If somebody called me vertically challenged I'd take that as an insult. Since using it implies that being small is somehow bad, or the speaker wouldn't see the need to use a euphemism.

_________________
Sanity is for the weak.

[quote="amnal"]

This is true, I suppose. But 'is a black' alternative to 'is black' is problematic because it's the method of noun usage that *is* used in a dehumanising a great deal. This is what I meant in my EDIT2 - it is easy to think of fake counterexamples, but they don't disprove the point.

I'm not really sure what to say to make you consider my point, most things I think you will just say 'lol' at because you already don't believe me. I hope that simpkin will be able to explain better why this is problematic (and it *is* possible to provide very real examples that illustrate the point, but I'd rather someone with more knowledge about it did so) [quote]

I see that you're now writing like simpkin with your use of the asterix. Placing an asterix on either side of one of more written words doesn't produce consistent results with regards to the interpretation of the sentence on the other end.
It's perfectly possible to see "Nathan is a black" as a racist phrase, but saying that "Nathan is a dan" is unlikely to be seen as an elitist phrase. Trying to apply language rules doesn't produce consistent results.

I think that what you said in this post is pretty much in line with what I have been trying to express. I made a few comments about this type of an idea, but I thought I was talking into the wind

My personal take on PC is that it is just a guideline that lets you get a rough idea of what irks people. However, it's still a generalization, and to get to know a particular person's preferences, you've got to get to know that person.

I put PC in the same category as other generalizations that some have about groups of people. There are generalizations all around, even if they aren't intended to have any negative connotation.

For example, it might be believed that "Japanese people eat with chopsticks". Though there may be many examples of how this is true, it may be the case that there exists a Japanese person that doesn't eat with chopsticks, and prefers using a fork. With billions of people in the world, it's hard to construct universally true generalizations.

---

Another way to think about this is to consider an area in computer science, which I kind of like: machine learning.

There are many different types of machine learning algorithms, but a common idea is for the computer to "learn" by making inferences about the world based on many samples.

For example, suppose we have a machine learning algorithm that we use to estimate the score in a game of go. One approach might be to consider a few different variables that we think might be relevant to the analysis, and then throw thousands of input games to the algorithm as training data. For each input game, the algorithm can take a look at the values of the variables the game has, and then also the final result.

Over time, the algorithm can infer some types of trends in the data, and may identify that particular variables lead to particular results. It constructs an idea of how the world works, based on the many samples that it has seen.

---

I think that understanding diverse cultures can be the same way. We, as humans, are like machine learning algorithms. With the datapoints we have available to us, we can make inferences about the world with some degree of probability. We can think, "oh, black people are usually like this", or "oh, asian people are like this".

But the point is, the more datapoints we are able to get, the better inferences we can make.

So to be able to understand different cultures, I guess, it's good to get a lot of experiences with people from those cultures.

Back to the subject on hand, to determine if something is "okay to say" is always a shot in the dark, but to have a greater chance of not offending somebody, you should get as many data points as possible. That means, to understand if it will offend Asian people when you refer to the "orient", you should get to know and understand as many Asian people as possible...

However, it is NOT possible to get to know all of the Asian people, and it is not feasible to do this type of analysis on every single thing that you say.

So the answer, again, is to consider the people that you care about. Get to know them really well. In doing so, you can understand their preferences, and you can accommodate their interests.

For the millions of others out there, whatever you do could potentially offend them. If you're aware of an action that offends someone, if it's important to you, you can adjust your actions. If you don't care, then it doesn't matter.

_________________
be immersed

Has anyone ever heard of PC wallahs expressing remorse or changing their behaviour because they offended millions more people than they were supposedly trying to defend?

That's not trying to make a cheap rhetorical point. It's a genuine question. I've never heard of it, and somehow, given the militant/activist kind of person who often makes PC pronouncements in public, I find it hard to imagine.

