Politically correct vocabulary is not progressive or honest - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15115746
Image

Whether you agree with or disagree with the rules of what are "politically-correct," it's useful to examine how its application in real-life is supposed to work in advancing social justice, collective education or equality.

There are two N-words

To do this, I am going to use the N-word(s), which I will not spell out in order to remain PC. Likewise, I will use "African-American" as the preferred PC word, and "black" as a neutral word (though I acknowledge that no words are really neutral; I simply need a neutral word to explain my point here).

Wrong word means hate speech crime

The N-word(s), though used in pop culture by black artists themselves, is considered to be "out" of use among non-blacks mainly because of its association with slavery and generalized racism in Modern history. The idea is that, by NOT using this word, black people are given more social space to expand and "catch up" to white income and social status levels. PC policy would say that if you DO use the N-word and you are NOT using it the correct way, you are shrinking the social space that is afforded to blacks.

A-A is better, really?

The PC policy would then ask that you use "African-American" as a best-practice word in order to maximize the space afforded to blacks living in the USA at this moment. This useful and empowering word is limited to those living in the maximum freedom and democracy country - the USA (America).

Besides the obviously weak link between vocabulary-use and social status, there is a major problem with this particular example of applying a forced public vocabulary: it doesn't even try to empower blacks. It puts the emphasis on being American, and then adds a hyphenated "African" to suggest where this hyphenated, non-normal condition orginated. "Somewhere in Africa?"

This PC word says to blacks and about blacks: "You're not really a full American - Greatest country God ever created. You are some kind of abstracted American who snuck in with some special clause or with a coupon: Admit one African into the American soldier caste."

Not only does this add a condition to black citizenship, it allows all USA-ers - black and white and other - to destroy non-American countries that are often inhabited by African-Africans. Only the American ones get vocabulary respect. Everyone else remains a target - Haitians, West Africans, Latin Americans, etc..

So this word "African-American" is as useless as the N-word in terms of advancing positive change or equality via vocabulary regulation. It's just a word that demonstrates the evolution of atrocities committed against "the other" - the evolving strategies for hurting each "other."

soundtrack
#15115755
Rancid wrote:Of course it's all silly.

Progressives go after words because it's the easiest thing to do that makes them feel like they're doing something positive, when really, they ain't doing shit.

Also, FUCK LATINX, it's Latino/Latina. Que mierda es eso? Just more gringo shit trying to change Latino culture.


I agree with the sentiment on Latinx. Spanish-speaking PC people use "Latine" for the same purpose, pronouncing the "e".

Es imposible pronunciar "Latinx" en español. Cómo se dice? "Latincs"? "Latinequis"? "Latinex"? Al menos "Latine" es algo menos incoherente con el idioma y no cuesta pronunciarlo.

Also what happened to cultural appropriation and all the usual crap these people argue? Who gave them permission to tell us how to speak our language?

And as for the merits, I can understand the concern, but I still think it's BS.
#15115761
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sirve para la gente que no se sienten ni hombre ni mujer. Hay muy poca gente asi, pero no me molesta usar esa palabra para aquellos.

I'd be more willing to compromise on Latine. Laitnx is just some white people shit (or Latin people that only grew up around white people).

wat0n wrote:Spanish-speaking PC people use "Latine" for the same purpose, pronouncing the "e".

This makes more sense to me.

Though, I personally have always considered Latino to be both masculine and gender neutral (depends on context). I was never taught this, but that's how I always interpreted it. Maybe a Spanish teacher can chime in. :lol: At least with the way I've always seen it used growing up (in Miami) anyway. That's what I've seen

My wife is constantly asking me about grammar rules and shit, and I'm like "I have no fucking clues, I just speak whatever feels/sonuds right to me, most of the times its right, sometimes it's wrong". That said, I should give myself more credit, when I visit Spain or speak to some of the Spanish guys at work, they all say that my Spanish is better than I lead people to believe.

wat0n wrote:Also what happened to cultural appropriation and all the usual crap these people argue? Who gave them permission to tell us how to speak our language?

Dunno. That's part of my personal backlash towards Latinx. It's white people trying to dictate more shit to everyone else. Maybe Latinos just need to figure this shit out on their own rather than ram rodding it down their throats.

Caca para todos.
#15115766
Rancid wrote:I'd be more willing to compromise on Latine. Laitnx is just some white people shit (or Latin people that only grew up around white people).


I could not care less about this spelling.

Since this is all about using identifiers that the people themselves came up with in order to empower themselves against marginalisation, I have no problem using whatever term they want.

