- Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness, and race isn’t either.
This strikes me as a huge flaw in the study, and makes me question the results a great deal. It's an incredibly fluid term, and it's used differently by tumblr than it is by /r/the_donald. So to me, all we can really read into is the vast majority being sick of the conversation period (and I'd count myself among them, by and large). Really the only surprising thing to me in all this is how the author, ostensibly educated and engaged, could be so surprised by the results. All it would take is a 10-minute converstion someplace other than Twitter!But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind.
We all draw our own lines. I use the word 'retarded' a lot for intensifying 'stupid.' I know that a lot of people don't like that word and find it hurtful. I say it anyway for whatever reason. I'm pretty careful about my sensitivity to queer people. I have been known to drop the word 'faggot' in a joking way and once upset someone on Twitter with it but I apologized. There are parts of LGBTQIA+ where I just tap out on and accept ignorance on my part or write off as Tumblr bullshit for 16 year olds. So that's a lot of me accepting limits or at least understanding them on my part as a person who presents as a cis white straight male. Then you got people who bristle at the term 'African American' because they feel threatened that they can't say 'the blacks' in polite company. So I'm not super enthused about respecting the identity politics of otherkin and two spirit but other people are upset by the idea of people asking to be referred to in a certain way in the first place as a show of respect and we both get lumped into this 80% which is retarded.
But gay as a general pejorative exists even as it exists as a neutral. Intent is the key. I may or may not be entirety straight so if I say faggot even as a joke the intent is unclear. Nigga/nigger breaks along context lines too. You get this ongoing dialogue with no answer unless people understand the underlying issue and people would rather just be assholesThe line I draw is whether the word is still used as a slur.
I use retarded and I am not sure that it’s bad. I don’t have any experience with people using it to insult mentally handicapped people, and if they did, I don’t see it as different than calling a mentally handicapped person stupid. Which is just plain awful. Retarded is a quality. If I say that an action or someone is retarded, I’m saying that it is stupid. I am calling that person stupid. That’s an accepted interpretation. At some point, the problem is someone’s disingenuous sensibilities, and conforming to them would be retarded.
The way I've always seen/interpreted the issues with that word is that by equating the mental disability with stupidity, it's equating the people with that disability with something negative. In other words, it's true that said disability means someone is less intelligent, but there's a difference between that and calling someone stupid. I wouldn't call someone with Down's stupid just because they can't figure out algebra. So I think the criticism (one I largely share) is about crossing some wires. It seems like that use of the term is equating having the condition with something bad. It's little different from how "gay" was once used as a synonym for "bad" just across the board, and I don't have a hard time seeing why that's not cool, either.
I can understand the argument, but one difference is that you do indeed call gay people gay as it’s an inoffensive description. Retarded isn’t an inoffensive label for anyone. It is bad. It wasn’t a very good descriptor of a disability from the start, because it is a specific shortcoming applied to a general set of conditions. I’d argue that’s why it works so well as an insult. It’s a very specific one. No one says “hey my son is stupid” or “hey my son is retarded”, “...don’t use that word like that.”
That's a problem with the euphemism treadmill, not with the word in question. Any word can have negative meaning if it is said with negative or hurtful intent. Whatever word is used to distinguish those with a mental disability from those who are just otherwise less intelligent will be used as a slur to refer to those who are just on average less intelligent. 'Downsie' is now used as a slur by young kids/teens. Do we change the name of Down's syndrome because the word is used as a pejorative? Then kids will start saying that 'Aww shit, little jimmy must have an extra chromosome!' Wait, they already do that. I don't see a solution to this problem other than become harder to offend.The way I've always seen/interpreted the issues with that word is that by equating the mental disability with stupidity, it's equating the people with that disability with something negative.
It's always a balancing act, but it doesn't automatically follow that the answer is "do nothing." Language is ultimately a social construct, and we all get to decide both what words mean and what to be offended by. For whatever reason "retarded" has taken hold in mainstream culture while other things have not. It's arbitrary, but then so is language as a whole.
