Politically Correct
Jan. 12th, 2005 03:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynA couple of days ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
haikujaguar pointed to the front page of SF Site. One of the book reviews contained the following quote (from the reviewer, not the book): "Sometimes, in fact, we seem to be a massive waste of cells -- Nazis, serial killers, Republicans". I'm pleased to say that the review author has since thought better of the line and revised it, although the new version no longer has a punchline. ("Republicans" has been replaced by "pedophiles".)
And I'm thinking about why I'm pleased.
I was one of a number of people who wrote to the site editor to complain about the "Republicans=serial killers" joke. I spent a little while trying to decide how to phrase my complaint. I didn't want to say "This isn't funny" because, frankly, I thought it was funny. It was unexpected and absurd, and met my qualifications for "funny". But I still didn't like it.
Partly, I didn't like it because this was a site about reviewing science fiction books, and it seems pointless to invoke 21st century politics in review of a book that clearly has nothing to do with politics. In one of my two emails to the editor, I wrote, "I think you would perform a more valuable service for science fiction fans everywhere by reviewing books based on the content of the novel, rather than using the "review" as a platform to air the politics of the reviewer."
This is a reasonable objection -- a simple request to "stay on topic". But it wasn't why the review really bothered me.
What really bothered me was that it was such a pointless jab. If you don't like Republicans and think their policies are dreadful, I can understand that. But what I can't understand is why you'd want to further alienate the half of the country that doesn't agree with you. Is there a Republican in the world who is going to think "Oh no! This woman thinks I'm as bad as a serial killer! I must run out and register as a Democrat right now"? I very much doubt it.
But there are, I am sure, plenty of Republicans who will be happy to seize on this quote as evidence of the hypocrisy and intolerance of Democrats. (And never mind that, for all we know, the reviewer is a Republican.) "Why should I join the 'party of diversity'? Their desire for diversity clearly doesn't extend to me." It made me want to shake the reviewer: "Don't you see you're hurting your own cause?"
That's what offended me, more than anything else. Not that the remark was unfunny or inappropriate, but that it was going to make enemies instead of allies, and if people in the USA want to get the Republicans out of power, they're going to need a lot more friends. They already have plenty of enemies.
The other thing that struck me about this was the "funny" quotient. As I said, I thought the original line was amusing. It annoyed me more than it amused me, but there was still some humor to it. I thought about substitutions, and whether or not they'd be funny. What if, instead of Republicans, she had used:
Democrats Less funny than Republicans. I think this is because Republicans are solidly in power right now (at least at the federal level), and picking on Democrats feels like kicking someone who's down. Besides, since Democrats aren't in power, it's hard to accuse them of having done anything worse than be rather ineffectual.
Blacks/Caucasians/Hispanics etc.: Just racist. Not remotely funny.
Women: Just sexist. Not funny.
Men: This makes me smile. It ought to be "just sexist" but for some reason the idea of "Nazis, serial killers, and men" is making me giggle. I don't know why.
Christians/Jews/atheists: Not funny, probably because there's too much bad blood between various religious groups already.
Pagans/Muslims: Completely offensive; not remotely funny. Too many ignorant people imply that all pagans are baby-killers and all Muslims are terrorists for me to think that slams on those groups are amusing.
Lawyers: Funnier than Republicans, but it still itches at me. Lawyers get a lot of flak in our society, and while they're mostly a rich and successful bunch and can presumably take the ribbing, it's still ... meh. I don't like it.
Blondes: A bit less funny than lawyers, largely because lawyer jokes revolve around lawyer=evil while blonde jokes are all blonde=dumb. "Massive waste of cells" might still apply to stupid people, but the Nazi/serial killer progression no longer makes any sense.
Book critics: In the reviewer's place, this is the one I would have chosen. Book reviewers aren't akin to Nazis or serial killers either, but in some circles, critics are highly disliked. Moreover: the reviewer is one. And if you're going to mock someone, it's most tasteful to mock yourself. If a joke isn't funny when you're the butt of it ... well, it may not be so funny at someone else's expense, either.
"Politically correct" became a joke itself, a decade or more ago. It's true that many advocates of PC-ness stepped way over the line in their efforts to root out offensive language ("niggardly" is not an ethnic slur! And "womyn" is just silly.) There's a stifling of speech to it. Should I ruin a joke because someone might be offended by it?
And on the other hand: is "politically incorrect" really all that funny?
haikujaguar pointed to the front page of SF Site. One of the book reviews contained the following quote (from the reviewer, not the book): "Sometimes, in fact, we seem to be a massive waste of cells -- Nazis, serial killers, Republicans". I'm pleased to say that the review author has since thought better of the line and revised it, although the new version no longer has a punchline. ("Republicans" has been replaced by "pedophiles".)And I'm thinking about why I'm pleased.
I was one of a number of people who wrote to the site editor to complain about the "Republicans=serial killers" joke. I spent a little while trying to decide how to phrase my complaint. I didn't want to say "This isn't funny" because, frankly, I thought it was funny. It was unexpected and absurd, and met my qualifications for "funny". But I still didn't like it.
Partly, I didn't like it because this was a site about reviewing science fiction books, and it seems pointless to invoke 21st century politics in review of a book that clearly has nothing to do with politics. In one of my two emails to the editor, I wrote, "I think you would perform a more valuable service for science fiction fans everywhere by reviewing books based on the content of the novel, rather than using the "review" as a platform to air the politics of the reviewer."
