Category Archives: Political Correctness

Real Time with Bill Maherdisappointed fans last week by taking a night off. So what should fans expect to see tonight on HBO?

Fans were looking forward to hearing Bill Mahers take on Senator Ted Cruz fleeing Texas for Mexico among other stories from Washington that dominated the headlines. Instead, they were treated to the first repeat of season 19.

Things are set to get back on track tonight. There will be a brand new episode ofReal Time with Bill Maheron HBO.

After Maher shares his thoughts with his monologue and New Rule segment, it will be time for the interviews.Real Timereturns by welcoming a controversial media figure.

Bill Mahers lead interview will be with journalist Megyn Kelly. After over a decade at Fox News and a brief stint with NBC, Kelly now hosts The Megyn Kelly Show podcast.

The media coverage of former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden could be one main topic of conversation. Kelly has her own history with President Trump and could also offer some insight into how networks like Fox and NBC approach politics.

Another possible discussion point is cancel culture and political correctness. It was Kellys controversial comments about blackface that ended her professional relationship with NBC. A new crop of Republicans has made cancel culture a point of emphasis so it would be interesting to hear Kelly and Maher go back and forth over the topic.

Both ofReal Time with Bill Mahers panel guests are familiar faces to fans. Bill Maher will welcome Senator Jon Tester and columnist Ezra Klein.

Sen. Tester is a Democrat from Montana. Last year, he published the bookGrounded: A Senators Lessons on Winning Back Rural America. He could share his thoughts on political divisiveness in the country and how the Democratic Party can connect more with middle America.

Klein can be read in theNew York Times and heard on The Ezra Klein Show podcast. His latest book isWhy Were Polarized, a look at how Americas political system is designed to divide people and how Americans are making it easier. This relates to Sen. Testers book, giving fans an idea of what to expect from tonightsReal Timepanel.

Bill Maher has a lot to catch up on tonight so audiences should expect theReal Timehost to bring his A-game. The interview with Megyn Kelly is sure to get a lot of attention considering both participants arent shy about sharing their thoughts on sensitive subjects. Here are the details you need to know on how to watch:

Date: Friday, Feb. 26Start Time:10:00 p.m.TV Channel:HBOLive Stream:Watch on HBO Max

Will you be watching Bill Maher tonight? Let us know in the comments and be sure to check back with Last Night On for all the highlights.

See the original post here:

Is Real Time with Bill Maher new tonight, February 26? - Last Night On

Passive aggression is an intentionally deceitful way to cut someone down without just coming out and expressing dislike or anger.

It is difficult because no back-and-forth exchange will be helpful with this person; neither will getting the supervisor or boss involved. It is almost impossible to outdo them. When the time is right, though, pull your co-worker to the side and let them know that you do not have to like each other but you can try to be respectful with each other at work.

The second scenario is an experience of outright rudeness, a direct personal attack. In this situation, Jasmine says its important to remain as calm as possible and to treat the situation with the thoughtfulness and rationality that you may feel isnt coming from the initiator.

Your timing has to be impeccable. Make sure youre not emotional and when that time comes, seize the opportunity without raising your voice, question the person about what they specifically mean by their comments.

This process of carefully listening, even to a difficult or annoying person, makes understanding their position or point of view easier, which is incredibly important in dealing with conflict. Equally important is understanding why what theyve said is hurtful to you has it, for example, undermined a value or element of your identity?

When you better appreciate what precisely they intend by their comments and why those comments have stung you, Jasmine says you have an opportunity to cool the situation down.

In a way this takes the sting out of whats happening. Then you can go to a colleague or a friend or trusted colleague and formulate a plan; youll be better able to respond.

Loading

Although there is no single template to work with on how you confront the aggressor in fact there are countless conflict communication techniques to consider and numerous ways to actually seek a resolution Jasmine says a few things remain true no matter the situation.

The first is what weve already covered: be analytical, strategic and level-headed. Act when your emotion has subsided.

The second is that when it comes to bullying, whatever you do, dont go it alone.

And finally, be protective of your own safety.

The most important thing to remember is that you have a right to physical, emotional and mental safety at work.

If you have a work-related question, send it through to jonathan@theinkbureau.com.au

Read the rest here:

How do I deal with political correctness in the office? - Sydney Morning Herald

Incessant Republican complaints about "cancel culture" might have more credibility if the Republicans didn't engage in so much canceling of their own.

The Grand Old Party's alarm over "cancel culture," the hottest buzzword of its sort since "political correctness" was all the rage, has hardly been subtle.

"I don't know where it ends," Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said in a ferocious defense of then-President Donald Trump during the latest impeachment debate. "The cancel culture doesn't just go after conservatives and Republicans. It won't just stop there. It'll come for us all. That's what's frightening."

