Daily Archives: February 9, 2017

Dear Griffin,I am glad that you took the time to learn about feminism and use your privilege to promote its ideas. I also think its good for people in positions of power to ask marginalized groups about the challenges they face in order to form a more empathetic worldview. However, your op-ed sees political correctness as an obstruction to education as though by being politically correct, we cannot understand people who are different from us. I believe your view on this matter is inconsiderate at best and destructive at worst.

Political correctness is not a means of degrading people of your social status. It is a basic component of the respectful discourse you appear to advocate. It also has nothing to do with you being called out for mansplaining. Having seen some of your Facebook posts, I believe that you were actually being a helpful ally in the way you approached the prompt why we need feminism. However, your response to women being upset should not have been to quit publicly advocating for womens rights. It should have been to continue a conversation with them about why they, the people whose rights you claim to value, feel patronized. Maybe you would have learned something from them, or maybe they would have seen that you are helping their cause.

Ignoring political correctness is dangerous. It means ignoring the history that contributes to oppression today. For years, marginalized groups have been forced to conform to the language and etiquette that make those in power comfortable. Black Americans were told to address white people using Yes maam/sir for years while they were not treated with the same dignity. Just because your safety doesnt depend on using culturally correct language, it doesnt make it any less important that you use the right terms for others.Richard Wright, who was once beaten for forgetting to address a white man as sir, said, I had to keep remembering what others took for granted; I had to think out what others felt. You may believe that you are doing your best to think out what others feel, but you have misidentified what the real implications of your words are. Your friend was appalled by your comment about they/them/their pronouns because it wasnt a respectful inquiry into genderqueer identity, but rather a thoughtless comment that does not consider the challenges faced by the trans community. Sure its grammatically incorrect to use plural words to refer to one individual, but that linguistic issue pales in comparison to the fight for recognition that trans people face.

A better way to voice your discomfort around pronouns would be to ask, Why do certain people use they/them/their when its not proper grammar? or to look it up on the thousands of great websites specifically created to educate the public. Otherwise, you risk being one of countless examples of cis, white, straight, upperclass men valuing their comfort over a marginalized persons struggle for equality.

I understand that your feelings were hurt, and yes, it is important to treat one another with kindness and respect. Attacking people for lacking knowledge about an issue is not only ineffective, but disrespectful. However, disregarding political correctness does nothing to advance social justice conversations. It actually damages them. This isnt part of some mass liberal agenda. Its part of human rights, specifically the right to live outside the shadow of oppression.

I dont believe your identity devalues your thoughts about gender or any other matter, as that would run counter to the ideals of equality and free speech. However, it should give you reason to think about how your ideas will be received, in contrast to those held by marginalized people. You say youve left a conversation about gender feeling scorned and uneducated, but youve probably never left one feeling unloved by your family, as so many trans people have.

Youre right we should talk about what makes us different. These are tough conversations and feelings will get hurt, but maybe you can put aside your guilt long enough to realize that, when it comes to advancing social justice, we need to be listening to the grievances of oppressed peoples first and our own discomfort second.

I think we owe our fellow humans that much.

Sincerely,

Vahni KurraA fellow human

Vahni Kurra 20 is undeclared from Columbus, Ohio. Contact her at kurra1@kenyon.edu.

More here:

To a Collegian columnist: Disregarding political correctness hinders social justice causes - Kenyon Collegian

The five main characters of Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia are often described as the worst people in the world. And, sure, they pretty much are. Scanning around their Paddys Pub HQ most weeks, one can hear the ghostly echoes of Ben Kenobis pronouncement about Mos Eisley as a wretched hive of scum and villainy bouncing off of the ill-washed glasses and even iller-washed regulars. And the Gang, of course, variously huddled in ever-changing factions to hatch whatever plot they imagine will satisfy the selfish needs of their twisted psyches.

Still, the Gang arent really the worst, are they? Making a sitcom about actual evil people would be an even harder trick than the one the creators of Sunny have pulled off for 12 seasons. The secret of Sunnys dark comedy is that the main characters live in their own awfulness. They create it, they cause it, theyre product and victim of it, and, ultimately, they can never escape it. The Gang is a gang because there are no other people in the world who would, or could, have them.

