Shed electrics

[JohnW2]

But that does reinforce the idea that there is some connection between political correctness and offensively ignorant behaviour. It does allow the "gone mad" to get dropped and the whole culture of political correctness tainted with the whiff of madness.

I suppose that one might think that way, but my personal view is that including the "gone mad" makes it pretty clear that one does not feel that (true) political correctness has anything to do with 'offensively ignorant behaviour'.

A lot of (true) political correctness seems to have arisen out of a change in sensitivities, on both sides of fences. I am pretty sure that the words that my grandparents used to refer to, say, homosexuals, black people, those with cerebral palsy etc. were not intended to be offensive or disrespectful, and nor were they intended to be judgemental, and I don't think that the majority of people 'on the receiving end' of such descriptors did actually feel offended, disrespected or 'judged' because of the use of those words in those days.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I suppose they were more concerned about being beaten up and locked up because of the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation than what people called them.

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose they were more concerned about being beaten up and locked up because of the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation than what people called them.

Yes, maybe, but I get the impression that the words really didn't worry them at all. Indeed, as we have heard quite recently, one of the words now seemingly regarded as one of the worst that can be used in relation to people with dark skin is still used quite a bit, with no apparent unpleasant intent or consequences, within the groups concerned.

I keep going on about my grandparents, but they seem to be quite an illustrative example, since I really don't think that there was anything malicious, condescending, judgemental, belittling or whatever in their use of words. They spent a lot of time in Africa the Middle East and India (my grandfather was in the RAF) and they developed a lot of life-long friends whose skin was anything but white. They also had a family member who was as 'openly gay' as was possible in those days and they seemed to fully accept this (and his 'gay' friends) without any obvious prejudice, judgement, bigotry or whatever.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thank you John.

Whilst it was you whom I was criticising, you have summed it up very well and best.

Using Bas' "offensively ignorant stupidity" does not adequately describe what I was complaining about but adding the "gone mad" or even " misguided" does.
When I first (politely) asked you not to include bits in brackets I thought that was misguided.

That still does not solve the problem with "actress" which, unlike the words your parents might have used, has not become, or has not been declared (justifiably or not), to be insulting or abusive.
It is just that some actresses must feel inferior but, unless of course they are, that is not the case because of the word.

The logical conclusion for them must be that they also would like to be called "men" (indeeed female men) instead of women.


Further, contrary to what Bas is saying, I am not denigrating liberal policies but what is thought to be liberal policies but are not.
I.e liberal policies gone mad.

 

[JohnW2]

Thank you John. Whilst it was you whom I was criticising, you have summed it up very well and best. Using Bas' "offensively ignorant stupidity" does not adequately describe what I was complaining about but adding the "gone mad" or even " misguided" does.

Indeed, and you're welcome.

When I first (politely) asked you not to include bits in brackets I thought that was misguided.

To be frank, my use of that format (e.g. "(wo)man") is just laziness on my part - it is merely my shorthand for "man and/or woman" - which I presume is not a problem for you.

That still does not solve the problem with "actress" which, unlike the words your parents might have used, has not become, or has not been declared (justifiably or not), to be insulting or abusive. It is just that some actresses must feel inferior but, unless of course they are, that is not the case because of the word. The logical conclusion for them must be that they also would like to be called "men" (indeeed female men) instead of women.

The "actress" thing is a little atypical, and fairly messy/complicated. Of the matter the OED says:

In the time of Shakespeare female roles were played by boys or men, and women did not appear on stage in England until after the Restoration of 1660. Female performers were then called either actors or actresses—it was only later that actor became restricted to men—and it seems that we are returning to the original situation. Although there is still an awards category at the Oscars called Best Actress, some people are again using the gender-neutral term actor for both sexes.

Note that the OED (and most other dictionaries) do not mention gender in their definition of "actor" - as you see above, the OED regards "actor" as being 'gender-neutral'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Note that the OED (and most other dictionaries) do not mention gender in their definition of "actor" - as you see above, the OED regards "actor" as being 'gender-neutral'.

I did see that and commented that the dictionaries had already been infiltrated.

Do you think it has always been like that or recently altered.


I don't think the Shakesperian times are relevant as, as it says, there were no women on stage.

Also, weren't all children including (today's) boys known as girls?
Should we return to that?

 

[stillp]

I don't think the Shakesperian times are relevant as, as it says, there were no women on stage.

Wasn't there an actress who pretended to be a man so she could appear on stage, but specialised in playing female roles?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Surely you mean an actor who pretended to be a man so she could ...

I'll get me coat.

 

[JohnW2]

I did see that and commented that the dictionaries had already been infiltrated. Do you think it has always been like that or recently altered.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "recently". I've just looked in a 1974 Oxford Concise Dictionary, and that defines "actor" without mentioning gender. I have some very dusty 19th century dictionaries stashed away, so I'll have a look at them if I have a moment, and remember!

