Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Political correctness

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon language.svg

This Language related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

A page about Political Correctness, or about Conservatives?[edit]

The intro text on this page seems to be all about the conservative view on political correctness rather than on the term itself. Political correctness should be (in my opinion) defined as any school of thought that triggers somebody to self-censor what they say. Yes, censoring the word "fuck" on television should be considered political correctness, as well as i.e. saying african american instead of black.

And by the way, why is the word "fuck" censored on this page as well, using the term "f-word" instead? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Really bias article here[edit]

Both sides of the story. Yes some conservatives abuse the term, but some alt-left liberals abuse the term as well. Give both point of views cheers. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Or, bear with me here, one side could just be plain wrong. And if their arguments can't stand on their own merits, why the everloving fuck should we prop the stupid things up? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie But how can you be so sure? Commie Lib (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
While there are indeed nutters and extremists in every group (just as many moonbats as wingnuts for example), the fact that you even used the term "alt-left" says a lot about you...Skadooshbag (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

How to respond to these arguments?[edit]

Every so often I like to try and penetrate a echo chamber. This time I came across this video, can someone point out any logical fallacies? Commie Lib (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


...since their edits were removed. You could, in future, present counter arguments on a talk-page. There are legitimate criticisms of political correctness. Rationalissimo (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rationalissimo Only one of their edits got reverted, and that was due to being in a pre-existing section that was complete shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, I am corrected. Rationalissimo (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The Blue Lotus is racist?[edit]

Wasn't The Blue Lotus a reaction against the stereotypes around Japanese people at the time? Maybe it's subconsciously offensive but it's nothing compared to the portrayal of Africans in The Congo. Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've learned since. Still, given the fact the book was intended to criticize European racist attitudes towards the Chinese, I replaced it with Tintin in America, which is much more problematic. Catgrrl38 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

no. no it really isnt. the blue lotus is so much worse. tintin in the congo is even worse. not sure about about tintin in thailand, im not sure its canon. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
honestly cant see how anyone can see 'in america' as more problematic than 'the blue lotus', its caricatures are horrifically racist. if anything, tintin in america is positively progressive in comparison. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
ive reverted. 'in america' being so much less egregious than 'blue lotus' is kinda the whole point of the (little bit too on the nose) joke being made. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
on a tangent, i used to have tintin's hair cut, sort of. much much blonder though. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I give up. There's no use talking to these liberals. Catgrrl38 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually nevermind, I will. Both the America one and The Blue Lotus were intended to be anti-racist, but still contained racist imagery within them. The former is more egregious because he based all of the minority characters on stereotypes, whereas with the latter he at least attempted to present an accurate depiction of the Chinese. But to be honest, it would be better if it just recommended the Soviet one and the Congo one, and didn't say to avoid either Tintin in America or the Blue Lotus. Also, in case you were wondering, I created this account because I forgot the password to the original one and didn't link an email address. Catgrrl38 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Done it. Catgrrl38 (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually I don't know. Maybe The Blue Lotus is more racist, but I think it's best for it to not mention either it or the America one because they were both intended to be anti-racist but were unintentionally racist, something which the previous version of the article seemed to be good enough to mark as something to avoid, and the Blue Lotus is more notable for trying to be anti-racist. Catgrrl38 (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
'theres no use talking to librals' you havent even tried.
theres no use talking to dumbfucks AMassiveGay (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)