I used to think in these terms. It's sometimes called "The Euphemism Treadmill." However I haven't been able to find proof that conforming to new terms distracts from tackling the real issues. They could even make people more aware of the real issues and thus help us fight repression. Moving to a new term may also give temporary relief to members of said group, and a band-aid doesn't in and of itself have to be harmful.
I think the issue comes from aggressive policing in typically left spaces, changing terms is fine and even natural as language evolves, but forcing everyone to use a specific term just divides the minority groups further, and I say this as a latino who simply can't stand "latinx" because to me it feels like a cheap way to signal how "correct and morally superior" someone is without considering not everyone likes this term
I have an example you might consider: mentally retarded. This was a clinical term roughly after the period where people with various types of cognitive disabilities were institutionally described as imbeciles, idiots, and morons. This is an example of a word game treadmill because people associate those with intellectual disabilities with living a grossly pathetic life.
@@aetherarcanist4819 i thought latinx was a way to shorten 'latina and latino'. ive heard that following the rules of latin that latine is more gramatically correct and easier to say though i have no idea
2:21 The problem with asking everyone what they prefer to be called is that now you have to remember each person's response. I can barely remember people's names when I meet them. There is no way I'm going to remember their preferred term for their group, their pronoun, or any of this other nonsense.
In a good society there should be a level of common courtesy around forgetting things in the same way there is courtesy in forgetting names. If you were briefly introduced to someone a week ago, you should be forgiven for forgetting their name (or some other identifier, their religion, their pronoun, etc.). Someone that got mad at you for that would be just as petty as someone that got mad at you for forgetting their name in the same situation. But if you call your close co-worker of many years who is gay a "fag" over and over again, despite being asked not to, there's a certain point where you become the asshole (in a similar way to you being an asshole for not remembering a close co-worker's name after years of working together). Folks may disagree where that point is (and the political correctness camp might lambast you for doing it even once), but most would agree that there is some point at which once you have spent a certain amount of time with someone, you should devote the mental space to learning their name and enough about them to not make them mad.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene While names are universally useful as identifiers, most politically correct constructs are actively hindering convenient and precise use of language, e.g. Elon Musk is African American, but most would never call him as such, as "African Americans" is used as a imprecise, longer, and thus inferior direct replacement to "Blacks". Contrary to technical terminology that takes extra learning effort to allow for faster and more precise communication political correctness takes extra learning effort to make language more imprecise, longer, and often grammatically incorrect. As such, philosophy as the love for wisdom should encourage the former and reject the latter on general principle. "fag" is a very non-representative example as it has the same amount of letters and complexity of use as the term it replaces; almost every politically correct term is either onerous and/or misleading, see e.g. pronouns.
I agree with @CasualPhilosophy and @ObserverZero. Also I think some words are inherently more offensive than others. Some words are merely technical, while others dehumanize you (because of etymology or because of another meaning it also has). Some words have a lot of plosive consonants (as bad words often do) while others do not. Some words have stereotypes embedded in them (they originaly refer to specific practices or perceived characteristics and using them to describe every member of a group is a way of diminishing people's identities and perpetuating stereotypes) while others have not. Just as a house protected by electric fence can still be invaded, a well chosen word can still acquire a bad evaluative content, but it's harder.
There's also the issue that political correctness, just like many other 'arbiters of morality', easily becomes overzealous and, instead of protecting marginalised groups, simply attack the predominant culture. This effectively poisons the well for the marginalised groups political correctness allegedly wants to protect, since they're often used as a body shield to justify these actions, like trying to cancel people for words they used decades ago as a joke, even if the majority of the group didn't want that and took no part in it, it will fall back on them. This can be observed with a lot of moralising cultures, especially religions, where the alleged goal is discarded in favour of using moral arguments as a weapon against people you dislike.
You state that finding new words to describe stigmatized groups of people doesn’t work because, without changing the underlying stigma, the new terms will eventually acquire similar levels of stigmatization. You also estimated that it would take a generation or two for this process to take place. I can agree with both of those statements, but I think that removing the stigmatized label from a group of people for a generation is a necessary first step to happen before or while addressing other underlying issues. Yes, I agree that without additional structural changes, using politically correct terms only improves some peoples experience as being part of a stigmatized group in the short term, but I do think that improved experience facilities making the structural changes you advocate for. I think you are overlooking this benefit.
One thing to note is that political correctness shouldnnot aim to cease harmful effects of a term referring to marginalized groups. It is political "action", not the "correctness", that is helpful for that. It should be construed as a complementary movement. Is there anyone who really thinks that we can change things in the world just by arranging the way we talk?? It would be ridicilous.
More to that, althoguh I agree that full-blooded PC is deemed to be inefficient in long term, it is not a good counter-argument. It is because the effort needed for considering politically correct words is so small that you can use them even for short-term good effects. As I said, believing thst it is the ultimate solution would already be a too apolitical position.
Louis C.K. has a really wise bit on the term “retarded”: It used to be the politically _correct_ term in his childhood, but it later became a politically _incorrect_ term, because it was used as a slur by everyone but the people in question.
One thing the ongoing PC language substitution does accomplish is this: Whether replacing the previously accepted racial/ethnic term or condemning clinical terms for disabilities, there is, at each iteration in the ongoing process, a dividing of language users into two (at least) groups - the people speaking in a spirit of goodwill who wish to avoid offending, and therefore adopt the new usage, and the people who speak with ill-will and use the new term in the same manner as they used the previous terms. The first group accumulates guilt, fearing they have not kept up with the latest terms, while the second group accumulates a larger inventory of cast-off names to use for the purpose of offending. Further, members of the first group know they have always acted in good faith and good will, and feel helpless in the face of what appears to be a cosmetic approach to problems whose causes are difficult to address effectively. There appears to be no salutary effect for either group.
This was a very interesting video and has me thinking about the ways I can tailor my focus more towards the underlying causes of bigotry rather than merely policing terminology that gets used. Though, perhaps the band-aid provided by political correctness can be helpful, provided that we are simultaneously actively working on dismantling and understanding those underlying issues. Perhaps political correctness could have a better efficacy if we maintained an awareness of its incompleteness in its ability and scope to actually solve or rectify broad societal issues, as well as its obviously temporary impact. One thing I do question is the alleged trend that you propose where one day's politically correct term is certain to take on a pejorative meaning at some future date. While I recognize the examples given, and can think of a few myself, I question whether it is a fact that it is destined to become the case. At best we could say that has been the case with every politically correct term that's been submitted so far, and I'm not even sure if that is definitely true. Perhaps you're correct about it's inevitable trajectory, assuming the root cause of any particular issue is still at large, but I don't know if we can say that with certainty, or if there's just a number of examples that appear to follow that pattern. 🤷♂️ idk.
I guess I have to reply that one can advocate against racial stereotypes while also working on the root cause. I think a person or a society of humans may contemplate and work on more than one thing simultaneously.
There is a difference between stereotypes and language. Saying M group always does N is a stereotype. Calling M group by name X could be running afoul of political correctness. The point of the video is not the advocate against fighting stereotypes, but rather to say that all the energy that people put into political correctness is ineffective. People can do two things at once, but in doing so they lessen the ability to do either. Why do two things halfheartedly if one does nothing to achieve your goals?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Hi Friend, I am trying to understand the nuance between your proposal and one from someone that gets mad at me for having a save the whales bumper sticker, that says you should be more worried about the humans to which I say I am worried and supporting many causes. Now granted none of the many are my life's calling. I am certainly not trying to pester you, only for a discussion so feel free to igore this comment if you see it otherwise.
I would argue that the short term benefits of changing the language is still beneficial and could reduce harm. In addition, allows for a sort of "signposting" of people who do not care enough to even change the words that they use, telling people of the marginalized group to avoid that person. However, I agree that this can be conflated with actually making change and shouldn't be a distraction from actual policy.
Great video. The latest 'correct' term, 'African American', for your example M has even more difficulties: It is clumsy. Many people facing similar discrimination to M's have no connection with Africa. It is irrelevant to describing the many M's living in (say) Europe.
tbh any term you use is fine as long as it isnt already a slur and it doesnt dehumanize the subject. example: black people vs blacks. jewish people vs jews. etc.
I may have to watch a vid more than once for the concepts to fully sink in, but I find your vids absolutely fascinating. ✨️👌🏾✨️ I like to say I must've been a philosopher in a past life, because I'm a naturally analytical--sometimes *OVERLY*--person. Lol! Philosophy confounds the hell out of me oftentimes, but I can't get away from my nature. The hard questions won't be kept at bay in my mind...God knows I try. 😏
I think you have missed a major piece here (which is unusual for your videos-- you almost always give thorough consideration and voice to the key positions on a topic). That piece is the actual perspective of most proponents of PC culture (by which I really mean, people who *within a liberal context* are *called* proponents of "PC" culture). Their perspective more properly fits into a Marxist class analysis than the classical liberal framework you present here. In fact, very few people self-identify as proponents of political correctness. It's a group label that gets applied to various pleas for changes to social norms after the fact, within the context of liberal discourse. According to a class analysis what is really happening is this: historically, group A has been dominant in a society and has had command over social and discursive norms. Within that society, group B has lacked power and has not had a voice. As a result, group B has had to tolerate whatever representations of them that group A found acceptable. Then, at some point, group B gains power in the society-- perhaps through population growth together with hard won legal and economic attainments. At that point, group B is empowered to speak for themselves. They have a voice because they have become a significant enough group socially, economically, and/or politically that group A must listen to them or face some consequences. What representatives of group B then say is that, among other things, they don't like certain ways that group A has represented them. They feel disrespected by these representations. They then offer their own terms and representations of their group that they would prefer. From the perspective of group B, this is not part of a general program of improving society by using respectful language for all groups. Rather, by stating how they would like to be addressed from now on, they are announcing their arrival at a certain level of power in society where they have their own voice and are no longer at the mercy of group A's representations. For example: think of how gay people were represented by mainstream movies and TV up through the 1990's, when they were usually broadly stereotyped as comic characters, with a few progressive outliers, versus today, where that kind of representation has all but disappeared. What changed during that time was that gay people gained legal rights and political representation and thereby became a more powerful group in our society, such that mainstream media can no longer afford to represent them in ways they find disrespectful. They have gained a voice. In other words, the very characterization of certain people as proponents of PC culture is a misrepresentation that verges on a strawman. I say "verges" because it isn't necessarily uncharitable. Rather, it's a view of what various groups are doing that naturally arises from interpreting their motives within a certain framework. The problem is that they don't share that framework. Perhaps there really are some well-intentioned members of the dominant group in our society who see things through a liberal framework and believe in something called "political correctness" and argue on behalf of various less dominant groups, as "allies," according to the idea that by making our language more respectful, we will improve society and make it less materially biased. What I am saying is that that is not where calls for changes in social norms actually derive from, in most cases. Rather, for a group that has historically been disenfranchised but has recently made gains in power in a society, calling for a change in social norms around their group's representation is an end in itself. That is, the liberal "political correctness" view represents calls for changes to discursive and social norms as a *means* for the betterment of society, a way of bringing about less inequality (which is an easy target on efficacy grounds, as you rightly demonstrate). However, the class-power view of most of the actual groups who initiate these calls for changes to norms is that such change is an *end* in itself, as a demonstration of their newly won vocal power in a society. *Note: within the liberal discourse view, instances of disagreement by members of a group with new terms that are supposed to be more respectful are significant counter-examples, since if the goal of PC language is to make all members of marginalized groups feel more respected, then it looks like PC language will often fail in its goal. However, within a class-power view, if the group's voicing of its own self-representation, against the dominant group's historical representation of them, is itself the end, then particular instances of group members not liking the new representations are not relevant, as long as the majority feel their voice has been heard. ("Latinx" may be a unique case where the problem is that the group ostensibly referred to is actually a number of a separate groups with different motives and power struggles across different regions.)
