Comments on: Opinion: The Politeness of Freedom (A short essay on Political Correctness)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:37:30 +0000

Political correctness is simply a tool to make oneself look good in one’s own and other’s eyes. It is also a tool of untruths to use against those that one doesn’t agree with. It’s stupid and false and very apparent.

By: matt

matt — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:48:06 +0000

The issue is a thorny one, however those on the right and they usually are on the right who use the phrases “political correctness gone mad.” or “liberal elite” are being less than honest about their intentions. I have heard these phrases bandied about in the certain sections of the media and then repeated in pubs by the readers of certain papers. When challenged what they mean they usaully resort to the same reactionary arguments on race, immigration, crime, children and young people. In short “Political correctness gone mad” is reactionary right wing short hand for damm those pesky liberals they won’t let me smack my kids, discriminate against people because of thier race, gender, sexuality etc, See Richard Littejohn or drive my gas guzzling car at obscenely fast speeds, see Jeremy Calarkson. It really is a way of trying to turn back the clock to a time when it was acceptable for people to put up signs saying no blacks or irish need apply and when the police go results by giving someone a good kicking in the cells. The phrase is used by those with a deeply unpleasent and authoritarian agenda and for them to pretend in any way it is about freedom of specch is a lie.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:33:59 +0000

I started a comment but it got so long it turned into a blog – http://acomfortableplace.blogspot.com/2008/06/plicrecnessgummad.html

By: bishop Hill

bishop Hill — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:11:47 +0000

There’s something rather ironic about this conversation happening while in Canada someone has been hauled up in front of a kangaroo court for breaches of political correctness.

By: Oranjepan

Oranjepan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:44:29 +0000

‘Politically correct’ – feeling justified in speaking out or telling someone to shut up.

‘Good ettiquette’ – knowing when and how to best speak out and knowing when to keep your own mouth shut.

By: asquith

asquith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:35:43 +0000

“I agree with the thrust of your points that we should be ‘levelling-up’ to create an even playing field rather than the other way around”

Yes, and so do I. I’m just saying that it’s wrong to assume all women, and all racial minorities, are disadvantaged by default.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:28:35 +0000

Fair comment James but i think in order to clarify what we are meaning the adoption of something like ‘targeted encouragement’ would not be a bad thing….I think that is something that it is much harder to argue against…in general I agree with the thrust of your points that we should be ‘levelling-up’ to create an even playing field rather than the other way around….

By: James Graham

James Graham — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:55:39 +0000

Darrell: we never refer to such initiatives as “positive discrimination” and avoid the term like the plague. My point is that their detractors call it that and this leads to a lot of confusion.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:54:02 +0000

But we provide training for white men as well, and no-one is suggesting we shouldn’t try to target other under-represented groups. I just don’t understand this obsession with levelling down, insisting we can’t do anything pro-active to redress our poor record in reflecting wider society for fear of hurting some white bloke’s sense of inadequacy.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:53:40 +0000

James;

Then we need to reclaim the syntax and prehaps leave out the word ‘discrimination’ entirely for the kind of projects you describe and I agree would be worthy of our support…targeted encouragement seems a much better framing of what is being done in that case because I think when most people hear the phrase positive discrimination they do think of the kind of zero-sum things that we are both agreed are not worthy of progressive support…

By: asquith

asquith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:45:47 +0000

Yes, but imagine a scheme aimed at women and members of ethnic minorities which only benefited the most affluent members of those “groups”, which it inevitably would. Whereas white males from poorer backgrounds, whom anyone with a shred of rationality would say were more deprived in background, were left to sink or swim.

This is the kind of flabby “thinking” that the “liberals” in America so often deploy, and it’s one of the reasons why the US Democratic party has always left a bad smell in my nostrils.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:41:36 +0000

Darrell: “on positive discrimination I think it is entirely counterproductive…’positive’ discrimination is always ‘negative’ discrimination against another…it fosters resentment and doesnt create a level playing field…i am totally against it….”

I wouldn’t disagree with that if you limit your definition of positive discrimination to zero-sum initiatives in which for every winner there must automatically be a loser. All women shortlists almost certainly come under that definition. Candidate zipping is slightly more of a grey area. Taking steps such as providing training and mentoring specifically targeted at women and members of ethnic minorities most certainly does not come under that category, yet it is frequently cited as “positive discrimination” by its detractors. This is what I mean by how these phrases are used to frame the debate rather than contribute meaningfully to it.

By: asquith

asquith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:31:28 +0000

Yes, I’m vaguely aware of that. But, as unschooled as I may be, I know what is utter bilge

By: Anax

Anax — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:01:45 +0000

The references to ‘communities’ is more down to multiculturalism than political correctness. They’re allied, but not the same…

By: asquith

asquith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:57:29 +0000

This is, of course, why Rowan Williams was deservedly vilified throughout the Lib Dem blogosphere, including by myself.

By: asquith

asquith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:55:30 +0000

Yes, one thing that sets my teeth on edge is the constant reference to “communities”. If I were a Muslim, I’d be outraged at the thought that some unelected “elder”, who is probably an elderly, homophobic, sexist man, somehow spoke for me.

People can voluntarily associate in groups, obviously, but they can also choose not to be defined by a group identity if that is not what they want. For someone else to assume that someone automatically is X, Y and Z is a violation of liberal values.

By: David Heigham

David Heigham — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:48:13 +0000

“Political correctness” raises my hackles.I find it generally calls for clumsy, inaccurate, disrespectful use of language. It is inaccurate because its rules are of the sort that calls a spade a manual digging implement. It is disrespectful because it puts people into unreal, awkward categories (e.g “black” and “white” when those two are not anywhere in the wide range of human skin tones).

Be courteous. Respect people for what they are. Expect others to show the same courtesy and respect, and call them to order if they don’t. But cut out distortion and censorship in your thoughts, in your writing and in your speech.

By: asquith

asquith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:35:36 +0000

I do agree with James Graham’s statements. When I said “I’m not politically correct”, what I mean is that reactionaries (mainly BNP types around here) often call me PC, but I don’t fit their strawman image & tell them so.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:17:36 +0000

I am in general agreement with the tone of the thread but would add on positive discrimination I think it is entirely counterproductive…’positive’ discrimination is always ‘negative’ discrimination against another…it fosters resentment and doesnt create a level playing field…i am totally against it….

By: James Graham

James Graham — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:02:57 +0000

I don’t feel under any particular pressure to defend “political correctness” but I am intensely aware that “political correctness” is a framing tool used by the reactionary right to present simple politeness and consideration as somehow pernicious. Most things I’ve heard described as “political correctness gone mad” turn out to either be untrue, exaggerated, a direct result of a rising compensation culture (something which has always been tacitly encouraged by the right, albeit only for nice presentable middle class people) or, when you think about it, actually quite reasonable.

I was interested to see Asquith refer to positive discrimination. This is another term that has lost all meaning. I support a lot of things that people, particularly Lib Dems, stick their nose up at and describe as positive discrimination. Yet things like the Campaign for Gender Balance were set up specifically as a reaction against things like all women shortlists. Once again, it appears to be a term which exists solely to frame the debate.

So no. I don’t think we should waste our time defending PC, but we should be wary of its detractors and what their true agenda is.