Political Correctness gone mad

[Rookiebeotch]

The "bless you" is really annoying and awkward for me too. But I'm a hypocrite, because when someone has a sneezing fit, I also acknowledge the event with a divine saying; "holy shit, what the hell was that?"

[Hit]

Thank you, hitlionsoul.

Youre welcome, though i didnt say what youre thanking me for

But if people want to start thanking me or referring to me the same way they refer to jesus/god (eg - my team just won the championship! Thank you hitlionsoul) id have no problems with it.

[Lalie Fanyarendil]

Youre welcome, though i didnt say what youre thanking me for

 

Oops. I was writing late at night and didn't realize it wasn't clear. Thank you for bringing my attention to the fact that "spaz" is derogatory in origin. I had absolutely no idea, which I suppose must mean society is making some progress if I've never heard it used in that way. Still, now I can make sure that I don't use it.

 

Concerning what to say when someone sneezes, I'll occasionally use "you are sooooo good-looking." I pretty much just say that to my father a couple of times a year (it's not funny if they see it coming) because I grew up watching Seinfeld with him and none of my friends have seen it.

[Hit]

Thank you for bringing my attention to the fact that "spaz" is derogatory in origin.

I think you should be thanking ocelot for that.

[Lalie Fanyarendil]

In that case, thank you, Ocelot!

[Razzy]

Well I wouldn't want to seem ranty, so I won't say anything at all. :3

[Stonefist]

 

I'm not outraged, I'm exasperated. Bordering on mild frustration.

 

It's like... think of every other company appropriate Henry Ford's first vehicle and saying, "It isn't an automobile! It's a combustion-powered wagon!" You see what I mean? It's needless. It's meaningless. A car is a car. A Christmas Tree is a Christmas Tree. No matter how you try and spin it, it stays the same, so why bother changing it in the first place? Not like anyone is being fooled.

 

That allegory is....flawed. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, nor did he coin the term. The first machine able to propel itself (literally auto-mobile) was made by NIcolas-Joseph Cugnot in 1769, though that was a tricycle. The person widely acknowledged as the father of the combustion-engine car is Karl Benz, who made his first car in 1885. Henry Ford didn't get into it until 1914.

 

A better allegory would be: Think of Henry Ford appropriating Benz' vehicle, renaming it from "Motorwagen" to "Automobile", and making it widely popular through mass-production. Then think of someone else going, "hey, how about we just call them all "cars"?" and it's a better fit.

 

Christmas is just a renaming of the much older tradition of celebrating the winter solstice (a very natural thing to celebrate, particularly in northern europe, where the sun coming back was kind of a big deal). The christians deliberately played loose with the supposed date of the birth of their savior-figure in order to make it fit, so they could appropriate the older celebration.

 

So, you getting "exasperated" when someone wants to go ahead and rename it, again, just seems...well, odd. And just a bit hypochritical.

[Hit]

 

 

And just a bit hypochritical.

 

im not sure if the misspelling was intentional here, but i think you should have gone all in and said "hypochristitanal"

[Stonefist]

im not sure if the misspelling was intentional here, but i think you should have gone all in and said "hypochristitanal"

 

No, it wasn't. English isn't my native tongue, so mispellings do creep in there every so often, I'm afraid.

[Hit]

english is my native language, and i cant spell or grammar worth a shit.

[kaelvan]

I always find it funny how I was told as a kid Christmas was celebrate of Jesus' birth, but truth is he would of been born around end of June.

 

And I have no clue if I just offended someone with that statement...sometime political correctness really sucks

[Razzy]

english is my native language, and i cant spell or grammar worth a shit.

 

Some people have a way with words.

 

Others, not have way.

[Eleanorsbee]

I always find it funny how I was told as a kid Christmas was celebrate of Jesus' birth, but truth is he would of been born around end of June.