Just follow everything you say with "...if you know what I mean", and we can equally offend everyone

That could be true.

I think my philosophy is more in regard to how to define one's personal behavior. What other people do, I have no control over.

So I think that, for me, acting this way is a good goal to have. But if other people do not change their behavior in a similar way, I have no control over it... And in fact, it's something I'm pretty used to with some people that I know

By the way, I am also not saying that I always change my behavior to accommodate other people. It's just a goal I try to have to resolve conflict.

I'm sure that there are many PC advocates that don't adhere to this.

_________________
be immersed

Has anyone ever heard of Anti-PC wallahs expressing remorse or changing their behaviour because they offended millions more people than they were supposedly trying to defend?

What's your point, John?


Edit: I need to get this off my chest.

As with almost all discussions on political correctness, exaggeration and much-to-do-about-nothing always seems to carry the day. We create this boogeyman that in reality rarely exists and then we self-righteously flog it to death in the name of "common sense." Anyone who dares doubt such a menace to the rational and moral order just isn't thinking clearly. And besides, it always feels so good (present company included) to use such rhetorical devices to point the finger so we can continue to ignore our own repertoire of political correctness. We just don't think of it in those terms because our use of language is obviously normal, nonpolitical and neutral. As Durkheim observed, we need our deviants to remind us that we're not. I'm guessing this thread count might even surpass a typical Robert Jasiek thread. I mean, who in their right mind would miss an opportunity to flog this deviant straw man – hey, hey, look at me. I'm one of the good guys too…

By the way, I don't exempt myself from any of the above.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Alright.
I will take you seriously and try to explain where I am at.
In case what I already said did not make that clear. Sorry for the long-ish post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, there is a big problem I have with what you say, and what some others are saying.
The problem is thus: you assume I did not consider your point or did not understand what you say just because I disagree.

Well, this is not the case.
I was thinking long and hard about where I stand on this issue, and about what you and others have said. I just decided that, for me, given the lack of some specific and widely accepted indicator that this or that phrase is 'offensive' - I will not consider it offensive and not change my vocabulary. If you bring some better arguments, I am willing to listen and adjust my position, but until then - I am pretty much set.

But what you and a few others are doing is repeating the same stuff over and over insisting that others simply don't understand or don't want to listen or whatever. This is a very arrogant and self-centered attitude since it implies that if I only understood you I would have no choice but to agree with your great wisdom, and then only thing that is preventing me is either my low intelligence or my closed mind. You pretty much said so yourself. I really should take offense at that, but guess what - I don't!

And my position has absolutely NOTHING to do with belief, as you seem to imply.
I understand that there is a difference between 'he is black' and 'he is a black', I just firmly believe that the only way to get rid of what you suggest these phrases imply and of related attitudes (on both sides of the equation!) is not to concentrate on such details and magnify them, but rather ignore them and let them fizzle out.

Now, there are some terms and phrases which are already entrenched in our culture as being proper or improper, and since I am a
relative newcomer to this particular party - there is nothing I can do but to abide by what's culturally acceptable. But I WILL NOT applaud when somebody tries tries to enlarge this silly list of 'forbidden words' or when somebody tries to make me concentrate on slight differences in phrasing rather than on ideas and intentions. I cannot prevent you from having your opinion, but I can say 'lol'. So I did.

Bottom Line:
We should not be adding to divisiveness in the world, we should be adding tolerance and understanding and openness.
This is what I think.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I think I pretty much agree with Bantari's stance. I will add, though, that in an effort to add to the understanding that Bantari references, if something is considered as an offensive phrase to a particular person that I care about, and I know that they consider it offensive, I will try not to use the phrase... Or at the very least, I could communicate with that person, and try to understand why they get upset.

This, to me, promotes openness more than disregarding another's feelings, simply because I don't care.

_________________
be immersed

Wouldn't it be better to judge a person for what instead of what they look like? We wouldn't have to have discussions like this

To be honest, I think sometimes certain elements in the Western society are so obessed about colour, gender, sexual orientation and being PC in general that the message that they are saying gets lost somewhere.

