Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Further lessons on what is, and is not, "shocking," or "offensive:"

Over at International Ballistic Cuntensquirten, R Mildred schools some person indulging herself in a typically dreary and timidly "daring" whinge about how she's "sick of political correctness." Very Huck Finn, that whole thing, you know, the p.c. proponents are trying to repress our natural exuberance and creativity when they say, y'know, maybe the 9999th BRILLIANT photoshopp'd blackface or saying "ching chong ching chong" is not the best way to win friends and influence people, and we're all kind of sick of it. You know, because leftists and progressives and liberals are all just like the sivilizin' ladies at a tea party, all concerned with MANNERS instead of y'know important shit.

so R Mildred channels her inner Emily Post as well as her outer Henri Bergson and explains it all:

Damn the Black Jewish Female Hispanics who wadded up my silken panties!


So here's the blatantly obvious: Political Correctness is racist.

Yes, I know, they actually brought me down to their level of pathetic-obviousness-cum-revelatory-gnostic-truth, but it obviously needed saying by a non-idiot.

Why is it racist though? Ah yes, I know, I know, "because political correctness is a term for the 'polite' 'civil' and otherwise politically acceptable ways for white people to screw over the downpressed, hence the name 'political correctness'", I know that, and you know that, but the poor little dearie at violent acres doesn't, nor do any of the other half witted o'rly-wannabe buffoons out there.

it's not their fault, they're stupid, it doesn't make them bad people.

The fact that they seem to wallow in these childish cries for attention they portray as "humor" at the expense of oppressed people does however make them both bad people, and even worse than that: Bad comedians.

...Now political correctness, as its name suggests, is the process and phenomenon where by white people now say and do certain things in a way that is politically acceptable.

What political correctness isn't, is black people, or jews or whoever getting pissed off and threatening white people until they shut up. Alas, it'd be nice if it was because then white people, who for some reason are deeply in love with sucking authoritive cock, wouldn't go about being deeply pleased that they can still verbally whip the plantation slaves, but it isn't.

What it is then, is that politicial correctness is racism via other means - white people aren't allowed to call black people niggers in public these days, not because it pisses off black people, but because it interrupts the business of screwing over black people through politically correct methods, because actually locking black people up by their ankles and forcing them to work for no money is only acceptable, if the black people in question can be labelled "criminals" in some way.

For instance, it is politically incorrect to call a black person "nigger", it is however politically correct to try to drown a city full of poor black people through gross incompetence.

Slavery is not politically correct, but maintaining a system of immigration laws and policies that enable white businesses to efficiently control non-white laborers through fear of deportment, incarceration and direct physical violence so that the non-white laborers are working for next to no pay , is politically correct.
...

...Asking "can't we just discuss keeping this minority from having full civil rights under law for the most asinine of reasons?" is PC, saying "I hate homosexuals" is not PC.

Saying "Affirmative Action means giving jobs and college places away to unqualified people" is both inaccurate, a lie, and deeply deeply Politically Correct.

On the other hand, saying "the legacy system and old boy network gives jobs and college places to unqualified people, and has in the last 6 years led ot the deaths of several thousand americans through incompetent people being placed into positions that required competent people - but at least they were white unqualified people, and most of the people they killed were either poor or black so that's alright then" is not PC.

"class war" is un-PC, "eminent domain" is PC.

"Anti-PC" is PC , "bigotry" isn't.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?



much more


As always, Black Amazon has some choice words as well:


I'm bone tired and I cant even work up a head of steam about it anymore.

So I'll just go as methodically as I can because it is exhausting and while I would never willingly contribute to this massive show of ego. I need to say something as it is coming up over and over again in colleges and classrooms and far and wide.

Yes some of us are fucking children.

Some of us still believe that whatever we want to say should have no consequences what so ever.

That you should be able to say whatever you want and do whatever you want no consequences while claiming your rampant entitlement is " Good"for race/gender relations.

...You think we don't know. You think we don't know you say that shit in private.