To somebody who is against Political Correctness for fundamentally classically liberal reasons, what you have written reads as a confession that everything negative said about the phenomena is correct. It's about one group of people exercising power to attempt to determine the minds of other people. Fundamentally, a power move.
@@jeffreyscott4997 Yes, except that it's a good thing. Power is always exercised by groups to assert the reality of their identity in society. When one group possesses overwhelming power, they can suppress the ability of a smaller group to assert themselves. I'm aware that conservatives call this view "cultural marxism" and criticize it as authoritarian, but I have never seen a good faith attempt made by them to dispute the underlying claims about the nature of social power and expression. These claims seem self-evident. If a group can be successfully intimidated into silence with threats of violence, as blacks and gay people in the US were at one time, and if they lack legal rights and economic productive means, as blacks and gays in the US did at one time, then they don't have a voice to say who they are and what counts as respectful address to them. It doesn't matter that a piece of paper says that they do. I have never seen anyone defend the position that these basic claims are wrong.
The basic claim I consider wrong, is that human being can be put into different categories that give them different moral statuses. Fundamentally, the rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerless by the powerful, must be the same rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerful by the powerless, or it is not by virtue of being a human person that one has one's moral status. And if that is considered by you to be true, that it is not by virtue of being human, but by virtue of being in some sub-category of human (gay vs straight, black vs. white, poor vs. rich, etc.) that one gains one's moral status, then I consider you an enemy of mankind.you So, if you get a voice in saying what you are, then I get a voice in saying what you are, and if I get a voice in saying what you are, you get a voice in saying what you are. The same for saying what I am. Either that, or our existence is an anathema to each other's self interest and let's just get out our pointy sticks and stop lying to ourselves and try to kill each other.
@@jeffreyscott4997 further, if you agree that this is the social reality, but still claim that people shouldn't in any way coerce other people to use certain language-- neither the dominant group nor the less powerful group-- on what basis are you arguing this "should"? It seems that it can't be a consequentialist basis, where the ends justify the means, since the means in question are already being used against one group to do greater harm in suppressing them-- such that using the same means to increase benefit, with negligible comparative harm on the other end, must be estimated to be worth the cost. Just as lesser violence by a defender is justified in the prevention of greater violence by an aggressor, on consequentialist grounds, so lesser social expressive coercion in defense of a group is justified against greater social expressive coercion by a dominating group. So, the "should" here needs to be backed by a more absolutist, duty ethics view. The pacifist says that violence is never under any circumstances justified, and similarly an anti-social coercionist could say such pressure is never justified. But-- the consequentialist is free to ignore such people, since *where they are sincere*, they are such extreme idealists that they have little impact on real social policy, and where they are insincere, their true values and beliefs lie elsewhere, as a matter of course.
@@jeffreyscott4997 "Fundamentally, the rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerless by the powerful, must be the same rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerful by the powerless, or it is not by virtue of being a human person that one has one's moral status." Yeah, this is not a consequentialist view. It's a duty ethics view, that morals make up an external, ahistorical, universal code of principles that apply to all people equally. I will assume that you sincerely believe in this, since you've given me no reason to doubt you (unlike many conservative figures etc.). But again, if so, it is so idealistic that I as a consequentialist am free to ignore you, since it doesn't cash out into real world policy. For one, how could this principle ever be enforced, if the very act of enforcing it would violate it? In the ideal, it is not contradictory, and so not invalid on those grounds, but it also *as a fully consistent* injunction, doesn't have much real world application. And the consequentialist is solely concerned with real world benefit and harm outcomes.
Jean Baudrillard’s ideas of hyperreality and simulacra would encapsulate everything that is wrong with political correctness. It shifts the discussion from issues of discrimination or hierarchy and delays them in favor the correct way to talk about those issues. In other words, our political discourse is more about how to talk about politics than politics itself
What ive always taken away from political correctness was that its a way to capitolise on progressive sentiments at the engineered expense of conservative or traditional values. In the 90's when i was first exposed to it it was merly a re-naming of existing terms to make them sound less traditional and folksy, and more advanced and relevant. House wife became homemaker, then home house engineer...stuff like thst but all meant the same exact thing without adding any value to the discussion. Fast foreward unto now, political correctness is a rudderless ship where the identity politics has caused a term to mean anything one wants it to mean simply through a subjective individual context. So theres little value in the terminology other thsn how one can wield its use as a weapon against their oppoents. Denouncing someone as a femenist, or an sjw, or as a conservative, or as liberal, or as a _______ supremacist carries almost no meaning as they are often used as ways to discredit someone to a particular audience without making any arguments. It was in years gone by a way to empower ppl through carefully selected langauge as you stated, but now is a tool to silence opposition, through individual assumptions of what those terms mean. Its a devaluation of language that is separate from the natural evolution of common usage.
I so believe the argument is convincing. However I would argue that even if we take the position that the new words will eventually take on a negative connotation that there is some benefit in giving those populations some level of say so in how they want to be referred to. Now of course there is no monolith of agreement amongst those communities, i think appealing to at least some kind of majority does help. Most black Americans are pretty okay with being referred to as "black people" as it is how we refer to ourselves within the community qnd there doesn't seem to be much of a debate around that term. You are absolutely correct about those in power using the veneer of being performatively progressive to not take actual substantive action.
"...there is some benefit in giving those populations some level of say so in how they want to be referred..." I disagree. The minority, or numerically inferior, group should have no say in how they're addressed.
I would normally not use that word, but I would also not bother to tell other people not to use it. I think the argument in the video is not against the change in language, but rather against the policing of language.
Responding to 10.10. Yes, it is laziness when it is by done its own. But let us not make the mistake and ignore that changing our vocabulary IS sometimes part of the solution. It was not with 'retard' and 'negro', but it was with 'gay' and 'homosexual'. We don't know if it is a necessary one, but it seems to work and it could be argued that this is, for now at least, a good reason to use it.
You cannot eliminate incorrect solutions by erasing questions. So trying to force this, especially language censorship, doesn't work. There is simply no means to remove a term which refers to a category negatively. It will always remain because the preference which produces it will always exist and facilitate its construction. The form of it may change but the desire to produce it will not. If the term loses it's power though, then its usage becomes meaningless due to a lack of impact, rather than intention. This is why calling men on the Left 'cucks' and men on the Right 'nazis' has lost its sting. Overuse has destroyed their power, though not their meaning. Hence too, why the need for a term for 'cool' and the necessity that it's 'not what our parents used' always comes into existence and in a different form. As it turns out, transforming 'bad words' into terms of endearment is the way to go, since it has a perfect track record. It was also masculine culture which discovered it and employ it every single day, to the horror and clutched pearls of Karens and faux-moralists alike. And yes, the way the N-word is now used is a great example of this, except they won't let go of its exclusive use. Until this happens, it can't become a term of endearment between all peoples. But I doubt this will last much longer thanks to rap culture. If you haven't experienced how men rag on each other with the worst possible language yourself, then you've never seen what it does to eliminate their power. It's akin to how these same people can fight each other in order to become best friends, since you always have to concede that regardless his big dumb nose and his idiot opinions, he did get you with a great hook. Quite literally, mean words isn't a problem which exists within these subcultures, so it where we need to look for the solution. This is also why men and boys trash-talk online. And if anybody has a problem with the actual solution, then considering what's at stake here (at worst) they're going to have to sacrifice some of their ego and sense of morality in order to allow a greater ethical benefit. If they can't, then they're part of the problem. Frankly, I think they're almost all of the problem, considering what things used to be like for us guys in the 90s before they showed up and started policing us via HR. Hint: nobody cared about your anything. They cared if you could work. It's a beautiful thing.
This is an incomplete analysis that doesn’t factor in the impact of the raising of awareness towards the existence of the bias. Whether people accept uniformly the new term or rail against it, everyone ends up more aware of a need for change - regardless of whether said change is forthcoming based on the new terminology alone (which i would agree does not cause the required change). In general it would seem like the wisest choice to ask people how they’d like to be referred. That’s not going to prevent harm but at least it doesn’t wind up with monstrosities like “Latinx”. fun fact, many native americans would prefer being called “Indians”, often citing the enshrining of white people’s stupidity as a huge plus.
The reality is that if having the term used to address you is considered offensive, even when to others it is not, then ethically it ought not. Yet similarly, if you consider using the term on others is offensive, even when to others it is not, then ethically you ought not be compelled to do so. In the end we have a situation in which the language we use to address each other cannot be compelled one way or the other. Then the only fix we have, and one that isn't foreign to us (except lately) is the concept of 'taking it on good faith' i.e. 'The Good Faith Interpretation.' Should you feel insulted, you must presume it was not intentional. Just as they would courteously presume on your part. Then should we seek to alter terms as and between individuals, then that is the place for it.
I strongly reject the assumption that there is an underlying bigotry to most terms that are nowadays considered politically incorrect, derogatory in some way or even "slurs" or "dog whistles". Most negative connotations exist due to being grounded in true observations, such as the on average disproportionately higher crime rate and lower educational attainment of certain minorities like e.g. those of African descent in most Western countries, which is the reason no matter how you call the group even people that are not racist always end up with the same association as a term signalling problems after a while. Reality asserts itself. The shift of an intentionally derogatory term to a more positive meaning or vice versa is a common occurrence when the reality it maps to does not fit the initial meaning (any more). E.g. "Made in Germany" was initially designed to prevent British citizens from purchasing such products, and look how that turned out, because the implied lower quality of this wares in comparison to British ones was easily recognizable as untrue. Nor would anyone think of a prostitute if they hear the terms seamstress, actress or laundress nowadays, while in the 18th centaury those jobs were (with good reason) considered so closely related that the latter terms were used as euphemisms in lieu of the former.
What is the negative side of empathy and compassion in the hegelian dialectic?..... Many would say we cause more harm than good with our political correctness.
Doubtful - in part because it assumes a derogatory term used to criticize a group by dishonest actors contains an accurate description of what is being done. Its a straw man, yes Political Correctness fails, but its a behavior invented by opponents and applied without regard to its accuracy in order to then claim it fails. The question is not whether Political Correctness fails but whether the actual behavior (trying to avoid using terms perceived by members of a community as offensive and instead making the effort to express yourself in ways that accord other people dignity and respect) is appropriate/effective/moral (whatever criteria you wish to judge it by) - and you cannot address that by discussing the caricature as if it is the reality.
