Interesting Quote

It stifles debate. It's a kind of censorship.

It is a form of one upmanship.

I think those of us of who never even contemplated using terms such as spastic for someone who says or does something silly, shirt-lifter for a gay man, or rag-head to describe anyone Middle Eastern, for example, might consider so-called political correctness an interference. To object to their use is neither censorship nor one-upmanship; it is a recognition of the power of words – in such cases the power to wound and hurt.

Yes, but look at the fuss which resulted from whatshisname saying 'coloured person' instead of 'person of colour' even though it was obvious he was not being racist.

Not so long ago, on a thread about Charlie Hebdo, everyone agreed that free speech was an important principle to fight for, the right to offend and be offended.

It's a fine line between free speech and casual insult. Perhaps the intention is also part of the equation. (Mixed metaphor or what?)

The intention is definitely part of the equation.
That is what is missing when things go too far.

Yes, but look at the fuss which resulted from whatshisname saying 'coloured person' instead of 'person of colour' even though it was obvious he was not being racist

Agreed

Dont agree with your second paragraph though petallus.

Should I have said 'some of us agreed'?

Yes.

Yes, I wasn't one of the ones who agreed incidentally.

I think there are limits.

I didnt think you were,from memory so I was surprised by your post.

PD James believed that women should stay at home during child-raising years, as they are "biologically programmed" to have and rear the children in a family. (as per the previous paragraph in the interview). That was the politically incorrect thing she was referring to.

I don't understand the references to the help-lines, unless she felt women had brought those things on themselves by demanding equality with men. A bit odd I think.

A 21 year old interview?

The quote was from the bottom of my diary.

The idea of political correctness as fascism interested me.

The fact that PDJ said it 21 years ago doesn't invalidate it as an idea surely.

Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose your son's younger girlfriend was quite happy that he invariably referred to her as his bitch, not as a shared tongue-in-cheek joke. Would that be acceptable in your home or would you feel obliged to object?

Are you being serious Absent? It's a bit of a loaded question isn't it?

Okay, here's another example. If you were going around a supermarket and you heard an old lady refer to someone she knew in her youth as having been crippled by polio, would you tick her off and inform her she should have said disabled?

It's a complicated issue.

To get back to your question though, i am baffled at the idea that my hypothetical son, who would be white, would refer to his girlfriend as 'his bitch' because I associate that term with young black men of the rapper variety. If it's a common expression in those circles in the same way as the n word is, I would not take it upon myself to object. If my own son called his girlfriend 'a bitch' as opposed to 'his bitch' even if she was happy with it I might have a quiet word in private but bearing in mind that times change.
If, on the other hand, my son was angry with his wife and called her a bitch during an argument I would button my lip.

I'm not sure that is what people usually mean by political correctness though.

The debate about so- called 'political correctness' so often is disassociated from the wider context. In my life time I have lived through amazing changes in the areas of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age. Language, legislation, behaviour and attitudes in all these areas have changed enormously. There is a complex interrelationship between all four - sometimes legislation arises from changes in attitude and sometimes is an acceptable form of social engineering in that proscribing certain behaviours, use of language etc will help to bring about change. When a white South African or a white American in the southern states used ( and sadly sometimes still uses) the word ' boy' when talking to a black male adult, there is so much implied by that word - relationships of superiority, ownership, contempt and the n word has similar conatations. With disabilty , words like 'crippled and 'handicapped' keep the social discourse and narrative in the 19 and early 20th century models of disability by describing disabled people's limitations rather than the limitations forced on them by the lack of facilities for disabled people. The debate so often focuses on examples ( sometimes real but often made up) which dextract from what all these changes were aimed at - a better, more equal, caring and respectful society with more opportunities for previously disadvantaged groups. The use of language is of course integral to the whole debate but only one aspect of it. The example of an old lady overheard in a supermarket is frankly silly - why would anyone go up to her and say something? The same old lady, as I said on a previous thread, saying that personally to me, would be a different matter and I would say something. In all our institutions schools, hospitals, the work place respectful and acceptable language should be the norm and be expected - obviously you would deal with a child using an unacceptable word differently than you would an adult. In areas of social interaction, like a pub or hotel, of course no one should have the right to use offensive unacceptable language. Go home and rant if you want to in private.

Really Grannytwice if a little old lady told you how she remembers her mother was crippled by arthritis, you would tell her she should have said disabled, or differently abled?

