Are you Politically Correct?

[bernie14]

That's not correct at all. English is my first language, and my fluency, under ideal circumstances, is worthy of a novelist. It's just that, my worst written posts (often on contentious topics on forums like, and including, the OT sub-forum on CivFanatics), are written when I'm in an emotional state - like someone delivering a passionate sermon or stump speech - and also in haste, and since I'm typing, not speaking, my grammar tends to suffer.

Well then, i would have to agree with @Arwon and criticize your general overuse of adjectives and adverbs

 

[Farm Boy]

Your use of a double negative is confusing.

The older I get, the more often I run into situations where a double negative is not quite the same thing as a positive statement. And yes, it is certainly confusing.

 

[Narz]

When I hear someone freak out and scream "Did you just assume my gender?"

You've really heard that IRL?

And as for the 1st scenario, my condolences, sounds horrible. Funny story, at my first job as a dishwasher I asked out one of the waitresses. I thought she was super nice, she always made me sundaes even tho technically I was supposed to pay for them so I thought she liked me. She seemed chill like a guy & easygoing. So I asked her out. She was gay tho so I just remember feeling embarrassed & we stayed friends (well work pals anyway).

The older I get, the more often I run into situations where a double negative is not quite the same thing as a positive statement. And yes, it is certainly confusing.

In Spanish double-negatives are ok.

 

[Arwon]

There's varieties of native spoken English where double negatives reinforce the negative rather than turn it into an affirmative, too.

 

[Narz]

Ebonics & hillbilly?

 

[Arwon]

Appalachian and other Southern US English, African American Vernacular, Aboriginal Australian English, a bunch of UK dialects. Also Shakespeare and Pink Floyd.

Generally speaking the more prestige dialects do negtion rather than concord with their double negatives, but that's not the same as being correct. There's no such thing as correct or incorrect with regards to native varieties of English.

 

[Narz]

There's no such thing as correct or incorrect with regards to native varieties of English.

Tell that to English teachers.

 

[Arwon]

Good English teachers should understand that they're imparting the prestige dialect and formal registers, so students can replicate them when necessary and advantageous. There's no harm in having a variety of registers and sociolects at your disposal!

But they shouldn't be stigmatisting kids' own speech varieties and reinforcing prejudice and stereotype, either. That can have real negative consequences. Inasmuch as education degrees fail to produce teachers who know how to avoid replicating prejudice against the speech of disadvantaged and marginalised social classes and communities, that's a failing of education degrees.

It's the difference between "here's how you make a stranger think you're smart" or "this is the standard formal way of writing this" on the one hand and "the way you talk is wrong and makes you dumb" on the other.

 

[AdamCrock]

One example is that the first use of the word transgender is dated to the early 70s. Its largely replace the word transsexual which is first recorded in 1957.
Lots of words that were in common use when I was young are now considered offensive, especially relating to race and sexuality.

I'd hope that people in the UK would be understanding towards a person whose first language isn't English.
Some guidelines on communicating with disabled people https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...o-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability

Thank You. I think I get the idea. It has become a trend in every country though - using more of a "positive" language instead of "negative". I can see it more and more. My guess is that people like to feel good about things that are actually quite bad. Maybe it is increased society tolerance in new generations, maybe it's due to ever increasing number of conditions that people have (civilization diseases so to speak) I don't know, but the change in language (like You've noticed ) reflects that. George Carlin observed that too and had very interesting things to say about it Sorry for spamming YT videos in this thread but I think that this one really nails it. If You don't know George Carlin I must warn You that he's using definitely non PC, controversial language :

Spoiler George Carlin on soft language :

While I understand his frustration I think that wheter we like it or not political correctnes is more and more prevalent.

 

[Farm Boy]

Weird turn on the conversation. It was legal writing that really started hammering home that positive statement =/= "not a negative." I suppose it's all matters of pretension of context, really.

 

[Arwon]

Oh god, legal writing is a whole other thing

 

[Lemon Merchant]

You've really heard that IRL?

I actually have, yes.

And as for the 1st scenario, my condolences, sounds horrible. Funny story, at my first job as a dishwasher I asked out one of the waitresses. I thought she was super nice, she always made me sundaes even tho technically I was supposed to pay for them so I thought she liked me. She seemed chill like a guy & easygoing. So I asked her out. She was gay tho so I just remember feeling embarrassed & we stayed friends (well work pals anyway).

I'm sorry about the girl. It's good that you weren't a weird idiot about it, even though you were embarrassed. She was probably grateful that you didn't press the issue like a lot of guys do. A lot of guys meet a lesbian and they seem to feel they can "fix" us, or learn us the ways of "hetero lovin'". Little do they know, most of us have had a man in our lives at some point or other and we've given it up for greener pastures.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nah, it's really just one more thing among many other similar things. I would say it's different because this one gets you paid, but really, then who would be being naive? Three years of school to learn the dialect doesn't really impact passage rates on the licensing exam. Studying does that. The expense and time is spent on enculturation and gatekeeping. It's not ineffective.

