  Version 8.2 |
|
|
|
|
<-- WNest 2.1|
|
Wren's Wrants
& Wramblings
|
Features... News Links Who Is Wren W Nest Logos |
Go to the... |
| Witchvox Chapter: Wren's Nest News | Chapter Page Views: 56,552,874 |
 Words That Think For Us Author: Edward Skidelsky Source: Prospect Magazine Title: WORDS THAT THINK FOR US No words are more typical of our moral culture than “inappropriate” and “unacceptable.” They seem bland, gentle even, yet they carry the full force of official power. When you hear them, you feel that you are being tied up with little pieces of soft string. Inappropriate and unacceptable began their modern careers in the 1980s as part of the jargon of political correctness. They have more or less replaced a number of older, more exact terms: coarse, tactless, vulgar, lewd. They encompass most of what would formerly have been called “improper” or “indecent.” An affair between a teacher and a pupil that was once improper is now inappropriate; a once indecent joke is now unacceptable. Submitted by and Thanks to: Arts and Letters Daily (http://www.aldaily.com/) | |
| Community Thoughts: There are 9 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Author Misses The Point | Nov 26th. at 10:41:23 pm EST |
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me This author misses the most important points of the very issue he raises, using deceptively neutral and authoritative language to frame what were and remain moralistic values judgments some people thrust at others. It is inherently dishonest to frame personal or small group values judgments as if neutral. They are not. It is inherently abusive as well as dishonest to pretend bigotry driven values judgments are statements of absolute authority, as neutral boundary language attempts to make them appear. They remain relativistic complaints that someone hasn't followed certain social or religious expectations, that others think should be universal, but are not. The change this article discusses in language is little more than disingenuous passive aggressive manipulation, to pretend those using faux-neutral language are saying something other than, "you'd better act according to my sense of hate cult bigotry." The primary reason for dishonest reframing of moralistic cult dogma as if authoritative expressions of universal values or boundaries is that society and law have changed. The mix of increasing social and religious diversity, and adoption of civil or human rights laws more broadly, have resulted in archaic social traditions becoming dysfunctional and abusive in many cases, if not sometimes also criminal. The author is correct only on a superficial level. Passive-aggressive deception tactics to dishonestly mask bigotry are inappropriate, for a long list of social, psych pathology, and legal reasons. The real problem behind this shift of language isn't the words, but the fact that millions of people haven't grown up or died off fast enough to end the forms of social practices behind the language of imposing predatory and abusive tactics in efforts to violate and coerce oppression of the core rights of neighbors. |
| Other Pc Words | Nov 25th. at 2:51:05 pm EST |
|
arinna (Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina) - Email Me Just wanted to clarify. I do also believe PC can be taken too far. I just get concerned when I hear people connect it to a free speech issue. Unless the govt is banning un-pc words by law, it's not censorship. My point is that organizations formed by free association have the right to set standards. Some of those will be pc and some of them will be decidedly not pc. You have the right to join or create associations of either kind. If I wasn't so lazy I could even google and post the names of associations that have been formed specifically to challenge the pc movement. Free speech is alive and well. Free association on the other hand is a right alot of people either never talk about or have forgotton entirely. |
| When Polite Isn't.... | Nov 25th. at 9:36:32 am EST |
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me Anyone who has read or even watched a film of "1984" will see that in the story, there were those trying to change and rearrange the dictionary into a more "politically correct" form for use, and many of the words were being declared "obsolete" and dumped for much blander language. Such is the PC of today. We do not need to change the dictionary-what is needed is a return of a more polite attitude. Changing the language changes neither mind nor heart. Nor can laws govern what is really felt. Calling it as one sees it has become "inappropriate" to the point of being ridiculous. There are times to be blunt, and times when finesse is definitely needed but common sense, (which isn't too common these days by the way) is needed to tell the difference. While it is extremely rude to call others by epithets, one can still sense the snideness in words like "special" or "challenged" when used to describe certain people. granted, it's a far cry from "idiot" or "moron", but these days, the PC words carry the same meaning, even if i's meant to be "Polite". I'll be polite and call a spade a narrow shovel, until someone hits me over the head with it-then after I wake up- I'll say what's really on my mind. |
| Okay...... | Nov 24th. at 7:25:28 pm EST |
|
Aritimi (RotterdamJct/Schdy/Scotia, New York) - Email Me so let me ask this to those who don't like PC. Would you call people who happen to be of different races by the crude epithets given by ignorant morons because you think they're suitable? So every mexican is a 'dirty beaner', or referring to Asians by the numerous ugly names given them? Is that better than calling them mexicans or Asians or heck, even Italians? I don't find anything funny about being called a wop or a dago. And yes, I am a second-generation Italian. So, you'd call gays fa**ot? That's okay, right? Why should you be nice to them? Call people by the names you really want to call them because PC is just an evil tool of those beastly liberals infesting our country. Unbelieveable. |
| Definitions | Nov 24th. at 1:38:38 pm EST |
|
Dynnys Derwydd (Lubbock, Texas) - Email Me It's all in the definitions; Vulgar doesn't mean obscene. It means common. Those against "vulgar language" in their ignorance show an elitist disdain for the hoi-polloi. Sh*t has a proper past tense, drop the i and add an a. Doctor doesn't mean physician, but someone who is learned, knowledgeable, or even a teacher. Yet ask a physician who the real doctor is and I'm sure you'll get an enlightening answer. Personally I'm sick of the misuse of the word "awesome". The universe, god/s, etc invoke awe, not some trick performed by Tony Hawk. (Love ya man, but yer not awesome. Just very, very good.) Through either ignorance, or some insane need to redirect human thought, people take simple words and mutilate them. I would say education is the key, but many teachers and professors are just as ignorant etymologically. Hel, twenty years ago the average reading and comprehension level in this country was 9th grade. In the past ten years it has dropped to a 7th grade reading level. I shudder to think of what it will be like in another ten to twenty years. If anything leads to damnation, then it is ignorance. The lowest pit of Hell reserved for those who are willfully ignorant. Love and knowledge leads to understanding; understanding leads to wisdom; wisdom leads to enlightenment. Gnothi Seauton honi soit qui mal y pense, Dynnys Derwydd |