"Cancel culture," in case you're wondering, is much like the earlier, easily abused catchphrase "political correctness." Nurtured by social media, it originally referred to the withdrawal of support from public figures or companies for something considered objectionable or offensive enough to be worthy of group shaming. If you didn't like "PC" you'll really hate "cancel culture," especially if you're on the receiving end.

As a scourge, the term proved too tempting for Trump's legal team to pass over during his impeachment trial. Trump attorney Michael van der Veen labeled the trial "constitutional cancel culture" and "a shameful effort as a deliberate attempt by the Democrat Party to smear, censor and cancel, not just President Trump, but the 75 million Americans who voted for him."

This cancel culture theme already was getting popular in GOP circles as early as last summer's Republican National Convention where Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina ("Don't give in to cancel culture..."), former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and former Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle called for an end to "cancel culture."

But you don't need to go any further than the ex-president himself, who constantly referred to news media as "fake news" and "enemies of the state" when he disapproved of coverage, which was almost daily.

Of course, there's nothing unusual or unique to one party when it comes to presidents who disapprove of their news coverage. But presidential feuds with bearers of unwelcome news can have real consequences. Just ask Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. He was fired from the National Security Council and forced to retire early, without protest from Republicans, after he testified truthfully about conduct that led to Trump's first impeachment.

Now, for some dissenters, like Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the canceling is coming in even from members of his own family. As one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, the Illinois Air National Guard lieutenant colonel from Channahon has been rebuked by county GOP parties across the state and by some of his own family.

Eleven family members sent him a handwritten two-page letter of outrage two days after he called for Trump's removal from office following the deadly Jan. 6 storming at the Capitol. First reported by The New York Times, it accused him of having joined "'the devil's army' (Democrats and the fake news media)" for his public break with the president.

"Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God!" they wrote. "You have embarrassed the Kinzinger family name!"

That's sad, but not too surprising, considering how deeply countless other households have been divided in these polarized times between mainstream Republicans and Trump loyalists.

Despite his having lived a life that falls short of what one might call an ideal Christian, Trump still maintains a downright religiously devoted following, which has helped his approval ratings among GOP voters to tick back up after a drop following the Jan. 6 insurrection.

That enables him to maintain a tight hold as potential kingmaker or king breaker in GOP primaries. That helps to explain why even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell excoriated Trump's role regarding the Jan. 6 riot as "a disgraceful dereliction of duty" on the former president's part, then voted in his favor, claiming it was unconstitutional to impeach a president who no longer was in office. That's a thin reed, indeed, since a wide array of constitutional law experts disagree. But it's thick enough to help him put the divisiveness aside until the next blowup, perhaps around the bipartisan "9/11-type commission" for which Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing.

All of which exposes "cancel culture" to be far less urgent than the "No. 1 issue for the country to address," as Jordan called it in a Fox News interview. I'd rank it farther down, way below the older but still persistent challenge of getting straight talk and accountability from our public officials, regardless of their party. We need it.

The Tribune Content Agency distributes the Clarence Page column.

Read the rest here:

Let's cancel the phony 'cancel culture' fight in today's politics - theday.com

Image courtesy of newsedgepoint.com

By Brendan Eagen

The one thing everyone can agree on in politics is that it is always changing. As time passes, certain issues are resolved, others are magnified, people are born, and others die. So it goes. As we depart from the Trump administration, the ever-changing nature of the political sphere has become more apparent than ever. Trumps politics have most noticeably changed the Republican party. While Republican lawmakers go to war over whether or not they should stay loyal to Trump, the future of the party and American conservatism at large is fairly uncertain. According to Matthew Walther of The Week, that direction may, at least in part, be determined by an emerging group of voters unveiled by Trump, which he calls Barstool conservatives in reference to the sports website popular amongst young people.

Walther describes this novel voting bloc and how it was uncovered by Trump in his article The Rise of Barstool Conservatives. In the article, Walther claims that Trump brought the conservative movement to an end by recognizing that millions of Americans do not oppose or even care about same-sex marriage, abortion amongst other issues which had been hallmarks of conservative thinking since its inception. Rather, according to Walther, this new breed of the conservative voter has vague concerns about political correctness and Social Justice Warriors, opposition to the popularization of so-called critical race theory, sentimentality about the American flag and military.

What distinguishes the Barstool conservative even further from a classic conservative is what he accepts. A far cry from the religious conservatives who had formed the Republican conscious before, the Barstool conservative welcomes the common vices of pornography, drug use, and legalized gambling.