Good thing that's not what I advocate for. Learning to be thick-skinned and hard to offend is definitely not a 'do nothing' approach. It's damn difficult and even suggesting it is unpopular. For some reason we are dead set on giving words all this extra power and by extension give tons of power to those who get off on using offensive language. Trump, and those who think/act/talk like him are empowered by how easy it is to offend anyone to the left of center. They can do nothing except say one shocking, offensive thing, and all of a sudden it's the only thing that anyone can talk about for a week while other nefarious shit goes on behind the scenes. it doesn't automatically follow that the answer is "do nothing."
I get all this, but I don't think it's realisitic to just pretend that words don't mean anything, either.
That's your choice of course, but I haven't seen a reason that everyone should follow it (which is more where I was going). I also think your prediction is hyperbolic.
I'm always happy to hear alternatives. The parties in question are those who are taking offense and those who are giving it. Despite our best intentions and hopes Trump and Company are going to continue doing exactly what they've been doing because they've been successful doing it. The choice that we are faced with is to either allow it to have the desired effect or not.
Sure, but you can only do what you can do. Other people being assholes doesn't mean I get to be.
Not use terminology that I think has bad connotations.
I have, and it hasn't changed my opinion. I don't think his description of this consistent cycle is accurate: I've never heard anyone use any of the currently-used technical terms as a synonym for "stupid." The cycle pretty much ended with the word retarded. I think y'all are simply choosing to ignore how it's actually used. It's used to say "you being stupid is you being like this other person with a mental condition." Since this kind of logic is generally communative, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be seen as implying that someone with one of these conditions is insult-worthy per se. You can say an association shouldn't exist, but that's academic: the point is that it does. That's how language works. A good example of this is the word "niggardly." It has nothing to do with the racial slur, has a totally different etymology (it comes via Scandinavian languages versus the slur being based on Romance ones), but given its effect, it's something that most people avoid using now. See also: "nimrod," which literally went from meaning "a great hunter" to "stupid" thanks to a massive misunderstanding of a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Regardless of the reasoning, there's a degree of selfishness involved. You're basically saying "I won't change my speech pattern even though it's hurtful to someone else." Sure, anything can be taken too far, and some of this is simply a matter of general societal agreement that is not perfect. But are you really saying that you're so inconvenienced by having to use a different word, to the point that it overrides the very real hurt felt by someone with such a condition or their loved ones? Even if we set aside the way it's used (and what thus makes it different), is it really so important to you that you're cool with being an asshole to someone who doesn't deserve it just so you get to use this one specific word? This is why the "anti-PC" crowd gets a bad rap, because my experience has overwhelmingly been that it's people being upset that they're not allowed to be shitty to someone else like they used to.
That was a more general thing about the whole idea of being "anti-PC" or whatever. So my comment to you more specifically was to question why it's okay to use a term that many would regard as offensive for little gain, at least that I can see.
I've heard special needs used as an insult. I haven't heard anyone go to Stanhope's lengths. I've not really followed this whole conversation but check this out: https://www.themarysue.com/sarah-palin-son-instagram/ That lady is a piece of work.
I've been having that internal debate a lot lately. I feel like it probably starts as cynicism and then just sort of becomes the person after awhile.
Agreed. Stupid to me would describe plain ignorance despite evidence to the contrary. Just a bit different than retarded which can be useful to describe an idea that is slow in developing or needing development. I find that most any harsh adjective has it’s place when describing situations of impermanence over adjectives directed in an absolute manner toward a person. For example, “What a retarded idea that was to throw a boomerang in our backyard and smash out two windows”. The adjective describes a poorly developed idea without disparaging any particular person or group. This, to me, is very different than than saying, “Dude, you are such a retard!” That is an unfavorable use in my book.
