This thread is addressing one on Sensei Canna's forum, but before I start I should make two things clear:
1) Panther, it wasn't a big thing, it wasn't upsetting to me, and I didn't mean to seem like a big complainer if I came off as one, nor did I mean for it to come across as a big deal or become one. Hope there are no hard feelings; certainly there are none from me.
2) I wouldn't ever suggest censoring speech I didn't like, even if I *really* didn't like it.
So, here's the issue: at what point does sticking up for "protected" groups become merely an annoyance and a stupidity? As Newsweek, once reported, students once drowned out a professor's classes because he used the phrase "colored people" instead of "people of color." He felt the latter was as stupid as saying "jeans of blue" instead of "blue jeans." And he was black.
Clearly, that's stupid.
But language does make a big difference in some people's lives. I don't necessarily mean that hearing the slightest verbal affront sends these people into a spiral of depression--although it can, at the right time. By keeping certain slights and norms in our common language, we keep certain other aspects of our culture alive. Few people know that as many gays are killed each year *for who they are* on top of regular crime rates as were killed at the peak of lychings in the civil rights era. But there it is. Something about the language people use keeps it in someone's head that certain prejudices are acceptable.
I moved from UVa last June, and at UVa the tradition at football games is to shout out the "Good Ole Song" after touchdowns. When people get to the verse "we come from old virginia, where all is bright and gay," a substantial fraction yells out, "NOT GAY!" Loud enough you can hear it on televised games. No biggie since in fact they're just telling the truth (presumably), right? Didn't say anything negative about gay people did they? C'mon. Are we stupid? Those things are said over and over at UVa but anyone with two neurons to rub together knows the chant is critical of the gay students there, and I wish if they won't stop they'd at least wise up or stop playing dumb. Here's what I wrote about that practice and an article supporting it (by "EB") before I left in the "Declaration:"
----------
"... I realized the "not gay" chanters don't really know what opponents have been complaining about. They think it's mandatory political correctness, enforced manners, etc. But it's really about human suffering.
EB believes chant is no big deal. Well, I've had friends feel so hated here they've left the school. Picked up and left. UVa's proud disdain for gay people means few of us are even comfortable being honest about who they are. Students learn intolerance so powerful five charged me and a guy whose hand I was holding and attempted to beat us. I know of gay students treated at UVa hospital for attempted suicide when the burden of intolerance got too heavy. Everytime people chant, they contribute to this burden and encourage people to feel that overt hatred and violence is an option. People can can deny this and claim his chants are innocuous, but I doubt they could know.
I have talked to the people they injure, in person and on helplines. I wonder how (pardon me) cavalier they would be about their intolerance after listening to someone crying because of it for an hour or two. I imagine when the veil of ignorance was lifted, they'd feel that visceral emotion we call shame. I know this is hard, but try not to mistake "suicide attempt" for words on a page. Try to inhabit the mind of of a person so tortured for his or her spontaneous feelings of love that he or she feels like dying. Just try.
EB also claims we should distance ourselves from homosexuality since that would represent "senisble decisions about behavior {called} civilization." He's entitled to that opinion even if he can't explain it. Suffice to say 1) disapproving with gay people correlates most strongly with knowing nothing about them 2) this anti-gay "cvilization" is picked up on schoolyards where boys call each other "faggot" to inflict maximum pain, not elevate culture 3) believing gay = wrong doesn't explain why causing the intense suffering of gay people is "civlized."
So there we have it. You've got a "right" to chant, you may feel "principled" in doing so, blah blah blah, but you seriously hurt people when you do. Whether gay is right or wrong or just is. Just make sure when you look in themirror you can be honest about the repercussions of your game-day fun."
--------
[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 21, 2002).]
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
Ian,
You haven't upset me... well OK... sometimes... just a little.
