on the dreaded "PC police"...

(can you tell i've finally started catching up on my blog reading?)

in light of the animosity and hostility created by a certain post on a certain blog, i was reminded of a post that y. carrington linked to awhile back. it's one of the best posts i've read regarding the whole "PC" debate.

The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propaganda of "Political Correctness"

The phrase "politically correct" can be used in two distinct ways: either with its original literal meaning, or with the mocking sarcasm that's common these days. I'll get to the former in a moment, but I'll begin with the latter. As it's commonly used, "PC" is a deliberately imprecise expression (just try finding or writing a terse, precise definition) because its objective isn't to communicate a substantive idea, but simply to sneer and snivel about the linguistic and cultural burdens of treating all people with the respect and sensitivity with which they wish to be treated. Thus, the Herculean effort required to call me "Asian American" rather than "chink" is seen as a concession to "the PC police", an unsettling infringement on the free-wheeling conversation of, I suppose, "non-chinks". Having to refer to black folks as "African Americans" rather than various historically-prevalent epithets surely strikes some red-blooded blue-balled white-men as a form of cultural oppression. Having to refer to "women" rather than "bitches" lays a violent buzzkill on the bar-room banter of men preoccupied with beating on their chests and off other body parts.

Obviously these examples fall on the simplistic side of things, but I think they illustrate the shaky philosophical foundation of today's usage. Underlying every complaint of "PC" is the absurd notion that members of dominant mainstream society have been victimized by an arbitrarily hypersensitive prohibition against linguistic and cultural constructions that are considered historical manifestations of bigotry. It's no coincidence that "PC"-snivelers are for the most part white men who are essentially saying, "Who the hell do these marginalized groups think they are to tell me how I should or shouldn't portray them? I'm not going to say 'mentally challenged' when it's my right to say 'retard', goshdarnit there's only so much abuse I'll take!"

In this context, the conceit that "political correctness" constitutes a violation of free speech is particularly zany; as though society's marginalized groups wield oppressive power over the dominant mainstream. Actually, as far as I'm concerned you're free to call me "chink" and I'm free to call you "moronic racist loser" (and more if necessary, but I'll leave that aside for now in the interest of false civility). Free speech is the straw man of choice for intellectual bums of all stripes too fragile and vacuous for critical engagement. Calling someone who says or does bigoted things "a bigot" isn't censorious, it's descriptively accurate, like calling a bad movie "a bad movie", even if the bigot didn't intend to come off as bigoted and the movie didn't intend to come off as bad.

you must read the whole post, there's a lot of good stuff in there.

the first thing that comes to my mind whenever i see someone pull "the PC card" is why does the person pulling it find it so absurd to just treat someone the way they want to be treated? what is so unreasonable about a person of whatever race, ability, sex, sexual-orientation, et cetera expecting the most basic courtesy, respect and dignity of not being referred to in a derogatory way? and i see the card pulled by lots of people, including many self-identified progressive feminist bloggers that i generally respect and admire. i'm always shocked and surprised by it.

if you'd like to read up on some of the kerfluffle that led to this post you can start here, here and here, here, and here.

also, jenn has a great post along the same line, this one regarding the michael richards trainwreck.

update:
just found two more posts on the topic via feminist law profs over here and here.