Oh wait that's right, people haven't stopped saying that shit in public.

N****** is not a slip of the tongue.

Niether is coon. or gook. or chink. or mutt. I've been called all these things often with threats on my life.

The just words argument never addresses history. When someone whose never been called those things whines about how hard it makes things now, never about the reality of how the taboo was created.

That it wasn't just benevolent people in the sky who made these decisions, but blood tears,camps,death that make such terms so visceral and disturbing...

You see for people like this in their safe " I can retreat if I want to " enclaves they want special dispensation to say whatever. They want to continue to speak how they spoke before they had to consider others.

It's not fear , but pique...

They want to curb your ability to voice your displeasure by co-opting the terminology of tolerance.

29 comments:

Renegade Evolution said...

BA & RM both handled that nicely...

Trinity said...

One thing that for some reason keeps happening is people keep thinking that PC-ness is about stopping people from saying what they want to say.

It's not actually about that, but about courtesy.

I'm of the "Okay, say whatever you want, but we over here are free to be totally mortified and call you a world class ass" school of thought about it.

Dan L-K said...

Heaven knows I'm no PC orthodoxist (whatever that might be), but many years of observation indicate to me that whenever someone starts a sentence with "I know this isn't politically correct, but...," the odds are overwhelming that whatever follows will be both stunningly ignorant and ham-handedly offensive.

(OT: Yes, made it back in one piece from NYC, despite the weather and the gentle, but insistent, reminders from my body that carousing until that hour of the morning is no longer seemly in a gentleman of my age. It was totally worth it, though.)

Kai said...

Ugh. I'm sure you know, belledame, how sick I am of this "debate" that the "anti-PC" crowd keeps on bringing up with their whiny little diatribes. Worse than being just plain wrong, it's boring unimaginative weak-ass material.

R. Mildred and Blackamazon are such rock stars. Love it.

Clampett said...

What *is* disturbing is how racist that is, exactly...she's pissed at closeted PC 'colorblind' racists for not being open.

Ok, 2 things doesn't make sense here.

1. That somebody with the balls to be openly racist and challenge other racists to be open would retract her statement and try to rationalize it with a plea to her morality...the next day.

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/117/maggie-and-the-client

2. The sophistic sophistication of that is too refined for somebody who's *actually* pissed that she 'can't call em' nigger'.

I think either she's trolling for suckers or she needs some serious help in the mental health department.

Woman'sSpace said...

"It's not actually about that, but about courtesy."

Sort of but not exactly. It's about other people's sensitivities. Feminists are not likely to bend over backward to be courteous since that's one way ww have been oppressed. But feminists are likely to want to be repond meaningfully to the oppressions of other people.

Trinity said...

Heart:

I don't think so. I think "courtesy" means something different than "plastic actions patriarchy expects from us."

The OED says:

"Courteous behaviour; courtly elegance and politeness of manners; graceful politeness or considerateness in intercourse with others."

What should underly "manners" is not simply rote behavior one is trained to do, but considerateness.

Considerateness, regardless of how dedicated one is to X or Y movement, should tell a person that certain words are just not appropriate to say, and if they've said them they've behaved horrendously.

Cassandra Says said...

Heart - I strongly disagree that feminism provides an excuse to disregard courtesy in general, or that courtesy is a tool of opression in all circumstances. It certainly can give justification for responding in like manner to those who are attacking us with no regard for courtesy, but it isn't an excuse to throw the baby out with the backwater.
To explain what I'm getting at...
If an MRA or some other form of sexist idiot swaggers up to one of us and starts addressing us in a thoroughly ill-mannered way then I think smacking them down using whatever language one sees fit is completely justified. They are trying to use the (very sexist) idea that women must always be polite against us, and under those circumstances fighting back using the only kind of language they understand is a perfectly reasonable response.
BUT
On the other hand, my dedication to feminism has no impact whatsoever on the fact that I will open doors, give up my seat on the bus, etc for older people of either gender. I am not doing these things because the patriarchy is forcing me to, I am doing these things because I'm younger, healthier and stronger than most senior citizens, and it is only fair that I defer to their needs in situations where they might be made physically uncomfortable. That's a pretty common example of a scenario in which courtesy is simply a good thing and not in any way sexist or harmful to women. I would expect a man my age to behave exactly the same way, and consider him discourteous if he didn't. Same for another woman my age.