All kidding aside, I understand where you're coming from in your post. As much as people don't know or understand it, words mean things and words can hurt sometimes. As most folks know, I'm from the South originally (living in Massachusetts now). I'm a big person... some might say "fat". And I have a distinctly Euro-Scottish-Cherokee heritage. (Hmmmm... 1... 2... 3... strikes your out. ) I'm one of the first to rail against "Political Correctness" and it's anti-free-speech connotations.
While it is un-PC to say things about minority groups, who hasn't seen the TV comics going off almost continuously about those "inbred rednecks"? Who hasn't heard those same comics making anyone who isn't one of the "beautiful people" the brunt of their amusement?
Do those things bother me? ... They used to.
But here's why I want to allow complete freedom of speech in these regards (and that includes what I consider to be vile racial slurs):
When someone says those things, it allows me to know exactly where they stand. By enforcing PC language codes, the trash of every shape, size, color, & creed are able to hide! I don't want them to hide, I want to know exactly who they are. Not to shut them up. Not to punish them. But so I can be informed and make my decision to not associate with them. As someone much smarter than me once said, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
take care...
You haven't upset me... well OK... sometimes... just a little.
All kidding aside, I understand where you're coming from in your post. As much as people don't know or understand it, words mean things and words can hurt sometimes. As most folks know, I'm from the South originally (living in Massachusetts now). I'm a big person... some might say "fat". And I have a distinctly Euro-Scottish-Cherokee heritage. (Hmmmm... 1... 2... 3... strikes your out.
) I'm one of the first to rail against "Political Correctness" and it's anti-free-speech connotations. While it is un-PC to say things about minority groups, who hasn't seen the TV comics going off almost continuously about those "inbred rednecks"? Who hasn't heard those same comics making anyone who isn't one of the "beautiful people" the brunt of their amusement?
Do those things bother me? ... They used to.
But here's why I want to allow complete freedom of speech in these regards (and that includes what I consider to be vile racial slurs):
When someone says those things, it allows me to know exactly where they stand. By enforcing PC language codes, the trash of every shape, size, color, & creed are able to hide! I don't want them to hide, I want to know exactly who they are. Not to shut them up. Not to punish them. But so I can be informed and make my decision to not associate with them. As someone much smarter than me once said, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
take care...
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
Panther, thanks for your reply. I realize you were making a joke about an annoying person and not trying to damage anyone with the comment, and don't mean to imply with my concern that you are or were--or even that the comment was a big deal, although I think the issue in general *is* a big deal. The rest of this is not supposed to be about you or the comment in question, but the usually harsher language people throw around that upsets me more. An issue I feel strongly about that was *raised* by the comment, but I don't mean this to apply to you or the comment.
My perspective is just one of knowing how seemingly innocuous comments affect some people. To make an analogy to a more commonly discussed group on the forums, think about how a well-meaning joke about force in sexuality might affect someone that's been on the receiving end of sexual violence.
I agree that it's nice when people up and tell you they're bigots, like Fred Phelps, a "minister" who goes to the funerals of people like Matt Shepard holding up signs and chanting things like "AIDS kills fags dead" to torture his grieving friends and family. The sneaky ones can be more dangerous, because they're busy passing laws without drawing attention to themselves.
On the other hand, what happened in Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" when no one spoke up at the stoning where only a few people atually wanted to kill the victim? Everyone assumed that they were the only people who didn't want to do it and in the end what was left was a crowd of killers. The best way to interrupt the cycle of an oppressive environment like that is just to say, when you hear something inappropriate, just say, "that's not nice," which is what I make it a point to do when I hear it (about anybody, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, "redneck" status, etc).
Asking people to be nice doesn't curb their free speech rights, no matter how many times some people complain it does. If they feel silenced by a few people asking them to be nice, what must be happening to the free speech and political activity of generations of gay and lesbian people who fear losing their jobs, homes, kids, and safety if they open their mouths--in part because everyone is using hate speech around them? People, especially younger people, toss off phrases like "that's soooo gay" or "don't be a fag" like they're nothing, but imagine how inappropriate it would sound for people to yell out on a bus "don't act so black" or "he's *such* a black" in the same way. The result is that the targets of the language squelch their identities and their speech to avoid bringing on targeted abuse and sometimes violence.
