The Absurdity of Political Correctness; Let the Search Begin!

a reply to: Tenebris

Oh, here's one more...

Pretty soon all you'll be able to say is "Tofu", "maybe" and "grey".

Those will be the last three remaining words in human vocabulary...oh, and "partly cloudy with a chance of rain, snow, sleet, hail...or it might be clear...or soy milk for your decaffinated herbal tea like substance...

people challenged
intelligence challenged
common sense challenged
speaking challenged (not in a handicapped way, but in an ebonics way)
"He's just a poor murder challenged, adult challenged, victim who happened to be theft challenged and hoodlum challenged who stole your car because he was car challenged and peer challenged, but that doesn't matter; he's innocent. All people who are society challenged and intentionally educationally challenged (not to be confused with true learning handicaps)...he's just a "victim" because he's guilty challenged.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

I came to the same conclusion as well, I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion.

As little as it has served me professionally, unfortunately, I have a sociology degree in the study of mass communication. I'm wired to critique culture through the symbols we use to convey meaning to each other (language is a form of symbol), so I'm hypersensitive to changes in commonly used symbols and phrasings. When they happen, I notice, and I automatically ask myself who/what will benefit from these little (seemingly) language tweaks. What perception are they trying to create among the dominant culture? What idea are they trying to get people to adopt? What do they want people to accept as legitimate whereas before they did not?

Of course language is by no means static and is constantly evolving, but when nine times out of ten the changes taking cultural root benefit the corporate state, having been projected upon us using classic methods of mass propaganda, one has to ask if it's all by design.

I contend that it is.

I'd like to research this if you happen to know of any good books or search terms.

I had a much longer (and better) post typed out and lost it.

Anyway, this is a good concept to start with:

Cultural Hegemony

The power of cultural hegemony lies in its invisibility. Unlike a soldier with a gun or a political system backed up by a written constitution, culture resides within us. It doesn’t seem “political,” it’s just what we like, or what we think is beautiful, or what feels comfortable. Wrapped in stories and images and figures of speech, culture is a politics that doesn’t look like politics and is therefore a lot harder to notice, much less resist. When a culture becomes hegemonic, it becomes “common sense” for the majority of the population.

And read this book:

Propaganda: the Formation of Men's Attitudes

Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1965/1973) (French: Propagandes; original French edition: 1962) is a book on the subject of propaganda by French philosopher, theologian, legal scholar, and sociologist Jacques Ellul. This book appears to be the first attempt to study propaganda from a sociological approach as well as a psychological one. It presents a sophisticated taxonomy for propaganda, including such paired opposites as political–sociological, vertical–horizontal, rational–irrational, and agitation–integration.

The book contains Ellul's theories about the nature of propaganda to adapt the individual to a society, to a living standard and to an activity aiming to make the individual serve and conform. The work concerns propaganda as an inner control over an individual by a social force.

a reply to: NthOther

No worries about the lost post, between your links and the results I found in a search, I have more than enough to keep me busy for the time being...

I've had Jaques Ellul's book for a while now but I totally forgot about it and never read it.

I actually wrote a short post about it a long time ago (see below).

Also I ran across something that confirmed what you mentioned about symbols:

That Brings us to Logos

This is a much more powerful language, and guess who speaks it? The elite controllers.

The word logos literally means “word” in Greek. These symbols are the language of the Illuminati and its hierarchy. Whether it be corporations, political parties, military branches, banks, sports teams, clubs or secret societies, there is more power in a logo than there is in a long explanation. The use of symbols throughout history to impose and perpetuate ideas and goals is one of the most fascinating studies there is, and probably the most revealing.

As Confucius profoundly stated: Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.

The Manipulated Matrix Of Language - Zen Gardner

In case anyone else is following this, I added links to the searches I came up with below.

Thanks very much for all the time and frustration and also thanks to the OP for putting up with the off topic posts.

The book by Jaques Ellul book that was recommended earlier:

Jaques Ellul, sociologist and author of"Propaganda: The Shaping Of Mens Attitudes" (which is much better than Bernays much earlier book) explains that fear makes one more susceptible to propaganda.