Cassandra Says said...

On PC in general...I have yet to meet a person who used the term "PC" in a scornful way who didn't very much appear to be upset that they were "not allowed" to be openly racist, sexist, homophobic etc. They generally appear to find it vexing that when they are opnely bigoted in public people look at them funny. It's a classic example of entitlement run amock. I see no particular reason to pay any serious attention to such people beyond a quick "You're acting like an ass, now shut up".

The Scarlet Pervygirl said...

"They generally appear to find it vexing that when they are opnely bigoted in public people look at them funny."

My God, it's completely true! That cracked me right up.

Regarding the debate in general, I think Black Amazon may have cut to the core of the whole matter when she wrote, "Some of us still believe that whatever we want to say should have no consequences what so ever."

That's unfortunately an *extremely* common sentiment in American culture, which has placed a binary and hierarchical division on words and actions, and it is of course completely ridiculous. Well punctured, Black Amazon.

belledame222 said...

jadp: woman's space is -not- Heart, although she uses a similar-looking login.

belledame222 said...

and yeah: the whole point is, sure, you can say what you like. What you can't do is say what you like -and- control the response you get. If you wanna be an asshole, fine, but: there are gonna be consequences. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

really funny that so often it's the same crowd bleating about 'personal responsibility" who doesn't seem quite clear on -this- concept...

Woman'sSpace said...

Heart?

I couldn't figure out why everyone was talking to heart!?!?! Thank you, Belle. I am sorry if the similarity is confusing.

I do support political correctness when it supports a valid minority. Otherwise it can be a prescription for groupthink such as I often see from lbgt.

"but many years of observation indicate to me that whenever someone starts a sentence with "I know this isn't politically correct, but...," the odds are overwhelming that whatever follows will be both stunningly ignorant and ham-handedly offensive."

Casandra, I hear what you say and I rather agree.

If found this to be interesting:

Regarding the debate in general, I think Black Amazon may have cut to the core of the whole matter when she wrote, "Some of us still believe that whatever we want to say should have no consequences what so ever."

I agree with this in spirit but I think it has to have limits. I've seen people have their lives destroyed for opposing the trans movement. Sometimes we need to be able to say that the emporer has no clothes.

Woman'sSpace said...

"Why is it racist though? Ah yes, I know, I know, "because political correctness is a term for the 'polite' 'civil' and otherwise politically acceptable ways for white people to screw over the downpressed, hence the name 'political correctness'"

When you read her for a while, what you notice is that... she just doesn't know very much.

"Poltical correctness" comes from the relationship between feminist theory and feminist practice. 'Practice' is directed toward inducing poltical change in the world. If one's behavior in alignment with 'practice' then one's behavior is to help bring about the revolution. That's what politically correct means.

Woman'sSpace said...

"Why is it racist though? Ah yes, I know, I know, "because political correctness is a term for the 'polite' 'civil' and otherwise politically acceptable ways for white people to screw over the downpressed, hence the name 'political correctness'"

When you read her for a while, what you notice is that... she just doesn't know very much.

"Poltical correctness" comes from the relationship between feminist theory and feminist practice. 'Practice' is directed toward inducing poltical change in the world. If one's behavior in alignment with 'practice' then one's behavior is to help bring about the revolution. That's what politically correct means.

StealthBadger said...

Political Correctness is a duct-tape-covered band-aid over cultural conflicts that some individuals (i.e. the privileged ones who don't know everything about what their privilege is built on, which would be me, among others) don't understand enough about to avoid with any degree of honor or honesty.