These days, people are figuring out they're better off if they don't hide their lives anymore than heterosexuals, so they can claim a place at the table. A lot of people are noticing them not "behaving" anymore and are accusing people *starting* to be as open as heterosexuals of "forcing their lifestyle on everyone," and being "in your face" for not hiding anymore, but that's another story.
My perspective is just one of knowing how seemingly innocuous comments affect some people. To make an analogy to a more commonly discussed group on the forums, think about how a well-meaning joke about force in sexuality might affect someone that's been on the receiving end of sexual violence.
I agree that it's nice when people up and tell you they're bigots, like Fred Phelps, a "minister" who goes to the funerals of people like Matt Shepard holding up signs and chanting things like "AIDS kills fags dead" to torture his grieving friends and family. The sneaky ones can be more dangerous, because they're busy passing laws without drawing attention to themselves.
On the other hand, what happened in Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" when no one spoke up at the stoning where only a few people atually wanted to kill the victim? Everyone assumed that they were the only people who didn't want to do it and in the end what was left was a crowd of killers. The best way to interrupt the cycle of an oppressive environment like that is just to say, when you hear something inappropriate, just say, "that's not nice," which is what I make it a point to do when I hear it (about anybody, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, "redneck" status, etc).
Asking people to be nice doesn't curb their free speech rights, no matter how many times some people complain it does. If they feel silenced by a few people asking them to be nice, what must be happening to the free speech and political activity of generations of gay and lesbian people who fear losing their jobs, homes, kids, and safety if they open their mouths--in part because everyone is using hate speech around them? People, especially younger people, toss off phrases like "that's soooo gay" or "don't be a fag" like they're nothing, but imagine how inappropriate it would sound for people to yell out on a bus "don't act so black" or "he's *such* a black" in the same way. The result is that the targets of the language squelch their identities and their speech to avoid bringing on targeted abuse and sometimes violence.
These days, people are figuring out they're better off if they don't hide their lives anymore than heterosexuals, so they can claim a place at the table. A lot of people are noticing them not "behaving" anymore and are accusing people *starting* to be as open as heterosexuals of "forcing their lifestyle on everyone," and being "in your face" for not hiding anymore, but that's another story.
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
Hmmm... interesting (and tough) subject -- "what's 'polite' or 'pc'" or conversely what's plain "trash talk" vs "truly hateful" bile.
I struggle with it and social context shapes how I convey myself in words. I try not being a "hateful" person nor incite "hateful" words of others by my words. On the hand, like Panther (BTW, nice to hear you again), I am not into PC. I rather know where someone is coming from straight on. Some stuff, especially if it encourages perhaps hateful action, needs to be addressed lest the "lurkers" think everyone (or many think) the same. At the same time, changing someone's hates and biases is rarely successful and, if so, takes a long time with real life experiences and associations with the "hated" parties. In these forums, I don't even bother. Rather, I just assess who I would want to associate with or not in 3D world if it came to that.
In the 3D world, as a supervisor of many staff, I recognize that is range of perspectives, some closer to mine and some on the other end of the spectrum. However, if they try to apply their perspectives in a way that violates what the agency is about and our mission, then I am the "hammer..."
On a personal level and away from the office, I am freer to talk in a manner that is more reflective of how I grew out. Any body who trains or hangs with me in an informal milieu knows, I can "trash talk" with the best of them and can give sailors a run for the money with my language. This can be construed as "hateful" language on by the casual on-looker so I don't do that when in the presence of others who don't know what I am about and how I truly feel/believe.
In this setting too, folks can say non-pc stuff. Some of it is, again, plain "trash talk." Some of it real. If so, I have to seriously assess that person's qualities overall and decide the extent of my association with that person. I can tolerate divergent views. However, when these views are put into physical action against me or mine... Then, there again, I am willing to be the "hammer" in a very physical way.