Bear in mind that words like idiot and imbecile were medical terms at one point http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmill-replacing-r-word.html?m=1 Also Sarah Palin is the most vocal opponent of the r word I can think of. Make of that what you will. My money is on a healthy bit of faux outrage even though she had a child with Down's Syndrome
The other issue is that retarded itself became the clinical term of choice after everyone started using imbecile in a derogatory way. Phrases "mental retardation", "mentally retarded", and "retarded" are subject to the euphemism treadmill: initially used in a medical manner, they gradually took on derogatory connotation, just as did earlier synonyms (for example, moron, imbecile, cretin, dolt and idiot, formerly used as scientific terms in the early 20th century), leading to a search for connotatively neutral replacements Eventually some other word would replace retard anyways.However, the term imbecile quickly passed into vernacular usage as a derogatory term, and fell out of professional use in the 20th century[11] in favor of mental retardation.
Anybody look at the study? Anybody? Atlantic? Bueller? professional polling with critical insights from social science, this study provides a deep look into American political behavior. So... they're going to interview a handful of people and project that onto a study and call it conclusive. Here, watch: YouGov, conducted 8,000 online survey interviews of US citizens using interlocking Census targets from the 2016 American Community Survey and propensity score weights to achieve a representative sample by gender, race, age, education and geographic region. How many interviews? individuals distributed across the segments or “tribes” described below. In addition, six separate focus groups of 8-10 individuals each were conducted with a broadly representative distribution of respondents from each segment. Awright! A self-reporting survey, thirty hour-long interviews and six focus groups all wrapped up like a scientifically coherent document. Hey, what did the survey have to say about "political correctness?" Political correctness is a problem in our country. So... was that a survey question, an interview question or a survey question? Whelp... it's in every interview and isn't a survey question listed in the appendix so really, this is sociologists push-polling 30 individuals and calling it a finding. 'cuz you know who calls it "political correctness?" People speaking pejoratively. Know what everyone else calls it? "Diversity" or "inclusiveness." The study? It asked 30 people about "political correctness" and decided America’s Christian foundations. They feel that those foundations are under threat from a liberal political culture that emphasizes diversity and devalues America’s achievements. What does it say about inclusivity? story of national identity that, at its core, is idealistic, hopeful and inclusive. It is a story that calls the nation and its people to act with virtue and against division; that speaks to the better angels of our nature. I mean, this study is 160 pages of fetid bullshit. It's like asking 30 old people "do you think hipsters are annoying?" and then reporting "MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HATE MILLENNIALS." I mean, sociology is rapidly attempting to become a parody of itself but this paper is a catastrophe. And the Atlantic should feel bad.By combining the large-scale sampling of
Starting in December 2017 and concluding in January 2018, our research partner,
In the qualitative phase of the research, we conducted thirty hour-long interviews with
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Traditional Conservatives value patriotism and
In tackling this threat, America has one great asset unrivalled in the world: a powerful
I only shared this in the hopes of getting Hubski to discuss it. Checked out the author's bio page, and found this other recent Atlantic article, What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia: I did lol. It gets even funnier, actually. Edit: I want to explicitly state that sociology is absolutely a discipline worth funding, but I would like to see a pronounced change in the culture and methodologies.I mean, sociology is rapidly attempting to become a parody of itself but this paper is a catastrophe.
The sheer craziness of the papers the authors concocted makes this fact all the more shocking. One of their papers reads like a straightforward riff on the Sokal Hoax. Dismissing “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, it makes a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology—or practice interpretative dance—instead...
It wasn't sociologists who fell for it:Edit: I want to explicitly state that sociology is absolutely a discipline worth funding, but I would like to see a pronounced change in the culture and methodologies.
As a number of academics pointed out on Twitter, for example, all of the papers submitted to sociology journals were rejected. For now, it remains unlikely that the American Sociological Review or the American Political Science Review would have fallen for anything resembling “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” a paper modeled on the infamous book with a similar title.
Well, the most radical corner of sociology, I guess. Not indicative of the whole, you're correct.
turns out if you only pay attention to the silly corners it makes it look silly
Most of us have politically incorrect family members whose intentions we trust, and we forgive them their awkwardness, inheritance, and ignorance. The left could do with a bit more plain, unguarded talk; the problem is not the plain talk that’s missing, it’s the acceptance and understanding that comes with actually listening to the person saying it.
first they came for "ur mom has the big gay", and i did not speak out