Only if we could be all the same in terms of look.

Speech patterns are often about social distinction and group building. The same holds for PC, I believe. It gives you an outlet for activism and a progressive image without the need to touch any politically sensitive issues (e.g. war, occupation, economic crisis, immigration). I've seen more than once that the exclusion produced by such speech pattern overrides the proclaimed concern about openness and anti-discrimination by excluding some of the very same people whose discrimination was to be avoided by the new speech patterns.

While this deserves to be ridiculed, I have my doubts that it is only respectable motives that keep the anti-PC crowd moving, especially when strawmen-building and -burning is involved. Anti-PC is one of the favourite talking points of the european new right. Probably the british electoral system limits the damage somewhat, still there is enough reason to be careful.

Regards Tapir.

PS @RichardAMullen: The mystery lessens considerably as soon as you have a common language.

This thread is not a necessary one, but a bit fun to read. I won't claim any originality in contributing to it, but here are some points:

a) Oriental. I don't feel that "orient" and related words have any generally negative connotations, but of course it may depend on where you live etc.

I haven't read Edward Said in original, but judging from many epigones, repetitors and people referring to Said, his ideas might very well be mostly rubbish as far as I know. The notion that western "oientalists" have had a condescending attitude to oriental culture, that they have constructed oriental "otherness" in order to enhance the image of their own civilization and promote colonial interests, or similar, simply doesn't feel correct to me. Rather, my impression of typical "orientalists" is that they have had a genuine love, interest and admiration for their respective subjects of study and that they have gone through immense pains to study, learn and understand languages and cultures, say from the days of Matteo Ricci onwards. Of course my frame of reference may be limited, but if I think of personalities that I know at least a little about, e.g. swedes like the sinologist and linguist Bernhard Karlgren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Karlgren), the adventurer and archeologist Johan Gunnar Andersson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Gunnar_Andersson ) or the geographer, author and adventurer Sven Hedin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Hedin ) in the case of China, they sure loved, admired and respected Chinese culture. Similar for middle east oriented scholars, such as the linguist Henrik Samuel Nyberg ( knew 28 languages, productive in particular in Iranian languages (modern and pahlavi, baluchi etc) , arabic, hebrew, armenian etc), or the original character and prodigious translator from Persian, Eric Hermelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hermelin ), they all loved and admired their subjects of study, no condescending what so ever.

Maybe the negative connotations of "oriental" only exist at the level of James Bond films and similar, and in Said's imagination?

It could be, I suppose, that a person like John Fairbairn can't recognize possibly pejorative use of "oriental" because clearly he has a thoroughly positive attitude to the "orient" himself, whereas someone whose frame of reference is more based on James Bond films can?

b) The funniest example of PC word banning that I'm aware of is the "niggardly" story ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controvers ... ggardly%22 ) - where a guy was dismissed from his job because he used an english word that the auditorium was not familiar with and, the funny twist, got his job back because he was gay!

c) In Sweden I think the usual use of "oriental" has shifted a bit in the more recent decades, it is not so commonly used for the far east anymore, more commonly for the middle east, including somehow also Africa, even areas that are pretty far west. But when used it is usually meant to be positive.

regards,
Henric

You don't even bother to have an idea about what someone is writing before you're calling it rubbish. And then you keep going talking about scholarship... come on!

Hint: Re-read the posts by John Fairbairn and T Mark Hall about western rule, time keeping, tournament setup and whatsoever experts rulings concerning oriental practice. Then read Edward Said. You may end surprised.

Cheers,
Tapir

It seems to me that Henric was suggesting the possibility that two different people can have two different ideas of the connotation of a particular word. To me this seems to be quite rational.

_________________
be immersed

Please can we have an example - an actual, concrete example, not a "my aunt's dog's nurse's sister said" - of these "PC Wallahs" and their "pronouncements"?