Bottom line is that in getting older, I try to pick my battles knowing that not every one can be fought and not every one fought can be won. Better to try to influence those with whom I associate or have significant interactions with. I can maybe affect small change that way.
Ramblings,
david
I struggle with it and social context shapes how I convey myself in words. I try not being a "hateful" person nor incite "hateful" words of others by my words. On the hand, like Panther (BTW, nice to hear you again), I am not into PC. I rather know where someone is coming from straight on. Some stuff, especially if it encourages perhaps hateful action, needs to be addressed lest the "lurkers" think everyone (or many think) the same. At the same time, changing someone's hates and biases is rarely successful and, if so, takes a long time with real life experiences and associations with the "hated" parties. In these forums, I don't even bother. Rather, I just assess who I would want to associate with or not in 3D world if it came to that.
In the 3D world, as a supervisor of many staff, I recognize that is range of perspectives, some closer to mine and some on the other end of the spectrum. However, if they try to apply their perspectives in a way that violates what the agency is about and our mission, then I am the "hammer..."
On a personal level and away from the office, I am freer to talk in a manner that is more reflective of how I grew out. Any body who trains or hangs with me in an informal milieu knows, I can "trash talk" with the best of them and can give sailors a run for the money with my language. This can be construed as "hateful" language on by the casual on-looker so I don't do that when in the presence of others who don't know what I am about and how I truly feel/believe.
In this setting too, folks can say non-pc stuff. Some of it is, again, plain "trash talk." Some of it real. If so, I have to seriously assess that person's qualities overall and decide the extent of my association with that person. I can tolerate divergent views. However, when these views are put into physical action against me or mine... Then, there again, I am willing to be the "hammer" in a very physical way.
Bottom line is that in getting older, I try to pick my battles knowing that not every one can be fought and not every one fought can be won. Better to try to influence those with whom I associate or have significant interactions with. I can maybe affect small change that way.
Ramblings,
david
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
Not ramblings!
Again, this discussion is more of a taking off from a comment than a discussion about the comment, which I think everyone agrees is not a big deal.
However I do think that when we ask people to reconsider their language wwe do change the way they think and their other actions. The movement for equality for gays and lesbians has only been taking place for little over 30 years in a country that used to burn them at the stake as a pregame show for witchburnings (faggot: a bundle of sticks for kindling). (I also think this applies to other issues, not just the group at hand) I think the remarkable but insufficient progress amde so far is largely dependent on individual people coming out and speaking up. Research has shown over and over that people who are critical of gays and lesbians are much less likely to have met any of them than those who are accepting.
Real story:
Someone is locked out of their dorm at UVA because someone wasn't where they were supposed to be or soemthing. Someone else (stranger) goes to a bit of trouble to get them back in saving the first person a lot of time, but he's still upset, and tells the second person th guy who stood him up was "such a fu**ing faggot."
The following conversation ensues:
The helper calmly says, "well, here you are, hope you're not too late. BTW, do you mind being helped out by a fu**ing faggot?"
Helpee is confused for a second then realizes he unknowningly insulted the person that let him in. He gets very upset and apologizes and feels a lot of remorse. The helper then tells him he knows nothing was meant by it, but when he hears those things, it's very upsetting and hurtful, and that it makes other people mistreat him as well by following an example. Helpee admits he never thought about the actions his words might have and thanks the helper and says he'll think twice about the words he chooses in the future.
I think the people who really harbor hate aren't going to have their hateful words silenced by a simple request. The ones who keep their hate under the radar are smart enough to figure out they can get what they want more easily being a little more subtle. (for example, family research council and others).
Again, this discussion is more of a taking off from a comment than a discussion about the comment, which I think everyone agrees is not a big deal.