Parece que Latinx empezo en los EEUU, per fue cosa de Latinos ahi y no los gringos.
#15115767
Wiki wrote:The term Latinx emerged from American Spanish in the early 21st century.[15] The origins of the term are unclear.[16] According to Google Trends, it was first seen online in 2004,[17][18][19] and in scholarly work the "x" in Latinx was initially introduced by a Puerto Rican psychology periodical "to challenge the gender binaries encoded in the Spanish Language".[16] In the U.S. it was first used in activist and LGBT circles as a way to expand on earlier attempts at gender-inclusive forms of the grammatically masculine Latino, such as Latino/a and [email protected][18] Latinx offers an alternative to the gender binaries inherent to the formulations Latina/o and [email protected][17][12] Between 2004 and 2014 Latinx did not receive broad usage or attention[17] but has become commonly used by activists and in higher education and the popular media who seek to advocate for individuals on the borderlines of gender identity;[20] it is used as a gender inclusive term denoting people of Latin American descent.[12]


Por lo visto esto viene de internet, no creo que se pueda saber si es de los hispanos o los anglos.
#15115848
I've only dropped the N bomb twice. The first time was on a black guy who tried to mug me and the second time was on this pimp looking dude who started calling me a cracker and a faggot white boy. I shouldn't have brought race into it but I was young and I felt they both had it coming.
#15116051
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since this is all about using identifiers that the people themselves came up with in order to empower themselves against marginalisation, I have no problem using whatever term they want.

And yet, you often use the words "terrorist" to describe people who would never call themselves this.

So I guess your "obediance" to Identity Politics is very situated, sort of like our prime minister who replaced "man" with "human" (still contains "man"), but then bought pipelines, supported a coup against the elected prez of a brown nation (Venez), and passed a law making BDS "condemnable."

Like many media regurgitators, when it suits mainstream media, you use "African American."
When it suits mainstream media, you use "terrorist."
What these groups "call themselves" is irrelevant. What media tells you to say, is primary.

And how do you know WHO invented these words? Authorship is often assumed (or invented) in order to cover the class bias of our academics and mass media.

Sivad wrote:I've only dropped the N bomb twice. The first time was on a black guy who tried to mug me and the second time was on this pimp looking dude who started calling me a cracker and a faggot white boy. I shouldn't have brought race into it but I was young and I felt they both had it coming.

The N-words call to mind the history of slavery and racism targetting people with non-European skin colors. I suppose the vocab change was also a way of "forgetting" some very important things that have happened in history.

Amnesia is the other thing that a constrained vocabulary causes. The bored college kids who invented "PC Speech" while writing term papers in their dorm rooms... probably wanted people to forget slavery (and all the state-sanctioned murder of black leaders, and imprisonment of black males), and concentrate on "what makes America great again."

PC speech and its Orwellian objectives... are actually part of how an idiot like Trump can take power. No one is allowed to discuss anything freely anymore except the food they ate, the stuff they bought, and the trips they took. :lol:
#15116054
The pimp incident was kind of hilarious. The guy took offense to me walking my dog, he said my dog's asshole was showing and that it was nasty. I started laughing and told him he was the most ridiculous pimp daddy of all time and he responded with a tirade of racial slurs. I responded in kind, laughed at his clothes, his Cadillac, and his general over the top ridiculous pimpishness. He pulled a knife, I showed him my gun, he jumped in his Cadillac and left. :lol:

The most disturbing part of the incident was I got a cheers of approval from every white onlooker in the parking lot. The gas station attendant even tried to recruit me into his hate group. He was disappointed to hear I didn't really have any problem with black people, it was just that pimp's ridiculousness I was laughing at.
#15116149
Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, it is not difficult to be polite.

What does "polite" mean, when it comes to vocabulary?

Is "polite" a way of preferring the mild-mannered and entitled speech of the rich and comfortable, while the rough-and-tumble "real working people" get shafted out of having a voice because "not polite enough?"

A lot of PC vocab - including the expression African-American - may have been partially 'enacted' in order to find a seemingly "neutral" way of censoring most classes of people.

TV tells us what to be afraid of, and we are afraid of certain words because the media has told us "If you say this, you're a hater. But if you say this, you're normal and PC.

What mindless garbage. And this stunted vocabulary demonstrates how much the English Language has been destroyed by empty virtue-signalling. Mobility Challenged - instead of handicapped, for example. In order to "sound positive" (about having no legs, or being unable to walk or shop on your own). Try to make being in a wheelchair sound like some kind of extreme sport that might be fun to try.

