
I notice that some of those who call for politeness think nothing of saying the most pathetic things about people on the "hell" board on the Ship.
What a joke.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?
That's fair enough. But then a situation comes along like where one cannot use the word 'homosexual' when discussing homoseuxality and gay people and the impression can arise that normal, everyday language is being constrained unreasonably. That's the sort of thing that I would call (disparagingly) 'political correctness'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I appreciate you've probably got your fingers in your ears and are going la-la-la, but hey, let's give it go.
Firstly, what the mouse said. It's about being polite and respectful. It's treating people in the way we'd want to be treated. It's about not stereotyping because we wouldn't want to be stereotyped either. It's about moderating our public language and behaviour so we don't deliberately cause offence, because going into a shop wearing a dog-collar shouldn't be a reason for the shopkeeper to refuse to serve you and call you a kiddie-fiddling priest, a cannibal, an irrational god-botherer or any other names.
Secondly, it's not just become an issue because of either mass immigration or feminism or gay rights. Declining to throw stones at Jews is not pandering to political correctness, neither is not calling them Yids or Kikes. Some people are simply prejudiced and we've simply decided that as a society, these things were always unacceptable, it's just taken us a while to recognise the fact both in law and practice.
Thirdly, some religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, are indeed sexist and/or homophobic. If you sincerely hold those beliefs - and you do have a choice - then your beliefs are sexist and/or homophobic. You should be proud of your orthodoxy and declare "I'm a sexist because the Bible says I should be". Just as there's little point in denying that the practice of male primogeniture isn't sexist, there's little point in denying that an all-male priesthood isn't sexist - even though you may believe it's divinely sanctioned.
So yes. It's a good thing, and not a threat to Christianity at all, unless your Christianity involves calling people who don't look like you names and generally treating them like shit. In which case, you might be in trouble.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I have to agree with Mousethief. You usually hear accusations of "politically correct" when someone wants to get away with name calling or being just plain rude.
While no doubt the 'political correctness defence', if I can call it that, is raised by people who are rude, is it always that?
In those instances where 'blackboard' has given way to 'chalkboard' or 'black coffee' has given way to 'coffee without milk'* those who object to the new terms or steadfastly use the old ones aren't necessarily rude, rather there is a legitimate difference of opinion.
*These are the best examples that I can think of at nearly midnight. They probably aren't very strong ones and these particular PC terms may really date from the 80s rather than today, but I think my point sort-of stands.
As with everything, there are those who carry things to a ridiculous extreme, that doesn't mean the whole of PC is ridiculous or bad. While I don't believe the overall pendulum is at the other end of the extreme, the overall pendulum spent a lot of time at the other extreme when I was a child. I grew up in a time where it was perfectly ok to ridicule me for my disability or to make demeaning comments because of said disability. Frankly, I'll take PC any day. Why do some feel the need to keep it ok to demean someone on the basis of their race, nationality, disability or sexuality or to validate rude behavior?
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Those two examples having nothing to do with political correctness. When I was at school, our chalkboards were dark green so it would make no sense to call them blackboards
I don't think the colour is relevant - aircraft 'black boxes' are bright orange, for example. But on reflection, this might just be an example of an Americanism creeping in (blackboard being British English and Chalkboard being more US English).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?
That's fair enough. But then a situation comes along like where one cannot use the word 'homosexual' when discussing homoseuxality and gay people and the impression can arise that normal, everyday language is being constrained unreasonably. That's the sort of thing that I would call (disparagingly) 'political correctness'.
Are you suggesting that it isn't rude if you call me what you want to call me, rather than calling me what I want to be called?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In those instances where 'blackboard' has given way to 'chalkboard' or 'black coffee' has given way to 'coffee without milk'* those who object to the new terms or steadfastly use the old ones aren't necessarily rude, rather there is a legitimate difference of opinion.
Your point still stands?
Blackboards have given way to whiteboards. Interactive whiteboards, on occasions. I use black pens in class, I teach black children. I even take my tea black, and order it, saying "a black tea, please." Even if the person serving me is, you know, black. Because it's not like I'm insulting them by asking for a black tea. If I wanted to do that, I'd call it something else.
You've probably been leafing through your back-copies of the Daily Mail for examples, but you realise that most folk kind of just get on with it and look back on the good old days with varying degrees of embarrassment.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?
