Political Correctness

[mattiasNYC]

Yes. And it's ironic how people ranting about the left's political correctness are often easily offended by anything slightly different then their narrow world view. 

I think that's true.

In the interest of fairness I guess I'll say that I can sort of sympathize with some of 'them' in that some usage of terminology has gone awry. I do for example think there is a stark difference between something one can choose, such as religious views (barring indoctrination), and something one can't, such as race - and therefore I find it highly unproductive and bad that people so often conflate legitimate well argued criticism of Islam with Islamophobia and then also with racism. I actually don't think many people who are anti-Islam are racists, even though I'm sure many who are racists are anti-Islam. But that kind of usage of language I agree smells like PC gone awry. If a person who tries to legitimately argue against Islam is labeled a racist and that's accepted then we've all lost.

But again, I think this goes back to what I said earlier in that we seem to have one standard for discourse and intellectual endeavors when we're evaluating others, and a different standard for evaluating "ourselves". And I think it's particularly beneficial to have this double-standard when it comes to faith. After all, criticizing Islam for a bunch of idiotic content only leads one down the path of evaluating Christianity as well, unless of course on changes the standard when one turns the spotlight on oneself.

So I think then that that's why it becomes a 'messy' situation. I'm betting there are many Christians that have no problem critiquing Islam but can't really get beyond shallow terminology because any deeper analysis would expose Abrahamic monotheistic faith itself, fundamentally, and so the terminology ends up being more along the lines of racism and Islamophobia rather than rational criticism. I think people might in a sense be painted into a corner.

They've certainly crowned their king in Trump, who doesn't appear to even have a skin (metaphorically).

I think that's well phrased.  It's actually one of the more dangerous traits that scare me the most about Trump. I mean, either the guy is a genius in a great disguise who is playing others brilliantly, or he has some serious mental issues. And yes, I do mean that literally.

I just don't see how you can be a leader of this country and be so (seemingly) narcissistic and non-skinned. Surely it can't be a good thing, but instead a potentially very dangerous one.

 

[Rocinante]

It's already stealthy in our language for decades, even in your own post. Not an accusation but an ironic reflection of an overly politicized and sexualized society.

True.  At my now main source of income I have be very mindful of what I say. I want to go home and let my guard down, but...
Well as an example;
Last night I attended a holiday party (cause you cant say Christmas or Hanukkah party or both for that matter) at my wife's colleagues house (a very respected therapist). I wanted to kick back and not have to watch my every word even though I very much like and respect the people around me (I imagine most people would consider me far left and these were left leaning social workers and such) but I recognize the inanity of the current focus on our colliequel nuances, for instance;
"That house was ghetto." is now considered a derogatory expression.
So is "a slave to fashion" or "feminazi"
I'm just saying I think it has gone to far and motherf**kers need to relax.

 

[mattiasNYC]

True.  At my now main source of income I have be very mindful of what I say.

That's probably true for a lot of people in the US. I think it's different in Sweden for example, where the laws protecting employment are much stronger. So, here's another argument where Capitalism in my opinion actually enables a certain level of discrimination or self-censorship.... for lack of better wording....

Well as an example;
Last night I attended a holiday party (cause you cant say Christmas or Hanukkah party or both for that matter) at my wife's colleagues house (a very respected therapist). I wanted to kick back and not have to watch my every word even though I very much like and respect the people around me (I imagine most people would consider me far left and these were left leaning social workers and such) but I recognize the inanity of the current focus on our colliequel nuances, for instance;
"That house was ghetto." is now considered a derogatory expression.
So is "a slave to fashion" or "feminazi"
I'm just saying I think it has gone to far and motherf**kers need to relax.

Ok, but so you're saying that the above three are examples of a lack of nuance if they're all considered "derogatory", is that correct? Because I actually see different issues with them.

"ghetto" and "feminazi" as descriptions I would assume are used to portray something as negative, so I don't see how they wouldn't be derogatory. Still, there's the difference where I actually think "ghetto" can have a slightly less connotation than "feminazi". After all, the latter is a play on the words "feminist" and "Nazi", and I don't really see how it's not a very negative description.

"slave to fashion" I suppose some would find offensive due to slavery, but I don't necessarily think that's offensive. It's even a set phrase at this point.

Is that along the lines of what you were thinking?

 

[living sounds]

Yes, here in Germany text of law gets the gender mainstreaming treatment to the point of illegibility. It's nuts and it doesn't make any sense objectively.

But it's still just one more distraction from the real problems - wealth and income inequality, lack of upward mobility, climate change etc.

The left needs to seriously refocus on wresting the world economy from big corporations, special interests, the wealthy elites. That's the only way to fix all the problems long term.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Well, I think that last sentence in a sense could be viewed as one regarding semantics; after all, isn't that really the goal of the true left at all times, and if so, then isn't it likely that many people simply left the left (hah!)?

 

[ruffrecords]

Yes, here in Germany text of law gets the gender mainstreaming treatment to the point of illegibility. It's nuts and it doesn't make any sense objectively.

How do they get on in France where everything is masculine of feminine (even tables).

