The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Manhole or a personhole? A study of political correctness > Comments

Manhole or a personhole? A study of political correctness : Comments

By Rebecca Huntley, published 30/8/2005

Rebecca Huntley argues it is the Left rather than the Right that want to frustrate free speech with the new political correctness.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
People are who they are and say what they say... in their own way.

They may speak harshly, truthfully, with subterfuge, behind coded smoke screens and euphemisms, with a painful patronage to exagerated delicate sensibilities, 'correcting' the discourse... whatever.

Most of that guff just clouds the message and makes it hard to say anything or understand what is being said. It gets real tedious, real fast, when one has to constantly skirt around weak and frail minds and emotive personalities in an effort to communicate in the way that the speaker does not make the listener uncomfortable. Constant self censorship, factual and political revisionism of language and generally having to think five steps ahead is tiresome. Whats wrong with saying 2+2=4 instead of 2+2-2+2*0+2=2? Its quicker and less confusing.

The point of political correctness has little (nothing?) to do with so called respect and regard for a persons emotional sensibilities and their propensity to be endlessly offended. Politics is about POWER and CONTROL. Correctness is about validating the body politic, ie validating the pursuit of power and control. In fact l would suggest that the term 'political correct' is in fact a wounderful example of a political correction. It sounds good, laudible and proper. That is the point. But it is merely a euphemism for SELF CENSORSHIP.

This is pretty much what George Orwell was on about in his seminal classic 1984, that language is a very powerful tool in CONTROLLING people. Control is at the heart of POLITICS. Once you subvert the language, definitions and discourse you control the very ability of people to think independently, because the linguistic building blocks of thought have been corrupted. Once you have removed the capacity for independent thought you essentially nueter the people's ability to express discontent and their capacity for dissent. This is to politicians what junk is to a junkie.

That is the essence of political corrections... to nueter the people and their capacity for self determination thru the process of re-engineering language and getting the people to CENSOR themselves.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 1:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redifining language is a very powerful tool in controlling a persons range of perception and their ability to conceive ideas.

Independent thought is a disease to the apparatus of centralised control and governance. The herd will not go in the same unified direction if it can think for itself. If it looks over the horizon to where the herd is headed, it will question the shephard and that is the beggining of dissent, which is cancerous to control. Enter the newspeak dictionary of linguistic revisionism... politcal correctness.

So if you want to live life under the thumb, safe, highly risk averse, non-confronting, if you need protection from yourself and your feelings then sign up for a long life of the warmth and censorious safety of the nanny state... buy youself a newspeak dictionary and STOP being a rational independently thinking human being. Embrace political correctness and discard the very thing that makes you human... your OWN consciousness.

ps. l often employ very short and sharp political corrections that are deliberately wrapped in ironic cliches and euphemisms when l want to disguise my intent or at least make my contrary challenges difficult to pin down for the intellectually lazy. When l do this in the company of acquaintences it doesn't go very far. People just switch off, take it with a grain of salt, whatever. People close to me get frustrated and cant figure out what is actually being said. My view of self censoring or cryptic political correction is that people just stop listening to each other and/or get frustrated. Its a great way for DISCONNECTING, if that is the sort of life experience one pursues.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 1:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPENDO

Firstly, I attack "Islam" not 'all muslims' there is a very important point there. Most muslims are just cultural reproductions of their parents like we are. That in itself is quite normal, but Islam as outlined in another thread, rests on a man who did some inhuman things. So it is valid to attack. Just like it is valid to declare King DAvid a murdering adulterer... because he was. But he did have remorse, and recognized the sinfulnes of his behavior. Mohammed DID NOT.
Hence. Muslims today will justify his behavior rather than condemn it. The first 'objective' of the Islamic council of Victoria is to follow the Quran 'as practiced by Mohammed'. Now, if the National Socialists of Victoria said that their goal was to treat Jews 'as practiced by Hitler'....and you were a Jew... I think you might take exception to it.