However I do think that when we ask people to reconsider their language wwe do change the way they think and their other actions. The movement for equality for gays and lesbians has only been taking place for little over 30 years in a country that used to burn them at the stake as a pregame show for witchburnings (faggot: a bundle of sticks for kindling). (I also think this applies to other issues, not just the group at hand) I think the remarkable but insufficient progress amde so far is largely dependent on individual people coming out and speaking up. Research has shown over and over that people who are critical of gays and lesbians are much less likely to have met any of them than those who are accepting.
Real story:
Someone is locked out of their dorm at UVA because someone wasn't where they were supposed to be or soemthing. Someone else (stranger) goes to a bit of trouble to get them back in saving the first person a lot of time, but he's still upset, and tells the second person th guy who stood him up was "such a fu**ing faggot."
The following conversation ensues:
The helper calmly says, "well, here you are, hope you're not too late. BTW, do you mind being helped out by a fu**ing faggot?"
Helpee is confused for a second then realizes he unknowningly insulted the person that let him in. He gets very upset and apologizes and feels a lot of remorse. The helper then tells him he knows nothing was meant by it, but when he hears those things, it's very upsetting and hurtful, and that it makes other people mistreat him as well by following an example. Helpee admits he never thought about the actions his words might have and thanks the helper and says he'll think twice about the words he chooses in the future.
I think the people who really harbor hate aren't going to have their hateful words silenced by a simple request. The ones who keep their hate under the radar are smart enough to figure out they can get what they want more easily being a little more subtle. (for example, family research council and others).
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
There is a real phenomenom where the "targeted group" takes on the hateful language and appropriates it as their own. I see this across the board from group to group. I often do this myself when I mis-pronounce and shake it off to "Chinkglis." I have a friend whose nickname is "####." And there are many other examples. Perhaps, it doing this, we look to diminish the "power" of the words and inure ourselves to verbal attacks. On the other hand, outside observers get confused. Woe to those if they try to use such words without really, really knowing and being connected to the folks whom these words were/are used to deride. It can all get very confusing, very fast.
An example of the above is that I am going to San Francisco for work stuff in the coming week. I'll be staying a bit with an old mentor/supervisor and now very good friend and her significant other in the Castro. She is very active in her community and is running for supervisor. I can't tell you how many times I have sat in her living room and listened to the "internal" discussions about what language is "right" or "wrong" within the community... I am just an observer -- especially when the discussions involve more my then just my friends -- but the heated discussions just tell me there is no uniformity of opinion... that personal sensitivities, tolerances, experiences, assertiveness (or lack of), etc, really shape whether one can accept/adopt or not labels like a "Dyke", "fem", "gay", "fag", "tran", "bi" or whatever else.
This gets played out in my own community where there are different reactions to "Chink", "Chinaman", "Chinese", "Chinese-American", "####", "Asian", "Asian American", etc, etc,
I get out and have enough friends in other ethnic/racial communities to see it play out over and over again.
So, Some folks give a lot of "power" to words. Some don't. Some fall somewhere in the middle. I count myself in the middle group. I generally don't give a $hit to epithets anymore. It's just too much and too freaking confusing for me. I am pretty concrete. Action is where it is at for me. What the other does affects what I do." For example, a Chinese parent requested to see me. I met with him. He started to ask whether I think our agency and programs are for the Chinese. "Sure", I said. "Then why do you have 'black' staff? You need to get rid of them." Hmmmm.... My response: "Well, our agency does serve mostly Chinese but does not do this exclusively since we have other folks in living in this very community. I hear you don't want a black staff. That's your feeling but that's not going to happen here. You have a right and option to take your child to another program. And there are some that are exclusively Chinese..." I kept a level face throughout this conversation... but was thinking the whole time... "Take a f^cking hike, buddy." Guess what, he kept his kid in the program. This was/is fine. I don't care what he thinks, just don't act on it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
david
[This message has been edited by david (edited March 28, 2002).]