As my old French teacher used to say, 'In France, everything is masculine or feminine. That's neuter me'

Cheers

Ian

 

[mattiasNYC]

As my old French teacher used to say, 'In France, everything is masculine or feminine. That's neuter me'

Cheers

Ian

I like your old French teacher

 

[Rocinante]

I get it. Over use of such words diminishes the impact they should have.  And may the horror the Nazis were/are never be forgotten or treated as marginal.
I get it.
I work with an 80% African American clientele. I am the boss to a 70% non Caucasian staff of 92 people.  For the most part i have earned the respect of most of our clientele despite being a white dude.  As a white boss I am responsible and represent the company and how the public views us and so I have to be mindful of what I say and do.
I also get that for a long time the white man has run everything with a cold and calculating modus operandi and set up non-white people to fail by giving them standards that are impossible to achieve. *this could go into a direction I am not willing to spend any time on.  This is NOT all white people but enough to have hurt the non-white communities in our country.
I can see how I may be looked at as another white boss by our clientele and hate that *although its definitely Not the feeling of our non-white staff as i have been accused on multiple occasions of giving the non-white staff employees a pass where i would have fired a white employee.  I will and have not confirmed or denied such accusations.
And even here I am choosing my words carefully.
I like my job and try to help have a positive impact however small (and it is small) for the greater community. I am not on some egotistical rant but more stating the facts and why it is that after work I just don't want to feel like I need to censor myself.  Words are not trivial.
And yes I think about this stuff often.
I hope you all have a very merrry xmas and a happy Hanukkah (my wife is Jewish so my son celebrates both)
The lucky little f*****.  Jk.

 

[ramshackles]

Since the forum is built with off the shelf software, you probably have relatively little choice over the profanity filter, so you have to make a decision : on or off. The filter itself is probably just catching matching letter sequences (strings). It *may* be possible to say, only censor if they are surrounded by a space character (certainly if coding by hand, but 'development free' website builders may not offer such a choice), but even then,unless you have a large and colourful profanity database, you will let through derivations, such as bullshit. You can often have a conservative rule and then I have exceptions to the rule, but you can only have the exception if you know about - it is reasonable to expect that an English based website does not have all possible exceptions in all languages. So the question is - should there be a profanity filter and accept that, on occasion, a word will be wrongly censored, or allow profanity in general. It is a question that occasionally comes up in my day job and the simple answer is, you offend less people with the filter on. If possible, you add exceptions when they arise. (Ofc, from a developers point of view, its easier to simply not have to build one, although tools like webpurify make this easier)

 

[PRR]

> profanity filter, so you have to make a decision : on or off

No. There is a list.

>> I can't say Associates Degree on my board without it looking like buttociates.
> Go to:  Admin >> Forum >> Posts and Topics >> Censored Words  -  And remove as necessary
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=301484.0

He (administrator) wants to say "ass" on his forum. There is a whole-word option (would allow "associate"" or asshole" but not a naked "ass"), or he can remove "ass" from the "Censored Words" list.

There is evidently a replacement option. A word may be replaced with another word ("butt" for "ass"). A word may be fully or partly starred-out, as with "Matsush*ta" here. At another forum using this software, the name of a competing forum is replaced with "..." due to some past friction.

> unless you have a large and colourful profanity database, you will let through derivations, such as bullsh*t. ...an English based website does not have all possible exceptions in all languages

Quite so. If ass is banned I'll use butt, or posterior, or rear end or corn-hole. If I can't masturbate (ha! I can!), I can pull my pud, spank my monkey, or just wank. English is rich in alternate words. Non-words appear: do you know MILF?

But does anybody here REALLY care? I raised that, and Ian never bit. Others are of on a rant about global PC-ness. You are the first to return to the forum profanity filter.

And BTW, _I_ think it could be turned off here. While I do not like to be drowning in ass and damn and needlenose-bugfuckers, we don't get a lot of that here, and essentially everybody here knows all these words and has used a few.

> you offend less people with the filter on.

I grant that in day-job work ON may be better than OFF. But this place may be different?

 

[Bo Deadly]

cocksucker, motherfuϲker, fuϲk, ѕhit, ϲunt, ϲoϲk, and pussy

Nah, you just need a browser that supports profanity.

 

[ruffrecords]

But does anybody here REALLY care? I raised that, and Ian never bit. Others are of on a rant about global PC-ness. You are the first to return to the forum profanity filter.

Did you -missed that - must be age. My point is it is pointless because it catches only a minority of profanities but in doing so also catches many innocent words. As has already been demonstrated, you can be deeply profane but avoid the censor. I see no reason not to turn it off.

It is almost as bad as people self censoring words like N*ve.

Cheers

Ian

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'm with PRR.....

 

[Bo Deadly]

Did you -missed that - must be age.

Nah, I'm just messing with you guys. I used unicode equivalent characters to dodge the filter. I guess my pedantic humor doesn't work well on the Internet.

 

[PRR]

> I used unicode equivalent characters to dodge the filter.

I simply used italic-code to put the filter off-track.

sh[i][/i]it

 

[bluebird]

I take a healthy dose of escitalopram oxalate everyday, and nothing really bugs me anymore 8)

 

[mattiasNYC]

I am not on some egotistical rant but more stating the facts and why it is that after work I just don't want to feel like I need to censor myself.  Words are not trivial.
And yes I think about this stuff often.

And I think many can both sympathize and empathize with that. There's a difference of course between oversensitive reactions to words that weren't intended to offend, legitimate reactions to words that were used with the intent to offend or at least show some thought process that actually is offensive.

 

[Andy Peters]

It is almost as bad as people self censoring words like N*ve.

Worse is when they are embarrassed to admit that they use a certain brand, B*hringer being the most obvious example.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Worse is when they are embarrassed to admit that they use a certain brand, B*hringer being the most obvious example.

I got some pushback from that company (privately) and publicly attacked by fan boyz (shills?) for being openly critical of Behringer (on a different live sound forum). It didn't stop me ( truth about personal experience is a good defense), but I had to choose my words carefully.

The language that people use so casually these days taking about politicians, could have had consequences in that circumstance. 

JR

 

[ramshackles]

I grant that in day-job work ON may be better than OFF. But this place may be different?

I think you are right about that. I should hope at least!