A response to 'PC bullshit is getting out of hand' (super tl;dr warning)

[zokiblue]

Self-disclosure: I am indeed a white cis person feeling her way around social justice, but I'm a fledgling at actually expressing my thoughts on it all. Also, trigger warning here and in the linked post for bullying dismissal, rape culture mentions, disability issue denial...pretty much the whole gamut of offensive things.

I've been looking for something to get my writing juices flowing, and I think I've finally found it!

Anyone around fandom lately has probably seen this essay by _dahne_ about the recent trend in fandom of examining privilege. Some fans are realizing that certain types of language can be hurtful---often without realizing it, because the nature of the privilege beast is that certain attitudes are so ingrained that we're not conscious of where our stereotypes and assumptions come from, or even that we're perpetuating them.

If that was confusing, I'll be getting into more concrete examples as I respond to the essay. Back to the point, though, other fans are resistant to the idea of 'policing' their language. Others see the justice advocates' point but worry that the tone of the arguments is causing people who would otherwise be sympathetic to close their ears. The arguments on our secrets comms, fandom comms, and anon comms bother people. That much is apparent.

So _dahne_ proposes a solution that I disagree with, to put it mildly. Take a moment to read the essay if you haven't already, the discussion's pretty lively! Everyone from every side of the fence will find something they agree with and disagree with, no problem. But I'd like to lay out my position so that people know where I stand and have a free opportunity to defriend me ;)

---or hopefully try to articulate a defense of the 'PC' side.

Things in italics are quotes from the essay. I'll start with the softball of the opening:

This political correctness bullshit has gotten out of hand.

Do you know how much I hate saying that? That's the sort of thing Republicans say.

This definitely rubs me the wrong way. It suggests that everyone on the right is Privilege Denying Dude and anyone more liberal is a shining beacon of sensitivity, so much better than that group. Protip: we're not. I need only refer you to the sexism and racism of the 2008 primaries, the flurry of minority blame after Prop 8/the 2010 midterms, and our recent disparaging of the women pressing rape charges against Julian Assange to prove that. The goal is to get people of every stripe to make the world just a little better, and starting with a divisive swipe doesn't help---plus it obscures the truth, that bigotry is everywhere.

The essay begins with a complaint against the state of fandom and what a dangerous place to express opinions that it has become. _dahne_ reports that common language is policed to insulate activists from criticism:

It's not a coincidence that one of the things you are expressly forbidden to say is, "Guys, this is retarded."

In context, this means that the meanie enlightened fandom cabal is 'banning' that word to prevent themselves from being called out on their ridiculousness. But see? I just suggested a word that wouldn't be ableist! 'Ridiculous'. 'Silly'. 'Time-wasting'. 'Unhelpful.' There are plenty of ways to call people out on getting out of hand without linking a mental disability with a negative personal trait, as happens when 'retarded' is used that way.

As someone with a mental disability who was mocked with that word, shoved into lockers while the bullies yelled that word, and constantly had that inner voice telling me I was a no-good retard in my head? I can report that it hurts me that 'bad person' and my disability are conflated. Every use of it helps to perpetuate a negative perception of people with disabilities overall. 'Gay', 'lame', and 'insane' have the same problems---being descriptive words conflated with a 'bad/unworthy person' tone through their use as a casual insult.

I know we'll probably get into an argument about how some words have progressed down the insult treadmill so far that they're not worth censoring anymore, like stupid, idiot, moron, or crazy. I really wish people would use alternatives to words with that history, but I know it's unrealistic for me to expect that from everybody, but I work to excise them from my own vocabulary. It's not as hard as I expected it to be, actually. I'm not going to defriend you if you use those words regularly, all I ask is that you please refrain from doing so around me. And I'm not going to call you out on it, really. I hope for incremental improvement, but I'm privileged enough to be in that position. Not everyone is. And I'll get to that in a minute.

The essay then decries call-outs as bullying:
The word for this is bullying.