Well, if the speaker cares at all, s/he stops and respects the request. Conversely, if the listener cares enough about the speaker, s/he speaks up. Sometimes, if one really dislikes the speaker, the worse thing may be to just not say a thing... because the sucker is gonna buy it with someone who won't put it with it. I know, I know... I am a cynical person but that's how I am. If I care about someone then I'll speak up.Helpee is confused for a second then realizes he unknowningly insulted the person that let him in. He gets very upset and apologizes and feels a lot of remorse. The helper then tells him he knows nothing was meant by it, but when he hears those things, it's very upsetting and hurtful, and that it makes other people mistreat him as well by following an example. Helpee admits he never thought about the actions his words might have and thanks the helper and says he'll think twice about the words he chooses in the future.
There is a real phenomenom where the "targeted group" takes on the hateful language and appropriates it as their own. I see this across the board from group to group. I often do this myself when I mis-pronounce and shake it off to "Chinkglis." I have a friend whose nickname is "####." And there are many other examples. Perhaps, it doing this, we look to diminish the "power" of the words and inure ourselves to verbal attacks. On the other hand, outside observers get confused. Woe to those if they try to use such words without really, really knowing and being connected to the folks whom these words were/are used to deride. It can all get very confusing, very fast.
An example of the above is that I am going to San Francisco for work stuff in the coming week. I'll be staying a bit with an old mentor/supervisor and now very good friend and her significant other in the Castro. She is very active in her community and is running for supervisor. I can't tell you how many times I have sat in her living room and listened to the "internal" discussions about what language is "right" or "wrong" within the community... I am just an observer -- especially when the discussions involve more my then just my friends -- but the heated discussions just tell me there is no uniformity of opinion... that personal sensitivities, tolerances, experiences, assertiveness (or lack of), etc, really shape whether one can accept/adopt or not labels like a "Dyke", "fem", "gay", "fag", "tran", "bi" or whatever else.
This gets played out in my own community where there are different reactions to "Chink", "Chinaman", "Chinese", "Chinese-American", "####", "Asian", "Asian American", etc, etc,
I get out and have enough friends in other ethnic/racial communities to see it play out over and over again.
So, Some folks give a lot of "power" to words. Some don't. Some fall somewhere in the middle. I count myself in the middle group. I generally don't give a $hit to epithets anymore. It's just too much and too freaking confusing for me. I am pretty concrete. Action is where it is at for me. What the other does affects what I do." For example, a Chinese parent requested to see me. I met with him. He started to ask whether I think our agency and programs are for the Chinese. "Sure", I said. "Then why do you have 'black' staff? You need to get rid of them." Hmmmm.... My response: "Well, our agency does serve mostly Chinese but does not do this exclusively since we have other folks in living in this very community. I hear you don't want a black staff. That's your feeling but that's not going to happen here. You have a right and option to take your child to another program. And there are some that are exclusively Chinese..." I kept a level face throughout this conversation... but was thinking the whole time... "Take a f^cking hike, buddy." Guess what, he kept his kid in the program. This was/is fine. I don't care what he thinks, just don't act on it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Exactly. I don't go to PTA's and such as much as my wife. But, man the freaking hate that gets passed along in some of these venues with "polite language" by some in the "suits and ties" and "pearl necklace and silk dress" types. These are the dangerous ones... They have the veneer of society, the right language, and the power. And they use it well, albeit subtley. Taking out a freaking jughead in the street is much easier in some ways...The ones who keep their hate under the radar are smart enough to figure out they can get what they want more easily being a little more subtle. (for example, family research council and others).
david
[This message has been edited by david (edited March 28, 2002).]
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david:
I generally don't give a $hit to epithets anymore. It's just too much and too freaking confusing for me. I am pretty concrete.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, well... if you're "Heinz 57" like I basically am, any slur will do.
I generally don't give a $hit to epithets anymore. It's just too much and too freaking confusing for me. I am pretty concrete.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, well... if you're "Heinz 57" like I basically am, any slur will do.
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
I was at a dinner the other night and a woman mentioned that her husband had not told his law firm that he was jewish becuase he felt it would keep him from being a partner. His take on the whole thing was that as a society we really aren't getting more tolerant, we're just getting more polite.