And who would be the most visible exemplar of the Barstool conservative? Why of course it would be Barstool Founder and President Dave Portnoy. Portnoys public profile has steadily risen as Barstool has gained in popularity. Known mainly for founding Barstool, his low tolerance for political correctness, candid personality, and his one bite everybody knows the rules pizza reviews have earned him an individual spotlight. As Walther points out, Portnoys persona has been largely apolitical. However, according to Walther, that changed when he began criticizing coronavirus lockdowns last year. When that happened, in Walthers words, it became clear that he embodied the worldview of millions of Americans.

Portnoys biggest issue with the lockdowns has been the restrictive measures placed on small businesses and the governments dysfunction in providing them relief. His frustration led him to create The Barstool Fund, aimed at helping small businesses across the country.

Nobody seems to care in the government, or at least theyre not doing anything acting like they care. No plan, no relief, no bailout, said Portnoy in the video announcing the creation of the fund. Since its inception, Portnoy has further endeared himself to the hearts of right-wing champions of small business.

The belief that the government should be doing more to help small businesses during this time further distinguishes Portnoy, and Barstool conservatives in general, from the traditional vein of conservatism up to now. Portnoys macroeconomic views aside, Walther calls the economic stance of Barstool conservatives at large a mixture of standard libertarian talking points and pseudo-populism, embracing lower taxes on one hand and stimulus checks on the other. And herein lies a small paradox in this newly discovered branch of conservatism. While many are still not enthusiastic about large government and regulation, they are less averse to public intervention in private business than a traditional conservative would be, as long as policy is simple and helpful. These somewhat contradictory beliefs do not necessarily demonstrate a fatal flaw in the rationale of Barstool conservatives; rather, they are the product of the voting blocs lack of organization and neoteric nature.

The rise of Barstool conservatives could present Republicans with a long-term solution to their ongoing youth problem. The name Barstool alone conjures up thoughts of day-drinking, backyard-beer die playing, Patagonia fleece-wearing fraternity men to anyone familiar with the platform. The modern frat bro, with all his faults, has grown up in a world where religious beliefs are not mainstream and economic failures are a virtual certainty. Therefore, this shift away from traditional conservative ideology towards a confusing mix of libertarianism and acceptance of government bailout and relatively unspecified anti-politically correct stances is not unexpected.

Politics does not stagnate. New people mature into members of political society and their experiences and beliefs, inherently different from those who came before them, reshape the political landscape. While the Republican Party continues to question its identity moving forward in the aftermath of Trumps more than unconventional exit from the oval office, expect Barstool conservatives to play a large role in forming that identity.

More here:

Previous The Rise of the Barstool Conservative - Catholic University of America The Tower

THOSE who hold certain views on subjects such race, immigration, Brexit, Islam, homosexuality, etc. often complain that political correctness prohibits them from expressing their opinions. They then proceed to express precisely the opinions they say they are not allowed to express.

The purpose of this ploy is to discredit those who hold a different view by pre-emptively labelling them as members of the politically-correct brigade.

For example, C MacArt writes: Speak out, and youre branded a racist (HAS, Feb 2). In two recent letters, Mr MacArt has spoken out against liberals and the left and the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM). Two correspondents, R Brown (HAS, Feb 5) and myself (HAS, Feb 9), have responded with counter-arguments. Neither of us has branded MacArt a racist.

In the six weeks following the lynching of George Floyd in the US, political correctness did not stop the publication of more than 40 letters in HAS attacking BLM, with just 11 written in defence. Not one of those 11 letters included accusations of racism against other correspondents.

Thomas Ball (HAS, Jan 26) praises Mr MacArt for sticking his head above the parapet, and Michael Baldasera applauds Mr Balls prophetic remarks, warning darkly that fear stalks our great democracy, in which certain controversial issues are never mentioned (HAS, Feb 2).

Mr Ball complains that you cant express Christian values nowadays in case you are labelled homophobic. A fundamental Christian principle is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Its hard to see how adherence to that principle could lead to a charge of homophobia.

Treat gay people as you would like to be treated if you were gay.

Pete Winstanley, Durham.

Read the original post:

Letters: 'People who express racist or homophobic purposely discredit any different views by labelling them as the "political correct...

Many of you probably haven't stayed in a hotel since the pandemic began. For me, with my ongoing medical and dental issues, it's still on the calendar. And the situation, to paraphrase David Byrne of Talking Heads fame, is not the "same as it ever was."

First of all, there's no daily room service. Pre-pandemic, housekeepers would come in every day to make your bed, deliver toiletries, pick up the besnotted tissues on the floor, neatly pile up dirty underwear, place shoes in a row, and put up with every manner of abstract abuse concocted by the guests - who are out sightseeing, riding roller coasters, skiing, or engaging in other activities those who clean their rooms can ill afford.