I think this sidesteps the issue. As mentioned, these terms can legitmately cause people to feel unwell, and how big a hassle is it really to change the term? And we shouldn't think it's hindering progress, and we clearly see, as there clearly has been made progress in restoring the owed equality between races, and it sure wasn't by those insisting on keeping the perjorative terms. Lastly, and granted, this is merely armchair speculation, but I believe arguments like these to be post-hoc rationalizations of feelings. People simply think it bothersome and don't want to change the terms they use because it's what they're used to and as a species, we generally hate changing things if we don't see the need to. Is it irrational that one word causes discomfort while another, referring to the very same group does? Of course, but we're humans and we're irrational, and it's not a lot to do to accomodate our fellow human beings. Like how many times has this really come up? I remember like, three instances in my 30 years of life, and I really don't think that's too excessive
Very few people are actually rendered physically unwell by terms. Those that are should probably seek mental assistance. That assistance would probably involve some kind of exposure therapy. We're doing those people no favors by hampering them with an unresolved kill switch. Imagine someone's been shielded like that and suddenly someone says it to them on a busy crosswalk. No. If you want to mitigate the use of "harmful" terminology, you need to normalize and expand the use of such. Use it on everyone, until it loses it's targetted meaning altogether. Take it from a Sinister, you're doing yourself absolutely no favors by being a walking liability.
You made a huge assumption in the video, that language has absolutely no affect on thought, when most linguists assert the opposite. Changing the language you use does in fact change the way you think about things, and you made a huge assumption that simply because new words have gained old connotations in the past, that this will happen in all cases, and this is argument from anecdote.
Carneades very clearly explained that * as long as the underlying issues are not resolved * the terms would regain their initial negative connotation. Of course, should the issues be resolved, the connotations would not come back, since their is no ground for it.
Best to refer to individuals as they wish to be named, or don't speak to them. If your name is Bob, why call you Alice without permission? Free speech comes with a caveat: beware of the buyer; they may wish you to take it back and demand a refund! You don't have to talk to the police! It's best not to! You don't have to defend yourself in a court of law, best you do - despite being advised against it: why; if someone learned and wise is willing to defend you, there might be legitimate support for your actions.
This video was very informative. I have always thought that if people are being marginalized and abused because of something you don't want to make the people or party feel better, you should want to fix the actual problems that cause the abuse or marginalizing. To apply this in politics, US Democrats love to pay lip service to minority groups over everything under the sun but they craft those very policies that hurt those very people.
I feel that the majority of people (at least online) who argue about free speech v political correctness are the ones who themselves will get offended by or offensively use terms like "whiteness" or "white fragility" respectively, without really understanding the context behind them. This is my biggest problem with telling people that certain words are always wrong, and not why the recipient would not like to hear it. Bad words get more power once they are accepted universally as bad words.
Let's say that one reason for a negative stereotype of a group is the bad behavior within that group and the lack of visibility of anyone within that group doing something about it. Say violence and criminality. If young purple men commit crimes and violence in numbers way out of proportion to young men of other colors, and society notices this, you can see how that can lead to a negative stereotype or even bigotry against purple people. All the more when a law abiding purple is harassed or falsely accused by the police, he blames it on "racism" of the police and not on the higher number of crimes committed by other purples that the police are reacting to and are paid to deal with. Of course the political class will jump to the conclusion that we still have "systemic" racism because purples get arrested for crimes way out of proportion to their percentage of the overall population. While the rest of the people, including purples themselves, notice that there sure seem to be a lot of purples committing crimes. Which, until purples somehow reduce the criminal behavior of members of the purple community, will contribute to the negative stereotypes and even bigotry non-purples have toward purples. Which is why my proposal that we have a Crime Strike, meaning everybody stops committing crimes, is the one way to break this cycle of discrimination. Go and sin no more. I wish I could take credit for this idea of the Crime Strike, but someone else beat me to it 2,000 years ago. For if all we do about this is whine and complain, and police what people can say about it, this crap will still be going on 20 years from now, 40 years from now, 100 years from now. You know I'm right.
Criticizing the use of terms alone will, of course, mask substantial oppression of marginalized groups, but "language policing" doesn't preclude resistance to more severe oppression. For example, news of the Highland Park massacre aired on an outdoor TV at a July 4th cookout. A woman called the mass-murderer a wh*cko and I replied "I'd call him a monster instead " It's not like I would have been off fighting severa oppression of people w/mental illness (or another marginalized group) if this woman never uttered this slur. (Note: I agree that we shouldn't "bite someone's head off" over an unintentional expression of prejudice.) Yes, new terms for marginalized groups sometimes evolve into slurs, and members of these groups sometimes disagree over proper terminology, but this video exaggerates the severity of these problems--they don't even come close to calling for the elimination of all resistance to offensive language.
As noted in the video, the goal is not to say "say whatever slur you want" but rather to point out that political correctness fails at reducing harm. It is not saying political correctness is morally wrong, simply that it is ineffective at actually accomplishing its goal. The point is not that language policing is bad, just that it does not really do anything in the long term.
Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Brazil, Turkmenistan, Hungary, Poland. Those are but few of the countries where programmatic rejection of political corectness is a part of their rulling elite's ideology. And those are indeed the vanguards of genuine social progress. As soon as they stopped wasting energy impotently virtue-signaling political corectness, they were able to use their free time to roll up their sleeves and start implementing real positive change. And it's definitely not the case that their rejection of political corectness is just scaremongering to keep their population distracted from how cripplingly corrupt and exploitative their political and economic systems are, no no no.
There is an interesting intersection between the notion of speech causing harm and whether or not one can in a judicial setting advocate that the speech itself could have been using non-harmful words instead of the actually harmful words (assuming the person speaking were infromed about their potential choice of word's cnsequence), and whether we can codify not law, but language to be without the need for interpretation in edgecases. I do not think the public at large is at a place where such a policy implementation can be made where the individual talking has to bear the burden of being responsible for not offending the other person outside codified cases. An example where arbitration courts are being used could be the canadian human rights tribunal, but they do not operate on principles but rather impression. It's someetimes a court of law, but in order to function efficiently it also has to deal with borderline interpretations of the spirit of the law. In my opinion that is a failing, seeing as that allows clause to venture down a slipper slope which eventually stifles words. I'm writing this as there are two types of speech worth considering relating to your video: Your speech and its actual content, and what your speech meant in the eyes of the beholder. There becomes a slippery slope where if we accept that there can be two versions of a word that expresses different intentions, it's possible to in an isolated analysis of the word have them mean mutually exclusive things, thereby also expressing opposite intents. "Your honour, when i said that i wanted to kill them in minecraft i meant it as a joke, i never actually wanted to murder them". Off course we are both aware of the problems this can bring, so the court needs to establish a dicctionary to deal with this, but the literate can always find ways to move around this by proxy unless we literally enforce some sort of grammar policing. I argue that we from this argument alone will be unable to as judicial systems to judge intent based on expressions alone, we must see actions as a form of intent expression that is entirely unambiguous, and that is precedent as of now. But it's being challenged from many sides. It's a game of cat and mouse that nobody can win without introducing the problem of whether a specific action was premeditated or not without using interpretations, seeing as it could always be argued in court otherwise that the charged person actually doesn't fit the bill the law aims to address. We could safely assume that authoritarian rulings in courts are scary and open the box that allows the court to become a political tool these days, but in order to entirely meet the entire demand, which obviously has slippery slopes of itself like some demands being unreasonable, the entire system has to open itself up to the same slippery slope for all cases. The court has to be willing to not let some rulings pass, but when every case a court makes can be seen not only as a tragedy to either plaintiff, society, the court or the judge themselves i think too much is at stake to risk it. I think opening this pandoras box is appealing to a lot of people, but the more i have thought about the matter the more i oppose it. It partially stems from my own willingness to be offended and my assumed (i can dream ok) codified legal system. Like it started as taking the presumption of innoccence as a base axiom, and it ended here with a view that would cause upheaval in the entire established court of humanity in all camps. But i also think it is the only way we can ensure that the presumption of innocence is upkept. This leads me to believe that even if speech causes harm, i can not sacrifice the spirit of the court body or the concept of law in society, and most certainly innocent people to soothe someone elses non life-threatening discomfort. Even if it causes harm there are larger stakes at play that are far more important than any individuals emotions (my evaluation, it's my idea of fair). My solution to the whole neologism or dogwhistle problem, and why i think it's possible to erase most of race based focuses (or any pejorative personal focus) is the fact that they are all assumptions based on ad hominems. By teaching people proper debating (one of my life missions, eventually) the blatant nature of bigotry just being a buttload of biases and bad arguments should resolve the very core of the issue itself. I think no amount of focus on specifically offended groups can more than illustrate particular offense, it doesn't support the underlying principle to point out that words are offensive to X group. Because that's an option i oppose mediocre (imo) attempts to spark policy to deal with these issues when they do not unravel the fabric of the conflic itself. We cannot legislate people to become better philosophers, that takes proactive measures, especially during their formative years. I generallly oppose pedagougery and manipulation where it is not increasing the abilities of another person. I think teaching a person the basics for thinking is the most benign method of manipulation and one we should seek more strongly than any other subject. After all we're teaching the person to criticise in itself, which also would be a gaping wound in any system trying to pose as teaching the correct view. This was all over the place, i got home from work and was happy to find you had published another video. I hope this sparked ideas for you, and if they sparked new ones i'm even happpier! Keep it up :D
@@pangloss565 More like hypocritical, don't you think? As someone who fought for this country in the Persian Gulf War, the last thing I want are some phony patriots standing-up to fake honor me, our flag, or our country. Stand-up of your own free-will, or just keep sitting your ass down! At least that way, I know where you stand politically.
Hahaha I would say that PC movement and ideas fail for few more reasons, but, at the end, I believe you are totally right. Sorry for not staying skeptical this time xD
The point is to point out to people when they are being insensitive. If someone tells you to stop using obvious slurs like the N-word, or f*g, or c*nt, they are simply asking you to consider the feelings of others. This usually causes resentment, because people don't like to be called out for childish, selfish, bad behavior. So, instead, they deny being an a-hole and create a convoluted argument about free speech. The truth is, those terms used to be widely acceptable, but aren't any more. They, and the people that use them, have lost out in the marketplace of ideas.
"... childish, selfish, bad behavior." This is why you'll never get through to them because you prejudge the intention and motivation and ethics of their actions. Which is a wonderful irony, considering you believe their language to be prejudicial. The Christians are right about not judging lest ye be judged. It's not a religious commandment but a sensible one for making friends with your enemies. It's not that people hate being 'called out'. You don't have that kind of power -they don't respect you enough for that to be the case. Presuming that they do is the first thing that would annoy them. Secondly, they simply do not care and know that it's a chance somebody will be offended by their speech. What these people don't like is being told after the fact to consider something which they, by dint of their use of language, DID consider and demonstrated that they DO NOT CARE about it. They are annoyed that you presume that they are ignorant, or not-careful, or not thoughtful. They are annoyed that you aren't acknowledging their choice to say what they said as a choice, not a mistake. And they are annoyed that you would impose a moral judgment on them which they do not adhere to. Like how radical Muslims will sometimes force non-Muslim women to cover up. It's not a severe of course, but it is no less pretentious. As for the 'marketplace of ideas' any child who plays online games, or talks online, have had every manner of word normalized to them already. And while attempting to moralize these words after their formative years through, of all things, higher education has certain produced some truly puritanical people, they are absolutely in the minority.
@@pangloss565 My point is that they "DID consider and demonstrated that they DO NOT CARE about it." Why don't they care? You say this many times. They don't care about or respect others. Their words aren't careless, but carefully chosen. So what point are the words making? You try to hide behind some kind of mental superiority, when in reality you are just uncaring.
The current debate over gender pronouns perhaps adds a nuance to this. As stated in the video, the problem arises when a term accumulates some undesired negative connotation. That is, the word becomes _inherenty_ negative. But the word "he" is hurtful only when applied to a transwoman (m2f); it has not become _inherently_ hurtful, as can be seen by its ongoing innocuous use to refer to men. So it is negative connotation _in use_ that is the problem PC is trying to solve, not negative connotation per se. Well, either that or the push for change in gender pronouns is something other than Political Correctness.