That interdependent hell that is the Gangs daily existence comes to a hilarious head in Hero Or Hate Crime, where a stray breeze, a wayward $2 scratch ticket, a falling piano, some dog shit, and a gay slur cause Dee, Charlie, Frank, Mac, and Dennis to run through a series of very expensive professional arbitrators in order to settle their latest dispute. Normally, the argument over ownership of a potentially worthless (they havent scratched it yet) lottery ticket would be taken care of, as Charlie puts it, in-house. Like their legendarily nonsensical and horrifying rainy day board/endurance game CharDee MacDennis (The Game Of Games), over the years the Gang has developed an elaborate system of jurisprudence to hash out their constant, hysterical squabbling. Motion for sub-arbitration to determine whether or not thats sad!, cries Mac, after Dee explains that she hadnt scratched the lottery ticket because, As long as you dont scratch it, then youre not a loser.

As arbiter here, Ill say that is sad, although less in the mocking way that Mac, Dennis, Charlie, and Frank accuse Dee of being, and more in keeping with the idea that, on some level, the Gang is aware of how awful their awfulness makes their lives. As Dennis explains to the first of their referees tonight, This ticket represents hope, okay? Potential. Promise. The very foundation upon which this group rests. Glenn Howerton gives Dennis spiel the maniacal edge of one brazening out a position to avoid the yawning abyss of ugly truth, something that goes a long way toward explaining the Gangs signature, hair-trigger enthusiasms. Every scam, every scheme, every newfound obsession and pursuit is the thing that will lead them out of the darkness that is their daily existence. As we see, eventually tonight, even the genuine victory of a $10,000 winning scratch ticket will ultimately be consumed by the inescapable reality of the fact that their 17 hours of professionally arbitrated backstabbing to obtain it have eaten up all the money they were fighting over. The pursuit has to be the point, because the reality is that happiness is simply not something these people will ever know.

Luckily for us, theres plenty of joy in watching these characters and these actors play out the inevitable. The circumstances surrounding the lottery ticket form a filthy Rube Goldberg device of disaster, as Charlie and Mac interrupt their argument about whether Charlie intentionally stepped in a pile of dog crap (he did) to almost get creamed by a falling piano. Fortunately(?), Frankout looking up womens skirts with his trusty shoe-mirrors like the dirtbag he issees this and screams out the full-throated warning, Look out, faggot!, allowing Charlie to karate kick Mac out of the way. Sue, this leaves a shoe-shaped dog crap imprint on Macs shirt, but alives alive. And potentially rich. Well, potentially potentially rich, as Dees windblown, unscratched ticket ends up in Macs hands, sending the Gang off to the lawyers offices. (Sadly, we dont get an appearance from Brian Ungers unnamed, always-funny Lawyer. Hed find a way to cheat the Gang out of that ticket, especially after they may have blinded him.)

As far as the legal arguments go, the labyrinthine circumstances surrounding the tickets ownership are enough to test the wisdom of Solomon, including as they do: Dennis bribing Dee to overtip the barely-legal shopgirl hes grooming as sexual conquest; Franks offensive but life-saving warning; Charlies heroic (if poopy) kick; and the fact that Mac actually has possession of the thing. The actors playing the lawyers (especially Karen McClain, whose character hears the bulk of the argument) are all excellent at deadpanning their way through the shenanigans. (As is revealed, they know theyre getting well-paid.) As for the arguments themselves, the pressures of avarice and a ticking clock sees the Gang turn on each other with the all the chaotic ingenuity their feverish minds can muster. Which is a lot.

A major theme in the arguments is Franks slur against Mac. Macs tortured relationship with his sexuality has been mined for jokes for well-on a decade, and, yes, the revelation that hes constructed a makeshift pleasuring device out of a decrepit exercise bike and a fist-topped dildo isnt the subtlest gag. (There is a moment where the seat-mounted dildo rises unexpectedly that is timed to absolute comic perfection, though.) But the joke, as the rest of the Gang asserts, has never been that Mac is gay (Hes into the closet hes out of the closet, we dont like you either way, explains Dennis), but that Macs contortions to deny his homosexuality have turned him into a joke. (He explains that hes been working out on the machine with assless bike shorts for air flow.) Like Dennis desperate assertion of the meaning of that unscratched ticket, Macs denial about just what he gets up to down in Paddys basement partakes of that strain of humanizing denial that keeps the Gang, for all their undeniable awfulness, relatable.

The same goes for the Gangs long digression here about hate speech. Like most social issues that Sunny incorporates into its plots, political correctness isnt on trial as much as its used to examine the Gangs various double-standards and blind spots. When Frank protests that his use of the word faggot wasnt disqualifyingly offensive, its due to Franks adherence to old-school, pragmatic assholery. There was a lot going on. I needed something that would cut through. As soon as I said the slur, everybody knew to look at Mac, says Frank. Macs response that a bigot should not be entitled to a heros payout, is self-serving (he really wants that ticket), but also points to how, within the Gang, finding offense in the others actions is often the best offense against them. When Dennis cautions, You know what, were treading on some dangerous territory, his objections to hate speech are more about standing (in the Gang and as the upstanding citizen he fancies himself) than about whether Franks assertion that Youre allowed to use any language to save a mans life extends to using the word nigger in a similar situation. (McClains arbitrator, who is black, still manages to maintain her impartiality, which deserves some sort of medal.) So when all four of the guys turn on Dee for trying to apply the same logic to the word cunt, the shouting match that ensues (We cant lose that! Especially when its directed towards a woman when youre trying to insult her, yells Charlie), illuminates the shifting nature of the Gangs outrage. On Its Always Sunny, morality is, indeed, a moveable feast, depending on whos doing the eating.

In the end, the ticket comes down to Frank and Mac, the final arbitrators ruling finding that they have to split the ticket, since Franks claim can only be nullified if his hate speech was actually directed at a gay person. (Again, Im not saying these are necessarily good arbitrators.) Heres where things get just a little bit tricky, explains Dennis, before bringing in that bike (The Asspounder 4000, according to the deliberately oblivious and proud Mac) to show that Mac is, indeed, gay. (Or, at least, as Dennis puts it, a sexual deviant.) Sunny lives on the edge, and, if the bike gag is crude, the payoff of Macs dilemma is transcendent.

Seeing a way to get the whole ticket (now worth 10 grand), Mac quickly proclaims his gayness to snatch the prize. (Gay Mac rules! Rich, gay Mac!) But, given the chance to renege on his claim once the cash is safely in hand, Mac demurs. Rob McElhenney makes Macs hesitation one of those improbably affecting character moments that Sunny can wield so expertly. After the others sneer that hell retreat back into the closet now that hes won, McElhenneys look of clear-eyed relief is genuinely heartening as Mac says softly, I dunno, maybe Ill just stay out. No, I think Im out now. Yeah, Im gay. Actually... it feels pretty good. See you guys. Naturally, the Gangs momentary, shocked silence is swept away by the revelation that all the fighting has cost them all but $14 of Macs winnings (which theyll make him pay), but, even then, Dennis says, Maybe lets make him pay this tomorrow. Lets let him have this. In the Gangs Philly, the smallest of victories are not victories at all. Not if youre trapped there.

Previous episode Its Always Sunny cant commit to Making Dennis Reynolds A Murderer

Go to the A.V. Club homepage

Follow this link:

Political correctness is life and death on a hilarious It's Always Sunny - A.V. Club

This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Political Correctness, or lack of it, is front and center in todays highly-charged political and social arenas. Terry Howard joins me in reflecting on the true nature of PC, then and now. Check out Terrys editorial followed by my own. We welcome your views on PC, so please add your comments.

Whats the biggest problem facing the United States today?

Nice try Sarah, but not our crumbling national infrastructure!

No, the biggest problem facing our nation in 2017, so sayeth the pundits, is political correctness or, to put it in their words, political correctness run amuck.

Now class, before we go any further, lets step back briefly with a backgrounder on PC.

Decades ago, the growth of cultural diversity, primarily on college campuses, brought with shifting self-identities and identifications coupled with evolving languages. And what accompanied that trend was a growing confidence and assertiveness in people articulating how they wanted to be treated and what they wanted to be called.

For many those early assertions were communicated without rancor and with explanations relative why they expected the change. Say Bob, got a second? Please address me as a woman and not as a girl, okay? I know you dont mean to offend but when Im referred to as a girl I feel devalued as a woman. For others, those messages were delivered rather harshly and with little or no explanation. Stop referring to me as girl, Bob. Thats offensive and shows how sexist you are!

The answer to that question for the person offended leads to other questions, among them how do you call out the change youre seeking. If it comes across as a personal affront, defensiveness and maybe even downright denial could happen. And trickier still is, if the message is too soft, too polite or too vague or ambiguous, then it may be lost altogether.

On the other side, that of the offender, if he/she is unaccustomed to constructive feedback or sees nothing wrong with what was said or done, youre just being too PC may be the retort or, if the message is too soft, he/she may miss it altogether.

