Is Political Correctness a System of Taboos?
- Thread starter Flavus Aquila
- Start date
An exaggeratedly prioritised avoidance of any words, themes, policies, actions, etc. that are believed to potentially cause offense, or other grievance to arbitrarily preferenced groups of individuals.
In relation to the notion of taboo, two elements are relative:
1. The priority, over other considerations, given to avoiding the potential causing of offense. (There is almost something tribal about considering the possibility of offense as a highly significant factor in matters which are not principally interpersonal-social -ie. hanging out socially-).
2. The arbitrary preferencing of some groups as being especially protected from offense. (There is almost something quasi-religious about the way some groups of people are treated almost as sacrosanct, in the way that deity-emperors were in times past. There is almost religious indignation in PC individuals, if their designated "sacred cows/heard" are profaned by anyone speaking of them as being imperfect and fallible).
There are basic manners, and etiquette. Then there's being PC... Certain taboos are obviously needed to prevent from there being total demoralization. But, being "politically correct" in the modern sense of the word, is very destructive to society, freedom of speech, and many other basic freedoms that we must fight to protect in this world that is increasingly Marxist.
We must also refrain from hate speech (real hate speech), and be kind and courteous to one another.
Free speech has some natural limits (incitement to violence is usually not considered part of free speech).
I think the case needs to be clearly made that offense is not sufficient a cause to curtail freedom of expression.
Not particularly. You can still be an asshole breaking taboos left and right AND be perfectly PC in words and behavior.
And I'm sure you know that a person can be good and not particularly PC.
I don't get your train of thinking-- and I suspect it is because your use of PC is different than mine.
I don't use PC for either examples of that.
The first example is not about the topic but context.
Who's discussing such topics? Why do they discuss such topics?
Seeking internal reform is a very different thing than demonizing.
A lot of people -does- mistook the former with the latter (I live in Indonesia-- I know),
But equally a lot of people disguised the latter into the former.
The second example is consent. I can call myself a cocksucking faggot-- therefore giving myself permission to use such term about me. Until I gave you consent on saying such; you can't call me a cocksucking faggot; because that word is on itself an insult.
Neither of them, both of them, and all of them.
The idea that a taboo (whether social, linguistic, or physical) is something specific to a certain kind of culture / group is, at best, a false dichotomy.
A group, the culture and its members has certain things that threatened their well being / survival. No matter what, no matter how diverse, no matter how singular.
Oh, it isn't.
But what is considered 'mere' offense and more than that is generally different depending on the context.
And this is the part that's been kept blurry throughout the times.
You can, for instance, say "FUCK YOU IMMA RAPE YOUR CUNT INTO YOUR ESOPHAGUS" and then say "but it's just a jooooke stop being offended lol"
And the moment someone else said, "You know, I think you're a bad person." and they go "OMG NOT ME HOW DARE YOU DIE DIE DIE"
And then what you said as an individual has different impact if you are the head of a group.
And then there are history to look back upon.
These are what makes everything contestable nowadays because it has NEVER been made clear.
*shrugs*
They are the same thing. Im sure an anthropologist will wave his/her hands in the air and attempt to dance around different interpretations of the word, but I think we can wash them out and look only at the behaviors that emerge. In both cases, there is a barrier that prevents one from saying or doing a thing. Like with Taboos, PC prevents one from freely engaging in various activities.
Last edited:
Much research is either defunded, or outright suppressed, because the questions are taboo.
Oh thats really interesting. Maybe you should write a blog on the matter! Because these kinds of issues are so very important for the health of our society!
But is that a bad thing?
It's not really because the questions are taboo but because the purse holders do not believe in the validity or need to research such things. Research funding (especially in the US) is almost always tied into profitability/marketability. I also wonder about the relevance of the link you posted to this discussion as it (like a great many academic papers) had a bias in favor of the point the author wanted to prove, and the issues brought up as proof are all contested issues. (To be fair I only read the article you posted and two of the ones it referenced, but it was not enough to convince me of the validity of the authors view point...yes there was some correlation but nothing to clearly indicate causation. Gotta love the sneakiness of academic articles and their habit of portraying the data to suit their needs, I too am guilty of it...but you gotta pay the bills somehow).
Yikes!
1. what is worldly accepted as taboo? as political correctness?
2. what is culturally accepted as taboo? as political correctness?
3. what is forum discussable taboo? or political correctness?
4. finally---WHO decides?? and won't it continually be at odds in what is socialbly acceptable?
1. what is worldly accepted as taboo? as political correctness?
2. what is culturally accepted as taboo? as political correctness?
3. what is forum discussable taboo? or political correctness?
4. finally---WHO decides?? and won't it continually be at odds in what is socialbly acceptable?
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,233
- 246,623
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Good for you?
I started my adult life out in forensic anthropology... as such one might say I have a stronger background in soft social sciences than you ...
Exactly ... which would make it even less likely to attract funding simply due to the nature of the study not because it was about taboos...you just proved the point I was making.
eta ... I got distracted by my lunch and realized that you called forensics a waste of time rather than the taboo study.
I don't know how many people get murdered in Australia, but there are quite a lot of folks in the US who do. My advisor was also (at the time it may have changed) the leading expert in the world of juvenile remains. So you know helping convict child killers is not really exactly a waste of time ... at least in my opinion.