I don't fully agree with that. Obviously we're getting somewhere on the tolerance issues because the laws are changing. The laws are usually a good generation or so ahead of the overall social sentiments. I mean, equal rights for women and blacks have been around for awhile now -- chauvanism and racism are still alive and well - just not as alive and well as they used to be.
I think there may also be a great divide between urban dwellers, suburban dewellers, and rural dwellers simply due to the different kinds of people each are exposed to. The more time you spend with people just like you - the less comfortable you will be with people who aren't like you.
I don't fully agree with that. Obviously we're getting somewhere on the tolerance issues because the laws are changing. The laws are usually a good generation or so ahead of the overall social sentiments. I mean, equal rights for women and blacks have been around for awhile now -- chauvanism and racism are still alive and well - just not as alive and well as they used to be.
I think there may also be a great divide between urban dwellers, suburban dewellers, and rural dwellers simply due to the different kinds of people each are exposed to. The more time you spend with people just like you - the less comfortable you will be with people who aren't like you.
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The more time you
spend with people just like you - the less comfortable you will be with people who aren't like
you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are still basically "tribal".
1 am Canadian
I am a "Bluenoser"
I am a "Towny"
I am a production worker
I am a "white" production worker
I am a male production worker
It is funny actually
spend with people just like you - the less comfortable you will be with people who aren't like
you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are still basically "tribal".
1 am Canadian
I am a "Bluenoser"
I am a "Towny"
I am a production worker
I am a "white" production worker
I am a male production worker
It is funny actually
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dana Sheets:
His take on the whole thing was that as a society we really aren't getting more tolerant, we're just getting more polite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That about sums it up, but...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote I was raised in a very rural area and currently live well away from the city life... I (personally) don't like the city life or even the suburban life, but... We were never raised to be prejudiced, racist, or bigoted. In my Daddy's house, all men(kind) were created equal and that was the scope of his "intolerance"... he didn't tolerate "intolerance". Not to say that I wasn't exposed to various forms of discrimination in my youth, but I should point out that over 3 years after my public school in the South had desegregated, we all watch the TV in horror as little black school children had bricks and rocks thrown through their bus windows... in East Boston! So... are urban folk really more tolerant? Having met some of the biggest racists I've ever had the displeasure of being introduced to right here in the city of Boston, I have to wonder... 
Just some "food for thought"...
His take on the whole thing was that as a society we really aren't getting more tolerant, we're just getting more polite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That about sums it up, but...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Hmmmm... a stereotype?I think there may also be a great divide between urban dwellers, suburban dewellers, and rural dwellers simply due to the different kinds of people each are exposed to. The more time you spend with people just like you - the less comfortable you will be with people who aren't like you.
I was raised in a very rural area and currently live well away from the city life... I (personally) don't like the city life or even the suburban life, but... We were never raised to be prejudiced, racist, or bigoted. In my Daddy's house, all men(kind) were created equal and that was the scope of his "intolerance"... he didn't tolerate "intolerance". Not to say that I wasn't exposed to various forms of discrimination in my youth, but I should point out that over 3 years after my public school in the South had desegregated, we all watch the TV in horror as little black school children had bricks and rocks thrown through their bus windows... in East Boston! So... are urban folk really more tolerant? Having met some of the biggest racists I've ever had the displeasure of being introduced to right here in the city of Boston, I have to wonder... Just some "food for thought"...
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
Dana,
"chauvanism and racism are still alive and well - just not as alive and well as they used to be."
Are you sure about this? How about affirmitive action? A lot of minorities as well as majorities, consider this extremly racist. We have to be very careful about this PC mindset. Sometimes what appears to be a good change can actually be a step backwards for all people.
"Obviously we're getting somewhere on the tolerance issues because the laws are changing. The laws are usually a good generation or so ahead of the overall social sentiments."
You can change laws, but not people.
"chauvanism and racism are still alive and well - just not as alive and well as they used to be."