They're not called "maids" anymore, by the way - just like flight attendants aren't called "stewardesses." This type of political correctness has less to do with gender issues than the removal of labels that seem demeaning and inaccurate. But they still have to do their unsavory jobs, usually without hope of receiving a tip. And those who decry $7.25 an hour as an unreasonable minimum wage ought to look at what housekeepers and food servers - formerly called "waiters" and "waitresses" - are subjected to. So housekeepers are probably glad they don't have to put up with guests as much these days.

Most hotels don't send in the housekeeping crew until after a set of guests has departed - and then, the room will likely lie fallow for 24 hours before someone else stays in it. The next occupant will "break the seal" on the door - something that offers little protection but makes the squeamish feel better. If you need extra shampoo or toilet paper or a laundry bag, a staffer will politely deliver it to your door. Some hotels, like the Tulsa Club, don't put ice buckets in the rooms, but they'll bring one to you upon request. That hotel and others in which we've stayed give you your own bottle of hand sanitizer.

Don't expect to enjoy a sit-down meal in most hotels, either. The Warren Duck Club at the Doubletree in Tulsa, for instance, has been closed for a long time, although you can still get your chocolate chip cookie at the front desk, whereas the Doubletree in Arlington doesn't even go that far. The Tulsa Club does have a limited dinner menu, and it's quite good; you can get your breakfast delivered in the morning, with several choices.

But even though many people have avoided hotels since last March, most rooms seem to be occupied at those we've stayed at. And those patrons seem to be more annoying than guests during normal times. It could be I'm noticing bad behavior more, due to the paranoia that comes with going anywhere at all. Or it could be that most current hotel occupants are of the obnoxious "freedumb fighters" variety - those who believe facial coverings infringe upon their constitutional rights, but consider riots at the U.S. Capitol to be noble exercises in democracy. Unfortunately for the freedumb fighters, hotels force them to wear masks, or show them the door. I've seen it happen.

If there's a jerk staying at a hotel, it's a good bet he or she will be in the room on either side of us, or directly above us. I attribute this to "Poindexter luck," which as I've said, is like Jordy Verrill luck: "Always in, and always bad." The smorgasbord of noise includes incessant thumping and banging, crying babies, spats between couples, yelling and drunken frat boys, and in one case, repeated loud farting and the ensuing laughter that always follows.

The worst time I can remember was years ago, at the Hampton Inn in Norman, when our son Cole was at OU. We kept hearing a series of "thump thump thump thump" that always ended with an especially loud "THUMP!" at the end - and then started all over again. Finally, unable to sleep, I called the front desk to complain. The desk clerk said he'd get to the bottom of it. About 10 minutes later, the racket stopped, and a couple of minutes after that, our phone rang. It was the clerk, who apologized and said, "The OU gymnastics team is having a meet tomorrow morning, and I guess the guys from the other team were doing their floor routines in the hall." Lovely.

The other night, we had among our worst experiences in months. First, the room was too warm, and we're among those weirdos who like to sleep in a frigid room under piles of blankets. If that wasn't bad enough, the fellow in the room next door kept yelling, "Wooooo-eee!" and then talking constantly, and loudly. Others joined the fray. The desk clerk had to visit the room twice before she finally got this idiot and his cohorts to shut up.

But it didn't end there. Within 10 minutes of the zipping of the next-door lips, the banging overhead commenced. It sounded as if someone was moving giant pieces of heavy furniture not often found in hotel rooms. Or playing full-court basketball. Or perhaps trolls were up there, asking which goat was crossing their bridge, trip-trip-trop. When it began to sound like explosive charges set to bring the building down, I called again, and began with the apologetic mantra I seem to be employing more and more these days: "I don't mean to be a b*tch, but..."

So maybe Byrne was right, and it is the same as it ever was. Only cleaner. The hotels are pretty clean these days. Except I did notice a circle from the bottom of a water glass one time lately. ...

Go here to see the original:

