WizardMarks wrote:
> WM: Actually, it seems to be about people insisting that they name > themselves rather than have their names chosen for them by people who > may be insensitive or who may be deliberate jerks about a particular > group or person. I disagree. Although in some cases changes in-group labels are liberating for members, I don't think there's a big push by gays to be call "queer" by the larger community or by women to be called "girls." The incident that sparked this discussion, and in many many other cases, is about outsiders being chastised and persecuted for failing to conform to the expectations of minorities. > If, for example, you Michael would rather be called Michael > than, say, Mike or Mickey or Mikey, but I insisted on calling you Mikey, > you would clearly know that whatever your preference, I would not abide > by your wishes. Really rude. You can call me whatever you want. If it's just the case of being called "Mikey," then I can choose to not associate with you. If elected officials what to call Blacks "Negros," they can be voted out of office. If you want to call me a "kike," then you should be prepared for an unpleasant response, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing a person be reprimanded for a minor syntactic derivation. My objection to this type of reaction is that it has been used repeatedly in academia to restrict freedom of expression and enforce conformity to particular sets of social norms. Eric Mitchell wrote: > The problem with this particular post is that it appears some > people are offended that they are expected to respect others. I am not offended by being expected to respect others, I am offended by being *required* to give the *appearance* of respecting others. > What the hell does it matter if people self ID under any > terminology? Again, its not a matter of law but respect. > So, I'm not clear on what the Courts have to do with this. I generally try to use the terminology that sub-groups prefer, but the reason that this is an important issue in the Courts is that many people have been persecuted for these trivial violations of etiquette. I have a stack of newspaper articles and other references on this topic. It's an important issue that has already by ruled on by the Supreme Court. > I like your examples because, to use your language, they were > "in fashion", and now not. Truth is, they have ALWAYS been > disrespectful and a sign of a country that was divided along > the racial lines embedded in law. Redskins and such, should > have NEVER been "in fashion" and as we progress to a more > enlightened society, I hope that we are sensitive/respectful/ > cognizant of some of our terms and the feelings that history brings up. I think that this distorts the historical reality. I believed that many people have used the phrase "red skins" without any derogatory intent. Some of this perspective is based on the Whorfian Hypothesis (the view that, "... linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual perceives in this world and how they think about it."), which has been shown to be inaccurate. It's the social dynamics and group norms that determine whether women are accepted as police officers, not whether they are called "policemen." > To call it simple political correctness is insulting. Just assume > you can not assume the perspective of everyone else and there are > things that are not logical you will not understand, but it doesn't make > it any less real. Make what less real? I have no control, and in most cases no responsibility, for how you interpret what I say. Personal relativism is a major flaw in modern political theory. My position is that it's not the language that's important, it's the real distribution of power. People conforming to these stupid rules of etiquette gives the illusion of meaningfulness. It hasn't helped Negros to be called Aferican Americans. Social reforms that enforce civil rights, reduce poverty and reduce the acheivement gap do. I think that it's part of a larger problem of liberal handwaving that gives the appearance of concern unaccompanied by any meaningful progress. Let's cut the bull, and get to the chase. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