Lets listen in on the PC perspectives of two of my favorite columnists, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post and Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald.

Wrote Milbank, The notion of political correctness has recently grown into the mother of all strawmen. Once a pejorative term applied to liberals determined not to offend any ethnic groups or other identify group, it now is used lazily by some conservatives to label everything classified under that with which I disagree.

Wrote Pitts, (Screaming PC) is used to mean they are sick of not being able to insult blacks, Muslims, women and homosexuals as freely as they once did. But for all the (sometimes justified) criticism it receives. So called political correctness has at heart an important goal: language that is more inclusive, respectful and reflective of marginalized lives.

Now please. Lets cut through the chaise, the BS, and comes to grips with the reality is that PC is really a strawman (oops, or straw woman), a tepid excuse, a whiny cop out for the inability to hear and accept an important, albeit uncomfortable, message.

So the question is who goes first, where does the lions share of the responsibility reside in launching into a productive conversation when the stakes are so high, when relationships, reputations, egos, dignities and even careers are at stake?

I sat in the audience of a university theater and listened to elected officials and professors ruminate on inclusion in the upcoming election. It was Chicago in the 1990s and as in-your-face then as it is now. The discussion over race was loud and raucous as the candidates, Caucasian and African American, went toe to toe. As the debate turned to women, the all-male stage veered into the surreal. It turned into a shouting match as to who was more popular with the ladies. They gestured wildly about the numbers of women who called them, trying to prove that who was the more politically correct and more popular among the ladies.

The audience was more than 50% female with expressionless faces, rolling eyeballs, and a few yawns. I couldnt resist, raised my hand, and stood when the emcee called on me. I appreciate that the bias is unconscious but its foolish for a male-only stage to be fighting over who gets more calls from women. The correct alternative is to have women on stage who can speak for themselves. My political correctness was a bulwark against discrimination, but also a threat.

After much nervous fidgeting, the emcee finally responded, We tried! We invited the woman qualified to join us on stage, but she was busy. To which I replied, Any woman in this audience would be happy to name qualified women for you. The debate then concluded, quickly.

Later, one of the speakers, David Axelrod, approached me and offered to be my campaign manager if I ran for office. Regrettably, I declined. Neither I was not prepared to take on the inevitable personal attacks and name calling. Instead, I added my voice through writing, following the old saying, The pen is mightier than the sword. It would take years of lobbying, protesting, and aggressive challenges to achieve a greater representation in leadership, politically and socially.

The political correctness label would be applied to the activist women with the intention of intimidating and marginalizing them. The term Feminism was continually hammered as political correctness on steroids. Feminists were stereotyped as nasty, masculine and emasculating, and ugly, too. As progress for women was made, we expected, but rejected the accusations. With time, it became politically incorrect to make them.

Yet, just a few years ago, I was told to Wait my turn while less-experienced male candidates were chosen for board positions. Was this unconscious bias or a backlash against my political correctness? Either way, I wasnt surprised, and simply moved on.

Since the 2016 election, attacks on political correctness have been weaponized. Is it the anonymity of the internet or the surfacing of groups previously side-lined by a politically correct culture? Either way, I wasnt surprised, but now its impossible to move on.

On LinkedIn, I was told that women must stop demanding preferential treatment. If they were qualified, there wouldnt be any disparities. When I objected, I was accused of being a man-hating b**ch. That mymanufactured rage would no longer be tolerated and political correctness was over.

Since that incident, the womens marches grabbed the publics attention. The women relished the label nasty, rejecting any enforcement of ladylike. We endured name-calling like childish, ignorant, deluded, manipulated, and manipulative. Some gleefully called the women fat, and ugly, too. This is what political correctness protected us against. Ask women, any woman, if shes going to back down when called fat and ugly. No, the fight for political correctness isnt over. A new phase has just begun.

Read more:

Too PC? - Two Views on Political Correctness - Huffington Post

Citing cost and the availability of cheap space at the landfill in which to bury toxic materials, Casper City Council voted on Tuesday to effectively end its legally mandated electronic waste recycling program.

Council rejected a five-year contract with Electronic Recyclers International, based in Aurora, Colorado, despite a city ordinance passed in 2009 that bars Casper from dumping electronic waste in its landfill.

It probably started as a feel-good measure, said councilman Chris Walsh. If we stop, it can go in our lined landfill.

Electronics can contain lead, chromium, cadmium, mercury, beryllium, nickel, zinc and brominated flame retardants, the website states. When electronics are not disposed of or recycled properly, these toxic materials can present problems.