And not even the kind of bullying where the pleasure comes from knowing you're being a bastard and the other person can't do a thing about, which is awful but at least honest. No, this is the kind where you and your friends or cronies can abuse someone all you like, and when they apologize because they have no clue what you are talking about or that this was even an issue, you can excoriate them for not groveling hard enough. And you feel yourself to be a true, pure warrior, because your cause is just.

As other commenters on the post have said, we find this portrayal of call-outs unrealistic. The only times I have ever seen a pile-up when someone uses an offensive word, that person responded to the call-out defensively with an 'I'm sorry you were offended' fauxpology, foisting the blame on the hurt person. If someone says "I'm sorry that I hurt you, it won't happen again" it's forgiven.

Also, it's not bullying. Being taunted with "retard! retard!", shoved into lockers, and having your stuff stolen is bullying. Someone telling you that your use of the word 'retarded' to mean something you hate is hurtful to people with disabilities is not bullying. They're offering criticism of something you said or did, not dehumanizing you because you look a little different.

Now, how call-outs should be done is another hot topic in itself. Because I'm in enough of a privileged position for most of the marginalizing language not to really strike a nerve personally, I usually take Jay Smooth's approach:

But I also think that it's unrealistic for the people personally affected by these things to always stay calm and educate. His approach works if you're not personally invested and you can handle insults and denial, letting it roll of your back, but not everyone can. In the 'raped by dickwolves' example cited in the essay, well, rape is an immediate threat and a reality for some people, not a fantastically hilarious punchline. And Penny Arcade's response was even worse. Selling 'Team Dickwolves' t-shirts. What a wonderful message to send!

If you're lashed out at from the get-go, try to understand. A sincere apology almost always cuts off an argument at the head. And if you genuinely think it's not offensive and that they're making stuff up just to be offended and lash out? Uh, for most of us that's a waste of time. Why set ourselves up to output even more rage? Just walk away and do some research if you're so inclined, and if not? There are plenty of spaces on the internet and in real life that will happily accommodate your need to use offensive language without a problem.

Back to the essay:
When there are so many things that could possibly offend someone somewhere that you have to sum them up as -ist, or when you start inventing and using words like kyriarchy or ablist*** with a straight face, that means something has gone horribly wrong.

They're not just 'made-up words' to describe a problem. That would be suggesting that the problems just materialized from thin air, that these concepts didn't exist until now. I disagree. As I see it, what's happening is that as civil rights advance and attitudes change, marginalized people are slowly becoming free enough to define these terms. It wasn't that long ago that women had to author books under male pseudonyms to get published, and some women still make their sex ambiguous to sell books (for a famous recent example, see J.K. Rowling whose publisher thought it would hurt sales to publish under the name Jo.)

And we still have a long way to go. Trans issues are constantly dismissed from all sides because the subject is too complicated or too weird, for one example. The internet offers an anonymous platform for people to publish their thoughts and experiences without facing blowback in their personal lives, and for someone who faces ridicule if they speak up about these things in real life? That's huge.

We now have words to describe that vague feeling of not belonging, to sum up all those little experiences that suggest the world wasn't made with you in mind. Examples: the assumptions made based on your name, not seeing people like you in positions of power, being followed while going shopping, getting unwanted comments at work, or having difficulty reaching somewhere you need to go based on aspects of yourself that you can't change. That's kyriarchy.

Finally, and I swear we're reaching the end of this long long post:
There's all kinds of things you can do that could possibly make a difference. Insisting that everyone around you adhere to your idea of what is offensive is not one of them.

Offense is relative. Absolutely relative. And those highly disparaged things like intent and context and all the other things you have to take into account when communicating with actual human beings? They do matter. The n word in Huck Finn is different from the n word in a rap song is different from the n word scrawled on the wall or shouted in the dark. That is how communication works. It is big, it is messy, it is absolutely relative, and you don't get to decide how it works for other people.

Those little harmless things on the internet do matter. An acquaintance making a rape joke to a survivor does hurt. Every biting comment about a marginalized group has the potential to hurt, because you never know who belongs to them or will come across the conversation in the future. Yes, the changes in the real world are on a bigger scale and they're very worthy of pursuing, but it really doesn't take that much time to use a synonym. I don't expect to clean up all the hurtful things, that's definitely impossible, but every little bit helps. That's why I'm interested.