| Nothing New, But Be Careful!!! | Nov 24th. at 11:11:26 am EST |
|
Oakwind (The Army, Maryland) - Email Me This is actually part of a much larger and much more insidious problem. And at some level, everyone seems to see it, but, perhaps, not for what it is. I agree with the idea of "free association," but how is the idea of "association" being used to sway public opinion? The idea of language controlling thought is not new. George Orwell was a pioneer in seeing how speech and associations with language could be used to change the way people think. The "politically correct" movement, in my opinion, is much like trying to tell a child it'll be ok to get an enema. When the words we use to express things are devoid of emotional association, then the force of the idea is lost. George Carlin said it wonderfully well when he described how combat survivors from WWI and WWII were diagnosed with "Shell Shock," which was a simple phrase used to describe a particularly nasty condition, but at least the emotional emphasis was carried by the phrase. People didn't need to know what "shell shock" was, all they needed was to hear the phrase, and they knew it was something bad. In Korea, the phrase changed to "Battle Fatigue" which was used for THE EXACT SAME CONDITION... Only now, the terms are softer and less emotional, and the condition sounded a little like having a bad day. After Viet Nam, it became known as "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," and CURRENTLY, its simply referred to as "PTSD." The emotional emphasis is gone, it has been simply relegated to a long, polysyllabic mess that no one can even remember, much less understand. And now its shortened to a bunch of letters with no impact at all... There's no emotional impact and no reason for anyone to actually pay attention to the people that have it anymore, because they don't get any kind of emotional response by hearing about it. Maybe if people had some kind of emotional reaction when they hear about people with PTSD (such as myself, and I KNOW, firsthand, how horrible an affliction it is) there would be more emphasis placed on preventing it (perhaps by NOT sending people to war) or treating it. The idea of "free association" is great, but its being used more venomously by political adherents to sway the way people think than ANY OTHER vehicle of swaying political thought. And George Orwell saw it happening in the '40's! And simply converting the ideas into a "neutral" concept to suit the "venue" that the idea is to be presented in, is one of the reasons why politicians cannot seem to get anything accomplished... There's no rush, why should there be when there's no sense of people hurting or suffering... And my example is just one... Think "displaced persons," "differently abled," "migrant workers," "HMO," "Peace keeping," "H1N1," and the list goes on and on and on... But, then agains, those things that political adherents WANT to have emotional emphasis, do! How about changing the term "rape victim" to "unwilling romantic attention recipient?" Or how about changing the term "Hate Crime" to "diversity-caused disregard for the law?" The idea of "free association" goes both ways, and the uses of it in the political arena are MUCH more long-lasting and far-reaching than people think.... |
| Appropriate | Nov 24th. at 6:55:25 am EST |
|
arinna (Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina) - Email Me I can agree to some extent with the article. Changing the way we lable a behavior that we are trying to restrict really doesn't automatically create more freedom of speech. Let's face it freedom of speech is a right only in govt venues and only to the extent that we all agree to fight for the rights of those who are offensive in spite of the fact we might personally find their statements unacceptable. But there's another constitutional freedom called freedom of association that needs protecting and frankly if you don't allow associations the right to restrict speech to what is appropriate or acceptable to their agreed upon standards, you can kiss this important freedom goodbye. People often overlook this right or even worse falsely claim an independent association somehow violated their right to free speech by enforcing a set of standards within their own venues. But without this right what would happen for instance to our right to form organizations such as a coven that has the freedom to refuse membership to someone like Fred Phelps on the grounds that his speech would be disruptive to our agreed upon purpose? This is why I find the word inappropriate a much better choice for speech or behavior that may be disruptive, offensive or unpleasant. We aren't going to the extreme of characterizing speech as immoral or illegal but instead are limiting the criticism to the context of its current venue. By doing so, we can preserve both the freedom of speech and freedom to associate. This way the KKK can continue to spew their hateful speech in an appropriate public venue as they have a constitutional right to do but at the same time the Rainbow Coalition can enforce it's own rules at their conventions and meetings that allow them to say behaving that way at one of their sponsored events is innapropriate or unacceptable by their standards. (and vice versa if the kkk wants to restrict kumbaya infiltrations at their meetings) Please lets not be so gung ho about the right to free speech that we neglect our right to free association anymore. Something tells me we will regret it if we do. |
| Inappropriate And Unacceptable | Nov 23rd. at 1:58:45 pm EST |
|
Panthea Ge (T-Town, Michigan) - Email Me I like the idea, as the words he says we should eradicate from our language are the type that usually come with a snotty tone of 'why cant you be perfect like I think I am?' I'd just as soon toss the speakers out, but tossing the words is a reasonable semiotic substitute. I'll take it. |
| Censorship | Nov 23rd. at 12:45:31 pm EST |
|
Zodiac (Waverly, Nebraska) - Email Me ...is coming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1997-2010 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.