COLUMN: It's not the same as it ever was - Tahlequah Daily Press

It's already a month since the fourth and final season of the French show Call My Agent dropped on a popular streamer, and its all that everyones been recommending. In the five years since its existence, the show has been a huge hit in France but also gathered cult status in several countries, including the UK, the USA and India.The shows producers have said they are surprised at its monster success outside their country. Called Dix Pour Cent (Ten Per Cent, after the commission that movie star agents charge actors) in France, the show is set in a talent management agency that sees its hardworking maverick agents pull out a new real-life celebrity (playing themselves) out of a pickle in each episode. It has clever writing, the compulsatory salt in any half-decent show, but its especially appealing for upchucking the political correctness American office shows shove down our throat. Theres ample sleeping with bosses, nepotism, bringing pets and kids to work, normalising adultery and bluffing out of contracts. The French way, like their lacit, is hard to understand by the rest of the world.Despite the mischief, there are prized lessons to be learned from the show. Call my Agent is as much an education on an original Parisian womans style as it is on her agency over her mind and body.Much of this is seen in one of its lead characters Andrea Martel. The attractive and bossy leading lady is only incidentally homosexual. She could have also been a man doing the same role or a heterosexual woman, and therein lies her characters fortitude. Andrea is dressed in menswear-inspired suits that match her gamine frame perfectly and are simultaneously au courant. Her wardrobe is timeless, muted and built on shirts, turtle necks and the odd piece of jewellery. Her femininity comes in from her baby-blue eyes and her perennial red pout.

The shows costume designer Anne Schotte has said in an interview that she deliberately dodged the clichs of French fashion Breton stripes and berets drawing inspiration instead of real-life office-goers. The change is so obviously low-key, you actually wonder if this is really Paris.Schotte has especially followed one eternal rule of Parisian chic: mixing high street with designer wear, modern with retro and Dior and Zadig & Voltaire with Zara. Andrea, the strongest female Caucasian character written in too long, never lets her clothes speak louder than she does. Thus she doesnt become a pastiche of a lesbian or an independent woman.Call My Agent arguably benumbs the Indian watchers palate accustomed to the bedazzle of Bollywood and its Wives or the brand-dropping ladies of Sex & the City. But look around you, unless you work in a fashion magazine, no one is dripping in brand-name fashion. Mercifully, no one here wears trackpants or torn jeans either. Hallelujah.The women in the show are all rather diverse from Andrea to Noemie (the sexpot who sleeps with her boss) to Camille (a senior partners daughter) to Sofia (biracial receptionist and struggling actor) to Charlotte (polished Machiavelli who has had three kids with three different husbands) to Catherine (suspicious wife who ends up having an affair). But they are all funny, attractive, curious and ironic. Each one exudes an enviable nonchalance. Not one of them wears too much makeup, too many colours or too many accessories.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's own)

Follow this link:

French women don't give une figue - Times of India

So, all city schools named for these heretofore heroes will be renamed at a cost of close to half a million tax dollars.

Even the school named for Californias Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein will be renamed because in 1986, as mayor, she had a Confederate flag in need of repair replaced at City Hall.

In the new woke America of 2021, great peoples accomplishments are utterly irrelevant, and they are reviled as villains if contemporary leftists find they ever did or said anything the leftists dont like. Indeed, in the tradition of the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, and the Chinese communists Cultural Revolution, todays politically correct standard is nothing less than 200-proof progressive perfection. How proud Chairman Mao would be of Americas Red Guards.

This is all part of todays cancel culture in which leftists seek to destroy professionally and personally anyone daring to deviate from their orthodoxy. Thus, a record number of Americans famous and ordinary alike have been removed from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media. Indeed, when a U.S. president can be banned, we are all vulnerable.

Major pressure is now put on advertisers to stop sponsoring any TV or radio shows whose political views offend the Left, and many major corporations no longer do business with any company whose politics are insufficiently progressive, for fear of leftist boycotts.

The effort to purge our culture of non-leftist ideas also seeks to excoriate or erase from history anyone who ever deviated from the shifting present dictates of political correctness.

So, we see a record number of statues being torn down, most because of leftist charges of racism, with no regard to historical context. Not just Confederate monuments are toppled, but statues of our Founding Fathers (especially Washington and Jefferson) are defiled as well.

Statues on the chopping block even include those of Abraham Lincoln. The great emancipator is now disdained by leftists for not adhering to present attitudes toward Native Americans and for having made some racial statements no enlightened person would make today but were sadly the norm two centuries ago.

Dr. Douglas Young

Credit: Salai Sayasean

Credit: Salai Sayasean

Even a statue of the greatest abolitionist of all, an escaped slave and father of Americas civil rights movement, Frederick Douglass, was destroyed last year in Rochester, New York.

We erect statues of historic figures to pay tribute to their contributions, not to honor their flaws flaws being far less remarkable than contributions. That someone was able to accomplish a lot of good in spite of weaknesses only makes his achievements more impressive, and perfect people dont make history. As William Faulkner understood, You dont love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults.

Of course, we wish President Lincoln had protected Native Americans more and had never said a racist word. Instead of stripping President Washington or Jeffersons name from schools, why not teach students about the totality of their lives and let each student decide how to assess them? Teach all the facts, freely discuss many interpretations, and let students think critically for themselves.