As far as offense being relative? By all means follow the lead of the person you're talking to in one on one conversations. If someone tells you that they prefer being called a cripple, go right ahead. If you're critically discussing literature, keep the slurs the author used in so that we have a reminder of the past's standards. But I suggest caution: be aware of what words mean if you can, because in a group situation you might be hurting someone who's too afraid to speak up.

Finally, if you accidentally say something hurtful and get called out on it, it doesn't mean you're a bad person---we're all part of the system, we all do. The idea's just to not do it again. But using slurs again and again while loudly proclaiming that it is your constitutional right to do so may lower some peoples' opinion of you, just as my 'over-sensitive PC bullshit' is probably lowering some of your opinions of me.

So that's it. For my friends who strongly disagree, I won't explode on you. I'll just treat the issue the same way I treat everyone with whom I have extreme political disagreements and avoid the issue whenever possible. I know we're all part of the system, I know I've been there myself, and I know I will continue to fuck up as long as I live. This is just me laying out what I'm trying to do.

Phew! Think I got everything I wanted to say. Comments are open, for better or for worse.

Comments

Zoki...

[meilleurekimiko]

Just saying that I actually read the essay from the original poster and your take on it. It's...a very interesting topic and I kind of feel like its familiar territory for me.

...

Trans issues definitely need to be evaluated more so, because I'm sick of such rights not being neglected outside the internet.

[zokiblue]

*hug* I really worry about trying to make sense of it all. In the end, humans are complex and maybe we can't, but for a little more peace for everyone it's worth trying.

Thanks for reading.

[dingsi]

*adds entry to memories*

[zokiblue]

Thanks for reading! I hope it was okay.

awesome

[rd]

Thank you for this. Since it's an open post, I'm assuming you're okay if I share this around, but if that's not the case please let me know? I sort of want to print it out and pass it around (and post on my facebook for certain family members who don't get it).

PS - Tried to comment on LJ because I don't use DW but comments didn't show up. Possibly this is tech ignorance from me.

[zokiblue]

I think I hit disable on the LJ post, whoops. But thank you, and sharing's not a problem. :)

I just wish you luck with family members getting it. I know how that is.

[rd]

Radness. Thank you very much.

[mercredigirl]

Thank you for this post <3 Commenting on the OP's journal feels like shouting at a wall, but I tried, anyway.

[such_heights]

This is completely off-topic, but I must say that is pretty much the greatest icon in the world. IROH! \o/

[mercredigirl]

Haha, yours is pretty nifty too :D

[such_heights]

This is a fantastic post, thank you! (Here via metafandom.)

Something that gets me is the assertion that language is entirely unconnected to 'real' justice issues. As if the things you describe here don't play into the things that do cause genuine bullying, and hate crimes, and violence and all other kinds of dehumanising behaviour. The fact that the idea of disabled people being 'wrong' and 'bad' is embedded so deeply in our language should be cause for grave concern, not dismissal, for example.

[zokiblue]

That's exactly it. Our conscious thoughts are all framed by language, of course it matters!

There's so much about 'words mean things' that I want to say, but that would probably take up another entire essay. I'm still reading everyone else's thoughts on the matter to see if inspiration strikes.

Thanks for swinging by.

[conuly]

Do you know how much I hate saying that? That's the sort of thing Republicans say.

Wow, that was... massively hypocritical.

[xtricks]

The thing I've been trying to figure out is the fauxapology issue. There have been times when I've gotten into a fairly hot arugement over some controversial topic on the 'net with someone I don't agree with. Eventually, I reach the end of my ability to explain myself/interest in being treated like a bigoted asshole and still do not agree with the person. At the same time, I hadn't started the whole thing with the intent to insult or upset anyone.

What the hell do you say? When I say something like 'I'm sorry you're upset/offended but I don't agree.' That's exactly what I mean. I'm not trying to dump the problem. I've listened to what the other person said and I'm not going to do what they want.

