RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 5:33am

Link

Edit

Thought-provoking article Cameron.

I think the use of the term PC has gone way past any literal meaning.

The term for most people (not just Libertarians) has come to signify not all current values that are political, but those things political that go against current accepted ways of doing things.

For example, the promotion of fixed places at universities for single black mothers with one leg, would be described as PC gone mad. However, the establishment of fixed places for black students wouldn't be, just because it is something we are now used to.

Therefore, the concept is fuzzy and not very well defined, but is still accepted very much as a protest against "new" politically motivated policies on how to treat others.

An anti-concept? I am not sure.

Post 1

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:27am

Link

Edit

The term "political correctness" goes back to the Bolsheviks. If you remember the movie Dr. Zhivago, you might recall the scene where the Communist Party representative is arguing with the Red partisan leader about Zhivago. The partisan wants to let Zhivago go home. In the argument, the CP cadre says to the partisan that after the civil war is over, people will be judged by their political correctness, not their past heroism.

I learned the term in the 1960s in SDS. I had not heard it for 15 years and then I was working with a guy with a master's degree from Berkeley. About something or other that happened in the office, he said that some unsaid reply would have been on-target, "but not PC." Not PC?, I asked. "Politically correct," he explained, saying that at Berkeley, you heard it all the time: this is PC; that is not PC. You could shoot down a good proposal by saying it is not PC.

With the resuscitation of the political conservatives by the Reagan Revolution, the fallacy in "PC" has been exposed for the internal contradictions it carries now. Academic curricula in Black Studies are PC. White Studies are verboten. Women in Literature is PC. Men in Literature cannot get to first base. Gay Pride is PC. Straight Pride is too macho. Objectivists certainly understand the basic fallacy.

Yet, the word "political" does mean something. The word "correct" also has meaning. Therefore, given definitions, "political correctness" can have meaning. Like "freedom" or "peace" the phrase PC can be hijacked by anyone. Restricting your right to buy and sell is not PC. That is very similar to the challenge that Objectivists create when we declare that we are radicals for capitalism. You have to define your terms.

Post 2

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:41am

Link

Edit

As a 'short-hand' phrase, used to designate the collectivist-egalitarian-altruist notions put forth by the left, particularly with the kind of self-righteous 'you shall not challenge this notion on pain of being considered a bad person' attitude which so often accompany them, the term is perfectly usable.

Mocking the enemy is a valid and useful technique.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/20, 12:31pm)

Post 3

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 10:38am

Link

Edit

Cameron,

My question is whether something ought to be considered an "anti-concept" because its usage has broadened and now some use it that way, as opposed to a label that virtually started out as an anti-concept (which I'm assuming is true for 'extremism').

Another way to think about it is at one point do you give up on a term (e.g., "liberalism") because it's pretty much lost its original meaning?

Post 4

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:19am

Link

Edit

Cameron,

Thank you for pointing out the process by which humorous parody can become a real-life mirror image of what was originally ridiculed. Originally, political correctness had to do with avoiding otherwise valid comment which might influence the debate against the "politically correct" (that is, leftist) tendency. Today, one is likely to be accused of "political correctness" for failing to avoid an otherwise true observation that does not serve the correct "conservative" tendency.

The same process has corrupted other terms, such as "junk science." Originally, "junk science" meant pseudoscience that was published not on merit - because it had none - but because it led to politically useful conclusions. Eventually, however, the term "junk science" was broadened by conservative commentators to include valid objective science that happened to contradict their "common sense" conservative assumptions. Today's post-modern conservatives stick the "junk science" label on science as such - they believe that their tradition and faith are alternative and equally valid (or more valid) sources of knowledge. Give greater credence to objective measurement than to "common sense," and some conservative or other will try to pin the "junk science" label on you.

Mirror, mirror...

Post 5

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:28pm

Link

Edit

I think Jeff Perren is right on, that the essence of PC is, as he puts it, "you shall not challenge this notion on pain of being considered a bad person." But Cameron has a good point that the term is being twisted all out of proportion.

Case in point, see this article about a new book called, "A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." This book is basically a racist, secessionist retelling of American history, whitewashed to make it look like the South had the moral high ground in the Civil War--which the book insists on calling "The War Between the States" or "The War of Northern Aggression."

I'm just not sure we should abandon terms simply because a few malefactors start misusing them. After all, if that was our policy, we'd have jettisoned "libertarian" a long time ago.

Finally, an aside: my friends and I sometimes make racist jokes and jokes about wife-beating. This doesn't make us violent, or racist, or collectivist. (My friends are collectivists for other reasons, heheh.) We have found great potential for humor in taking the silly, baseless conclusions of racists to their illogical extremes. When we tell racist jokes, we're lampooning the very idea of racism, not whichever group happens to be the butt of the joke. I believe there are very few subjects in which one should refuse to find humor, and racism isn't one of them.

Post 6

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:37pm

Link

Edit

"When we tell racist jokes, we're lampooning the very idea of racism, not whichever group happens to be the butt of the joke."

Q: What's the favourite film of the KKK?
A: 'Roots.' Played backwards, so they go back home.

Post 7

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 2:26pm

Link

Edit

Bwahahahaha. Insta-sanction!