Not things like the rubbish Javaness has spouted about "having to say vertically challenged instead of short", actual examples.

Presumably you regard this very debate about "Oriental" to be one such example, but you have said a great deal about how appallingly much the "PC people" are inhibiting your life and causing you problems and offending you, so clearly they must be a problem all the time and there must be lots and lots of real examples you could give.

Or possibly you're going around believing the media when they say Birmingham's "cancelled Christmas" and that children can't learn "baa baa black sheep" any more, when in fact none of these stories are true at all.

_________________
My European rating.

There was a very funny situation in the local paper, where the county council had to withdraw a junior job advertisement that stated it was looking for hard working candidates, as someone lodged a formal complaint that it discriminated against lazy people.

These incidents are generally few and far between fortunately

Yes, they are a problem all the time, because they lead to a proliferation of staff and resources in national government, local government and businesses to implement and monitor the laws passed and to train staff and snoopers. To avoid the issues that are more inflammatory here, the green/global warming debate is one such example. On a small scale , weights and measures is another which shows it is not always about people's feelings - it may be about a way of life. One way or another this all costs all of us a lot of money all the time.

But, no, I didn't actually say a "great deal" about it. Try reading the thread again. I said a small amount, and I wasn't even raising a PC debate as such. My original point was that I wanted to resist a ban on oriental not because it was PC but because I was defending British English versus American English. If you read the prefaces to some of my books you'll see that this is something I care about.

The "cancelled Christmas" business is, incidentally, not so far from the truth. I get to see the letters sent from my grandson's school. Which reminds me, something else I care about - the way my fondly loved Noddy books have been bowdlerised Or is that a figment of my imagination, too?

BTW You do like having a go at me, don't you? (Jenny has several times said rude things about me on the BGA forum. We've never met.)

John, what does saying rude things about you on some other forum have to do with anything on this forum and, in particular, with simpkin's retort? Nothing in simpkin's post is rude or offensive or impolite. Simpkin is simply asked you to provide something other than anecdotes for your claim that the Western world as we know it is crumbling before our feet due to PC wallahs - note the exaggeration and hyperbole. I just wanted to rub shoulders with y'all.

Topazg's story is clearly an outlandish example of the so-called PC menace, but such extremes should raise red flags from the start because they are so extreme. These stories are great for ratings because we all love to throw our heads back and yell OMFG and join in with everyone else in our amazement of how bad things have gotten. It's sort of like using Fox News as a reliable news source. What's amazing is how selective we all are when using our critical thinking skills.

(John and I have never met)

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Unfortunately, you missed the point as Edward Said was not at all writing about the meaning, connotations or usage of a particular word, but about a scholarship of the east which endowed its alumni with the right mindset to take up responsible positions in colonial administration. (Exceptions notwithstanding.)

The rest is granted. Meanings differ, usage is more important than the actual words. Even supposedly correct speech can be employed as a means of exclusion against some of the very same people whose discrimination it is supposed to reduce. (One classic: Against working class or foreign people who have not learned or do not care about the in-group language of academic leftist groups.)

European has a significant scope actually, Isreal likes to be European as does Russia. I don't think there is an overwhelming ambiguity the way they are used in the text. Some British people don't like to think of themselves as European
I'm almost irritated (it's only when pedanticitis comes over me) when people use American to refer to things from the United States of America, totally disregarding the existence of the rest of the continents. I get over it though





Orient and Asia are used together, I would say Asia was the more ambiguous one here. Both (however) clearly mean either Japan or Korea or China in this context. Speaking from an aesthetic point of view, I prefer using one word instead of three here. The minor ambiguity doesn't seem unpleasant to me. Perhaps this problem is exclusive to the USA? - which, lets face it, still has a big problem with racism. Anyway, I missed your post here until now, thanks for the answer, but I am still perplexed by your feelings.