But totalitarians have no interest in letting people think for themselves. By definition, they have no tolerance for any but their own views which they seek to impose on the rest of us.

Throughout our vast, corrupted educational-industrial complex, such leftists seek to delegitimize America itself (especially our Western Judeo-Christian capitalist foundations). The goal is to convince the youth that our founding and entire history are so irredeemably stained by racism, imperialism, classism, and sexism that our national heritage is not worth preserving.

But, as radio talk show host and writer Dennis Prager points out, its not fair to compare America to a utopia that never existed but to the rest of the world. And can you name a better country thats done remotely as much good for remotely as many folks all over this planet?

Finally, as Christ said, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.

About the Author

Maureen Downey has written editorials and opinion pieces about local, state and federal education policy since the 1990s.

View post:

Opinion: Instead of striking Lincolns name from schools, teach students totality of his life - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Words Have Power

Content warning: This article mentions and discusses offensive words related to people with disabilities.

Its not oversensitive, or too new of a concern for organizations and businesses to take a hard look at reforming ableist language. Ableism itself is not a new phenomenon, even if ableism is a new word to some of us. And avoiding offensive language throughout organizations isnt just about preventing bad publicity. Curbing use of stigmatizing and problematic language makes workplaces safer for diversity, more productive for employees, and friendlier to customers and clients.

This should certainly include identifying and ending use of universally offensive disability slurs, like the word retarded. Few would seriously argue that it is okay for any organization to tolerate either intentionally insulting or casual use of this word, now widely referred to as The R Word. But the effort to reduce ableist language should also include rethinking more commonly-used and traditionally-accepted disability words and expressions that while not always offensive, tend to reinforce ableist thinking.

Start with abusive, corrosive slurs to avoid in all cases, effective yesterday.

These words are peppered throughout some peoples everyday conversation, and have many different shades of contextual meaning. However, they are all terms that have historically been used to label people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And while these and similar words were at one time considered technical or scientific labels, they have always also carried a heavy social stigma and power to inflict real harm. Most people with these disabilities have intensely painful experiences being called retarded, moron, or idiot in clearly insulting ways. The fact that a people still use such terms without intending to hurt disabled people doesnt matter. They are harmful in all cases.

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities, particularly those actively involved in self-advocacy, are strikingly clear that they do not accept use of these terms, especially retarded, under any circumstances. That should be reason enough for any of us to banish these words from our vocabularies.

Other disabilities are widely stigmatized too, including physical and mobility impairments, and mental illness. When we use cripple, invalid, crazy, insane, or stupid to refer to a person, either face to face or indirectly, there is really no way to interpret it as neutral or socially acceptable, particularly in anything like a public or professional environment. So we should stop using them to refer to any person, no matter what we think of them.

True, there are exceptions where people with certain disabilities use derogatory terms among themselves like a disabled person referring to themselves with irony or pride as a cripple or crip, and people with mental illness calling themselves mad. But even when we reclaim such terms for ourselves, we do so with a great deal of care and discretion. And this is not a privilege open to people outside our disability communities.

As a general rule, these are words that should never be applied to a person, certainly not in public and professional settings. Organizations can feel confident adopting a zero tolerance policy on these terms, with no need for elaborate nuance or justifications.

Next, rethink how we use more casual, everyday disability words.

But what about disability words that are used in more ordinary conversation when youre not even talking about a person?

Until fairly recently, even disability advocates typically agreed to an informal deal. The general public would stop using a small handful of the most harmful disability slurs, while more causal disability adjectives and metaphors would be regarded as acceptable because of their long use and relative lack of personal offense.

That may have been a workable deal 25 years ago. Now is a good time to revisit that bargain. And this is where things become a little more complex and open to interpretation. Its also where examining disability language provokes the most pushback.

Is it really offensive or harmful to call a damaged ship or a slumping economy crippled? Is it really a problem to call a chaotic situation crazy, a futile or badly designed routine as stupid or insane? Whats wrong with calling a questionable excuse lame, or an oblivious or obstinate person deaf to criticism?

The harm of terms and uses like this is indirect, but no less real. They all reinforce the idea that a good way to describe bad things is to compare them to disabilities, or to disabled people. They may not be personally offensive against any particular disabled person. But they contribute to ableism, which harms disabled people by validating discriminatory assumptions about disabled people. At the very least, we should rethink how we use these terms, including in situations where it may seem harmless.

Attempt at a general rule ...

Language is flexible and fluid by nature. But many people crave rules, and organizations seem to thrive on them. So here is a shot at a general rule for use of disability words and expressions:

First, dont use the small handful of terms that disabled people themselves consistently tell us are entirely off limits. Dont argue the point or try to come up with logical inconsistencies. Just do as asked, because its the decent, respectful thing to do.

