Does political correctness foster hypocrisy?
by Miki SaxonYesterday I commented that politically correct (pc) seems be shorthand for hypocrisy. Three high profile pop culture stars recently provided examples by being undeniably incorrect—Mel Gibson’s tirade on Jews, which he claimed were “blurted out in a moment of insanity”, Isaiah Washington’s gay name calling for which he went into rehab (for homophobia?) in an effort to save his job (he didn’t) and Don Imus‘ comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team for which he apologized, calling it a stupid thing to say (he still got fired, but don’t feel too badly, he’s been hired again).
What if Gibson, Washington and Imus had stayed politically correct—mouths shut and attitudes private—would that have been better?
When people do give voice to stuff like this, usually when emotions are running high for one reason or another, is it just a “slip” as they claim, or more a case of what they truly think? Is our world a better place when people only think these things, but don’t say them out loud?
Do all the apologies, self-depreciating groveling on various talk shows and counseling really act as change agents for what someone thinks?
I passionately believe that people can change their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy)™, but I also believe that changing deep-seated attitudes, especially those stemming from prejudices and intolerance are not only the most difficult, but also less likely when the impetus for change is unplanned public exposure.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:08 am
I don’t know if it fosters hypocrisy but it certainly fosters stupidity as the reference, heard on television to Lewis Hamilton (british black formula 1 driver) as “the first african american to win a formula one grand prix”.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Denis, I don’t follow racing, but I have the distinct impression here that the ‘black’ in the comment doesn’t refer to race, but possibly to the color of the car? I find that hilarious.
And you are so right about the stupidity—of course, they often go hand-in-hand.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
it actually refers to the skin color of the driver. I suppose that the pc expression would british-african…
November 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
African-Brit maybe, since a British-African would be Caucasian born in Africa, unless, of course, the Caucasian was originally from Holland, which would make him a Dutch-African, etc., etc., etc.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
So is it still ok to call girls girls or should we say female americans? GIVE ME A BREAK. PC has turned into a movement and some detrimental actions have occured. CHECK OUT my blog about political correctness at jessforprez2024.blogspot.com
November 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Actually, they’re called female-[ethnicity]-Americans according to what I read. Of course, you only include ethnicity if it indicates color, which means that I’m not a female-Russian/Romanian-American, but my friend is a female-Chinese-American. Does anyone else miss the days when when we were all just plain vanilla Americans?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Denis, that is fairly amusing. If that comment were made by a NASCAR commentator, I’d be much more understanding since everyone involved in the sport has at least a certain degree of redneck in them. I don’t follow the open wheel circuit, but being that the F1 Series is more international than it is American, I’d imagine that was a nice swift blow to the jaw for many of its viewers.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Miki, we were never all VANILLA. That’s the beauty part of this country. From the very beginning, it’s always been caramel swirl rocky road!
November 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I agree, but there was a time when one could say “plain vanilla” and not have it reference a color, rather it meant something unadorned. Our country was supposedly a melting pot, although I’d be the first to say that the ideal was never truly realized.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:36 am
While I’m not a PC advocate, I’ll give its originators the benefit of the doubt that they were merely wanting to have people “be nice” and use terminology that was preferred by those in question.
There’s nothing wrong with doing unto others as we’d have them do unto us.
However, the thing gets really silly people pretend to be offended or get offended on behalf of others.
The whole just makes folks averse to communication about anything controversial, which just happen to be those same things which are worthwhile to converse about in the first place.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I’m not sure how silly it is, unless carried to extremes. Avoiding the offensive language while harboring and acting on the underlying beliefs is where I see the hypocrisy enter into it.