 

And I have no clue if I just offended someone with that statement...sometime political correctness really sucks

 

time was relatively slower back then .... ie, these days you can travel 600miles in a day by car .. back then it would take you 20 days

 

so if you take it as everything took 20 times longer. then it makes sense

 

for example if my Birthday falls on a Monday .... sometimes I wont celebrate it until Friday ... a good 5 days later ...... now Jesus being born end of june ... apply the 20 times longer rule ... and you end up celebrating it in December

[Rookiebeotch]

time was relatively slower back then .... ie, these days you can travel 600miles in a day by car .. back then it would take you 20 days

 

so if you take it as everything took 20 times longer. then it makes sense

 

for example if my Birthday falls on a Monday .... sometimes I wont celebrate it until Friday ... a good 5 days later ...... now Jesus being born end of june ... apply the 20 times longer rule ... and you end up celebrating it in December

 

Thats some solid Christian science.

[Eleanorsbee]

sometimes it not enough to just be theistic .... you have to think like a theistist

[Rostov]

My understanding is that "political correctness" as it's properly understood is not about offence, but about the harm that thoughtless language and imagery can do. Let me try to explain without saying anything horribly controversial or boring anyone to tears.

 

We think and reason and express ourselves in language. But language isn't neutral - it's loaded, and carries conscious and unconscious biases, assumptions, and values. It reflects existing structures and hierarchies and power relations. It includes some and excludes others, it makes assumptions - language can't help it, and it's hard for us to help it because we have to use language. Political correctness is about thinking about the language and images we use, and the impression we give even when we don't necessarily mean to. As I understand it, it starts from the assumption that people don't want to be racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant etc, but without thinking their language might make them so. And when done properly, the message of political correctness should not be "you're a racist/sexist/whatever for saying that", but rather a much more gentle, non-judgemental nudge to have a think about the choice of language. But no-one likes being pulled up like that (I don't like it either and yes it's happened to me), so some people react very strongly against it.

 

Problem is, there's been so much misunderstanding about political correctness that a lot of people now think it's just about offence. It's not. And along with the misunderstanding about what political correctness is has been a campaign of deliberate lies and distortion... it's getting better, but every year in the UK the same myths get aired about the so-called "war on Christmas" which doesn't actually exist, and the myths, distortions, and outright lies get trotted out again, zombie like, no matter how often they're debunked. To be fair, it's getting better. There's several urban myths I haven't heard this year, but there's still nine days to go.

As for "holiday sharing gift trees", well... it's clumsy and inelegant. But it's a recognition that there is a festival coming up that some people celebrate for religious reasons and some people celebrate for secular reasons, and some for both. So it's an attempt to mark the occasion while recognising that there are other festivals coming up too, and recognising that not everyone is part of that majority that celebrates Christmas.

 

The other thing I'd say about political correctness is a reminder (for those who can remember) what it was like before political correctness. 

[Lalie Fanyarendil]

My understanding is that "political correctness" as it's properly understood is not about offence, but about the harm that thoughtless language and imagery can do...Political correctness is about thinking about the language and images we use, and the impression we give even when we don't necessarily mean to. As I understand it, it starts from the assumption that people don't want to be racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant etc, but without thinking their language might make them so. And when done properly, the message of political correctness should not be "you're a racist/sexist/whatever for saying that", but rather a much more gentle, non-judgemental nudge to have a think about the choice of language.

 

Wow, I've never heard it approached this way--always in the terms of "make it so that it won't even accidentally offend anybody ever." I like this a lot better. I'm going to work on adjusting my thinking to assume that everyone is  going for that effect instead of the one I just stated.

 

I feel like I often try to be aware of the possible connotations of my word choice (philosophy classes, yay!) but I've seen so much vitriol on the internet--often in defense of disregard for basic courtesy for others' feelings--that I often forget that there are actually other people out there who care about it too.

 

Also agreeing that it's the "sharing" part of "holiday sharing tree" that makes it sound really weird. Sounds like something for four-year-olds and just "holiday tree" would have been better. Or "holiday celebration tree"--no matter what your system of beliefs, I'm sure you can think of something to celebrate around this time of year. Didn't burn the pancakes this morning? All right!! Didn't kill your neighbor's dog yet after it barked all night? Yay! However, I think a much better name for it would have been "Tree of Win."