The sense I often get from arguments about isms and controversial topics is that you aren't allowed to have that option. And I won't allow anyone to take the right to disagree away from me, I don't care who they are, or what their relation to the issue is (or mine).

[zokiblue]

This is a hard one. Please forgive me if you don't like the example I take/it isn't one that would apply to you, but I'm trying to figure out what best to do and it's easier with a concrete example.

Say it's about language: Person A is bothered by the casual use of the word 'crazy', B thinks it's so common by now and dissociated from people with disabilities that it's not worth fighting. I've been on both sides of this fence.

And let's say Person A is being about as rude as possible. "Excuse you, but that's ableist. Don't say that shit around here."

B says "I'm afraid I don't follow. It's just a word, I'm not referring to the mentally disabled. It's not used that way anymore.

A says: "No1curr. Words mean things, and it'd only take you a fucking second of google to learn that."

B tries to keep calm and disagree for a few more similar comments, because to them the word's so obviously nonoffensive.

Now comes the tricky part: personally I side with teleen_fiction when it's said that it really doesn't hurt me to change my language to put someone else at ease, but not everyone's up for that. I disagree, of course, but the slippery slope argument's a powerful one.

I probably worded things too strongly, to make them sound like admonitions and laws. They're not, and not all conversations follow that path. The sample apology you quoted---you're sorry they're hurt, but you don't agree that what was said is hurtful enough to warrant changing language---it's difficult to extend the discussion and be civil with such a fundamental disagreement. The person hearing it will resent being told in a sense that they're overreacting, and the person saying it resents being called a bigot. A lot of arguments about politics and religion are the same way.

At that point, if the goal's maintaining civility and changing the language seems unreasonable to you, I recommend disengaging and shaking your head. No one's taking away your freedom to have an extended argument if you truly believe---we all do. You're still welcome to say that, it's just not the peace-promoting option.

Again, I'm sorry if I painted you with the wrong brush.

[xtricks]

Yeah, I pretty much leave the discussion 'cause we're not going to come to any sort of agreement. I just (like anyone, really) resent be called a bigot. But it's a big internet and there are always going to be folks who don't agree.

[zokiblue]

Fair enough. I'm sorry I don't have a perfect solution, other than finding an environment with more people who agree with you, but maybe someone else will have one.

[strikeslip]

Hey, not to sidetrack the discussion (if I can avoid it, or just ignore me if necessary), but do you have any further information on the background/alternatives of "like stupid, idiot, moron, or crazy"? I never had use for moron, and I can get the problem with stupid and idiot too, but I'd miss crazy, particularly for non-human description, and I don't think "nuts" is a good synonym in this context. "This shit is bananas" doesn't really work as regular use either- bit too informal, y'know?

(Here via Metaquotes.)

[zokiblue]

Ok! I'll see what I can find, but here's what I've got:

I'm fond of ridiculous, nonsensical, bizarre...and there's an even more comprehensive list here, covering replacements for a number of terms. It was deleted recently so I'm not sure how long the cache will last.

[strikeslip]

Ooh, ridiculous is good. Absurd is good. A lot of the comprehensive list falls off the intended connotations bandwagon, but dissing non-NT people isn't intended either, so it's nice to get around that.

[zokiblue]

Yeah, I had problems with some of the items on the list, but it was good to get some ideas.

[torachan]

I have taken to using ridiculous a lot. I find it really does get at what I mean a lot of the time when I find myself reaching for crazy. Stupid is harder for me. Sometimes ridiculous will do, but I've also found that annoying is a good substitute.

[zarla.org]

This post looks like it was written by a nigger.

[cpolk]

Thanks. I'm so tired of repeating myself on this crap, I'm glad someone still has the energy to try and explain this stuff.

I was actually explaining it this morning, when a friend characterized getting checked on oppressive language as bullying, and I said, "No. That's not it. We use this oppressive language because we don't think about it, because it's ingrained into the system so deeply that we don't notice the implications of our speech.