It's a crutch, and is a good way to prevent bar fights while the underlying injustices are being repaired... but they aren't. Not only that, code (in the most simplistic sense) is being used to get around the filters of political correctness (exactly what does tough on crime/immigration/drugs mean in practical terms, again? And how about that whole pro-life thing, while we're at it?).

*puts on the tin-foil badger ears*

Like the idea of a universal firearms ban for civilians, all it does is paper over the problem (street violence) without acknowledging the causes (social injustice, lack of economic opportunity, corrupt leadership, an underground economy that's healthier than the "legitimate" one, selective enforcement, yadda yadda), while at the same time allowing large corporations like DynCorp CACI, and Blackwater to form small private armies.

The point being that what seems like a nice, positive, obvious step may be as dangerous as slapping a bandage on an infected wound and forgetting about it, and political Correctness is exactly that dangerous when used as a sole solution.

*toddles of for more coffee, having ranted pointlessly*

Added: Your captcha filter hates me. Would that my spam filter were as painstaking. :D

R. Mildred said...

The point being that what seems like a nice, positive, obvious step may be as dangerous as slapping a bandage on an infected wound and forgetting about it, and political Correctness is exactly that dangerous when used as a sole solution.

Well mores to the point, no oppressed group ever gets to define "political correctness" as it actually exists, so that, in reality, as it is always shaped to suit the whims of the powerful and opressive, it becomes another tool used to oppressed people wielded by the oppressive classes.

What's interesting about Heart's definition there is that she apparently really wants to be dick cheney, yet is opposed to the existence of transpeople.

I'd say she was a closeted dick, but she seems quite free and out about it. *rimshot*

Trinity said...

""Poltical correctness" comes from the relationship between feminist theory and feminist practice."

Weird that you mention feminism alone here, and don't say a word about the numerous anti-oppression movements that discuss and use this kind of language. Especially since Belle is quoting BlackAmazon, who is mostly talking about race-related terms and why one should not use them.

Feminism is not some magical Queen Movement from which all other anti-oppression movements flow.

Trinity said...

"Political Correctness is a duct-tape-covered band-aid over cultural conflicts that some individuals (i.e. the privileged ones who don't know everything about what their privilege is built on, which would be me, among others) don't understand enough about to avoid with any degree of honor or honesty."

Yes.

Band-aid over sucking chest wound is how I see it, too.

That's why I'm for reframing this as an issue of courtesy rather than one of Magic Movement Approved Language.

While, say, white people who are not familiar with anti-racist activism might not understand an explanation about commitment to movements and activism, or one about aversive racism, most humans understand "have you no courtesy?!"

Some people like the idea that they have none, thinking it makes them badass. But most people, after a while, start not to like being seen as absolute boors.

So I personally am much more fond of "Sure, you've every right to say it. And I've every right to call you the fool you make of yourself by speaking that way" than I am of "If you're really a _____ you don't say ______."

At first it can be kind of fun to assume there are Committed Movement People and then there's The Rest Of The World, also known as The Problem... but at least for me, I had to come back to Earth at some point.

belledame222 said...

I always think of it in terms of, look, unless there's some particular reason you -want- to make this person (s) feel like crap, you call 'em what they want to be called. That is courtesy, yes.

Lately, when I run into people pulling this sort o' crap--you know, they refuse to use this or that term for someone who isn't them because it's too much trouble or they think it's silly or y'know,

i respond, "Okay! In that case, you won't mind if I just pick a name for -you-, right? I don't like your handle, I'm gonna pick another one. Let's see. 'Fluffy.' That'll do nicely..."

(or, what you will)

"So, Fluffy, I just want to follow up on that last point you made..."

belledame222 said...

(this one is particularly satisfying to use on the "I'm so badass" type, I must say)

Woman'sSpace said...

Again.... I AM NOT HEART!!!!
I'll probably need to say that fifty times and then i'll be acused of impersonating her.

Before I go any further I would like to acknowledge my deepest respest for radical WOCs and register my deep disappointment at heart's apparent dismissal of them.
I acknowledge BlackAmazon.

