as kurosawa showed in rashomon, there are multiple ways to perceive "reality." allowing our language to reflect the perspectives and narratives of our enemies is simply not smart. one can easily engage in difficult political discourse without accepting and perpetuating their world views. i think that's the main point that nathan was making and i find is silly that we need to even go over this.

aml

Here is why I believe you're wrong - for the last thirty years we've allowed the conservatives and republicans to define the issues that concern Americans today. They've created an atmosphere in which every issue is framed in pseudo-pius humbuggery or poisonous connotations designed to elicit negative passions and emotions.

By using phrases such as "union bosses" or "pro-abortion" they're intentionally setting a pattern in which every issue is black and white, in which if you're interested in labour issues, that means that you support the mafia or if you believe that pro-choice is better for women, then you support killing babies. That's why they use those terms - it evokes a visceral reaction which is based on those superstitions, biased, ignorant memes of which we've all been inundated and indoctrinated.

One reason why this kind of politically correct speech is so necessary, is because many conservatives/republicans cannot respect other peoples' boundaries. It is why people like Chris Mathews, Maureen Dowd, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter thrive - they don't care if they hurt people, if they marginalize them or make fools of them. They appeal to the lowest common denominator in which anything and everything is grist for the mill, the notion that if they think it, they can say it.

Unfortunately, because of people like them, we need boundaries, we need parameters, we need lines in which we can say stop, that
phrase doesn't define me or my causes, and is offensive to me and others. Without those borders civility breaks down and we are without a social or manners code which allows us to live together in relative harmony. Political correctness for all its faults and extremes has been beneficial to this country - it has replaced a Victorian manners code which drowned people in minutia and superficial gestures, with one that takes into account all the members of society and not just the rich few.

That it is no longer socially acceptable to joke or comment on another person's gender, race or religious belief is good and even if it is taken to extremes sometimes, it is still better than the alternative.

It is not an attempt to "sniff out heresy" or create a bureau of inquisition or even limit debate, it is a reminder to other liberals/democrats/progressives that phrases and terms that in the past were "acceptable" to society is harmful to our causes. It is a call to us to think before we write or speak and realize that words do have meaning other than the one we intended.

My other suggestion is to just say, "shut up, you're hurting my feelings," which is more often than not quite effective.

I'd agree with you if I could.

In this case, Newman is right, inasmuch as the term reinforces an idea that harms progressive movements.  But sometimes, progressive ideas harm progressive movements - there are times, and issues, and individuals where the conventional progressive wisdom is just off, and I'd argue that correcting it is in the long run more important than not feeding back into conservative ‘memes.’

The problem as I see it is that when you limit the use of terms that have been branded by the conservatives, there is an inevitable bleed to other ways of speaking that are useful.  “Union boss” isn’t such a term, but there are some (pardon me for not thinking of any).  What do you do when you want to launch an honest critique of some bit of received progressive wisdom that coincides, to some degree, with nasty right-wing spin, how much do you dance around sounding like them?  How much do you worry about what turns of phrase are googleable?  Unless out of perverse reasons, you probably don’t want to actually quote Bill O’Reilly, but once you accept this kind of worry as legitimate, I don’t see how it won’t lead to a stifled debate.

If I’m right, Kilgore is almost right, too – Newman was right in this case, but if the issue were one where progressives have some really bad ideas, then we’re better off talking as frankly as possible about how to do better.  This might lead to ‘gotcha’ talk on rightwing blogs, but in the long run, we’re better off with the right talking trash about us as we develop compelling and viable policy prescriptions that progressives can seek to effectuate.

Besides which, in a larger sense, I think that we need to be able, occasionally, to incorporate conservative thinking, where they are correct and we are not.  I can’t think of any specific example of this happening, but it’s, you know, logically possible.  Or, put another way, the superiority of progressivism to my mind is this: conservatives are not always wrong, but progressives are occasionally right.

Along with Ed, do you belong to the Democratic Party?

The blogosphere doesn't take lessons; it gives them. Lots of them.

In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace

The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer

On a little whim

...I ran "bosses" through google news and through google generally. Generally the term was used negatively, regardless of what kind of boss was the subject of the article or story.  Americans seem not to like bosses, period.  The netroots certainly gets itself in an uproar over political bosses. 

I also took a look at "boss" and "bosses" over on Youtube, and ran into far too many game shots to tell me very much...hundreds of bits of anime...except the bosses were the bad guys and very hard to kill.  Search "corporate bosses" however, and it becomes pretty clear that tacking any adjective onto "boss" will lead to primarily negative associations.

What does this prove?  Probably that it is too early to go to bed and there's nothing interesting on television.  :-).  But maybe it also shows that the killer word in union bosses is bosses, not union.

aMike

I don't understand the point of your question. It seems like a smear. It seems like innuendo.

It seems (from this one data point) that if someone disagrees with you, you wonder if they are a Democratic party member or not. I hope I am mistaken about that, it seems like questionable, despicable behavior.

I think that Ellen is using one of the effective Republican memes - the Democrat Party - to make a point about the efficiacy of these things, and the reason they must be resisted.

Remember, the framing conversation, at least in the Lakof style, is not so much about communicating facts as about communicating the underlying values through which we interpret those facts. And it also illuminates core distinctions in value systems that form the foundation for political ideologies.