Sandy Hook Was a Drill

Propaganda Technique 101-Change The Words People Use/Change The Way People Think
Words no Longer Have Meaning-Fertile Ground For Propaganda
Manipulation of The People - Rudiments of Propaganda
Study of the Persuasion Techniques Used by the Watchtower (Loading the Language)
The use of language to create realities - Walter de Gruyter

The searches I used to find them:

Propaganda uses language rewriting language to manipulate think - Google Search
systematic rewriting of our language in order to manipulate the way we think - Google Search
Language is manipulated - Google Search

a reply to: Tenebris

Political correctness is not just a synonym for speech designed not to offend. That is only one aspect of it and quite a harmless one, indeed praiseworthy in its intent, however much it may irk political and linguistic reactionaries.

Political correctness does cause real damage, but this isn't how. Let me tell you how.

On a coffee table in my drawing-room sits The Science Fiction Handbook, published by Bloomsbury as part of its Literature & Culture Handbooks series. It is intended as a textbook for use by people following 'science fiction studies' courses at university level. I don't know if it is actually used as such anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Its editors are both lecturers at UK universities, so they probably use it on their own courses at least.

I borrowed it from the local library out of curiousity, because I've been a lifelong SF fan. It made me sick.

The history and content of science fiction makes it primarily a male literature. Its original subject matter — new technology, space exploration, electronic brains, future societies — tended to be of the kind that attract more male than female interest. It was, and continues to be, a male-dominated field, though with increasing female participation since the late Sixties, which was also about the time that the 'soft' sciences, like sociology and psychology, began becoming part of the content of SF.

Most science-fiction writers (including the best ones) and most science-fiction readers were and remain male. Maybe this is unfair. Maybe it's a male conspiracy. Maybe science fiction would be much better if it were written by women as often and as successfully as men, or was read by as many women as men, or if its female readers and writers outnumbered its male ones. I don't know and, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't care.

What I care about is that a book claiming to provide 'a comprehensive guide to the genre and how to study it for students new to the field' (I'm quoting the publisher's introduction on the back cover) should provide an accurate and representative survey of the field.

This The Science Fiction Handbook conspicuously fails to do. Why? Because its editors have fallen down before the baleful academic idol of Political Correctness, and done obeisance.

On Page 31, they offer a list of 21 'major science fiction authors', whose works are discussed later in the book. Eight of them, or nearly two-fifths of the number, are women. Among them are

• Margaret Atwood and Doris Lessing, two conventional literary authors who have dabbled in science-fiction tropes (future societies, alien visitations) without actually doing justice either to science (Lessing, in particular, was a scientific illiterate) or the conventions of the genre;
  
• Naomi Mitchison, the author of one great SF novel, Memoirs of A Spacewoman, but far better known as an author of general fiction, with over 70 books to her credit;
  
• Gwynneth Jones, a fantasy writer;
  
• Octavia E. Butler, a moderately successful SF writer who happens to be not only female, but black.

None of these women would make most readers' lists of 21 great SF writers, though Butler's novel Kindred may make many fans' list of, say, the top 50 or 100 novels published in the genre over the last century or so. They have been chosen only in order to flesh out the feminine side of the list. Because female representation at the top table of SF is so scanty, the editors were forced to pick this bunch of also-rans.

Incidentally, the remaining three women authors are worthy: Joanna Russ is both a leading SF writer and an ardent feminist (her story 'When It Changed' was a powerful feminist fable), James Tiptree, Jr. (yes, a woman) was a genuine original and Ursula K. LeGuin is, of course, one of the magisterial figures of the genre.

As for the male authors, it's more interesting to see which ones the book leaves out.

Notable absentees include:

• Isaac Asimov
  
• Greg Bear
  
• Orson Scott Card
  
• Arthur C. Clarke
  
• Frank Herbert
  
• Larry Niven
  
• Frederik Pohl
  
• Gene Wolfe

And these are only the first seven that spring to mind. I could go on and on. Any of the authors on my list has been far more influential (and widely read) in the field of SF than the ladies previously mentioned.

You can see what's happening here: authors of hard, ie technical SF and authors whose politics don't conform to the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy of nonscientific academia have been discriminated against.

Students unfamiliar with SF (the stated target audience) are going to get a completely distorted idea of the field from this book. I need not say that the feminist/left-wing/arts over science bias is continued right through the book; every page drips with it. As a lifelong SF aficionado, I call it a travesty.