Second, try not to use disability-related words to describe any person, thing, idea, or situation as in any way bad. Doing this reinforces the ableist habit of thinking that disabilities are always negative. This is harmful even if the specific use of these words isnt directed at a person, or intended to offend or insult anyone.

Alternatives and cautions ...

All of this will inevitably raise the question often expressed with some exasperation or resentment If we arent allowed to use these words anymore, what can we say?

Two helpful resources by disability justice advocate Lydia Brown offer practical answers. In a 2012 blog post titled Ableism/Language, updated in June, 2020, Brown thoroughly explores the subject of ableist words and expressions, and offers a helpful list of alternatives for a wide variety of words and situations. A followup pos from 2014t, Violence in Language: Circling Back to Lingusitic Ableism,revisits the first essay, reflecting on its reception, use, and potential for misunderstanding and misuse.

In both articles, Brown emphasizes that the listed ableist terms and suggested alternatives should not be considered definitive, or grounds for denouncing people. This partially answers the most common objection to the entire conversation, which is that it is all just language policing designed to create grounds for canceling people we dont like or disagree with, for common things that most people say everyday. But whether or not this is true for some who criticize use of ableist language, it is decidedly not true for Brown. And it doesnt have to be part of good-faith efforts to reform how we use disability words and expressions.

Lydia Brown writes:

If you find yourself using this ableist language, please take a minute to re-examine how your perspective has been informed by ableism. This isn't an accusation or an insinuation that you are automatically an Evil Person. We have all participated in ableist structures, and are all continually learning and unlearning.

An added benefit of consciously reshaping our use of disability words and expressions is that it forces us to think more deeply about what we are talking about, and express our thoughts and feelings more precisely, maybe more humanely. Crazy, insane, idiot, and moron arent just offensive to people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities. They are also cliches that allow us to write people off without having to contend with their ideas and actions. Worse, they stand for value systems in which people are judged based on arbitrary notions of intelligence and rationality. These criteria deserve to be questioned, at least now and then.

Finally, it makes sense to ask what we are really losing in any organization if we stop calling each other, our colleagues, or our clients and customers stupid, insane, or lame? What value do these negative value judgements and name-calling ever really have?

Person with a disability or disabled person?

Well-meaning people, including many with disabilities, disagree over which of these is the most respectful and accurate terminology. Both approaches have valid arguments in their favor. Person First language, in which person is always placed before the disability is intended to emphasize personhood over any impairment. On the other hand, those who prefer Identify First argue that disability is an important part of a disabled persons identity, not merely a characteristic and that in any case its simpler and less fussy. For organizations, the best strategy may be to allow both terms, while respecting the preferences of actual disabled people as they come, including individual employees, colleagues, and customers with disabilities. Meanwhile steer away from euphemisms like differently abled, physically challenged, or special needs. These are well-meaning but anxious and tortured terms that few actual disabled people use or prefer.

Getting started ...

Dont ignore ableist language because its unfamiliar, or because you fear a backlash. Businesses and organizations should work now to overcome their nervousness and skepticism, and discover how they tolerate and use disability language, starting with three steps:

1. Consistently discourage negative uses of disability-related words in everyday interactions inside the organization.

This means clearly declaring zero tolerance for the most heavily stigmatized ableist words. It might be an employee calling a customer retarded, referring to them as retarded while commiserating with a coworker, or simply calling a new procedure retarded as a way showing disapproval. All should be prohibited and addressed when they occur. Likewise, in no case should any person inside the organization, or any client or customer, be called or referred to as crazy, insane, stupid, moron, or any disability label in a context that would be likely to insult or denigrate them.

2. Identify individuals who make a personal habit of using disability-related words in negative ways, and specifically insist they stop and reassess.

People who call other people or situations retarded, lame, crazy, or idiotic usually do it a lot. Its a habit that reflects a generally negative and judgmental mindset and personality thats corrosive and harmful even when disability words arent used. Such toxicity can be a real drag on internal cooperation and business success. And its not only fair to pick on specific people for actually using ableist disability words, it often makes sense from a Human Resources standpoint to focus on repeat offenders, who inevitably stand out anyway.

3. Review internal and public documents and media, and replace disability-adjacent words with less stigmatizing alternatives.

Ableist language is probably less common in formal communication, like internal memos and training materials, or press releases and advertisements. But it is still important to review these things occasionally, simply because ableist language both severe and more casual is still so pervasive and habitual. Its also easier to correct even the mildest problematic wording when you find it in writing, because there is more time to come up with better alternatives.