Now.. this discussion is about PC. What I was attempting to do, was show how 'small' such a discussion rates in the bigger picture of 'how we got to where we are'.

Remember I mentioned before, "All peace is the result of a war". In saying this, and in drawing a direct historical line between 'us now' and the last conflict which gave us our freedom and peace, I'm trying to illustrate how silly it is to be rabidly campaigning about 'manhole' or personhole (trinity has a good solution 'access hole' no drama with that).

But I see why the term 'man'...hole is being attacked, and by whom. It probably relates to the suggestion that such work is 'mens' work (groveling around in the sewers and what not) and the idea of 'mens work/womens work' is anathema to the marxist left and the not so marxist left. But it happens to be part of our culture. Nothing is set in rock, girls can do many things we can do, but by and large, it is a good thing to know ones role.

So, attacking this word, (and others which are valid cultural expressions of legitimate difference between male/female roles) is also attacking our culture
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 2:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point the author is trying to make is of course the manhole/personhole argument is not a big issue. It was the Right that blew it up into such a big deal, to discredit the Left but also the broader agenda that PC language was connected to - that of diversity and respect. Basically anti-PCers want to call people 'niggers' and 'dykes' and get away with it. But suddenly that became hard and man they got pissed. And let's not pretend we all don't self-censor and watch what we say - and that can sometimes be a good thing. But in the end the whole PC movement has nothing on the current government and their desire to crush opposition voices, no matter how legitimate. I reckon too this author thought a piece on PC language (with feminist undertones) would draw out the crazies with their bad logic and completely screwed view of the world good and proper. How right she was ...
Posted by rebelrebel, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 3:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rebelrebel may I assume that what you mean by "the broader agenda that PC language was connected to - that of diversity and respect" is illustrated by your description of some posters

"the crazies with their bad logic and completely screwed view of the world"

Personally I'd take the view that that kind of comment is more about wanting causes and groups you support treated with respect and to hell with what you don't support. In a similar vein as someone with no passion for the Labor party please take note that they don't have a real good reputation for supporting the freedoms of those who disagree with them. All the big parties tend to play the same games - it's just harder to see when it is being done to other viewpoints. I guess though that they are only silencing "crazies with their bad logic and completely screwed view of the world" so it does not really matter much.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 3:19:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ - you dragged me into it.

"Islam…rests on a man who did some inhumane things…so it is valid to attack." I know as little about Islam as I do about Catholicism, but I do know they are very similar fundamentally, in that you can find teachings in either to justify just about any foolish act. Of course the vast majority of followers of both these religions are peaceful and moderate. Killers or people who advocate killing can be born out of any culture, race or religion. They may use their religion to justify their acts, this does not mean the religion is to blame. No, it is not valid to attack.

“What I was attempting to do, was show how 'small' such a discussion rates in the bigger picture..” Surprisingly enough, I don’t disagree with you here. I too believe that while political correctness is important, there are far bigger issues at stake. However this does not mean the topic warrants ridicule.

“All peace is a result of war” This is a blank pointless statement that has nothing to do with anything. Please stop trying to work war into every issue.

“I'm trying to illustrate how silly it is to be rabidly campaigning about 'manhole' or personhole” No one is actually debating about which of those terms is more appropriate. You’ve completely missed the purpose of the discussion by literally interpreting this title. Chill out, no one is actually seriously attacking ‘manhole’.

“by and large, it is a good thing to know ones role” Oops! Sexist. YAWN. Prejudice is boring, get a new platform.

"But it happens to be part of our culture" Your idea of culture seems to be a bit warped too. You’re suggesting that working to stamp out sexism (and yes, defining male and female roles is sexist, no matter how you spin it) is somehow an attack on Australian culture. Here’s a list of some of the things that are wrong with that logic:

• everything.

There it is. Let me know if there’s anything else I can help you with.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 3:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy