Comments on: Discussion: Manners, Political Correctness, and the Reaction of the Audience

By: I don't know if Patrick Frey is an anti-semite, but he's quite clearly an asshole.

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:47:23 +0000

[...] Here, here, here, here, and here. [...]

By: You think you know what you mean? I’ll tell you what you mean. « The Edge of the American West

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:41:52 +0000

[...] to someone named “Jeff G,” when facing down “those who are out to pull whatever you say or write out of [...]

By: Rob C

Rob C — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:08:01 +0000

Isn’t question 1 a bit misleading?

If we’re talking in the context of Rush and controversies like that then the problem isn’t the intended audience, but third parties who are deliberately looking to be offended by the statement.

“[long discussion about Obama's policies]…I hope he fails” is a strong but honest statement that was aimed at the listeners of his radio show. The MSM then took that statement and turned it into only “I hope Obama fails.”

That has nothing at all to do with changing your statement to match your audience. That’s changing someone else’s statement to match a different audience. This being what caused the whole “controversy” in the first place then the questions as phrased is really moot.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:36:19 +0000

I think Ken makes some excellent points. This isn’t a back and white issue; there are lots of gray areas.

I work at a big corporation and I self-censor what I say at work. But by the same token, a lot of that relates to simply having good manners. Work is not an appropriate forum to discuss how big your coworker’s breasts are. It’s also not a forum—IMHO—to use bad language (the ‘f’-bomb, for example). But reaction shouldn’t be overboard either.

Just because someone has the right to say something doesn’t mean others don’t have the right to react. For example, if I were to say that Hispanics (I’m half-Spanish, BTW) were inferior to whites intellectually, I can expect justified outrage from them. Where it gets into PC is when people take offense too easily to something not meant as racial. The chimp cartoon from a couple of weeks ago is a good example of that. Many blacks who spoke out, in my opinion, were too overzealous in condemning that cartoon.

People are entitled to their opinions, which is why I have such a problem with Republicans kowtowing to Rush Limbaugh. It should be their right to disagree with Rush. But the dittoheads won’t allow it.

By: nk

nk — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:44:30 +0000

It was not this "lady" by any chance, was it? (Link somewhat questionable for mixed company.)

By: Lord Nazh

Lord Nazh — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:36:11 +0000

Great responses (some)

nk at 19: And has it ever happened to you? And, if it did, was it a “femanazi” or a little green Martian? Ain’t nothing like the boogeymen we make up in our minds, is there?

I have been cursed like a sailor for opening a door for a female before, not sure you would call her a femanazi but she didn’t appreciate my ‘treating here like some kind of simpleton’… I told her I held the door because I WANTED to, not because she NEEDED it and told her good day.

By: ccoffer

ccoffer — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:25:22 +0000

Lets talk about the legitimacy of exterminating Jews, but whatever you do, don’t mention the Nazis. That’s not what the discussion is about, you see.

By: Patterico's Latest on Language and Intention [Dan Collins]

Patterico's Latest on Language and Intention [Dan Collins] — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:07:21 +0000

[...] I hope that he won’t mind my taking his whole post: [...]

By: j curtis

j curtis — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:40:12 +0000

2) Do you think society should ever disapprove of someone’s speech in part based on the concept that the speaker knew his words would generate a bad/counterproductive reaction from others?

I’ve noticed that you ask a lot of questions that seem to me to be built on logical fallacy. “Society” and “others” implies that there is some sort of single-minded Borg(Star Trek) like society for whom we can tailor our speech.

But then it occurs to me that a lawyer will have a different outlook on these things. Someone might hope to have a long term influence on society and this person can use brutal honesty to bring a majority to his way of thinking over time. After all the kicking and screaming, the truth remains. But a lawyer doesn’t have time to change people, and it’s not in his best interest ( or his client’s best interest ) to unbottle genies. I suspect he needs to speak to a jury based on that group’s current outlook on things.

By: Ken in Camarillo

Ken in Camarillo — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:50:25 +0000

1. Tailoring the presentation to the audience: If you want to persuade, you must tailor the message to best communicate your actual ideas in a way that the audience will see your points and think about them. A secondary consideration would be to present it it a way that is controversial or exciting so the audience will be stirred up and continue to talk about the ideas (I think this was Rush’s attempt). I exclude dishonest attempts to hide the true message in order to get people to go along.
2. Generating a bad/counterproductive reaction: This isn’t wise and it’s fine for society to criticize a presentation if it was intended to create the bad/counterproductive reaction. However, a presentation given in accordance with the principles I described in item 1 would not qualify as being in category # 2. Note that opponents will often try to spin a true #1 presentation as an example of a #2 presentation in an effort to discredit it. Example of a #2 presentation: a David Duke speech (but that is too easy). I think people should cut some slack for someone who tried to do a #1 presentation that inadvertently became a #2 presentation.
3. I think it is the duty of citizens to criticize actual bad behavior in an effort to discourage it in the future. Of course, some claim to be doing this when they just want to discredit an opponents valid presentation (this is unfair).
4. Political Correctness and good manners are different. Political correctness is the effort to use the guise of good manners to suppress valid discussion and argument over policy.