That's fair enough. But then a situation comes along like where one cannot use the word 'homosexual' when discussing homoseuxality and gay people and the impression can arise that normal, everyday language is being constrained unreasonably. That's the sort of thing that I would call (disparagingly) 'political correctness'.
As someone who is LGBTQ and therefore is qualified to talk about whether the term is offensive or not, personally 'homosexual' does have medical overtones which are unpleasant. Also there's the (hopefully) more obvious point that many people in same-gender relationships are not homosexual but bisexual! Same-gender attraction/marriage does not equal homosexuality.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently
Political correctness is a comprehensive phenomenon. It seems to do a lot to control what we think and say, and as much to control what we do.
Thank you for putting up this thread, and I certainly don't think you are either trolling or preaching.
You have made some very valid points.
The key word in the term "political correctness" is "correctness": a notion of moral correctness which is entirely inflexible, and ironically constructed by a society which turns its nose up at what could loosely be termed "traditional morality".
I find it interesting that the person who called you a 'troll' also champions PC! And apparently PC is all about not insulting people!! That says it all, for me. PC is a whitewash. It is not about politeness but control, because the moment the advocates of PC are challenged we see how committed to politeness they really are.
I notice that another contributor has tried to kill the discussion with the snide comment: "Nothing to see here folks. Move along." They don't want their views challenged. So much for freedom of speech. Liberals they are certainly not.
I notice that some of those who call for politeness think nothing of saying the most pathetic things about people on the "hell" board on the Ship.
What a joke.
Yes. Having the right to call gay people 'fucking poofters' is a right you should have. Who cares what the queers think? They're not important.
And that's the crux of it. By focusing on what YOU (general you) want to call people, you are saying that they are not important. You are saying that your right to insult people is more important than their right to being treated as a fellow human being.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Are you suggesting that it isn't rude if you call me what you want to call me, rather than calling me what I want to be called?
I think it might depend on what you want to be called (do a small group of people have an absolute right to determine how the English language should be used? Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure).
Also, it appears to me, the 'rules' can be dreamt up by people pushing a certain agenda without necessarily carrying the people they represent. For example, in the article I linked to, Stonewall agreed with the ban on the word 'homosexual' by civil servants but many of the comments by readers were appalled by the decision. Now obviously the readers' comments do not necessarily reflect entirely opinion amongst gay people (since they're somewhat self-selecting) but they might be indicative.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
I had no idea people kept back copies of the Daily Mail !
That must be political incorrectness gone mad.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.
That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.
Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?
Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.
And by whose authority do you hold these views on sexual ethicso if not God's?
As far as Britain being a secular society, again I ask: by whose authority? The Church of England is established by law. Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.
Here is a good article on political correctness by author Peter Hitchens:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/03/please_can_we_s.html
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Quite. But DNFTT is such hard advice to follow.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently
Political correctness is a comprehensive phenomenon. It seems to do a lot to control what we think and say, and as much to control what we do.
Thank you for putting up this thread, and I certainly don't think you are either trolling or preaching.
You have made some very valid points.
The key word in the term "political correctness" is "correctness": a notion of moral correctness which is entirely inflexible, and ironically constructed by a society which turns its nose up at what could loosely be termed "traditional morality".
I find it interesting that the person who called you a 'troll' also champions PC! And apparently PC is all about not insulting people!! That says it all, for me. PC is a whitewash. It is not about politeness but control, because the moment the advocates of PC are challenged we see how committed to politeness they really are.
I notice that another contributor has tried to kill the discussion with the snide comment: "Nothing to see here folks. Move along." They don't want their views challenged. So much for freedom of speech. Liberals they are certainly not.
I notice that some of those who call for politeness think nothing of saying the most pathetic things about people on the "hell" board on the Ship.
What a joke.
Absolutely.
Optical correctness has nothing to do with tolerance or not calling people hurtful names.
The word ' gay' replaces the factual term homosexual in order to reflect the new opinions about homosexual behaviour and undermine the Christian belief that sex outside marriage is wrong. Similarly, the phrase ' single mother' has replaced ' unmarried mother' as if there is no moral difference between being a widow and being divorced.