WS:"Poltical correctness" comes from the relationship between feminist theory and feminist practice."

Trinity:"Weird that you mention feminism alone here, and don't say a word about the numerous anti-oppression movements that discuss and use this kind of language. Especially since Belle is quoting BlackAmazon, who is mostly talking about race-related terms and why one should not use them."

It's not the least bit wierd as I am a radical feminist and radical feminist see gendered oppression as being the temporally primary or fundamental oppression. I do think in a process sense that all oppressions work in the same manner.

"Feminism is not some magical Queen Movement from which all other anti-oppression movements flow."

Perhaps not, but gendered oppression IS the temporally fundamental oppressed and we won't unravel the gendered oppressdion until the other ones are addressed.

Also you missed what i said about trans... I do not consider husbands and fathers to be women. There that's a specific statement and I'd appreciate it you would maintain the specificity.

And just for good measure.... I am not Heart.

R. Mildred said...

I acknowledge BlackAmazon.

*claps sarcasticly*

I'm sure she'll be thrilled.

Blackamazon said...

I always think of it in terms of, look, unless there's some particular reason you -want- to make this person (s) feel like crap, you call 'em what they want to be called. That is courtesy, yes.


This isn't the final solution or even the big one or shit a small one. This is

I have a self defined term for myself USE THAT !

I agree with this in spirit but I think it has to have limits. I've seen people have their lives destroyed for opposing the trans movement. Sometimes we need to be able to say that the emporer has no clothes.

And we need slurs to say that? We need language that insinuates freakdom and mental imbalance to say we disagree?

I was talking mostly about race but I also extend it to the trans movement and sex work. If your disagreement with someone can't be voiced without degenerating into name calling and de humanization and making fun of the differently abled.

YOU DON'T HAVE ONE

Feminists aren't likely to bend over backward to be courteous ...

Fine

How about reasonably respectful. I have had respectful conversations with people who need to watch for my ass in the street with a baseballbat,

Being oppressed like fucking someone of another color doesnt give you a get out of douchebagness free card.

Want to say stupid shit . SAY IT AT HOME .

This isn't larger movement work. This isnt the planning of the revolution

This is don't be an ass in public.

and what giggles me is that it always must spiral out into large theory because people seem to NEED a reason not to be an asshole.

and if feminists tell me one more time that being cisgendered has no power personal ir institutional

I'll be acknowledge when the mushroom clown rises over queens cause I went nuclear liek I was on Heroes

Woman'sSpace said...

“and if feminists tell me one more time that being cisgendered has no power personal ir institutional”

Hi BlackAmazon,

I have a mixture of things to share at this moment. CBSnews carried a story tonight of a of a city manager of 14 years in largo. I believe he was 55 and is a husband and father and low and behold, this individual announced they were going through reassignment. The city counsel voted and started a firing process. It was interesting, the two individual that supported this individual was a woman Mayor and Black commissioner. I had to admit that I don’t think this person should be fired. In reading blog comments I was amazed at the number of macho men who thought this manager should “suck it up”. I disagree with those men, but don’t ask me to solve that person’s life.
I reject cis-gendered as well as meaningful terms. If we accept that people are “transgendered”, then we must accept that people are cis-gendered and that’s a trans terms which is at odds with feminism. I am suggesting that at the point that their movement started to figured things that they got stuck into this gender model sort of like peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth and there’s not way to get rid of it. As a model it adversely impacts women works toward making gender real when it is not real, it’s socially constructed. Trans has always been in bed with gender in ways that hurt and oppress women as anything that makes gender appear to be real will oppress women in this society. Now, heart is conflating the purest of patriarchy and consequentially is in bed with trans. Although I recognize that there are people with cross-classed identities, I don’t recognize the transgender identity as being valid all, therefore I don’t recognize cisgendered. I do see the trans movement as being the most philosophically depraved movement of all time.