"But I'm not bullying you. I'm telling you that you have a piece of linguistic spinach stuck between your teeth. The problem isn't in the checking - it's in how the person who got checked responds. They never say "well shit, that's embarrassing." they act like you just told them they committed unspeakable atrocities and become aggressive about defending their oppressive figure of speech. If I said, "Hey dude, your shoelaces are untied" and you responded by yelling at me to stop being a bully, people would think you were being unreasonable."

And then I got well you don't do that but other people do, and I mentally pushed my breakfast plate aside to bang my head on the table a couple times before asking him to GO BACK and read a language check with the attitude that the check *is* valid and it's proper to make the effort to talk about the implications of things we say, and see if it reads differently, keeping in mind that when someone steps on your foot, and you yell HEY GET OFF MY FOOT that only an asshole wouldn't move an inch and berate you about not asking nicely.

My friend is likely to see what I mean. which is why I spent the energy.

[zokiblue]

"Spinach between the teeth"---I really like that and I'll remember it, thank you.

I hope your friend understood at least some of it. I'm definitely cautious about picking my battles, but I'm trying to slowly get more involved.

[bearpaw9]

I like "they act like you just told them the committed unspeakable atrocities."

I've been thinking about this a fair amount this week.

My belief is that some of the people who say "Oh, no, no, I'm not a racist actually mean "I don't hate anyone because of their race, I haven't/wouldn't lynch anyone, and if slavery were on the ballot in the next election, I wouldn't vote for it."

[cpolk]

And that leaves them miles of room in which to be an utter bastard, and they'll fight tooth and nail for every inch.

Here from Metafandom

[paxpinnae]

I'm glad this made metafandom. Because here's my thing: while I agree with the majority of your article (notably _dahne_'s needless alienation of the Republican diss opening, attachment to "crazy" and "retarded" when there are so many wonderful synonyms, and dismissal of the "-ist" trend), I'm not sure _dahne_ entirely wrong. She's a lot wrong, especially when she tries the "there is honest-to-god injustice in the world, why are you arguing on the internet" derailing tactic, but she's not entirely wrong.

I support the FoCing Cabal and Ableist Allies and all the letters in the alphabet soup of Queer rights in their quest to lay the smackdown on -ist trends in fandom. There is too little fic about characters outside the pretty white male demographic. Hurt/Comfort does represent a skewed way of looking at disability. Our culture does treat rape too lightly. Teens figuring out who they are and who they like do need to have safe spaces to do just that, so maybe they'll stop fucking killing themselves because they can't see any other way out.

But there is a line between calling out offensive material and attempting to micromanage the creative processes of fandom as a whole, and we're collectively starting to flirt with it. I'm thinking here of the "-somebody in an Inception fic joking with his Indian friend about looking like a cab driver" kerfuffle, which _dahne_ cites as a product of the "vacuum chamber full of self-important pseudointellectual gibberish." I actually read the fic before the kerfuffle went live, and I remember being appalled at the fact that this author was being taken to task by prominent fans for a joke that a character made in a story to a close friend. Maybe I'm not actually a good person, but in my experience, close friends? Say stuff to each other that would make any outside observer think they hated each other. Example from my own experience (bear in mind that these two were debate partners for years and double-dated to prom):

Bengali-American: Man, why do they call you "white" people? Every time I look at you, you're bright red!
Irish-American: Hey, at least we're not all pruney from being underwater all the time like Deshies.

So needless to say, I viewed the joke as relatively mild. I was saddened when the writer (voluntarily, and with a Good Apology) removed it from the fic. Not only did that action take out what I perceived as a nice character moment, it also came entirely too close to self-censorship for my comfort.

Not everyone deals with injustice in the same way. Some people write thoughtful, experience-based essays that inspire other people to purge all -ist thought and action from their life. Other people make jokes, often in bad taste. There needs to be room for a little reflection of reality in the virtual world, especially in fic, where the views of a character may not reflect the views of the author. Sometimes, yes, they do, especially indirectly, but sometimes not!

