PC schedules

[VodkaDilc]

Oops! Quite so, voddy; don't know how I missed that! (Hope it didn't cause any offense! )

Of course not. Glad to know we think alike!

[french frank]

interesting ref from Torygraph - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...g-to-the-left/

A thought-provoking sentence here:

"One only has to look at how words such as “elitist” or “discrimination” have been altered since Orwell’s death to see how changing the meaning of a word can make the terrain of debate very difficult for one side."

[AscribeUntoTheLad]

We can also take this to different levels - in one way everyone is in a different context, but then the problem of communication becomes unmanageable if we try to be sensitive to everyone for all time.

Really? I'm fairly sure I can manage to communicate with everyone while not upsetting even the most sensitive.

[jean]

I don't believe elitist has changed its meaning at all - it's just that we don't any longer feel so comfortable with advocacy of or reliance on the leadership and dominance of an élite.

And the positive sense of discrimination is still available in appropriate contexts.

But this is the sort of thing that make me very angry indeed:

'Among the various characteristics of political correctness is the branding of dissident thinkers as racists, sexists or homophobes...'

as though conjuring up the aunt sally of Political Correctness was enough to demonstrate that there were no such things as racists, sexists or homophobes at all.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Of course not. Glad to know we think alike!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I remember reading that Peter Hitchens would agree with this, ferney

indeed!

[Flosshilde]

Should we even make the attempt? In some cases we may find ourselves exhibiting servile deference to the ignorant and the thin-skinned.

A common problem is that what is often not sent as offence, is unfortunately received as that or, more accurately, perceived as such at the receipt point because of the PC brigade.

When an anthropoligast uses the word 'negro', sometimes otherwise intelligent people jump up and down with claims that the word is offensive. Should we be allowing such reactions to limit our language/vocabulary from being used in its proper context? I work with some people who effectively hear "nigger" when the word "negro" is broadcast or appears in print, which shouldn't be the case (they might be surprised to learn that Martin Luther King chose the word to identify his race in the 'I Have a Dream' speech). How long before this word is expunged even from anthropological texts?

Brilliant parody, Boliks

[jean]

A thought-provoking sentence here:

"One only has to look at how words such as “elitist” or “discrimination” have been altered since Orwell’s death to see how changing the meaning of a word can make the terrain of debate very difficult for one side."

Discrimination

c. spec. The making of distinctions prejudicial to people of a different race or colour from oneself; racial discrimination.

1866 A. Johnson Speech 27 Mar. in H. S. Commager Documents Amer. Hist. (1935) II. 16/2 Thus a perfect equality of the white and colored races is attempted to be fixed by Federal law in every State of the Union over the vast field of State jurisdiction covered by these enumerated rights. In no one of these can any State ever exercise any power of discrimination between the different races.

1899 B. T. Washington Future Amer. Negro vi. 148 Let the very best educational opportunities be provided for both races; and add to this an election law that shall be incapable of unjust discrimination.


I don't think Orwell was dead by then.

[french frank]

I don't believe elitist has changed its meaning at all - it's just that we don't any longer feel so comfortable with advocacy of or reliance on the leadership and dominance of an élite.

I disagree, but won't pursue it here ...

[Dave2002]

Really? I'm fairly sure I can manage to communicate with everyone while not upsetting even the most sensitive.

Yes really. You can't know enough about the previous history and state of every individual you address to be sure that they won't be upset. Even "obviously" inoccuous words may have some arcane or unusual significance for some people, just as some pieces of music may evoke an instant response from some people, perhaps because of the music itself, or perhaps because of some extra musical connection particular to them. If you try to communicate with "everybody" then there's a definite possibility that some will be upset. Possibly even the act of communication or the timing of it will have an effect on them. We don't expect this to happen all the time, but to deny the possibility is not correct.