A self-censorship tool to prevent you accidentally "triggering" someone in the snowflake generation with "inconsiderate" terms, by enforcing what was first described by George Orwell as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Have you considered that self-censorship is not necessarily always bad? You've probably thought some utterly disgusting things about people you love dearly before, and refused to say them, because you know it would damage your relationship.
This also doesn't force you to censor anything. It points out things that might be problematic.
> "triggering"
Do you actually know what triggers are? Are you sure that avoiding forcing people to relive trauma is a bad thing?
(Triggering is not the same as being offended or hurt, by the way.)
> enforcing what was first described by George Orwell as Newspeak
I'd question the word 'enforcing' again. This is, to make an analogy, a spell-checker, not autocorrect.
Anyway, Newspeak is interesting. Among other things, it supposedly shows how you can control thought through shaping language. That's not really true, though. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that language determines thought, is not accepted in its strong form by most linguists. You can't absolutely control thought through language.
Language probably does shape it a little, though, and certainly using different, more considerate terms does change how people think about things at least a little. But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately? Who is losing out from being kind?
But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately? Who is losing out from being kind?
Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one hell of a strawman :) As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict observance of PC rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman".
The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more" considerately (which we can all agree to), it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has gone overboard, has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke"), and actively prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges (again see : http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap... )
The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing western societies have to an Inquisition today.
> Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one hell of a strawman
How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people who would be offended or harmed.
> As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict observance of PC rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman".
"Damage to free speech"? Can you substantiate that?
Remember that free speech is, quote:
"the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship"
The Government is not retaliating against you for using "un-PC" language, nor censoring you.
> The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more" considerately (which we can all agree to)
What would you consider 'speaking a little more considerately' to be then, if not avoiding terms which are inconsiderate to others?
> it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has gone overboard,
While some comparisons to 'witch hunts' might be appropriate in certain cases, people aren't being hanged. People aren't going to jail.
> has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke")
The PyCon incident was not because of politically correct language. It was because of (ostensibly) sexist jokes and Internet call-out culture. Grouping these into political correctness is only useful if you're trying to discredit it. Internet outrage has its problems, but this doesn't discredit the idea of using kinder language.
> and actively prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges
This is overblown. Certain students (often those who have suffered rape themselves) are asking to be warned when topics that might cause them distress are brought up. It doesn't prevent them learning: content warnings on TV don't prevent people from watching the news or documentaries, in fact it helps them as they can prepare for potentially distressing or dangerous (photosensitive epilepsy-triggering, say) content.
> The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing western societies have to an Inquisition today.
Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically correct language, trigger warnings, etc.
>How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people who would be offended or harmed.
> What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good.
It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell how selective these articles are.
Even if it's not helpful for PTSD sufferers, it might still be useful for people in different situations.
> Excuse me, don't you mean straw person?
I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to that fallacy's name.
>It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell how selective these articles are.
I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of speech (particularly erring to the side of caution of gender normalization).
>I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to that fallacy's name.
Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're free to create one. As long as it is understood by the person you are communicating with - language has done its job. This might cause some confusion or require further explanation, since the term won't be a common part of peoples' shared vocabulary, but it will get the job done.
The worst that could happen is people don't adopt the word, choose a different word, or re-purpose the word.
On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral. What the meaning once was is not the meaning it holds now. This is common in both words and symbols. To share an extreme example of both re-purposing and a changed definition, see Pink Triangle [0]
Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power.
An insult is only ever as strong as you let it be.
> I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of speech
Myself, I'd consider the side of caution to be continuing to use them. Since they're warning people about something potentially a problem, I'd rather be careful in case people are relying on them. (That's for places where they're already used. Your approach might be better for new places.)
> Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're free to create one.
Oh sure, I realise that! I could say 'straw person' or maybe 'scarecrow fallacy'.
> On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral.
Wiktionary's page on 'guys' is interesting here (see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guys) - it's gender-neutral... sometimes. It's not always. It's a weird case.
> Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power.
I'm not sure this is always true. Insults against gay people being proscribed doesn't seem to have created new ones, but I may be wrong.
>
What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good.
You're misrepresenting the research. There's no problem with trigger warnings. The problem comes when people use the warning to then totally avoid that topic. What they should be doin is using the warning to prepare to engage withthe topic in a way that's safe for them.
> The PyCon incident was not because of politically correct language. It was because of (ostensibly) sexist jokes and Internet call-out culture.
I'm sorry, but this is a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. (Or should I say "Scotsperson"? Sorry, too easy, I know.) Innumerable examples exist of Internet hate mobs being ginned up by freelance language police, of people getting bullied and threatened and in some cases fired from their jobs. How many times does this have to happen before you'll believe there is a larger problem?
And, furthermore, even if you don't think there is a fundamental issue with the push for politically correct language, this is still a problem for you, not just for the evil sexists and racists. I think you're entirely sincere about simply wanting people to use kinder words. But every time the Internet hate mobs wind up and destroy another person for some baffling transgression that no one had heard of outside Tumblr fifteen minutes ago, opinion hardens against your side. Your job gets more difficult. You need to stand up strongly against the Adria Richardses of the world if you want to save this goal of yours from the people who currently symbolize and control it.