Transgender people make up less than 1% of the population. Gay and bisexual people make up about 15% of the population. I believe a society should be judged not for how well the most well off in society are doing but for how the smallest groups are treated. The right wing position in the gender pronoun battle is ludicrous. It’s as simple as “show respect for your fellow human and call them whatever pronoun they want to be called” easy.
@@kirkmarshall2853, I understand but it's completely tangential to my point. The transgender topic was just an example; the crux of what I was saying was that it is not necessary for negative connotations to _inhere_ in the term in question. All that matters is that such connotations become attached to the term _in a particular use-case._
I have a spicy conundrum for you: Question: 'What can you hold a black person responsible for 'as a black person' without being technically racist?' All I can think of is your race's reputation with others. This isn't fair, but it's so obviously realistic it's pointless to deny that. BUT regardless the practically of my answer, I don't think you technically can do this without being racist. Treating people as an example of their group rather than as an individual seems extremely unethical and qualifies as racism. So here's the spicy part: If a black person tells you about 'The Black Experience' then it has to be their experience as a victim by definition, since they can't produce any effects 'as a black person' which they would be responsible for and thus responsible for producing the experience. Ergo, to claim any uniquely 'black experience' is to claim that: 'to be black is to be victimized'. Black Experience = Victim Experience. To have a 'Black Experience' is to have a 'Victim Experience'. So then to claim that 'black' is a part of your identity, all without attributing anything to it that it's responsible for, nor any purpose for it nor any unique effects it produces, is to claim that 'victim' is a part of your identity. So then if 'black' is an intrinsic part of your identity, then 'victim' becomes an intrinsic part of your identity subsequently. So if you wanna be a victim -and even if you don't, then who really needs woke theory and political correctness when you can just stick to the rules of what's racist and what's not? It makes you into a victim instantly, whether you want it to or not. Whether you're actually being victimized or not. A perpetrator doesn't need to exist. All that can save you from this conundrum is 'color blindness' i.e. not recognizing race as part of your identity. I don't expect a response to this spice but I'd rather try to pick the brain of somebody more learned than myself.
You've got two contradictory statements: One, that black experience is victimhood because it can't be chosen and is thus externally imposed. Two, that black experience can be internally composed and not be victimhood. Black people can identify with both the racism that they've suffered and also with a culture which exists in spite of that racism.
@@only20frickinletters Not quite. If 'black' is a CULTURE then it creates effects. But I'm not talking about black culture. I'm talking specifically about what you could be responsible for as a black person. Not to mention, the concept of 'acting black' is also considered racist i.e. you can't 'act black'. Which then begs the question of what 'black culture' even is. Is it simply the aggregate behavior of all black people? Obviously not, but then what is it? Regardless that tangent and while I take your point, it's not on target here. I appreciate the attempt and any future one. To help with your understanding, I pose instead that claims of your experiences are, with respect to much if not most of your identity, a result of your interactions. So the way that you interact with 'X' produces 'Y' which is unique to you and your responsibility for having produced it. You are in some part proactive, reactive, and interactive in your experiences. So then if the reactive aspect of the 'black experience' is, as I argue: victimhood, then what is the proactive and interactive aspect? What part of the black experience are they responsible for and how does being black interact with the rest of society/reality? If there is no proactive nor interactive aspect which we can attribute without being racist, then I'm left to suppose that I'm not wrong and that 'black' constructed in the fashion it is now, ensures that it cannot be attributed to it any effects. It can only 'produce the effect' of presenting themselves as a target for racism. And hence it would seem that such racial identity produces its own sense of victimization. I see the same with all races, mind you. Though really, I see the same with all 'identities' which are purported to exist yet without any effects. Looking forward to your response.
@@pangloss565 You're conveniently forgetting that there are others identifying black people as black, targeting them with racism and producing a "sense of victimization."
@@only20frickinletters Convenient? lol I don't care about the actual cases of racism. Those aren't philosophically interesting! I'm talking about victimization which is created axiomatically by virtue of how you construct your identity. In this case, the 'black' identity (though it doesn't have to be racial). It could also be 'woman' and indeed, what I'm seeing here happened to 'woman' a while back already imo. I'm constructing a self-fulfilling prophecy here. This idea of a sense of victimization without a perpetrator is fascinating. Whether by race or whatever else. Race is just the simplest version to explore this (I think) because racial identity is either baloney or as 'thin' as identity can get. Though more to the point, this appears to be a matter of the classic definition of racism i.e. 'discrimination based on race' producing a situation in which blacks (or anyone else) can't attribute anything to their blackness without being racist. This is revealed when a white person say, claims how their whiteness produces value (some preferential effect) for those around them. Hence others value it and he values it too. 'I'm proud to be white.' It leaves a poor taste in the mouth to say it and it is countered by claiming, 'Whiteness doesn't produce anything you racist! It's not valuable!' This is exactly my point. To hold to any identity which doesn't produce an effect ensures an unspoken caveat: that if ever you attribute anything to it IN ORDER NOT to be racist, you can only attribute to it victimization i.e. that it was acted upon by an external actor. So the environment EFFECTS the identity. The identity doesn't AFFECT the environment. So any attempt to create a non-racist racial identity forces it to become an identity whose only defining trait is non-agency. Which becomes a problem when it's attributed to an agent. The only trait which the identity can describe of an agent, is the extent of their non-agency. Anything else is racist. So the extent to which something happened 'due to you being black' (or white, brown, purple, etc) becomes the extent to which you aren't responsible for it happening. Changing races here, the only way in which you can demonstrate your 'white identity' must be by how others treat you. 'Whiteness' can't be used to describe any of your own beliefs or behaviors (this would be racist) and therefore it can only ever be constructed based on how others treat you. However, either they, or you yourself, must frame this treatment as a consequence not of your race (since this would attribute an effect particular to your race) but rather as a consequence of how others view your race. No effect is required. There is only a pseudo-effect produced in how others respond to your race. And since your race doesn't (or rather ethically should not be interpreted to) produce any effects on others, it is therefore entirely their responsibility for how they treat you 'as a white'. So now 'whiteness' is a product of how non-white people treat whites. Even if you, as a white person, don't view it that way (consciously), if you nevertheless adhere to the classic definition of racism, then it will be constructed in that way regardless (unconsciously). Ergo, 'whiteness' is constructed by the racism of other people, not yourself, even though you would deny this to be true. Even though you would deny it, claiming 'being white means so much more than that' or 'that's not what it means to be white'. But since there's nothing which you can attribute to 'whiteness' without being racist, all you can do is deny any affirmative claims regarding 'what it means to be white'. So you would be stuck denying any attempt to define 'whiteness' in perpetuity all while having no means of defining (nor even knowing) what 'whiteness' actually is i.e. how it's meaningful. So you would reserve and protect the right to define it forever, but never actually do so. Get it?
@@pangloss565 I got from the first sentence that you don't care about the real world. In your construction, though, you argue for race abolition and gender abolition by saying that all products of non-agency are victimization and therefore negative. You also keep conflating black skin, which doesn't affect the environment, with the black social category, which does but is created by others, with the experiences people have as a result of that assignment, in which they do have some agency.
The word “Latinx” doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, I’ve only done 3 years of Spanish but last I checked the language itself is not gender neutral at all so how does incorporating a gender neutral word into a language that isn’t gender neutral help any one? I’m very much a classic liberal, I’ve been a bit dissatisfied with the left but the right in America is just pure evil. I feel left behind in a world of idiots right now. I value free speech and if political correctness was needed at all it should of only been used against clearly defined hate speech. The “n” word or the word British people still use to refer to cigarettes were not bad choices to get rid of, but trying to ensure college, the place that is meant to challenge your ideas, is a space safe from challenging ideas is ludicrous to me. I abhor Jordan Peterson, I think he is a clown, but unlike the kids who banged on the windows when he showed up to speak at their college, I would have gone in and challenged his bad ideas.
You make a good point that PC does not *ultimately* solve the underlying root cause of offense and oppression. But, you overlook the fact that PC does succeed in the goal specified. Namely, PC language *does* reduce harm in the current environment by removing offensive speech from offending and oppressive actors. Ask any oppressed group suffering from offensive slurs whether they prefer those slurs from being hurled at them, and I guarantee the majority of them will prefer having these offensive slurs banned. They will attest that they are seeing *real* relief. Does PC solve the underlying oppression? No. But the intended goal of PC is not to solve every problem related to oppression, and it is ridiculous to believe it would. Rather, PC is one tool in a broad array of social tools to combat oppression.
I disagree. Words and labels propagate perceptions just as much as they are the product of them. Two people are sitting in a coffeeshop when all of a sudden when Person A's ex walks in. Person A says "Oh no, it's my ex. She's a crazy b*tch." Having never met or heard of the ex before, Person B's only value judgement of the ex is what Person A told them. No matter what interaction Person B has with the ex, his perception of them will be colored by Person A's label. Even if Person B never interacts with the ex, this description of the ex will be what Person B remembers. Now this is obviously a small scale example dealing with a very obviously negatively loaded term, but we can see how labels impact people's perceptions quite easily. The disability studies community is working toward "person-first" language, meaning "disabled people" is no longer the appropriate term. "Disabled person" makes disability the most important part of a person it becomes their public identity. On a subconscious level, "disabled people" creates a dehumanizing perception. Humanity is made second. "Person with disabilities" does not have this problem, and so far as we are aware it is the best term to use. Of course words become outdated, especially if picked up by groups who use new terms in a derogatory way. It may seem pointless to use other words at all if the effect may only be temporary. But the real point of PC terms is to re-educate and reevaluate subconscious biases and attitudes we may not realize we had. To be honest, sometimes the "new" terms are stupid. But we can't dismiss them outright either because they have an important function in not just protecting the marginalized groups, but deprogramming harmful attitudes held by the majority. PC terms constantly changing isn't a sign that these words are arbitrary. It's a sign of moral progressivism and awareness. Sometimes we don't pick the best new term right away. Sometimes we need that trial and error until we stumble upon something better. Unfortunately we can't always control when vile groups warp PC terms to cause harm, but making new words allows us to reduce some harm, educate, deprogram, and transform those who wield these harmful words into relics of a hateful past.
"Hey sh*thead!"
"Don't call me that"
"Well that won't remove the underlying negative feelings I have about you"
"Oh OK then..."
literally
I used to think in these terms. It's sometimes called "The Euphemism Treadmill." However I haven't been able to find proof that conforming to new terms distracts from tackling the real issues. They could even make people more aware of the real issues and thus help us fight repression. Moving to a new term may also give temporary relief to members of said group, and a band-aid doesn't in and of itself have to be harmful.
I think the issue comes from aggressive policing in typically left spaces, changing terms is fine and even natural as language evolves, but forcing everyone to use a specific term just divides the minority groups further, and I say this as a latino who simply can't stand "latinx" because to me it feels like a cheap way to signal how "correct and morally superior" someone is without considering not everyone likes this term
@@aetherarcanist4819 I totally get you. It is policing culture, and it's a bad thing
I have an example you might consider: mentally retarded. This was a clinical term roughly after the period where people with various types of cognitive disabilities were institutionally described as imbeciles, idiots, and morons. This is an example of a word game treadmill because people associate those with intellectual disabilities with living a grossly pathetic life.
@@aetherarcanist4819 i thought latinx was a way to shorten 'latina and latino'. ive heard that following the rules of latin that latine is more gramatically correct and easier to say though i have no idea
2:21 The problem with asking everyone what they prefer to be called is that now you have to remember each person's response. I can barely remember people's names when I meet them. There is no way I'm going to remember their preferred term for their group, their pronoun, or any of this other nonsense.
In a good society there should be a level of common courtesy around forgetting things in the same way there is courtesy in forgetting names. If you were briefly introduced to someone a week ago, you should be forgiven for forgetting their name (or some other identifier, their religion, their pronoun, etc.). Someone that got mad at you for that would be just as petty as someone that got mad at you for forgetting their name in the same situation. But if you call your close co-worker of many years who is gay a "fag" over and over again, despite being asked not to, there's a certain point where you become the asshole (in a similar way to you being an asshole for not remembering a close co-worker's name after years of working together). Folks may disagree where that point is (and the political correctness camp might lambast you for doing it even once), but most would agree that there is some point at which once you have spent a certain amount of time with someone, you should devote the mental space to learning their name and enough about them to not make them mad.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene While names are universally useful as identifiers, most politically correct constructs are actively hindering convenient and precise use of language, e.g. Elon Musk is African American, but most would never call him as such, as "African Americans" is used as a imprecise, longer, and thus inferior direct replacement to "Blacks". Contrary to technical terminology that takes extra learning effort to allow for faster and more precise communication political correctness takes extra learning effort to make language more imprecise, longer, and often grammatically incorrect. As such, philosophy as the love for wisdom should encourage the former and reject the latter on general principle. "fag" is a very non-representative example as it has the same amount of letters and complexity of use as the term it replaces; almost every politically correct term is either onerous and/or misleading, see e.g. pronouns.
I agree with @CasualPhilosophy and @ObserverZero.
Also I think some words are inherently more offensive than others. Some words are merely technical, while others dehumanize you (because of etymology or because of another meaning it also has). Some words have a lot of plosive consonants (as bad words often do) while others do not. Some words have stereotypes embedded in them (they originaly refer to specific practices or perceived characteristics and using them to describe every member of a group is a way of diminishing people's identities and perpetuating stereotypes) while others have not.
Just as a house protected by electric fence can still be invaded, a well chosen word can still acquire a bad evaluative content, but it's harder.
thank you linguist
There's also the issue that political correctness, just like many other 'arbiters of morality', easily becomes overzealous and, instead of protecting marginalised groups, simply attack the predominant culture. This effectively poisons the well for the marginalised groups political correctness allegedly wants to protect, since they're often used as a body shield to justify these actions, like trying to cancel people for words they used decades ago as a joke, even if the majority of the group didn't want that and took no part in it, it will fall back on them. This can be observed with a lot of moralising cultures, especially religions, where the alleged goal is discarded in favour of using moral arguments as a weapon against people you dislike.
From RUclips -- we're sorry, this video is no longer available
You state that finding new words to describe stigmatized groups of people doesn’t work because, without changing the underlying stigma, the new terms will eventually acquire similar levels of stigmatization. You also estimated that it would take a generation or two for this process to take place. I can agree with both of those statements, but I think that removing the stigmatized label from a group of people for a generation is a necessary first step to happen before or while addressing other underlying issues. Yes, I agree that without additional structural changes, using politically correct terms only improves some peoples experience as being part of a stigmatized group in the short term, but I do think that improved experience facilities making the structural changes you advocate for. I think you are overlooking this benefit.
One thing to note is that political correctness shouldnnot aim to cease harmful effects of a term referring to marginalized groups. It is political "action", not the "correctness", that is helpful for that. It should be construed as a complementary movement. Is there anyone who really thinks that we can change things in the world just by arranging the way we talk?? It would be ridicilous.
More to that, althoguh I agree that full-blooded PC is deemed to be inefficient in long term, it is not a good counter-argument. It is because the effort needed for considering politically correct words is so small that you can use them even for short-term good effects. As I said, believing thst it is the ultimate solution would already be a too apolitical position.
Louis C.K. has a really wise bit on the term “retarded”: It used to be the politically _correct_ term in his childhood, but it later became a politically _incorrect_ term, because it was used as a slur by everyone but the people in question.
One thing the ongoing PC language substitution does accomplish is this: Whether replacing the previously accepted racial/ethnic term or condemning clinical terms for disabilities, there is, at each iteration in the ongoing process, a dividing of language users into two (at least) groups - the people speaking in a spirit of goodwill who wish to avoid offending, and therefore adopt the new usage, and the people who speak with ill-will and use the new term in the same manner as they used the previous terms. The first group accumulates guilt, fearing they have not kept up with the latest terms, while the second group accumulates a larger inventory of cast-off names to use for the purpose of offending. Further, members of the first group know they have always acted in good faith and good will, and feel helpless in the face of what appears to be a cosmetic approach to problems whose causes are difficult to address effectively. There appears to be no salutary effect for either group.
This was a very interesting video and has me thinking about the ways I can tailor my focus more towards the underlying causes of bigotry rather than merely policing terminology that gets used. Though, perhaps the band-aid provided by political correctness can be helpful, provided that we are simultaneously actively working on dismantling and understanding those underlying issues. Perhaps political correctness could have a better efficacy if we maintained an awareness of its incompleteness in its ability and scope to actually solve or rectify broad societal issues, as well as its obviously temporary impact.
One thing I do question is the alleged trend that you propose where one day's politically correct term is certain to take on a pejorative meaning at some future date. While I recognize the examples given, and can think of a few myself, I question whether it is a fact that it is destined to become the case. At best we could say that has been the case with every politically correct term that's been submitted so far, and I'm not even sure if that is definitely true. Perhaps you're correct about it's inevitable trajectory, assuming the root cause of any particular issue is still at large, but I don't know if we can say that with certainty, or if there's just a number of examples that appear to follow that pattern. 🤷♂️ idk.
I guess I have to reply that one can advocate against racial stereotypes while also working on the root cause. I think a person or a society of humans may contemplate and work on more than one thing simultaneously.
There is a difference between stereotypes and language. Saying M group always does N is a stereotype. Calling M group by name X could be running afoul of political correctness. The point of the video is not the advocate against fighting stereotypes, but rather to say that all the energy that people put into political correctness is ineffective. People can do two things at once, but in doing so they lessen the ability to do either. Why do two things halfheartedly if one does nothing to achieve your goals?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Hi Friend,
I am trying to understand the nuance between your proposal and one from someone that gets mad at me for having a save the whales bumper sticker, that says you should be more worried about the humans to which I say I am worried and supporting many causes. Now granted none of the many are my life's calling.
I am certainly not trying to pester you, only for a discussion so feel free to igore this comment if you see it otherwise.
I would argue that the short term benefits of changing the language is still beneficial and could reduce harm. In addition, allows for a sort of "signposting" of people who do not care enough to even change the words that they use, telling people of the marginalized group to avoid that person. However, I agree that this can be conflated with actually making change and shouldn't be a distraction from actual policy.
its putting a bandaid on a served limb. PC avoids the bigger, more nunuced picture while not making a lasting physical change
@@univeriseman8008 Which is why I said it ought not to be confused with real policy.
Great video. The latest 'correct' term, 'African American', for your example M has even more difficulties:
It is clumsy.
Many people facing similar discrimination to M's have no connection with Africa.
It is irrelevant to describing the many M's living in (say) Europe.
tbh any term you use is fine as long as it isnt already a slur and it doesnt dehumanize the subject. example: black people vs blacks. jewish people vs jews. etc.
I may have to watch a vid more than once for the concepts to fully sink in, but I find your vids absolutely fascinating. ✨️👌🏾✨️ I like to say I must've been a philosopher in a past life, because I'm a naturally analytical--sometimes *OVERLY*--person. Lol! Philosophy confounds the hell out of me oftentimes, but I can't get away from my nature. The hard questions won't be kept at bay in my mind...God knows I try. 😏
I think you have missed a major piece here (which is unusual for your videos-- you almost always give thorough consideration and voice to the key positions on a topic). That piece is the actual perspective of most proponents of PC culture (by which I really mean, people who *within a liberal context* are *called* proponents of "PC" culture). Their perspective more properly fits into a Marxist class analysis than the classical liberal framework you present here. In fact, very few people self-identify as proponents of political correctness. It's a group label that gets applied to various pleas for changes to social norms after the fact, within the context of liberal discourse.
According to a class analysis what is really happening is this: historically, group A has been dominant in a society and has had command over social and discursive norms. Within that society, group B has lacked power and has not had a voice. As a result, group B has had to tolerate whatever representations of them that group A found acceptable. Then, at some point, group B gains power in the society-- perhaps through population growth together with hard won legal and economic attainments. At that point, group B is empowered to speak for themselves. They have a voice because they have become a significant enough group socially, economically, and/or politically that group A must listen to them or face some consequences. What representatives of group B then say is that, among other things, they don't like certain ways that group A has represented them. They feel disrespected by these representations. They then offer their own terms and representations of their group that they would prefer. From the perspective of group B, this is not part of a general program of improving society by using respectful language for all groups. Rather, by stating how they would like to be addressed from now on, they are announcing their arrival at a certain level of power in society where they have their own voice and are no longer at the mercy of group A's representations. For example: think of how gay people were represented by mainstream movies and TV up through the 1990's, when they were usually broadly stereotyped as comic characters, with a few progressive outliers, versus today, where that kind of representation has all but disappeared. What changed during that time was that gay people gained legal rights and political representation and thereby became a more powerful group in our society, such that mainstream media can no longer afford to represent them in ways they find disrespectful. They have gained a voice.
In other words, the very characterization of certain people as proponents of PC culture is a misrepresentation that verges on a strawman. I say "verges" because it isn't necessarily uncharitable. Rather, it's a view of what various groups are doing that naturally arises from interpreting their motives within a certain framework. The problem is that they don't share that framework. Perhaps there really are some well-intentioned members of the dominant group in our society who see things through a liberal framework and believe in something called "political correctness" and argue on behalf of various less dominant groups, as "allies," according to the idea that by making our language more respectful, we will improve society and make it less materially biased. What I am saying is that that is not where calls for changes in social norms actually derive from, in most cases. Rather, for a group that has historically been disenfranchised but has recently made gains in power in a society, calling for a change in social norms around their group's representation is an end in itself.
That is, the liberal "political correctness" view represents calls for changes to discursive and social norms as a *means* for the betterment of society, a way of bringing about less inequality (which is an easy target on efficacy grounds, as you rightly demonstrate). However, the class-power view of most of the actual groups who initiate these calls for changes to norms is that such change is an *end* in itself, as a demonstration of their newly won vocal power in a society.
*Note: within the liberal discourse view, instances of disagreement by members of a group with new terms that are supposed to be more respectful are significant counter-examples, since if the goal of PC language is to make all members of marginalized groups feel more respected, then it looks like PC language will often fail in its goal. However, within a class-power view, if the group's voicing of its own self-representation, against the dominant group's historical representation of them, is itself the end, then particular instances of group members not liking the new representations are not relevant, as long as the majority feel their voice has been heard. ("Latinx" may be a unique case where the problem is that the group ostensibly referred to is actually a number of a separate groups with different motives and power struggles across different regions.)
To somebody who is against Political Correctness for fundamentally classically liberal reasons, what you have written reads as a confession that everything negative said about the phenomena is correct. It's about one group of people exercising power to attempt to determine the minds of other people. Fundamentally, a power move.
@@jeffreyscott4997 Yes, except that it's a good thing. Power is always exercised by groups to assert the reality of their identity in society. When one group possesses overwhelming power, they can suppress the ability of a smaller group to assert themselves. I'm aware that conservatives call this view "cultural marxism" and criticize it as authoritarian, but I have never seen a good faith attempt made by them to dispute the underlying claims about the nature of social power and expression. These claims seem self-evident. If a group can be successfully intimidated into silence with threats of violence, as blacks and gay people in the US were at one time, and if they lack legal rights and economic productive means, as blacks and gays in the US did at one time, then they don't have a voice to say who they are and what counts as respectful address to them. It doesn't matter that a piece of paper says that they do. I have never seen anyone defend the position that these basic claims are wrong.
The basic claim I consider wrong, is that human being can be put into different categories that give them different moral statuses.
Fundamentally, the rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerless by the powerful, must be the same rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerful by the powerless, or it is not by virtue of being a human person that one has one's moral status.
And if that is considered by you to be true, that it is not by virtue of being human, but by virtue of being in some sub-category of human (gay vs straight, black vs. white, poor vs. rich, etc.) that one gains one's moral status, then I consider you an enemy of mankind.you
So, if you get a voice in saying what you are, then I get a voice in saying what you are, and if I get a voice in saying what you are, you get a voice in saying what you are. The same for saying what I am.
Either that, or our existence is an anathema to each other's self interest and let's just get out our pointy sticks and stop lying to ourselves and try to kill each other.
@@jeffreyscott4997 further, if you agree that this is the social reality, but still claim that people shouldn't in any way coerce other people to use certain language-- neither the dominant group nor the less powerful group-- on what basis are you arguing this "should"? It seems that it can't be a consequentialist basis, where the ends justify the means, since the means in question are already being used against one group to do greater harm in suppressing them-- such that using the same means to increase benefit, with negligible comparative harm on the other end, must be estimated to be worth the cost. Just as lesser violence by a defender is justified in the prevention of greater violence by an aggressor, on consequentialist grounds, so lesser social expressive coercion in defense of a group is justified against greater social expressive coercion by a dominating group. So, the "should" here needs to be backed by a more absolutist, duty ethics view. The pacifist says that violence is never under any circumstances justified, and similarly an anti-social coercionist could say such pressure is never justified. But-- the consequentialist is free to ignore such people, since *where they are sincere*, they are such extreme idealists that they have little impact on real social policy, and where they are insincere, their true values and beliefs lie elsewhere, as a matter of course.
@@jeffreyscott4997 "Fundamentally, the rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerless by the powerful, must be the same rules by which what is moral, in the treatment of the powerful by the powerless, or it is not by virtue of being a human person that one has one's moral status."
Yeah, this is not a consequentialist view. It's a duty ethics view, that morals make up an external, ahistorical, universal code of principles that apply to all people equally. I will assume that you sincerely believe in this, since you've given me no reason to doubt you (unlike many conservative figures etc.). But again, if so, it is so idealistic that I as a consequentialist am free to ignore you, since it doesn't cash out into real world policy. For one, how could this principle ever be enforced, if the very act of enforcing it would violate it? In the ideal, it is not contradictory, and so not invalid on those grounds, but it also *as a fully consistent* injunction, doesn't have much real world application. And the consequentialist is solely concerned with real world benefit and harm outcomes.
Jean Baudrillard’s ideas of hyperreality and simulacra would encapsulate everything that is wrong with political correctness. It shifts the discussion from issues of discrimination or hierarchy and delays them in favor the correct way to talk about those issues. In other words, our political discourse is more about how to talk about politics than politics itself
What ive always taken away from political correctness was that its a way to capitolise on progressive sentiments at the engineered expense of conservative or traditional values. In the 90's when i was first exposed to it it was merly a re-naming of existing terms to make them sound less traditional and folksy, and more advanced and relevant. House wife became homemaker, then home house engineer...stuff like thst but all meant the same exact thing without adding any value to the discussion. Fast foreward unto now, political correctness is a rudderless ship where the identity politics has caused a term to mean anything one wants it to mean simply through a subjective individual context. So theres little value in the terminology other thsn how one can wield its use as a weapon against their oppoents. Denouncing someone as a femenist, or an sjw, or as a conservative, or as liberal, or as a _______ supremacist carries almost no meaning as they are often used as ways to discredit someone to a particular audience without making any arguments.
It was in years gone by a way to empower ppl through carefully selected langauge as you stated, but now is a tool to silence opposition, through individual assumptions of what those terms mean. Its a devaluation of language that is separate from the natural evolution of common usage.
Homemaker and home engineer sound like ironic slurs.
Wow!! Great video!!! Hats off!!!!
I so believe the argument is convincing. However I would argue that even if we take the position that the new words will eventually take on a negative connotation that there is some benefit in giving those populations some level of say so in how they want to be referred to. Now of course there is no monolith of agreement amongst those communities, i think appealing to at least some kind of majority does help. Most black Americans are pretty okay with being referred to as "black people" as it is how we refer to ourselves within the community qnd there doesn't seem to be much of a debate around that term. You are absolutely correct about those in power using the veneer of being performatively progressive to not take actual substantive action.
"...there is some benefit in giving those populations some level of say so in how they want to be referred..." I disagree. The minority, or numerically inferior, group should have no say in how they're addressed.
@@pendejo6466 That's some psycho opinion right there.
@@TheDilla Not really, this actually how nature works; including human nature.
@@pendejo6466 Source: Dude trust me
@@TheDilla Tell me about this fantastical place where minorities don't suffer at the hands of the majority?
TLDR "I can't walk and chew gum at the same time - and even if I could, no gum is perfect therefore why bother?"
-Why can't I say the N-word?
-Why do you want to say the N-word?
I would normally not use that word, but I would also not bother to tell other people not to use it. I think the argument in the video is not against the change in language, but rather against the policing of language.
Responding to 10.10. Yes, it is laziness when it is by done its own. But let us not make the mistake and ignore that changing our vocabulary IS sometimes part of the solution. It was not with 'retard' and 'negro', but it was with 'gay' and 'homosexual'. We don't know if it is a necessary one, but it seems to work and it could be argued that this is, for now at least, a good reason to use it.
You cannot eliminate incorrect solutions by erasing questions. So trying to force this, especially language censorship, doesn't work. There is simply no means to remove a term which refers to a category negatively. It will always remain because the preference which produces it will always exist and facilitate its construction. The form of it may change but the desire to produce it will not.
If the term loses it's power though, then its usage becomes meaningless due to a lack of impact, rather than intention. This is why calling men on the Left 'cucks' and men on the Right 'nazis' has lost its sting. Overuse has destroyed their power, though not their meaning.
Hence too, why the need for a term for 'cool' and the necessity that it's 'not what our parents used' always comes into existence and in a different form. As it turns out, transforming 'bad words' into terms of endearment is the way to go, since it has a perfect track record. It was also masculine culture which discovered it and employ it every single day, to the horror and clutched pearls of Karens and faux-moralists alike.
And yes, the way the N-word is now used is a great example of this, except they won't let go of its exclusive use. Until this happens, it can't become a term of endearment between all peoples. But I doubt this will last much longer thanks to rap culture.
If you haven't experienced how men rag on each other with the worst possible language yourself, then you've never seen what it does to eliminate their power. It's akin to how these same people can fight each other in order to become best friends, since you always have to concede that regardless his big dumb nose and his idiot opinions, he did get you with a great hook. Quite literally, mean words isn't a problem which exists within these subcultures, so it where we need to look for the solution.
This is also why men and boys trash-talk online.
And if anybody has a problem with the actual solution, then considering what's at stake here (at worst) they're going to have to sacrifice some of their ego and sense of morality in order to allow a greater ethical benefit. If they can't, then they're part of the problem. Frankly, I think they're almost all of the problem, considering what things used to be like for us guys in the 90s before they showed up and started policing us via HR. Hint: nobody cared about your anything. They cared if you could work.
It's a beautiful thing.
This is an incomplete analysis that doesn’t factor in the impact of the raising of awareness towards the existence of the bias.
Whether people accept uniformly the new term or rail against it, everyone ends up more aware of a need for change - regardless of whether said change is forthcoming based on the new terminology alone (which i would agree does not cause the required change).
In general it would seem like the wisest choice to ask people how they’d like to be referred. That’s not going to prevent harm but at least it doesn’t wind up with monstrosities like “Latinx”.
fun fact, many native americans would prefer being called “Indians”, often citing the enshrining of white people’s stupidity as a huge plus.
The reality is that if having the term used to address you is considered offensive, even when to others it is not, then ethically it ought not. Yet similarly, if you consider using the term on others is offensive, even when to others it is not, then ethically you ought not be compelled to do so.
In the end we have a situation in which the language we use to address each other cannot be compelled one way or the other. Then the only fix we have, and one that isn't foreign to us (except lately) is the concept of 'taking it on good faith' i.e. 'The Good Faith Interpretation.'
Should you feel insulted, you must presume it was not intentional. Just as they would courteously presume on your part. Then should we seek to alter terms as and between individuals, then that is the place for it.
I strongly reject the assumption that there is an underlying bigotry to most terms that are nowadays considered politically incorrect, derogatory in some way or even "slurs" or "dog whistles". Most negative connotations exist due to being grounded in true observations, such as the on average disproportionately higher crime rate and lower educational attainment of certain minorities like e.g. those of African descent in most Western countries, which is the reason no matter how you call the group even people that are not racist always end up with the same association as a term signalling problems after a while. Reality asserts itself. The shift of an intentionally derogatory term to a more positive meaning or vice versa is a common occurrence when the reality it maps to does not fit the initial meaning (any more). E.g. "Made in Germany" was initially designed to prevent British citizens from purchasing such products, and look how that turned out, because the implied lower quality of this wares in comparison to British ones was easily recognizable as untrue. Nor would anyone think of a prostitute if they hear the terms seamstress, actress or laundress nowadays, while in the 18th centaury those jobs were (with good reason) considered so closely related that the latter terms were used as euphemisms in lieu of the former.
What is the negative side of empathy and compassion in the hegelian dialectic?..... Many would say we cause more harm than good with our political correctness.
Doubtful - in part because it assumes a derogatory term used to criticize a group by dishonest actors contains an accurate description of what is being done. Its a straw man, yes Political Correctness fails, but its a behavior invented by opponents and applied without regard to its accuracy in order to then claim it fails. The question is not whether Political Correctness fails but whether the actual behavior (trying to avoid using terms perceived by members of a community as offensive and instead making the effort to express yourself in ways that accord other people dignity and respect) is appropriate/effective/moral (whatever criteria you wish to judge it by) - and you cannot address that by discussing the caricature as if it is the reality.
I think this sidesteps the issue. As mentioned, these terms can legitmately cause people to feel unwell, and how big a hassle is it really to change the term? And we shouldn't think it's hindering progress, and we clearly see, as there clearly has been made progress in restoring the owed equality between races, and it sure wasn't by those insisting on keeping the perjorative terms.
Lastly, and granted, this is merely armchair speculation, but I believe arguments like these to be post-hoc rationalizations of feelings. People simply think it bothersome and don't want to change the terms they use because it's what they're used to and as a species, we generally hate changing things if we don't see the need to.