The uncomfortable part of this is that the traditional views of marriage and family are undermined and, in order not to ' offend' a perceived group, much greater damage is done to wider society - how many more fatherless homes have been created because PC rules of engagement mean that divorce is ok and sex outside marriage is morally equal to that within?
We must also call abortion ' termination of pregnancy' to not offend anyone, but what about the mountain of dead babies this has left us with?
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.
Pfft. All I can say is He's not done a very good job has he, what with all the wars, plagues, famine and Piers Morgan.
I don't think I can remember the last time I came across an actual English Dominionist. How exciting!
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
But to be fair, He has got rid of Piers Morgan. (Sort of. For the time being.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
What is the nature and purpose of political correctness? Do you perceive it as a threat to Christianity?
Some would say that political correctness is a philosophy (or world-view) which seeks to impose a particular set of ethics and standards on the society in which it operates. While ostensibly championing tolerance, it can be highly intolerant of dissent. Where it prevails, some sections of the public may feel they only have the right to agree, or to remain silent. They may question a philospohy which claims that every expression of human thought and endeavour is equal and valid, while apparently being told it can never be valid to take a contrary position. Indeed, there can be that element of hypocrisy about it: for example, a PC guy can happily affirm an imported culture which routinely maltreats women, while condemning his neighbour for watching 'Miss World'.
Political correctness has been responsible for some worthwhile legislation - even if it has also spawned a few absurdities. One of the less appealing aspects, IMO, is the way in which it allows adherents to casually brand their fellow citizens as rude, racist, sexist or whatever - sometimes, with little real justification.
I don't think it is a major, direct threat to Christianity. Although there is clearly a robust anti-Christian contigent among the PC lobby, Christianity has historically thrived on persecution....and - in any event - we're still a long way from that. If you are looking at it as a potential form of religious substitute, I think there are PC zealots who go down that route.....but much the same could be said of a wide variety of other inclinations. Unlike Christianity, political correctness can never produce righteousness - although it does seem to generate quite a lot of self-righteousness, on occasion.
For all its faults, I would say political correctness has been a net benefit to society. It has flagged-up a number of injustices, and has succesfully pushed for much-needed reform in these areas. I'm not sure it has much more to offer, however, and I am concerned that minority groups who are currently vilified may end up being persecuted - although I expect some would say they should be.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.
That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.
Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?
Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.
And by whose authority do you hold these views on sexual ethicso if not God's?
As far as Britain being a secular society, again I ask: by whose authority? The Church of England is established by law. Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.
Here is a good article on political correctness by author Peter Hitchens:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/03/please_can_we_s.html
I see you've ignored what I said about James and not using harmful words being good for Christians. Why?
Who says conservative evangelicalism is obsessed with what people do in the bedroom? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I do not do political correctness. I think it is a poor approach.
I do respect. And, if Christians paid attention to that Jesus fellow, they'd not get their knickers in such a twist when others feel disrespected by their intolerance.
[ 17. January 2013, 00:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
I have never heard anybody use the phrase Political Correctness without a pejorative meaning.
Its not like there ever was a liberal Granny out there who said to somebody ,"Oh, grandchild of mine, that's not very politically correct of you!"
Its a subjective term.
Much like those other now overly poxed upon words - liberal or conservative.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Are you suggesting that it isn't rude if you call me what you want to call me, rather than calling me what I want to be called?
I think it might depend on what you want to be called (do a small group of people have an absolute right to determine how the English language should be used? Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure).
Also, it appears to me, the 'rules' can be dreamt up by people pushing a certain agenda without necessarily carrying the people they represent. For example, in the article I linked to, Stonewall agreed with the ban on the word 'homosexual' by civil servants but many of the comments by readers were appalled by the decision. Now obviously the readers' comments do not necessarily reflect entirely opinion amongst gay people (since they're somewhat self-selecting) but they might be indicative.
It's not about 'pushing an agenda', it's about the people the words refer to deciding what they want to be called. That's it. It makes sense that gay people (for instance) get to say what words referring to gay people are offensive, and what words aren't. Obviously, as you point out, opinions within those groups vary, but the important thing is that it is those groups who decide, and not outsiders. Now if it was straight people who decided that 'homosexual' was offensive, it would be wrong.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Interesting to note that the OP completely ignores disability and mental health terminology which blows a rather big hole in the conspiracy theory. Christianity is of course well-known for demanding that its adherents insult those sinful and immoral people with disabilities and commonly stigmatised sorts of illness. (Not!)