The point is, sometimes non pc words are used in all innocence. Very old people can't always keep up with the changes.

My 'frankly silly' example was meant to be just that and it was in response to Mishap's example of my hypothetical son referring to his young girlfriend as his bitch.

"Crippled by arthritis" meant exactly the same thing that "disabled by arthritis" means now. There was nothing derogatory about it - it meant that they found it very difficult and painful to get around. Arthritis has not become less painful over the years, and being crippled/disabled has not become a cause for blame or abuse.

The imaginary old lady had the same sympathy for her friend with arthritis as anyone who uses a more "modern" term, and when she knew him/her they were "crippled by arthritis" and would not have felt insulted at the words.

I would be more likely to say, "How dreadful for them!" than to make the old lady feel guilty.

I hadn't realised that 'crippled' was non-PC these days. One can be 'crippled by debt'. Of course we don't describe a person as being 'a cripple' any more.

petallus You're of the opinion that "political correctness" can be used to bully people who wish to challenge the status quo. That may be so - but my feeling is that people who object to "political correctness" are generally defending the status quo.

As a child growing up in Wembley in the 50's my best friend's mum was Irish and her dad Jamaican. I am fairly sure that my family described her as "half-caste" because it was the phrase commonly used at that time. I also recall using that term but when I became aware that the words had unpleasant connotations, I no longer used them.

Some people, however, thought it was ridiculous to "nit pick" about such issues and pointed to the fact that it was a term that had always been used, so what was the problem? Those that are described by these sorts of terms often feel too vulnerable to take issue, for fear of being told they have a "chip on their shoulder", are "touchy" and being further marginalised.

Thanks, petallus for the OP and thanks, jingl for the link. I like PD James' books and found the interview very interesting. I'm younger than her but a lot of what she says strikes a child with me. I often think of the differences between the women who taught me, at school and university, and the feminists of today. Or even of the 1960s. It seems to me that loud outcries against politically incorrect language are often a very easy way of establishing people's credentials as being right-thinking and right on.

Chord, not child! Where did that come from, spellchecker?

I agree Lilygran with your last sentence in particular.

Ana use your imagination then and think of the hypothetical old lady saying 'my mother had arthritis and ended up a cripple' instead.

Eloethan I agree that some people who object to politically correct language are supporting the status quo, or at least the status quo as it was some years ago. The nature of the status quo surely changes over time. Now being politically correct is the status quo.

It's as though there is a body of people out there just waiting (and hoping?) for somebody to put their foot in it. I've already mentioned Cumberbatch. He felt he had to issue an immediate grovelling apology for his inadvertent and innocent use of the phrase 'coloured person'. There was talk at the time that he might have blown his chances of an award because of it.

That's going to far in the wrong direction.

Incidentally, I remember the term half caste from the bad old days when being a person of colour meant being second class in society. Two of my cousins were 'half casts' since my mother's brother married a black woman.

As it happens, my grandsons have just been presented with a half brother who is of mixed race (much better term) since their father has just had a child with a woman from the Caribbean. They are completely unphased by the Caribbean bit but not terribly pleased at the age gap (oldest GS is 25)

too far

Describing someone as "a" cripple or "a" paranoid schizophrenic or such an expression is unnaceptable. To say they are affected by or live with a particular condition is an attempt to avoid defining that person only by their health condition.

"He has Cerebral Palsy, or is Blind, or Deaf, is more acceptable. I understand people who are deaf or blind tend to prefer those terms instead of visually handicapped or hearing impaired as the term "impaired" more obviously implies a bodily failing.

We have to accept that language changes. What was called the Spastic's Society has for a long time now been SCOPE. (I assume it's an acronym but I have no idea what it spells out as.)

Spastic is the correct term to describe a condition of muscle spasm.
"Spasticity (from Greek spasmos-, meaning "drawing, pulling") is a feature of altered skeletal muscle performance with a combination of paralysis, increased ..."

Spass or spastic is now used as a term of abuse for a person with a disability, or just a term of abuse by those who possibly don't even know its origins. It is unnaceptable.

People will always change use of a term to make an insult if they are that way inclined. We will probably just have to keep moving on to change whatever expression is being use as an insult.

It is very unfair to assume an older person who may use such an expression is doing so out of malice rather than habit.