Walsh and other council members cited the annual $57,400 cost of the five-year contract, despite solid waste division manager Cynthia Langstons clarification that the city would pay that amount only under the worst-case scenario.

It looks to me like were spending $57,000 on a measure thats more politically correct than it is necessary for us, Walsh said. Over the term of this contract, were going to save a quarter million dollars.

Langston had clarified at councils pre-meeting that the actual payment would likely be around $25,000 per year.

She said that dumping electronics in the citys landfill instead would cost $10,000 to $15,000 per year.

In an interview Wednesday, Langston said that she had miscalculated and the cost would be closer to $4,000 per year to dispose of electronics in the landfill, meaning the city would save about $20,000 per year by rejecting the contract.

Council members did not have the information when they voted against the agreement.

At the pre-meeting, Walsh said he was prepared to take what he saw as the politically unpopular position of opposing recycling.

Nobody wants to say that, he said. I say smash it with a bulldozer.

Langston also said that the recycling programs cost was already covered by the approximately $28,000 in annual fees paid by residents earmarked for recycling electronics.

Ending the program will also affect other cities, like Rawlins, which pay Casper to dispose of their residents trash and recyclables.

Councilman Charlie Powell said that while he supported recycling in theory, it was better for Casper to use its landfill rather than truck the electronics to Colorado.

We have enough land to run the landfill for another 1,000 years, Powell said. We can bury a lot of trash in Casper.

Walsh also said that because not all of the electronics that would be shipped to Colorado could be recycled, he would prefer they go into the local landfill.

Langston told council that some parts of certain electronics, like wood panels on old stereo systems, had to be thrown away. But she said 96 percent of the waste would be recycled.

Langston said city residents had demanded an electronics recycling program in the early 2000s after the issue of children picking toxic materials out of old American computers and cellphones in developing countries gained national attention.

You saw the little kids and they were melting the electronics and it was really bad for the environment, she said.

Still, Langston said cutting the program would be an easy way to save money during a budget crunch.

At a time when you want to cut budgets, recycling is what you should cut first, she said.

Walsh speculated that since Casper residents paid a 12-cent monthly fee for the recycling program as part of their utility bill, the city might be able to pass a rate decrease if it began dumping the electronics in its landfill.

Langston said that since the council banned dumping electronic waste in the landfill in 2009, a local organization that helps people with disabilities had recycled the electronics at a discount as a way to provide jobs for that population.

But Northwest Community Action Programs of Wyoming lost several hundred thousand dollars in federal funding this year and was forced to end its recycling program a few weeks ago.

Mayor Kenyne Humphrey asked whether councils rejection of the contract would disrupt operations at the solid waste facility given the citys existing ban on putting electronics in the landfill.

City attorney Bill Luben pointed out that council would need to vote three times to repeal the ordinance. He said council could temporarily approve the contract since it could be cancelled at no charge with 30 days notice.

If you dont move forward with this, Im not sure what the timing is for items to build up, Luben said.

Langston said if her facility filled up, she would ask city manager V.H. McDonald to landfill some of it, despite the ban on doing so.

She acknowledged in an interview that McDonald would be violating city law by allowing her to do that and said he could also instruct her to store the waste in public storage space around Casper.

Langston said the facility would likely reach capacity in the next three to four weeks.

The soonest the ordinance could be repealed would be March 21.

Langston said that according to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the 80 tons of electronics waste the city receives each year could be placed in Caspers lined landfill, which has a physical barrier between the pit and the ground so that toxic materials do not drain directly into the North Platte River watershed.

Powell said the 80 annual tons was a tiny fraction of the 400 tons of waste the landfill collects per day.

The $20,000 the city is likely to save by cancelling the electronics waste program makes up .002 percent of the the sanitation divisions roughly $11 million annual budget.

Council members rejected a motion by councilman Jesse Morgan to postpone a vote on the contract until city staff could explore other, less expensive options for safely disposing of electronics.

I dont think well gain much information that would change anybodys mind, said councilman Bob Hopkins. This is just not a winner.

Langston clarified on Wednesday that she was personally in favor of the recycling program, which she noted was initially advocated for by local residents.

If they really want it, they need to tell their council people, Langston said. We absolutely cover the cost [of the program] through that 12 cents per month charge to citizens. We can do it thats not the issue.

See the original post here:

Slamming 'political correctness,' Casper scraps recycling program ... - Casper Star-Tribune Online