For those who wish to know, the editors' names are Nick Hubble and Aris Moustoutzanis. They have Ph.D's and all, but they are mountebanks and deceivers.

a reply to: Astyanax

OOoh not good. This gives a totaly skewed perspective! I'm a huge sci fi fan but haven't heard of over half of those women writers. I think there's a terribly simple reason more women don't write strictly sci fi and that is it just doesn't interest us as much as the science fantasy genre. I for one hate all the technical jargon that male writers use and admit to skipping over it often. Its just down to preference not feminism or sexism or any other ism you can think of. But that being said University lecturers and intellectuals are known for trying to be cutting edge and like to be seen as oh so much more enlightened!

Many times, political correctness is the wrong term when referring to someone being an a-hole. Many times, it's just a breakdown of simple, common respect and courtesy, rather than someone not being politically correct. Many times it's a blatant homophobic, xenophobic, or bigoted statement. That isn't "not being politically correct", it's being a jackass.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

I dont know. Maybe it's better to let people air their jackass opinions so that we know where everyone stands. The idea that we all have a wicked side is not widely acknowledged these days; it's like people aren't supposed to be jerks. That's piffle. We none of us can avoid being jerks at some time or another.

Hell, I'm a jerk sometimes.

I say we cut the jerks a little slack.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

a totaly skewed perspective

The skew was towards 'literary' SF. J.G. Ballard, Iain M. Banks, Olaf Stapledon, Christopher Priest. Again, not at all representative -- though Ballard and Banks are two of my personal favourites.

But we mustn't turn this into a book chat.

This is my favorite and I had to dig it up.

Xbox Live recently banned Josh Moore for violating its gamers’ code of conduct. His offense? Filling out his Xbox Live profile. You see, Mr. Moore lives in West Virginia. More specifically, in FORT GAY, West Virginia. As Microsoft says, the word “gay” is always offensive. Never mind that several US townships incorporate the word into their name, many people have “Gay” as a first or last name, and some homosexuals do identify themselves as “gay.” No, Microsoft obviously had a wise guy in their midst, and he had to go. So, despite a total lack of customer complaints, Microsoft froze Moore’s account and warned him that he could lose his prepaid subscription if he badgered Customer Service further. Fort Gay Mayor, David Thompson, tried to intervene, but was told that the city’s name didn’t matter; the word “gay” was inappropriate in any context. As a result, Moore missed a Search and Destroy competition and his team lost. Microsoft has since carefully reviewed the matter and reinstated Moore with full Xbox Live privileges (translation: the story hit the web).

What really interesting is how quickly these PC ideas are taken up by people and become "normal".

Someone earlier posted about Hate Speech - that is relatively new and is a big pile of pants.

If someone says something that you don't like - tough - get over it.

It's not the job of the police & courts to get involved because someone called someone a name, or said a word they didn't like, it is utterly pathetic.

People can decide to be offended by practically anything, this is handing power to the stupid, the lazy, those who feel "entitled" to everything for nothing, and the nefarious.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
This is my favorite and I had to dig it up.

Xbox Live recently banned Josh Moore for violating its gamers’ code of conduct. His offense? Filling out his Xbox Live profile. You see, Mr. Moore lives in West Virginia. More specifically, in FORT GAY, West Virginia. As Microsoft says, the word “gay” is always offensive. Never mind that several US townships incorporate the word into their name, many people have “Gay” as a first or last name, and some homosexuals do identify themselves as “gay.” No, Microsoft obviously had a wise guy in their midst, and he had to go. So, despite a total lack of customer complaints, Microsoft froze Moore’s account and warned him that he could lose his prepaid subscription if he badgered Customer Service further. Fort Gay Mayor, David Thompson, tried to intervene, but was told that the city’s name didn’t matter; the word “gay” was inappropriate in any context. As a result, Moore missed a Search and Destroy competition and his team lost. Microsoft has since carefully reviewed the matter and reinstated Moore with full Xbox Live privileges (translation: the story hit the web).

What I find doubly interesting about that is one of the last lines:

"As a result, Moore missed a Search and Destroy competition and his team lost." - well boo hoo - he didn't get to play a game.

Is playing on Xbox important?

This is to me akin to X Factor type tv programs - fill peoples heads with nonsense that they think is important so that the important stuff just goes right over their heads.

I tried to wrap my head around it. Calling the mailman a mail person I realized that son is not neutral. Neutered?
Are you a politically correct moron or a mouse? The mouse has balls if it's male. You deny you have them.