Words are supposed to have meanings, and not pom-poms.
#15116359
My response will follow my definitions of Political “Movements”. Some are obvious. Starting from the right and moving to the left ---
1] Nazis
2] Fascists
3] Current Repubs or as I call them Repuds. These have totally sold out to the 1% and have economically destroyed the America I grew up in. There have been improvements in women's and minority rights, buy economically the mass of the people are much worse off now than they were in 1950.
4] Conservatives who want any changes to come slowly and conserve the National Parks, etc. Nixon passed and signed the EPA law to clean up the environment.
5] Centrists are right in the middle on all policies.
6] Liberals are split. They have sold out economically to the top 20% of earners. Socially they use “special interest” and minority rights to try to win back enough voters among the working class who they have sold out economically. So, far this has not worked that well for them. Pres. Obama was an exception, but he soon turned and sold out the workers after promising “change”.
7] Progressives are not Liberals and they are not Socialists. In Europe they are often called Social Democrats. More on this below.
8] Socialists want the Gov. to own most of the means of production and transportation. They are NOT people who want a strong safety net. They may want this but it is not the thing that defines them.
9] Communists
10] Pol Pots Khmer Rouge murders are beyond Communists. They are like Nazis.

Now on the Progressives and Political Correctness.

These are just my ideas. I'm pretty much out of touch, because of my Asperger's and being retired to SE Asia.

We live in a critical time. We have 2 huge crises to deal with and our economy has been steered into the ditch slowly over 3 decades. We need to fix the US Gov. to deal with covid-19 and ACC aka AGW. To do this we need to elect Progressives at all levels. Basically we need a new Progressive Party to become the Party of the left while the Dems replace the Repuds as the Party of the right. Both of the crises will require Gov. spending to fight and fix them. A Progressive Party should not pick 2 fights in Congress when it can just pick 1 fight. It should avoid the “who's taxes will go up to pay for this” fight, by using massive so-called deficit spending to pay for it, just like the Repuds did last Mar. to pay for the CARES act. MMT says this will be fine because Japan has been doing it for 29 years now with no problem. MMT also tells a Progressive Party how to reform the economy to make it work better for everyone. MMTer's one policy program is its MMT Job Guarantee Program, which is a sort of permanent CCC from New Deal days. It will replace the need for a minimum wage by paying anyone something like $20/hr. do take a Gov. job doing something that would not be profitable but is socially useful.
. . . I have not said one word yet about Political Correctness. This is because just like the Progressive Party should fight just one fight to pass needed spending; it should promise to fight only necessary fights in order to get elected. Therefore, it should decide what hills to die on. I suggest it be willing to die on these hills --- equal rights for Blacks, equal rights for women, equal rights for Jews, equal rights for Gays and Lesbians, and a return of worker's rights, etc. I think it should choose not to die on the hills fighting for trans community rights or gun control or raising taxes on anyone but the top 1%. {For the trans community, I would pass a law to have the US Gov. fully fund and require the addition or conversion of public restrooms in all gas stations and some other places (sports arenas) to have “Family” restrooms that the trans community can use. I would also consider a law to protect workers & renters from discrimination based on their doing something that is totally legal. Colo. used to have (and may still have) this law, because the cigarette making corps. wanted it.}

OTOH, I have always said the politically correct statements can be divided into 2 groups. First, the lets just be polite to disadvantaged people set. And second, the statements that I called the “Politically WRONG” group. The only reason some people are fighting for this group of statements is that they are wrong. If they were “right” then why would anyone need to demand everyone believe them. For example, the claim that men and women are the same in all ways including the physical organs that are in their bodies. Or, that humans are born as a “blank slate” and how they turn out as adults does not depend in any way on their genes and is totally the result of their environment.
. . . So, it isn't surprising that I'm totally OK with throwing these sorts of ideas under the bus in pursuit of electoral victory to fight the 3 battles we must win in the next many years. These battles are beat covid-19, get CO2 levels down some, and improve the economy for the workers. Improving the economy for the workers will gain the Progressive Party many votes from those workers. We can promise them several things (none of these are new) Student loan forgiveness, low cost health care as a right, the right to a job that pays a socially inclusive wage, a cut in the FICA tax with a promise to use US credit to pay SS when necessary (or a new tax on the corps. to keep Soc. Sec. solvent), a GND, breaking up the new “Trusts”, in general - a return to a commitment for the US Gov. to serve the public good or public welfare, etc.
#15116369
Funny you should start this thread today, as I'd been thinking about leftist terminology this morning. One has to use terms even when we don't agree with the beliefs and sentiments that lie behind them. Just because I refer to Jesus or Mohammed, doesn't mean I necessarily believe in their historical existence. So people are very attached to the terms Black, Blacks, White, Whites and Coloured. So for clarity I have decided to use the Spanish terms:

Blancos
Negros
Rojos
Amarillos


to indicate that I'm referring to the Cultural Marxist racist labelling rather than honest, truthful or meaningful categorisations. The modern Cultural Marxist categorisations is an attempt to co-opt the bigoted racist categorisations of the early Spanish settlers, but reverse their effects. As US residents might find the use of the term Mulatos offensive I have decided to avoid it. Because what American people feel matters. I mean who cares about Khalid Sheik Mohammad? He's not American. He is not descended from American slaves or slave owners. What right does he have to due process? Who cares about him? So I will use the Afrikaans term from Apartheid South Africa.