 

[Akka]

Not at all.

Like I said way back, being upset at someone on a forum isn't in the same league as calling people the wrong name.
If I intentionally went around calling someone the wrong username on here, for a long enough time, that'd probably get me suspended. Definitely warned, at the very least. That's because the forum rules enforce an agreed-upon level of civility and respect (as all decent communities do).

It's not forum-specific.

There are no "opinions" on gender. I mean, there are on the surface level, but fundamentally we're talking about peoples' existences here. A poor opinion is basically invalidating someone's existence. It's a pretty weighted "opinion", by that point.
You're positing a lack of belief in someone's right as the person / body / gender they know themselves to be, the same as arguing over coffee. It's not a "difference in opinion". It's a failure of basic respect.

And you're exactly illustrating my point, again : "either you agree with me or you're a jerk". Which is kinda tangent with the whole PC concept, as it's a more general application of the same reasoning.
The fact that others could have a much different point of view (which is not even necessarily contradictory but simply incompatible) is not even considered.

This is edging very close to the old, tired adage of "well it's just my opinion, it can't be an insult". Opinions can be both opinions and insulting. So can facts. They don't have to be, but they can be.

I'd say it's pretty telling that you consider "fact" as possibly insulting. That's back to square one and the reason why many really loathe PC.

 

[Akka]

That's not correct at all. English is my first language, and my fluency, under ideal circumstances, is worthy of a novelist.

And humble at that. I'm afraid that it's a case of "show, don't tell" here.

It's just that, my worst written posts (often on contentious topics on forums like, and including, the OT sub-forum on CivFanatics), are written when I'm in an emotional state - like someone delivering a passionate sermon or stump speech - and also in haste, and since I'm typing, not speaking, my grammar tends to suffer.

A friendly warning : it makes them close to unreadable. You slaps epithets one after another and switch to grandiose style, which makes for incredibly clunky diatribes.
It's not grammar that is the problem, it's that, if I may be frank, it feels like histrionics.

 

[Patine]

And you're exactly illustrating my point, again : "either you agree with me or you're a jerk".

This is kind of how you often come across in presenting your opinions here. But it must be alright for you to it - because it's not PC, right?

it feels like histrionics.

But so many famous and influential leaders in history (and today) - political, social, cultural, and religious - advance their points and agendas and get where they are by no small amount of histrionics. I think about this, and the list of such people. I might have a future for myself in the history books, yet - and you'll be left in the dustbin.

 

[Akka]

This is kind of how you often come across in presenting your opinions here. But it must be alright for you to it - because it's not PC, right?

No.
What I might sometimes (or often, depending on your sensibilities) come across is "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot". Not that I'm always right, but it means I value the soundness of an argument and the weight of facts. And so even when I'm wrong it's because I misjudged something that is provable or arguable instead of just saying people are bad because they don't agree with me.

But so many famous and influential leaders in history (and today) - political, social, cultural, and religious - advance their points and agendas and get where they are by no small amount of histrionics. I think about this, and the list of such people. I might have a future for myself in the history books, yet - and you'll be left in the dustbin.

Well, go ahead then, I wouldn't want to prevent you to become a historical figure.

 

[Gorbles]

It's not forum-specific.

And you're exactly illustrating my point, again : "either you agree with me or you're a jerk". Which is kinda tangent with the whole PC concept, as it's a more general application of the same reasoning.
The fact that others could have a much different point of view (which is not even necessarily contradictory but simply incompatible) is not even considered.

I'd say it's pretty telling that you consider "fact" as possibly insulting. That's back to square one and the reason why many really loathe PC.

It's not agreeing with me. It's agreeing that people have the right to self-definition. It's not an opinion. It's like treating gay peoples' rights as a matter of opinion, or trans people, or in this kinda non-binary and others with non-"standard" pronouns.

Believe me, I consider other peoples' points of view. I have that privilege, I'm a straight dude. I can take on the arguments and not suffer myself, and while often it's better to not engage I really want folks to understand that they're not debating opinion here, it's peoples lives. If you refuse to admit the consequences of such and dismiss it as "PC" concerns, then that's your choice. But don't frame it like your opinions (or some theoretical other person in place of whom you're debating) aren't being considered.

Facts can be insulting! A fact is a thing, an insult is (often, if not always) how a thing is delivered. While there are now (given the complexity of language and shared history between cultures across the Internet) words that are more taboo because of their meanings or connotations (normally insulting), the difference between telling someone they're insensitive and calling them a jerk is tone and intent. One of these things is still an insult even if everyone in the hypothetical room agrees it's a factual label. The other can still be taken as an insult, especially if the person doesn't think that's a factual label.