For example:

Conclusion

Dont be deterred by arguments about good intentions, free speech, or political correctness. While not every ableist word is equally offensive, ableist language is harmful. And the good news is that its also unnecessary. A reasonable amount of effort and creativity put towards eliminating ableist words and expressions can make any business or organization a more welcoming and healthier environment, both for the people that work in them and for the people they serve.

See the article here:

Its Time To Stop Even Casually Misusing Disability Words - Forbes

The people arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection had an 18% bankruptcy rate twice as high as the national average according to a Washington Post investigation. A quarter of the rioters had been sued by a creditor, and 1 in 5 faced losing their home to foreclosure.

As a scholar of American political economy who focuses on middle-class economic precarity, I found this discovery unsurprising.

Since 2017 I have interviewed 48 Americans going through Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy the kind of bankruptcy primarily filed by people making above-median income or trying to save a home from foreclosure and watched about 500 bankruptcy court proceedings. When talking about their bankruptcies with my research participants, I also touched on their life histories and politics.

Most did not blame the government or Americas lack of social safety net for their troubles. Instead, they blamed the entitlement of others for ruining things for hardworking Americans. More often than not, I found, the entitled Americans they had in mind were members of minority groups.

This kind of racialized blame was most explicit among white, middle-aged Trump supporters, who comprised about one-third of my research participants.

In 2017, I interviewed a white mechanic and father of three from Utah who had filed personal bankruptcy after taking out payday loans to get treatment for his suicidal teenage son. His insurance covered only group therapy, so he paid US$5,000 out of pocket to send his son to a specialized treatment facility.

After listening to his story, I asked the mechanic Ill call him Greg what he saw as the biggest challenges facing America.

What drives me crazy is these people saying they need reparations from the Civil War, Greg said, asserting that slavery was generations past and criticizing the idea that anyone today could feel entitled to compensation.

Thats the problem with todays society, kids especially: entitlement, he concluded.

I heard a similar sentiment from Amy, a white retail manager and mother of two from eastern Massachusetts.

Speaking of the shoplifters at her job, she said, I tend to find that its the young welfare moms who do it most, asserting that most of the time theyre of the Black and Puerto Rican ethnicity.

Amy told me she had previously relied on rent subsidies and other social services. But she didnt seem to consider herself a welfare mom.

All the time that Ive worked and accomplished stuff in my life and I cant get assistance when I need it, she said.

While white Trump supporters were more likely to identify people of color as undeserving recipients of government welfare, they werent the only ones. Some people of color in bankruptcy also invoked racial stereotypes about people who manipulate the system to gain an unfair advantage, albeit in a subtler fashion.

Ive never been on welfare, I have no illegitimate kids, Ive never collected some food stamps. Why dont I get rewarded for behaving better? said a woman Ill call Jennifer, a Black administrative assistant who was filing personal bankruptcy to save her condo in central Massachusetts from foreclosure.

More than 250,000 people undergo Chapter 13 bankruptcy every year in the United States. Scholars find that debt is anxiety-provoking but that undergoing bankruptcy does not seem to create awareness of middle-class precarity or calls for a more robust American safety net.

But personal bankruptcy is actually part of Americas patchwork public-private safety net.

Each year, Americans get rid of more than $100 billion in debt by filing for bankruptcy because the federal government says they do not have to pay it back. Research shows this debt-relief system disproportionately benefits white Americans, contributing to the increasing wealth gap between Black and white people.

My research participants would likely bristle at the idea they were receiving a handout. They saw themselves as hardworking people whod unfairly fallen on hard times while everyone else particularly women, minorities and millennials got an undeserved handout.

These narratives are part of something I call the Archie-Edith dynamic, referencing the 1970s sitcom All in the Family. The protagonist of the show was a lovable bigot, Archie Bunker, who railed against social change and political correctness.

I started looking into Archie Bunker after interviewing a white manager at a logistics company in eastern Massachusetts who actually called himself Archie Bunker in our conversation. This Archie partly attributed his bankruptcy to being overlooked at work because females and minorities were being promoted instead.

In the TV show All in the Family, Archie often succeeds in steamrolling the more moderate views of his wife, Edith. In real life, I found that the financially precarious Archie Bunker types often persuade others to go along with, or at least give credence to, their racialized explanation of economic strife.

For example, when I asked Patty, a white medical transcriptionist in bankruptcy, whether she felt social programs in the U.S. were abused, she said she hadnt been around people that have abused the system.

But then Patty brought up her husband, a general contractor.

Hes worked with some Hispanics who are not legal, but somehow they are able to pull off and collect money from the system, she said, with agitation. Thats a form of entitlement to me! You know?

See the original post:

I interviewed 48 bankrupt Americans here's who they blame for their financial troubles - The Conversation US