This is a reasonable objection -- a simple request to "stay on topic". But it wasn't why the review really bothered me.
What really bothered me was that it was such a pointless jab. If you don't like Republicans and think their policies are dreadful, I can understand that. But what I can't understand is why you'd want to further alienate the half of the country that doesn't agree with you. Is there a Republican in the world who is going to think "Oh no! This woman thinks I'm as bad as a serial killer! I must run out and register as a Democrat right now"? I very much doubt it.
But there are, I am sure, plenty of Republicans who will be happy to seize on this quote as evidence of the hypocrisy and intolerance of Democrats. (And never mind that, for all we know, the reviewer is a Republican.) "Why should I join the 'party of diversity'? Their desire for diversity clearly doesn't extend to me." It made me want to shake the reviewer: "Don't you see you're hurting your own cause?"
That's what offended me, more than anything else. Not that the remark was unfunny or inappropriate, but that it was going to make enemies instead of allies, and if people in the USA want to get the Republicans out of power, they're going to need a lot more friends. They already have plenty of enemies.
The other thing that struck me about this was the "funny" quotient. As I said, I thought the original line was amusing. It annoyed me more than it amused me, but there was still some humor to it. I thought about substitutions, and whether or not they'd be funny. What if, instead of Republicans, she had used:
Democrats Less funny than Republicans. I think this is because Republicans are solidly in power right now (at least at the federal level), and picking on Democrats feels like kicking someone who's down. Besides, since Democrats aren't in power, it's hard to accuse them of having done anything worse than be rather ineffectual.
Blacks/Caucasians/Hispanics etc.: Just racist. Not remotely funny.
Women: Just sexist. Not funny.
Men: This makes me smile. It ought to be "just sexist" but for some reason the idea of "Nazis, serial killers, and men" is making me giggle. I don't know why.
Christians/Jews/atheists: Not funny, probably because there's too much bad blood between various religious groups already.
Pagans/Muslims: Completely offensive; not remotely funny. Too many ignorant people imply that all pagans are baby-killers and all Muslims are terrorists for me to think that slams on those groups are amusing.
Lawyers: Funnier than Republicans, but it still itches at me. Lawyers get a lot of flak in our society, and while they're mostly a rich and successful bunch and can presumably take the ribbing, it's still ... meh. I don't like it.
Blondes: A bit less funny than lawyers, largely because lawyer jokes revolve around lawyer=evil while blonde jokes are all blonde=dumb. "Massive waste of cells" might still apply to stupid people, but the Nazi/serial killer progression no longer makes any sense.
Book critics: In the reviewer's place, this is the one I would have chosen. Book reviewers aren't akin to Nazis or serial killers either, but in some circles, critics are highly disliked. Moreover: the reviewer is one. And if you're going to mock someone, it's most tasteful to mock yourself. If a joke isn't funny when you're the butt of it ... well, it may not be so funny at someone else's expense, either.
"Politically correct" became a joke itself, a decade or more ago. It's true that many advocates of PC-ness stepped way over the line in their efforts to root out offensive language ("niggardly" is not an ethnic slur! And "womyn" is just silly.) There's a stifling of speech to it. Should I ruin a joke because someone might be offended by it?
And on the other hand: is "politically incorrect" really all that funny?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 10:12 pm (UTC)But, I rather agree with your point: It is funny, but annoying.
Sufficiently annoying that if I were reading a review of a book, such a remark would tend to disincline me from pursueing the book any farther. Is that fair? No. It isn't. But, I do have a gut reaction and that's what it is.
As for the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot? Yes, I'm afraid that's the way I've been seeing it. Personally, I would like to see a multi-party system in the US government. The actions of the Democrats lately have me shaking my head. It's starting to feel like we're heading toward a one party state and the Democrats seem to be leading the charge toward their own extinction. While I don't agree with them, sadly, they're the only opposition party we've got.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 11:32 pm (UTC)I think George Washington was right; to have parties formed at all, no matter the number, was when it all went sour. Democracy would work properly without parties, just like capitalism would work properly without corporations; to give a group the rights of a person is to make the group more powerful than one person could ever be, making individuals effectively powerless.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 12:18 am (UTC)However, since they do exist, they're unlikely to go away. To abolish them would undoubtedly be an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech, and the right of assembly.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 12:34 am (UTC)I don't know enough about the rules and how they apply to be able to say whether we could do a lot better. I've been inclined to think of the "people congregate into mobs and do stupid things" as the problem that plagues large-anything, be it government, unions, companies, or political parties.
But I'm open to the concept that the law could be restructured in a way that weakens the powers of large organizations without infringing on the rights of the individual.
Political Decisions Are About More Than Skill
Date: 2005-01-13 02:02 am (UTC)Let's oversimplify the world by assuming that there is only one decision to be made by a particular office holder. If you had a strong stand on that issue, then wouldn't you prefer an incompetent who shared that belief and was likely to move things infinitesimally in your preferred direction to a brilliant and skilled leader likely to take the country far in the opposite direction.
Of course the real world contains a mixture of issues where there is sharp disagreement and those where overwhelming majorities in favor of one view. The more competent person will be better on the consensus issues, but more often than not, I find the partisan issues to be more important, so it hasn't been unusual for me to find myself voting for the lesser person because I agreed with him more.