If a pervasive trend (like H/C) does reflect a common prejudice (like an ooky and inaccurate view of disability), the best response isn't to try to get everyone who enjoys H/C to stop writing it, it's to point out, loudly and publicly, that H/C reflects an ooky and inaccurate view of disability, and then write a crapton of well-researched fic with characters with disabilities being awesome and screwing it up and getting it on and generally being, you know, people. The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, however indirect; it's more goddamn speech. This is why challenges like purimgifts and Chromatic Yuletide and Chromatic Porn Battle are so awesome - instead of silencing the airwaves (with criticism of portrayals of women, PoCs, or the differently abled), they're trying to boost the signal-to-noise ratio.

I recognize that I'm picking on one hyperbolic example among many worthy kerfuffles, but that's what happens - people forget the times when fandom pressure took down honest-to-jebus racist content (c.f. the metafandom debate on the Haiti J2 fic) and focus on the debates that make us look like the worst stereotypes of a group of Soapbox Sallies. I'm not saying that we collectively need to stop getting mad about stuff; just, maybe take a moment to breathe before we go into a full-court press.

This... was longer than anticipated. Apparently I Have Feelings On This Issue.

[zokiblue]

Thank you---I'll probably agree, actually, but I have a long class time ahead of me. It'll delay my response by a fair bit.

Re: Here from Metafandom

[ex_solvent311]

The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, however indirect; it's more goddamn speech

I agree completely. But how are you defining "censorship"? This is a genuine puzzle for me because in the fandom context it seems to me that "censorship" = an avalanche of speech. That's the only silencing force that fandom, not being a state, can bring to bear - lots of shouting. And I agree that a huge amount of shouting is a silencing force and, in that sense, touches on the boundary of censorship but I honestly don't know what we ought to do about that. Because, as you say, our usual dichotomy is between censorship (=bad) and more speech (=good). But that doesn't work if we think that, sometimes, a LOT more speech becomes censorship. How to resolve that? Especially since - setting aside signal-boosting posts etc - we aren't even talking about co-ordinated speech, just lots of angry/upset/critical individuals speaking en masse.

I don't have a solution but I think that's the underlying problem here - there's the impression of overwhelming and frightening co-ordinated action, sometimes, but in fact what people in fandom say is pretty fragmented and, while it's influenced by what others say, it isn't controlled by anyone except each individual. So the only general solution we're left with is offering anodyne advice like "don't call things that aren't racist racist" and "don't overreact to stuff" and "don't be mean" and I doubt the effectiveness of that, since no one ever believes that they are being mean, or overreacting, or that the thing they're criticising as racist isn't racist. These conversations have to be specific, focused on the very thing being criticised or the very criticism that's been made; arguments decrying the "general trend" seem to me to be either useless or actively hostile.

I do sympathise with what you're saying, particularly about the need for more good stuff to drown out the bad stuff. But I think you agree, unlike dahne, that it is also valuable to criticise the bad stuff? And once that's accepted, trying to constrain critique in advance and in general terms isn't going to get us anywhere; it's always going to depend on the particular situation.

[codeman38]

Word on the comments about "retarded". What a lot of people fail to realize is that that word is still the official term used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-- the official manual used by the American Psychological Association!-- and will be until version 5 of the manual is released, whenever that happens. Yes, it may have one foot on the insult treadmill, but the other foot is still firmly set on diagnostic ground.

And "inventing words like ableist"? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it's been around since 1981 at the latest.


(Also, for those who need a transcript of the Jay Smooth vid (YouTube's auto-captioning is... less than helpful), here's a transcript of it found via transcripts. I really need to add that video to Universal Subtitles...)

[failherald]

Dahne's post was pretty awful.

That said, anybody who seriously signs onto the idea that "stupid" and the like should be taboo words, let alone asks her friends not to use them around her, is yet another over-the-top SJer who shouldn't be taken seriously.

"Retard" is offensive because, as a previous commenter points out, it still refers both colloquially and formally to someone with a developmental disability. Very few people knew the origins of "moron," "imbecile," or "idiot," and it would have remained that way had the FWD crowd not decided to broadcast it.

Language evolves. Words change meaning. Should we not use the word "nice," either? It ultimately comes from a Latin word meaning "knowing nothing."

Finally, dumbasses shouldn't be a protected class, particularly not in the U.S., where we're falling headlong into real-life idiocracy.