Post 8

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 2:01pm

Link

Edit

Damn fine article, Cameron, on a topic where one usually braces oneself for mindless regurgitation of one sort or another. Well done.

- Daniel

Post 9

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:12pm

Link

Edit

Andrew Bissell wrote: "...in the Civil War--which the book insists on calling "The War Between the States" or "The War of Northern Aggression." "

Calling the War Between the States, a "civil war" is an example of political correctness.

It was not a civl war. In a civil war, different groups try to seize the central government and rule the whole nation. The English Civil War, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, those were civil wars.

In America 1861-1865, some states (half the union, actually) wanted to reform into a different alliance among themselves. Other states -- in whose bounds lay the national capital -- did not want that to happen. The South did not attempt to occupy the Federal City and certainly never attempted to occupy the North. All they wanted was to set up their own kind of government.

The War Between the States or the War for Southern Independence are both more accurate than the Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression.

Post 10

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:05pm

Link

Edit

Don't worry about Cameron�he's spent too much time at university. Besides, he's itching for a whipping & knows how to send me into martinet mode. :-)

"Political correctness," qua (sorry about that, qua-haters) concept, certainly had referents in reality when it became commonplace in the vernacular. A common characteristic of manifestations of PC was the attempt to ban speech of which the PC crowd disapproved�speech supposedly denigrating women, blacks, gays, etc.. In its extreme form it forbade ethnic jokes�Irish, Polish & the like. Speech codes along these lines are a *fact* in some universities in the U.S. Academics who don't toe the line are likely to be drummed out of their profession. Maybe the term has become over-used, & used by folk who have no business using it, since they have their own brand of PC (conservatives, for instance) but it assuredly is not an anti-concept.

Linz

Post 11

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:22pm

Link

Edit

Michael Marotta,

Surely the 1861-65 war qualifies as a Civil war because of the number of families, friendships etc. it divided.

I also take issue with you contention that the South never occupied a Federal City.

It never did so sucessfully but it wasn't for want of trying. What was the object of fighting the Battles of Antietam, Gettysburg and Monacy? Wasn't Lee attempting to bring the Army of the Potomac out to fight so he could defeat it decisively? If he had what would the next move have been? To retreat across the Rappahannock River and assume defensive positions around Richmond?

The Confederacy wasn't above burning Federal towns to the ground either. Lawrence, Kansas, was raised to the ground by irregular confederate forces under the command of William Quantrill in 1863. 180 buildings destroyed and 150 civilians dead isn't something to be sniffed at.

True, the Federals gave as good as they got and Lincoln was a bastard; but your statement paints the Confederates lilly-white. Slave-holding Plutocracy are words that have been used to describe the CSA, this isn't a term that describes an objectivist utopia.

Which is why the term "The War of Northern Aggression" sticks in my craw. It completely *evades* the *fact* that *all* of the CSA supported the importation, by force, of black Africans for use as slave labour. It evades the fact that the upshot of the war was the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the *USA.* True this didn't free the black man from legalised discrimination in the USA but it was an *important* step!

The North may not have attacked the CSA in 1861 with the express intention of liberating those slaves. Nevertheless, for its slave-holding proclivities, the CSA had it coming.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 2/20, 8:57pm)

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 2/21, 5:33am)

Post 12

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:28pm

Link

Edit

I use "PC" to refer to some use of words virtually mandated by law or regulation or with the threat of legal sanctions behind insistence on its use. I distinguish it from "PhilC," as in "philosophical correctness," which refers to the use of a concept on grounds that it is best justified. For example, what people say, "Libertarians that use PC," I squirm and suggest that it should be "Libertarians who use PC." "That" should be used for objects and animals, not human beings.

Post 13

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:37pm

Link

Edit

I would like to offer suggestion to all those who are advocates of Reason and Objectivity and all that it implies: Why do we not just eliminate the term "Politically Correct" or "PC" from our vocabulary and, instead, start employing the term "OC" or "Objectively Correct"? At least Objectivity is a system of reality-based thinking and acting which can be rationally demonstrated to be be correct, as it has a standard to which one can refer. Politics, on the other hand, is such a subjective, chaotic and irrational phenomenon which, in most cases, seeks to somehow justify blind faith, unreasonableness and all that such non-thinking implies and, therefore, any connection between "political" and "correct" is logically impossible, given that poltics in general tends to function without any kind of reference to any objective standard.

Saying "Politically Correct" is akin to saying "Irrationally Indisputable" or "Criminally Just"!

Post 14

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:15am

Link

Edit

Jeff's comments were spot on.

Mocking the enemy is a valid and useful technique.

Post 15

Friday, November 9, 2007 - 3:19pm

Link

Edit

Also, the latest idea put forth about being objectively correct is not a good idea in my view. It would sink objectivism to the level of the PC on the left and the WWJD on the right. It also also encourages mindless groupthink which is certainly not representative of the individuality of the objective, independent thinkers that we are.

Actually, it was not a serious idea. I was simply offering PC types a kind of humorous taste of their own useless medicine. Besides, objectivists cannot possibly be both objective, on the one hand, and mindless groupthinkers on the other.