A lot of what people call "facts" are just a common consensus on a particular topic. Heck, albeit with a fair amount more rigour, that's what scientific facts amount to. They can still be disproved, clarified, reinforced, and so on. And they can still be used as insults.

Speaking of facts, however, it is a proven fact that deadnaming trans folk or insisting on using the wrong pronouns for people have detrimental psychological (that that can lead to physical) effects.

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/misgendering#impact

There are also some other good studies, like this one about the positive impact of gender-neutral pronouns in general: https://www.theguardian.com/science...r-gender-neutral-pronouns-reduce-biases-study

So by arguing all of this, by objecting to being "forced" into treating someone with respect (by using their preferred pronouns - which is what you initially replied to me about), you're actually going against the factual state of affairs. And with these links I have provided, if you wish to continue, you do so knowing the impact it can have on the people whose (names or) pronouns you're not respecting.

 

[Patine]

No.
What I might sometimes (or often, depending on your sensibilities) come across is "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot". Not that I'm always right, but it means I value the soundness of an argument and the weight of facts. And so even when I'm wrong it's because I misjudged something that is provable or arguable instead of just saying people are bad because they don't agree with me.

This is usually how it comes down for me, too. We must just have different viewpoints and parameters of we consider "idiocy."

 

[Akka]

It's not agreeing with me. It's agreeing that people have the right to self-definition. It's not an opinion. It's like treating gay peoples' rights as a matter of opinion, or trans people, or in this kinda non-binary and others with non-"standard" pronouns.

Self-definition has limits, and the disagreement is about where those limits are. Trying to assimilate said disagreement with violating rights is precisely the thing I point.

Believe me, I consider other peoples' points of view. I have that privilege, I'm a straight dude. I can take on the arguments and not suffer myself, and while often it's better to not engage I really want folks to understand that they're not debating opinion here, it's peoples lives. If you refuse to admit the consequences of such and dismiss it as "PC" concerns, then that's your choice. But don't frame it like your opinions (or some theoretical other person in place of whom you're debating) aren't being considered.

I don't consider "PC" the concerns that actually affects a person's life, but PC stems from the abuse of the idea that everyone should adapt to one's sensitivities - taking them into account is the basis of civility, but "taking into account" doesn't mean "agreeing".
Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes not, and PC is when it's not legitimate but still required, hence the irritation (notice that I don't see either "don't use deadname" or "don't misgender me" as being PC, just for the record).
And sometimes there is situations where there is irreconcilable differences and I see the validity in everyone's viewpoints without either considering some are jerks or the others are in PC madness. This is the essence of dilemma.

Facts can be insulting! A fact is a thing, an insult is (often, if not always) how a thing is delivered. While there are now (given the complexity of language and shared history between cultures across the Internet) words that are more taboo because of their meanings or connotations (normally insulting), the difference between telling someone they're insensitive and calling them a jerk is tone and intent. One of these things is still an insult even if everyone in the hypothetical room agrees it's a factual label. The other can still be taken as an insult, especially if the person doesn't think that's a factual label.

A lot of what people call "facts" are just a common consensus on a particular topic. Heck, albeit with a fair amount more rigour, that's what scientific facts amount to. They can still be disproved, clarified, reinforced, and so on. And they can still be used as insults.

I don't see how facts can be insulting. As you say, the delivery can, but that's not the fact itself. Using a fact to insult is certainly possible, but that's, again, about intent, not fact. I see no reason to ignore, dismiss or badmouth facts here.

Speaking of facts, however, it is a proven fact that deadnaming trans folk or insisting on using the wrong pronouns for people have detrimental psychological (that that can lead to physical) effects.

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/misgendering#impact

I don't argue otherwise.

There are also some other good studies, like this one about the positive impact of gender-neutral pronouns in general: https://www.theguardian.com/science...r-gender-neutral-pronouns-reduce-biases-study

So by arguing all of this, by objecting to being "forced" into treating someone with respect (by using their preferred pronouns - which is what you initially replied to me about), you're actually going against the factual state of affairs. And with these links I have provided, if you wish to continue, you do so knowing the impact it can have on the people whose (names or) pronouns you're not respecting.

But here you go again, "being forced to treat someone with respect", conflating agreement with a specific viewpoint with moral judgement. Those aren't the same, and that's (yet again) my point. Respect is in the intent, and as I said above, while it should obviously take into account the sensitivities of a person, it doesn't imply you have to agree with them.

---

This is usually how it comes down for me, too. We must just have different viewpoints and parameters of we consider "idiocy."

Not necessarily. I made a comment on the form of your posts, not their point. I might agree with them, I just find them often confusing and hard to read.