“and if feminists tell me one more time that being cisgendered has no power personal ir institutional”

How would I respond to this? It’s not a women’s issue at all. It’s not in the auspices of feminism.
However, I’ll say some more strange things that are strange but true. MacKinnon says that “gender identity” is not a central problem for women. I think that was true when it was written but gender identity is getting to be a problem for women. For year, heart has rightfully indicted men for defining women. However, when heart has assumed the power that men have, she has glommed onto the exact same definition that she’s been criticizing. Whatever it is, it’s not feminism and certainly not radical feminism and I discussed this thoroughly here:

http://womansspace.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/what-is-radical-feminism/

and

http://womansspace.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/in-the-beginning/

Whatever heart is selling is antifeminist and I can support what I say. One place among many where heart deviates from feminism is the violation of speaking for other people. Heart lately has been guilty of things that she has acused men of doing. We all know, the master’s will not be disassembled with the master tools. Not many people stop to think about that central pearl of feminism. It means, we aren’t going to take the man down, using his set of definitions and by keeping everything in place for him, among a host of other things.

emily said...

>>>As a model it adversely impacts women works toward making gender real when it is not real, it’s socially constructed.

So changing your gender from the one you have been assigned at birth through a series of obviously socially constructed interventions--medical, clothing, the way one carries themselves--DOESN'T suggest that gender is socially constructed? Uh huh.

>>>I don’t recognize the transgender identity as being valid all, therefore I don’t recognize cisgendered. I do see the trans movement as being the most philosophically depraved movement of all time.

Uh huh. Well that says it all, really. Dehumanise those you don't like, cos yah, that's the *real* spirit of feminism (not emancipation and liberation, perish the thought). Well done you. So thank you and good night.

Woman'sSpace said...

"So changing your gender from the one you have been assigned at birth through a series of obviously socially constructed interventions--medical, clothing, the way one carries themselves--DOESN'T suggest that gender is socially constructed? Uh huh."

Hello? I believe I said, gender doesn't exist. Yes it is socially constructed and that's not have trans treat it.

One can however changed their assigned class.

">>>I don’t recognize the transgender identity as being valid all, therefore I don’t recognize cisgendered. I do see the trans movement as being the most philosophically depraved movement of all time.

"Uh huh. Well that says it all, really. Dehumanise those you don't like, cos yah, that's the *real* spirit of feminism (not emancipation and liberation, perish the thought). Well done you. So thank you and good night. "

I don't think that husbands and fathers who have said they are men, are women and I see them as annexing the lives of women. I feel this a grievous offense not unlike child molestation.

Feminism is not here to liberate husbands and fathers. Feminism is here for the liberation of women.

Dharmaserf said...

Political Correcteness (PC) was a name given to a very powerful concept that, yes, came out of French feminism AND the insight of other french thinkers like Foucault et. al. The idea was that knowledge IS power and that power structures disseminate themselves in pervasive and insidious ways like language. The idea is that if we can change how we speak to eliminate the way those dominating structures play out in everyday language then we can meaningfully combat those very structures.

Then in the history of things, people gave this idea a name, PC, and actively interpreted language to understand how these things things play out and combat them. So, some loose "rules" about language were disseminated as counter-political activity against dominating language.

The next step in the history of things is that the "rules" became distanced from the theory that spawned them and people lost the understanding that made PC what it was and not only did PC get out of control, but so did the backlash against PC. This backlash is a simulacra of criticism because it doesn't attack the theory, but attacks the "rules" without any understanding of why or how they got there in the first place. For these simple souls, these "rules" are arbitrary and an attempt to control them (which, in a way, is correct--it is the attempt to manipulate them into actually being thoughtful, respectful, and most importantly, ethical langauge-users). As such, I think the criticism of the backlash is right on target. The sustained opacity of knee-jerk critiques of PC does nothing but show the entitled, privilaged, problematic positionality of those who undertake it.

YMMV.

Adam said...

It's a shame all this equality isn't reflected in the family courts.