[erosan]

It might be so, but it is also unnecessary. The holiday is called christmas, and the tree is called a chrstmas tree, so regardless of your religious belief, you should not have a problem calling them that, independent of if you are celebrating it or not, but especially if you are celebrating it one way or the othere

Just because I am an atheist does not mean I can't call a menorah by its name, having instead to use its definition and renaming it to '7 candle holder for religious reasons'

[SpecialSundae]

It might be so, but it is also unnecessary. The holiday is called christmas, and the tree is called a chrstmas tree, so regardless of your religious belief, you should not have a problem calling them that, independent of if you are celebrating it or not, but especially if you are celebrating it one way or the othere

Just because I am an atheist does not mean I can't call a menorah by its name, having instead to use its definition and renaming it to '7 candle holder for religious reasons'

 

The tree was originally from Saturnalia, Yule or whatever you want to call the winter solstice, therefore calling it a Christmas tree is equally inaccurate.

 

That doesn't mean that I don't call it a Christmas tree, as per cultural norms, but I also have no issue with it being called a "Yule tree" or a "Winter holiday tree" or whatever people fancy calling it!

[erosan]

I've heard it called a yule tree before, and I'm cool with that provided you are not celebrating xmas due to being celebrating Yule or whatever that holiday is called. As long as you don't feel afraid of calling it by its name.

[Schmopey]

I have no problem at all with people calling their trees by whatever name they wish. I just don't want to be reprimanded for calling my tree a Christmas tree.

[Eleanorsbee]

Someone should ask the tree what "IT" wants to be called

[Oramac]

The other thing I'd say about political correctness is a reminder (for those who can remember) what it was like before political correctness. 

 

You mean back when people had a thicker skin and gave the speaker the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping down their throat if they said something potentially disagreeable?  Yea, I'll take how it was.  

 

That being said, I do agree with you about the challenges of language, which are only exacerbated by the internet since we don't have voice inflection or body language from which we can gain context.  

 

Finally, one nuance of language that's always intrigued me is the phrase "to take offense".  Someone might say "I take offense at that".  But we never (that I know of) "give offense".  I don't set out "to give offense" by saying things people might not like.  The interesting thing here is that it puts the burden of offense on the listener, not the speaker.  

[PMyrrh]

I say Merry Christmas, but am not offended by Happy Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Hokidays.

Tree thing by op is nbd imo, although "Holiday Tree" might have been a better way to go.

[Rostov]

You mean back when people had a thicker skin and gave the speaker the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping down their throat if they said something disagreeable?  Yea, I'll take how it was.  

 

No, I meant when it was considered acceptable to make openly discriminatory remarks and use language which excluded and belittled other people, especially minorities and especially those with less power (of various kinds). That's how things used to be in a lot of places, and still are in many. I'm also wary when it's those on the receiving end who are always required to have the thicker skin. I think the majority (and/or the powerful) accepting the relatively minor inconvenience about having to be a bit more careful about their language is a very small price to pay for the reduction in harm (never mind offence, it's not primarily about offence) from the resulting changes in language/imagery.

 

But I absolutely agree with you about giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.  Acceptable language has changed very quickly (and that's good that it's changed), but it's different and for those who've not being paying attention, it's bewildering, especially for older people with more deeply ingrained habits to break. Acceptable language is different even in different English speaking countries, and of course that confuses people. If someone says the wrong thing, putting them right should be done gently, without fault/blame, and definitely without pitchforks and flaming torches. I do get pretty frustrated with some of the cheap media point scoring stories about someone saying the wrong thing when their previous public record doesn't show any particular reason to think ill of them... but then I get even more frustrated when they make it worse by not apologising, or not apologising properly.  Let's assume goodwill on all sides. But also I think there's a duty on behalf of those given the benefit of the doubt to accept it in reasonable grace, rather than saddling up the high horse.  And that's not easy to do.

 

Quick question... I was wondering about the "holiday sharing gift tree"... assuming the OP is from the US, is this a result of the separation of church and state, assuming that the university is a public institution?  I've heard it said that in the US you have separation of C&S in theory, but not in practice, and in the UK we have it in practice, but not in theory.  Dunno how true that is. Does that mean that public institutions have to be particularly careful - walking a tightrope between acknowledging the religious holidays of the citizens they serve, but without appearing to acknowledge religion? Is this a challenge as well as/independent of any issues around political correctness? Genuine question... (not necessarily wanting to start a debate about different political cultures, the relation between church and state and so on....)