Are you sure about this? How about affirmitive action? A lot of minorities as well as majorities, consider this extremly racist. We have to be very careful about this PC mindset. Sometimes what appears to be a good change can actually be a step backwards for all people.
"Obviously we're getting somewhere on the tolerance issues because the laws are changing. The laws are usually a good generation or so ahead of the overall social sentiments."
You can change laws, but not people.
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
Nope, you can change people, I've done it. And I do think that discriminatory laws affect the way people think. I find it hard to believe that people will grow up into racists and nonracsists entirely uninfluenced, for example, by whether their gov't refuses to allow people of different colors to drink from the same waterfountain or go to the same school.
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
"Nope, you can change people, I've done it."
I have to disagree. You can influence their perceptions and beleifs, but the ultimate decision to change is made by them not you.
I have to disagree. You can influence their perceptions and beleifs, but the ultimate decision to change is made by them not you.
What's polite and what's "PC?" / too far?
Where does that statement take us? If we took it at face value there'd be no reason to try to have a positive influence in anyone's life.
Teachers can't do a thing unless they have student willing to listen and work, but we still reward them for helping.
Campaign workers can only cast one vote, but for some reason they still run around trying to convince others to vote.
A campaign to decrease the "not gay" chants at football games has done just that at UVa.
People have to quit smoking on their own, and it's reportedly harder than kicking heroin, but physicians still tell people to do it because studies have shown doing so increases their chances of success.
To make the point more simply, things are either combustible or they're not, but we still charge arsonists when they light things.
The fact is that people have to be capable of change, before they will change, BUT many times they will not change unless a motivated individual intervenes in their life.
We could go on to say that people might change their behavior but not their feelings, so they're not really changed. Well, what if we take someone who acts on urges to steal, rape and molest and after some therapy make a person who ignores urges to steal, rape and molest? We're not going to say that was time wasted, are we?
My making a point to talk to some people about the way they treated other people has on occasion resulted in tearful phone calls or letters about their realization that they were hurting people who had feelings just like them they'd never considered, and these people went on to completely change their approach not only to the groups they used to despise, but also to other people who still despise them, spreading tolerance and more importantly acceptance.
Did they have a necessary role in their change? Yes.
But did I have a necessary role in their change? Also yes.
If you want, say "we" changed them, but without the steps I took they'd not have opened their eyes, at least not when they did, and across the nation millions of open minded people are changing millions of less open minded people, one at a time, and faster than Robertson and Falwell and Bauer and Phelps can breed idiocy and hatred.
Teachers can't do a thing unless they have student willing to listen and work, but we still reward them for helping.
Campaign workers can only cast one vote, but for some reason they still run around trying to convince others to vote.
A campaign to decrease the "not gay" chants at football games has done just that at UVa.
People have to quit smoking on their own, and it's reportedly harder than kicking heroin, but physicians still tell people to do it because studies have shown doing so increases their chances of success.
To make the point more simply, things are either combustible or they're not, but we still charge arsonists when they light things.
The fact is that people have to be capable of change, before they will change, BUT many times they will not change unless a motivated individual intervenes in their life.
We could go on to say that people might change their behavior but not their feelings, so they're not really changed. Well, what if we take someone who acts on urges to steal, rape and molest and after some therapy make a person who ignores urges to steal, rape and molest? We're not going to say that was time wasted, are we?
My making a point to talk to some people about the way they treated other people has on occasion resulted in tearful phone calls or letters about their realization that they were hurting people who had feelings just like them they'd never considered, and these people went on to completely change their approach not only to the groups they used to despise, but also to other people who still despise them, spreading tolerance and more importantly acceptance.
Did they have a necessary role in their change? Yes.
But did I have a necessary role in their change? Also yes.
If you want, say "we" changed them, but without the steps I took they'd not have opened their eyes, at least not when they did, and across the nation millions of open minded people are changing millions of less open minded people, one at a time, and faster than Robertson and Falwell and Bauer and Phelps can breed idiocy and hatred.