Kleurlinge

Very few Americans speak Dutch or Afrikaans, so there is no reason they should take offence, and they are the people that matter.
#15116557
Steve_American wrote:My response will follow my definitions of Political “Movements”. Some are obvious. Starting from the right and moving to the left ---
1] Nazis
2] Fascists...

The vocabulary you use above, has been charged with positive and negative meanings by our non-stop Modern propaganda.

This makes it impossible to describe and analyze things like "Naziism" and "Fascism" in a scientific way because science has no emotional words other than "Eureka!" which only exists in science movies.

When you mix Nitrogen with Oxygen and Manganese... none of the ingredients are "hated" or "hateful." They're just elements. (Contrast this to Nazi, Fascist, or Liberal)

What you create with these elements can be dangerous if used incorrectly, but you will never see a scientist bow his head in shame because he has used "Nitrogen." You will not see a mass of scientists asking to "shut down" the use of Oxygen in science.

When particular words have been chareged with "mandatory" emotional reactions that don't allow open analysis, it means that the great masses of humans have been manipulated into possessing yet another taboo - yet another restriction on their ability to think or analyze the world around them.

Forced PC vocabulary is a way of dumbing everyone down to sheep.
#15116568
One difference between, say, using the term "African-American" and misgendering someone is that skin pigmentation is often easy to see, while a gender a person truly identifies with often isn't. I can't purport to know whether a male-looking person actually identifies as a man, a woman or something else (and, in the vast majority of cases, the person will self-identify as a man) and, actually, one also cannot know if "African-American" is offensive for some people either. If you rely on the generalities in good faith, then I don't think it's impolite to use the "wrong" term.
#15116574
wat0n wrote:If you rely on the generalities in good faith, then I don't think it's impolite to use the "wrong" term.

What if someone says they like the sound of the word "Naziism" because they support both socialism and nationalism?

1. Is that person committing a crime by using the word "Naziism" to describe something that he would support?

2. Would you advise that person to invent another word to describe the combination of nationalism and socialism?

3. Should that person be punished for "using a bad word" if he insists on using "Naziism" as a word to describe his desired combination of nationalism and socialism?

4. Do the powers that be (very non-socialist and non-nationalist) want us to hate these two things - socialism and nationalism? That is, do our leaders want us to "hate" cooperation and support for our own cultures?
#15116586
QatzelOk wrote:What if someone says they like the sound of the word "Naziism" because they support both socialism and nationalism?

1. Is that person committing a crime by using the word "Naziism" to describe something that he would support?

2. Would you advise that person to invent another word to describe the combination of nationalism and socialism?

3. Should that person be punished for "using a bad word" if he insists on using "Naziism" as a word to describe his desired combination of nationalism and socialism?

4. Do the powers that be (very non-socialist and non-nationalist) want us to hate these two things - socialism and nationalism? That is, do our leaders want us to "hate" cooperation and support for our own cultures?


Well, I think most people understand the connotations of the term "Nazism", just as they understand the connotations of another word that starts with "N". In fact, because of that, rather than speaking of "national socialism" they speak of "social nationalism".
#15116644
wat0n wrote:Well, I think most people understand the connotations of the term "Nazism", just as they understand the connotations of another word that starts with "N". In fact, because of that, rather than speaking of "national socialism" they speak of "social nationalism".

Yes, of course.

But only the word "Naziism" is considered bad now. The actual content of the Nazi programme has been pretty well destroyed for history by war propaganda.

So while many Western governments have rolled out similar programs as the Nazis over the last 80 years, they have all been very careful to use other words to describe the same principles.

Calling yourself "neo-liberal" when you want to brutally re-colonize foreign nations and terrorize your own nation into submission... is not an improvement over doing the same thing and calling it "Naziism."

Likewise, Edward Bearnays invented the word "Public Relations" because, he says, the word "propaganda" sounds too German. But he means exactly the same thing.

In other words, a shiny new word is often used to market a very disgusting concept from the past.
Marxism is Oligarch Astroturf

I suspect the last article shared is simply a des[…]

If my government had an agency that was abusing ou[…]

Election 2020

https://www.9news.com.au/world/us-announces-planne[…]

Campaign Kanye

This is a witty take on Clinton's former birthday[…]