PC is a pejorative term for using language which reflects the equal standing and worth of historically-stigmatised and ill-treated groups. Like customer service language designed to treat the customers of a business well and put them at ease, this can on occasion be done badly, clunkingly or artificially but it's basically just trying to treat people well. Such attempts can occasionally be hijacked by the 'unco guid' - the rigidly righteous - to show how much better they are than others, which gets peoples backs up, but er... on those grounds we'd need to abandon religious language which can do that too!
Mind you I think the sound of a large axe being ground can be discerned...
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.
That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.
Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?
Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.
And by whose authority do you hold these views on sexual ethicso if not God's?
As far as Britain being a secular society, again I ask: by whose authority? The Church of England is established by law. Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.
Here is a good article on political correctness by author Peter Hitchens:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/03/please_can_we_s.html
I see you've ignored what I said about James and not using harmful words being good for Christians. Why?
Who says conservative evangelicalism is obsessed with what people do in the bedroom?
I'm not trying yo defend the use of rude language. It is not, however, rude to use the word homosexuality, it is perfectly accurate and technical. The PC word ' gay' has moral overtones antithetical to Christianity.
Who said I was a conservative evangelical? I'm a MOTR Protestant.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think it might depend on what you want to be called (do a small group of people have an absolute right to determine how the English language should be used? Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure).
Maybe things work differently in the UK than in the US, but in my long-ago days as an English major (before deciding employabiity was an attractive option), I seem to recall the notion that languages (including English) constitute a kind of broad social contract.
Any given term has a generally-accepted meaning only when and because because a majority of reasonably fluent users of a language agree that's the meaning, and use it that way in public speech and writing. Thus, a majority of English users agree that "tree" means a large woody plant, and "sofa" means an upholstered bench with arms and a back.
Private speech? That's another matter. You can bandy insulting epithets about all you want in speech among your like-minded buddies (though you should probably take care not to be overheard by people likely to take offense).
But since it's now a majoritarian view that words like "nigger", "poofter", etc. are insulting and potentially inflammatory, it's the majority of fluent English users controlling things, not "a small group of people."
Out of curiosity, what specific words are you being constrained from using freely?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Interesting to note that the OP completely ignores disability and mental health terminology which blows a rather big hole in the conspiracy theory. Christianity is of course well-known for demanding that its adherents insult those sinful and immoral people with disabilities and commonly stigmatised sorts of illness. (Not!)
PC is a pejorative term for using language which reflects the equal standing and worth of historically-stigmatised and ill-treated groups. Like customer service language designed to treat the customers of a business well and put them at ease, this can on occasion be done badly, clunkingly or artificially but it's basically just trying to treat people well. Such attempts can occasionally be hijacked by the 'unco guid' - the rigidly righteous - to show how much better they are than others, which gets peoples backs up, but er... on those grounds we'd need to abandon religious language which can do that too!
Mind you I think the sound of a large axe being ground can be discerned...
I am blind actually. Not that it's relevant, but I suspect that changing this word will also happen - I have had fully- sighted left-wingers tell me I must say partially sighted - will also be banned as well soon just to reinforce the point that everything old people say (and therefore think) is wrong and they are backward bigots so we must move away from their beliefs and embrace PC and the sexual revolution because, well, we know so much better.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Who said I was a conservative evangelical? I'm a MOTR Protestant.
Funny that. Many people say they are in the middle of the road as they are walking on pavement.
[ 17. January 2013, 00:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Careful - not all of us are from where you are.
Gay is not a PC term here in Canada. Its embraced by some as a definition. By much of the country, its an expletive. The phrase "that's so gay" is used instead of "that's not very well done".
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It makes sense that gay people (for instance) get to say what words referring to gay people are offensive, and what words aren't. Obviously, as you point out, opinions within those groups vary, but the important thing is that it is those groups who decide, and not outsiders. Now if it was straight people who decided that 'homosexual' was offensive, it would be wrong.
I'm afraid I disagree. First of all, it seems to hive off parts of the English language to certain sections of society when the language is a common thing used by all. I think this is very divisive. Secondly, this seems to introduce a wholly subjective test when looking at words. While I wouldn't want to wholly disregard a subjective view, some objectivity must be kept too, surely?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