Is it irrational that one word causes discomfort while another, referring to the very same group does? Of course, but we're humans and we're irrational, and it's not a lot to do to accomodate our fellow human beings. Like how many times has this really come up? I remember like, three instances in my 30 years of life, and I really don't think that's too excessive
Very few people are actually rendered physically unwell by terms. Those that are should probably seek mental assistance. That assistance would probably involve some kind of exposure therapy. We're doing those people no favors by hampering them with an unresolved kill switch. Imagine someone's been shielded like that and suddenly someone says it to them on a busy crosswalk.
No. If you want to mitigate the use of "harmful" terminology, you need to normalize and expand the use of such. Use it on everyone, until it loses it's targetted meaning altogether. Take it from a Sinister, you're doing yourself absolutely no favors by being a walking liability.
You made a huge assumption in the video, that language has absolutely no affect on thought, when most linguists assert the opposite. Changing the language you use does in fact change the way you think about things, and you made a huge assumption that simply because new words have gained old connotations in the past, that this will happen in all cases, and this is argument from anecdote.
Carneades very clearly explained that * as long as the underlying issues are not resolved * the terms would regain their initial negative connotation. Of course, should the issues be resolved, the connotations would not come back, since their is no ground for it.
Yeah, this video shows clear ignorance in sociolonguistics
Ah the old euphemism treadmill…
Best to refer to individuals as they wish to be named, or don't speak to them. If your name is Bob, why call you Alice without permission? Free speech comes with a caveat: beware of the buyer; they may wish you to take it back and demand a refund!
You don't have to talk to the police! It's best not to! You don't have to defend yourself in a court of law, best you do - despite being advised against it: why; if someone learned and wise is willing to defend you, there might be legitimate support for your actions.
This video was very informative. I have always thought that if people are being marginalized and abused because of something you don't want to make the people or party feel better, you should want to fix the actual problems that cause the abuse or marginalizing. To apply this in politics, US Democrats love to pay lip service to minority groups over everything under the sun but they craft those very policies that hurt those very people.
I feel that the majority of people (at least online) who argue about free speech v political correctness are the ones who themselves will get offended by or offensively use terms like "whiteness" or "white fragility" respectively, without really understanding the context behind them.
This is my biggest problem with telling people that certain words are always wrong, and not why the recipient would not like to hear it. Bad words get more power once they are accepted universally as bad words.
Let's say that one reason for a negative stereotype of a group is the bad behavior within that group and the lack of visibility of anyone within that group doing something about it. Say violence and criminality. If young purple men commit crimes and violence in numbers way out of proportion to young men of other colors, and society notices this, you can see how that can lead to a negative stereotype or even bigotry against purple people. All the more when a law abiding purple is harassed or falsely accused by the police, he blames it on "racism" of the police and not on the higher number of crimes committed by other purples that the police are reacting to and are paid to deal with.
Of course the political class will jump to the conclusion that we still have "systemic" racism because purples get arrested for crimes way out of proportion to their percentage of the overall population. While the rest of the people, including purples themselves, notice that there sure seem to be a lot of purples committing crimes.
Which, until purples somehow reduce the criminal behavior of members of the purple community, will contribute to the negative stereotypes and even bigotry non-purples have toward purples.
Which is why my proposal that we have a Crime Strike, meaning everybody stops committing crimes, is the one way to break this cycle of discrimination.
Go and sin no more. I wish I could take credit for this idea of the Crime Strike, but someone else beat me to it 2,000 years ago.
For if all we do about this is whine and complain, and police what people can say about it, this crap will still be going on 20 years from now, 40 years from now, 100 years from now.
You know I'm right.
Hello
Criticizing the use of terms alone will, of course, mask substantial oppression of marginalized groups, but "language policing" doesn't preclude resistance to more severe oppression. For example, news of the Highland Park massacre aired on an outdoor TV at a July 4th cookout. A woman called the mass-murderer a wh*cko and I replied "I'd call him a monster instead " It's not like I would have been off fighting severa oppression of people w/mental illness (or another marginalized group) if this woman never uttered this slur.
(Note: I agree that we shouldn't "bite someone's head off" over an unintentional expression of prejudice.)
Yes, new terms for marginalized groups sometimes evolve into slurs, and members of these groups sometimes disagree over proper terminology, but this video exaggerates the severity of these problems--they don't even come close to calling for the elimination of all resistance to offensive language.
As noted in the video, the goal is not to say "say whatever slur you want" but rather to point out that political correctness fails at reducing harm. It is not saying political correctness is morally wrong, simply that it is ineffective at actually accomplishing its goal. The point is not that language policing is bad, just that it does not really do anything in the long term.
Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Brazil, Turkmenistan, Hungary, Poland. Those are but few of the countries where programmatic rejection of political corectness is a part of their rulling elite's ideology. And those are indeed the vanguards of genuine social progress. As soon as they stopped wasting energy impotently virtue-signaling political corectness, they were able to use their free time to roll up their sleeves and start implementing real positive change. And it's definitely not the case that their rejection of political corectness is just scaremongering to keep their population distracted from how cripplingly corrupt and exploitative their political and economic systems are, no no no.
There is a clue into a non politically correct definition of "Political correctness". It means what those in power want you to say and not say.
There is an interesting intersection between the notion of speech causing harm and whether or not one can in a judicial setting advocate that the speech itself could have been using non-harmful words instead of the actually harmful words (assuming the person speaking were infromed about their potential choice of word's cnsequence), and whether we can codify not law, but language to be without the need for interpretation in edgecases.
I do not think the public at large is at a place where such a policy implementation can be made where the individual talking has to bear the burden of being responsible for not offending the other person outside codified cases.
An example where arbitration courts are being used could be the canadian human rights tribunal, but they do not operate on principles but rather impression. It's someetimes a court of law, but in order to function efficiently it also has to deal with borderline interpretations of the spirit of the law. In my opinion that is a failing, seeing as that allows clause to venture down a slipper slope which eventually stifles words.
I'm writing this as there are two types of speech worth considering relating to your video: Your speech and its actual content, and what your speech meant in the eyes of the beholder. There becomes a slippery slope where if we accept that there can be two versions of a word that expresses different intentions, it's possible to in an isolated analysis of the word have them mean mutually exclusive things, thereby also expressing opposite intents. "Your honour, when i said that i wanted to kill them in minecraft i meant it as a joke, i never actually wanted to murder them". Off course we are both aware of the problems this can bring, so the court needs to establish a dicctionary to deal with this, but the literate can always find ways to move around this by proxy unless we literally enforce some sort of grammar policing.
I argue that we from this argument alone will be unable to as judicial systems to judge intent based on expressions alone, we must see actions as a form of intent expression that is entirely unambiguous, and that is precedent as of now. But it's being challenged from many sides.
It's a game of cat and mouse that nobody can win without introducing the problem of whether a specific action was premeditated or not without using interpretations, seeing as it could always be argued in court otherwise that the charged person actually doesn't fit the bill the law aims to address. We could safely assume that authoritarian rulings in courts are scary and open the box that allows the court to become a political tool these days, but in order to entirely meet the entire demand, which obviously has slippery slopes of itself like some demands being unreasonable, the entire system has to open itself up to the same slippery slope for all cases. The court has to be willing to not let some rulings pass, but when every case a court makes can be seen not only as a tragedy to either plaintiff, society, the court or the judge themselves i think too much is at stake to risk it.
I think opening this pandoras box is appealing to a lot of people, but the more i have thought about the matter the more i oppose it. It partially stems from my own willingness to be offended and my assumed (i can dream ok) codified legal system. Like it started as taking the presumption of innoccence as a base axiom, and it ended here with a view that would cause upheaval in the entire established court of humanity in all camps.
But i also think it is the only way we can ensure that the presumption of innocence is upkept.
This leads me to believe that even if speech causes harm, i can not sacrifice the spirit of the court body or the concept of law in society, and most certainly innocent people to soothe someone elses non life-threatening discomfort. Even if it causes harm there are larger stakes at play that are far more important than any individuals emotions (my evaluation, it's my idea of fair).
My solution to the whole neologism or dogwhistle problem, and why i think it's possible to erase most of race based focuses (or any pejorative personal focus) is the fact that they are all assumptions based on ad hominems. By teaching people proper debating (one of my life missions, eventually) the blatant nature of bigotry just being a buttload of biases and bad arguments should resolve the very core of the issue itself. I think no amount of focus on specifically offended groups can more than illustrate particular offense, it doesn't support the underlying principle to point out that words are offensive to X group.
Because that's an option i oppose mediocre (imo) attempts to spark policy to deal with these issues when they do not unravel the fabric of the conflic itself. We cannot legislate people to become better philosophers, that takes proactive measures, especially during their formative years. I generallly oppose pedagougery and manipulation where it is not increasing the abilities of another person. I think teaching a person the basics for thinking is the most benign method of manipulation and one we should seek more strongly than any other subject. After all we're teaching the person to criticise in itself, which also would be a gaping wound in any system trying to pose as teaching the correct view.
This was all over the place, i got home from work and was happy to find you had published another video. I hope this sparked ideas for you, and if they sparked new ones i'm even happpier! Keep it up :D
Would making people stand for the National Anthem be a form of political correctness? If not, explain why.
It would be ironic, in America.
@@pangloss565 More like hypocritical, don't you think? As someone who fought for this country in the Persian Gulf War, the last thing I want are some phony patriots standing-up to fake honor me, our flag, or our country. Stand-up of your own free-will, or just keep sitting your ass down! At least that way, I know where you stand politically.
Hahaha I would say that PC movement and ideas fail for few more reasons, but, at the end, I believe you are totally right. Sorry for not staying skeptical this time xD
The point is to point out to people when they are being insensitive. If someone tells you to stop using obvious slurs like the N-word, or f*g, or c*nt, they are simply asking you to consider the feelings of others. This usually causes resentment, because people don't like to be called out for childish, selfish, bad behavior. So, instead, they deny being an a-hole and create a convoluted argument about free speech. The truth is, those terms used to be widely acceptable, but aren't any more. They, and the people that use them, have lost out in the marketplace of ideas.
"... childish, selfish, bad behavior."
This is why you'll never get through to them because you prejudge the intention and motivation and ethics of their actions. Which is a wonderful irony, considering you believe their language to be prejudicial. The Christians are right about not judging lest ye be judged. It's not a religious commandment but a sensible one for making friends with your enemies.
It's not that people hate being 'called out'. You don't have that kind of power -they don't respect you enough for that to be the case. Presuming that they do is the first thing that would annoy them.
Secondly, they simply do not care and know that it's a chance somebody will be offended by their speech. What these people don't like is being told after the fact to consider something which they, by dint of their use of language, DID consider and demonstrated that they DO NOT CARE about it. They are annoyed that you presume that they are ignorant, or not-careful, or not thoughtful. They are annoyed that you aren't acknowledging their choice to say what they said as a choice, not a mistake.
And they are annoyed that you would impose a moral judgment on them which they do not adhere to. Like how radical Muslims will sometimes force non-Muslim women to cover up. It's not a severe of course, but it is no less pretentious.
As for the 'marketplace of ideas' any child who plays online games, or talks online, have had every manner of word normalized to them already. And while attempting to moralize these words after their formative years through, of all things, higher education has certain produced some truly puritanical people, they are absolutely in the minority.