What I do have to hand is a facsimile copy of the (1771) First Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (in 3 volumes), which is essentially a dictionary (subtitled "A Dictionary of Arts and Sciences"). That defines "actor" as "a person who performs", without mentioning gender. Is 1771 long enough ago for you not to regard it as 'recent'?

I don't think the Shakesperian times are relevant as, as it says, there were no women on stage.

I mentioned this earlier. I think it is relevant in the sense that it means that when the word "actor" was initially coined/defined, there was no reason for the definition to say anything about gender, since those who acted were known to all be male.

Also, weren't all children including (today's) boys known as girls?

I don't know about that one!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Further, contrary to what Bas is saying, I am not denigrating liberal policies but what is thought to be liberal policies but are not.
I.e liberal policies gone mad.

But they are not "liberal policies gone mad". They are not "political correctness gone mad". They are nothing to do with either of those - they are just mad.

In the same way that if you scratch the skin of someone who bangs on about "health and safety gone mad" you will almost certainly find someone who is opposed to "health and safety" full stop, if you look closely at those who bang on about "political correctness gone mad" you won't find people whose focus of complaint is the "gone mad" bit, you'll find people who are opposed to any form of liberal and progressive social policies.

Whether you think you are doing it or not, every time you use the phrase "political correctness gone mad" you really do denigrate the whole idea of political correctness. If you don't want to do that then stop using th term.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, maybe, but I get the impression that the words really didn't worry them at all. Indeed, as we have heard quite recently, one of the words now seemingly regarded as one of the worst that can be used in relation to people with dark skin is still used quite a bit, with no apparent unpleasant intent or consequences, within the groups concerned.

Indeed it is.

And that is something whose validity I reject. Either the word is OK or it is not. If they can use it, then so can anybody. They do not have the right or the power to appropriate "n¡gger" and tell others that they may not use it, nor do homosexuals have a claim to be the only people allowed to use the word "queer".

 

[EFLImpudence]

But they are not "liberal policies gone mad". They are not "political correctness gone mad". They are nothing to do with either of those - they are just mad.

Mad applies to many things, including its original meaning, so it is not adequate nor sufficient to describe this subject.

In the same way that if you scratch the skin of someone who bangs on about "health and safety gone mad" you will almost certainly find someone who is opposed to "health and safety" full stop, if you look closely at those who bang on about "political correctness gone mad" you won't find people whose focus of complaint is the "gone mad" bit, you'll find people who are opposed to any form of liberal and progressive social policies.

If that is so, then it does not apply to this subject.

Whether you think you are doing it or not, every time you use the phrase "political correctness gone mad" you really do denigrate the whole idea of political correctness. If you don't want to do that then stop using th term.

I don't see you can have it both ways.

Indeed it is.
And that is something whose validity I reject.

You may, many do not.

Either the word is OK or it is not. If they can use it, then so can anybody. They do not have the right or the power to appropriate "n¡gger" and tell others that they may not use it, nor do homosexuals have a claim to be the only people allowed to use the word "queer".

That is not how it is in the real world whether you think it right or not.

White people using that word against black people is probably quite rightly viewed as derogatory because that is how white people for generations have used it.
Any white person using it would have great difficulty proving it was not meant derogatively.

Do you view this as political correctness applied madly?
I see you used a different character to write the word knowing it would be censored.
I could say that was protestation gone mad. We would have known what it was.

I see your point that it is not actually the political correctness which has gone mad but the person stating it. Nevertheless, it is surely fair to say that they are using political correctness gone mad.

Much as the recent removal of a pull cord switch for fear of choking or hanging was the application of health and safety gone mad.

 

[JohnW2]

White people using that word against black people is probably quite rightly viewed as derogatory because that is how white people for generations have used it. Any white person using it would have great difficulty proving it was not meant derogatively.

It that necessarily true?

Consider the politician who recently paid dearly for thoughtlessly using the "... in the woodpile" expression. As she said when apologising, it is throwaway expression which we used to use extensively without any thought about what the words meant (and certainly without any thoughts or intent of 'being derogatory to black people') - simply as an alternative to expressions like "fly in the ointment" and "cat amongst the pigeons".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That is not how it is in the real world

I realise that, but that doesn't (nor should it) stop me from expressing the view that it is wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It that necessarily true?

I think so. Does your example not prove that?

Consider the politician who recently paid dearly for thoughtlessly using the "... in the woodpile" expression. As she said when apologising, it is throwaway expression which we used to use extensively without any thought about what the words meant (and certainly without any thoughts or intent of 'being derogatory to black people')

Aren't we back to your parents, now? Using words which are no longer acceptable (justifiably or not).

I do not use it.
I think a politician using that phrase in public is showing a general lack of ability to think.

- simply as an alternative to expressions like "fly in the ointment" and "cat amongst the pigeons".

...but it is derogatory, not only the word but also the saying, because of how it came about.

(I do not think it is equivalent to cat among the pigeons.)