@@pangloss565 My point is that they "DID consider and demonstrated that they DO NOT CARE about it." Why don't they care? You say this many times. They don't care about or respect others. Their words aren't careless, but carefully chosen. So what point are the words making? You try to hide behind some kind of mental superiority, when in reality you are just uncaring.
It's called nitpicking lol
The current debate over gender pronouns perhaps adds a nuance to this. As stated in the video, the problem arises when a term accumulates some undesired negative connotation. That is, the word becomes _inherenty_ negative. But the word "he" is hurtful only when applied to a transwoman (m2f); it has not become _inherently_ hurtful, as can be seen by its ongoing innocuous use to refer to men. So it is negative connotation _in use_ that is the problem PC is trying to solve, not negative connotation per se. Well, either that or the push for change in gender pronouns is something other than Political Correctness.
Transgender people make up less than 1% of the population. Gay and bisexual people make up about 15% of the population. I believe a society should be judged not for how well the most well off in society are doing but for how the smallest groups are treated.
The right wing position in the gender pronoun battle is ludicrous. It’s as simple as “show respect for your fellow human and call them whatever pronoun they want to be called” easy.
@@kirkmarshall2853, I understand but it's completely tangential to my point. The transgender topic was just an example; the crux of what I was saying was that it is not necessary for negative connotations to _inhere_ in the term in question. All that matters is that such connotations become attached to the term _in a particular use-case._
I have a spicy conundrum for you:
Question: 'What can you hold a black person responsible for 'as a black person' without being technically racist?'
All I can think of is your race's reputation with others. This isn't fair, but it's so obviously realistic it's pointless to deny that.
BUT regardless the practically of my answer, I don't think you technically can do this without being racist. Treating people as an example of their group rather than as an individual seems extremely unethical and qualifies as racism.
So here's the spicy part:
If a black person tells you about 'The Black Experience' then it has to be their experience as a victim by definition, since they can't produce any effects 'as a black person' which they would be responsible for and thus responsible for producing the experience. Ergo, to claim any uniquely 'black experience' is to claim that: 'to be black is to be victimized'. Black Experience = Victim Experience. To have a 'Black Experience' is to have a 'Victim Experience'.
So then to claim that 'black' is a part of your identity, all without attributing anything to it that it's responsible for, nor any purpose for it nor any unique effects it produces, is to claim that 'victim' is a part of your identity. So then if 'black' is an intrinsic part of your identity, then 'victim' becomes an intrinsic part of your identity subsequently.
So if you wanna be a victim -and even if you don't, then who really needs woke theory and political correctness when you can just stick to the rules of what's racist and what's not? It makes you into a victim instantly, whether you want it to or not. Whether you're actually being victimized or not. A perpetrator doesn't need to exist. All that can save you from this conundrum is 'color blindness' i.e. not recognizing race as part of your identity.
I don't expect a response to this spice but I'd rather try to pick the brain of somebody more learned than myself.
You've got two contradictory statements:
One, that black experience is victimhood because it can't be chosen and is thus externally imposed.
Two, that black experience can be internally composed and not be victimhood.
Black people can identify with both the racism that they've suffered and also with a culture which exists in spite of that racism.
@@only20frickinletters Not quite. If 'black' is a CULTURE then it creates effects. But I'm not talking about black culture. I'm talking specifically about what you could be responsible for as a black person.
Not to mention, the concept of 'acting black' is also considered racist i.e. you can't 'act black'. Which then begs the question of what 'black culture' even is. Is it simply the aggregate behavior of all black people? Obviously not, but then what is it?
Regardless that tangent and while I take your point, it's not on target here. I appreciate the attempt and any future one.
To help with your understanding, I pose instead that claims of your experiences are, with respect to much if not most of your identity, a result of your interactions. So the way that you interact with 'X' produces 'Y' which is unique to you and your responsibility for having produced it. You are in some part proactive, reactive, and interactive in your experiences.
So then if the reactive aspect of the 'black experience' is, as I argue: victimhood, then what is the proactive and interactive aspect? What part of the black experience are they responsible for and how does being black interact with the rest of society/reality?
If there is no proactive nor interactive aspect which we can attribute without being racist, then I'm left to suppose that I'm not wrong and that 'black' constructed in the fashion it is now, ensures that it cannot be attributed to it any effects. It can only 'produce the effect' of presenting themselves as a target for racism.
And hence it would seem that such racial identity produces its own sense of victimization. I see the same with all races, mind you. Though really, I see the same with all 'identities' which are purported to exist yet without any effects.
Looking forward to your response.
@@pangloss565 You're conveniently forgetting that there are others identifying black people as black, targeting them with racism and producing a "sense of victimization."
@@only20frickinletters Convenient? lol I don't care about the actual cases of racism. Those aren't philosophically interesting! I'm talking about victimization which is created axiomatically by virtue of how you construct your identity. In this case, the 'black' identity (though it doesn't have to be racial). It could also be 'woman' and indeed, what I'm seeing here happened to 'woman' a while back already imo.
I'm constructing a self-fulfilling prophecy here. This idea of a sense of victimization without a perpetrator is fascinating. Whether by race or whatever else. Race is just the simplest version to explore this (I think) because racial identity is either baloney or as 'thin' as identity can get.
Though more to the point, this appears to be a matter of the classic definition of racism i.e. 'discrimination based on race' producing a situation in which blacks (or anyone else) can't attribute anything to their blackness without being racist. This is revealed when a white person say, claims how their whiteness produces value (some preferential effect) for those around them. Hence others value it and he values it too. 'I'm proud to be white.' It leaves a poor taste in the mouth to say it and it is countered by claiming, 'Whiteness doesn't produce anything you racist! It's not valuable!'
This is exactly my point. To hold to any identity which doesn't produce an effect ensures an unspoken caveat: that if ever you attribute anything to it IN ORDER NOT to be racist, you can only attribute to it victimization i.e. that it was acted upon by an external actor. So the environment EFFECTS the identity. The identity doesn't AFFECT the environment. So any attempt to create a non-racist racial identity forces it to become an identity whose only defining trait is non-agency. Which becomes a problem when it's attributed to an agent.
The only trait which the identity can describe of an agent, is the extent of their non-agency. Anything else is racist. So the extent to which something happened 'due to you being black' (or white, brown, purple, etc) becomes the extent to which you aren't responsible for it happening.
Changing races here, the only way in which you can demonstrate your 'white identity' must be by how others treat you. 'Whiteness' can't be used to describe any of your own beliefs or behaviors (this would be racist) and therefore it can only ever be constructed based on how others treat you. However, either they, or you yourself, must frame this treatment as a consequence not of your race (since this would attribute an effect particular to your race) but rather as a consequence of how others view your race. No effect is required. There is only a pseudo-effect produced in how others respond to your race. And since your race doesn't (or rather ethically should not be interpreted to) produce any effects on others, it is therefore entirely their responsibility for how they treat you 'as a white'.
So now 'whiteness' is a product of how non-white people treat whites. Even if you, as a white person, don't view it that way (consciously), if you nevertheless adhere to the classic definition of racism, then it will be constructed in that way regardless (unconsciously). Ergo, 'whiteness' is constructed by the racism of other people, not yourself, even though you would deny this to be true. Even though you would deny it, claiming 'being white means so much more than that' or 'that's not what it means to be white'. But since there's nothing which you can attribute to 'whiteness' without being racist, all you can do is deny any affirmative claims regarding 'what it means to be white'. So you would be stuck denying any attempt to define 'whiteness' in perpetuity all while having no means of defining (nor even knowing) what 'whiteness' actually is i.e. how it's meaningful. So you would reserve and protect the right to define it forever, but never actually do so.
Get it?
@@pangloss565 I got from the first sentence that you don't care about the real world. In your construction, though, you argue for race abolition and gender abolition by saying that all products of non-agency are victimization and therefore negative.
You also keep conflating black skin, which doesn't affect the environment, with the black social category, which does but is created by others, with the experiences people have as a result of that assignment, in which they do have some agency.
The word “Latinx” doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, I’ve only done 3 years of Spanish but last I checked the language itself is not gender neutral at all so how does incorporating a gender neutral word into a language that isn’t gender neutral help any one?
I’m very much a classic liberal, I’ve been a bit dissatisfied with the left but the right in America is just pure evil. I feel left behind in a world of idiots right now. I value free speech and if political correctness was needed at all it should of only been used against clearly defined hate speech. The “n” word or the word British people still use to refer to cigarettes were not bad choices to get rid of, but trying to ensure college, the place that is meant to challenge your ideas, is a space safe from challenging ideas is ludicrous to me.
I abhor Jordan Peterson, I think he is a clown, but unlike the kids who banged on the windows when he showed up to speak at their college, I would have gone in and challenged his bad ideas.
Fail is a trendy word but not the best one for the title of this video topic. Perhaps, failed view on political correctness.
Ah a snowflake
@@kingstarscream320 haha made ya look
You can be politically correct or actually correct. You can't be both
You make a good point that PC does not *ultimately* solve the underlying root cause of offense and oppression. But, you overlook the fact that PC does succeed in the goal specified. Namely, PC language *does* reduce harm in the current environment by removing offensive speech from offending and oppressive actors.
Ask any oppressed group suffering from offensive slurs whether they prefer those slurs from being hurled at them, and I guarantee the majority of them will prefer having these offensive slurs banned. They will attest that they are seeing *real* relief.
Does PC solve the underlying oppression? No. But the intended goal of PC is not to solve every problem related to oppression, and it is ridiculous to believe it would. Rather, PC is one tool in a broad array of social tools to combat oppression.
You can’t combat oppression by suppressing speech. Suppressing speech IS oppression.
I disagree. Words and labels propagate perceptions just as much as they are the product of them. Two people are sitting in a coffeeshop when all of a sudden when Person A's ex walks in. Person A says "Oh no, it's my ex. She's a crazy b*tch." Having never met or heard of the ex before, Person B's only value judgement of the ex is what Person A told them. No matter what interaction Person B has with the ex, his perception of them will be colored by Person A's label. Even if Person B never interacts with the ex, this description of the ex will be what Person B remembers.
Now this is obviously a small scale example dealing with a very obviously negatively loaded term, but we can see how labels impact people's perceptions quite easily.
The disability studies community is working toward "person-first" language, meaning "disabled people" is no longer the appropriate term. "Disabled person" makes disability the most important part of a person it becomes their public identity. On a subconscious level, "disabled people" creates a dehumanizing perception. Humanity is made second. "Person with disabilities" does not have this problem, and so far as we are aware it is the best term to use.
Of course words become outdated, especially if picked up by groups who use new terms in a derogatory way. It may seem pointless to use other words at all if the effect may only be temporary. But the real point of PC terms is to re-educate and reevaluate subconscious biases and attitudes we may not realize we had.
To be honest, sometimes the "new" terms are stupid. But we can't dismiss them outright either because they have an important function in not just protecting the marginalized groups, but deprogramming harmful attitudes held by the majority.
PC terms constantly changing isn't a sign that these words are arbitrary. It's a sign of moral progressivism and awareness. Sometimes we don't pick the best new term right away. Sometimes we need that trial and error until we stumble upon something better. Unfortunately we can't always control when vile groups warp PC terms to cause harm, but making new words allows us to reduce some harm, educate, deprogram, and transform those who wield these harmful words into relics of a hateful past.
This video is a massive red flag. Was going to subscribe until I saw it.
Seeing “why political correctness” as a red flag is in itself a red flag. Very very unusual to find sane people who believe in PC.