[Imc-uk-features] political correctness, and hiding and promoting
vg at genny.force9.co.uk
Thu Jul 5 06:20:13 PDT 2007
Ha! Wise words there from Noel.
I just went off to look up the etymology of patsy out of interest when I
saw it in the post and there was the "ethnic slur" definition so I stuck
it in my comment on the hiding of, er, whatever post it was. I've lost
track. If you do a bit more research, other possible derivations of
patsy such as "pazzo" (Italian: fool) come up. So, who knows. It's not
a word I hear used regularly, so it's hard to judge. And I'm pretty
sure Ben's post was ironic. :o)
I don't think the intention of the writer is crucial in deciding whether
language is discriminatory, if the word is used as an insult which, by
implication, denigrates another group. It's quite possible for the
discrimination to be inadvertent.
The reclaiming words situation is very interesting, innit?
On the whole topic of editorial guidelines and hiding, some face to face
discussion would probably be helpful, if only to clarify areas of
Got to go - I'm being sacked today!
Cass, Noel wrote:
> The issue with language, to repeat a post I made before,
is primarily about INTENTION. To my mind it is insane to accuse someone
or discriminatory language for using a word like 'patsy'.
This word has a well-understood mening that has nothing to do wih race,
the etymology is irrelevant to the intention of the usage. Likewise 'dumb'.
The primary meaning and the intention is not tothing to do with people
speak. Discriminatory language, like language in general, is about
language in use.
If the word is an accepted insult or 'denigratory' term, then it is
A more interesting case is when words are 'reclaimed' and then we get
about who, if anyone, is allowed to use 'nigger' or 'queer' (see recent
'Punk' is an insult, originally meaning a young male prostitute
(in England, although an American etymology comes from a tribal language,
and refers to a useless, burned, bit of wood). Can we consider it
Only if it is used like that!! I first thought that Ben's post was
ironic. I hope so.
Let's have some sense...
I agree that both hiding and promoting only work if there is consensus,
if there isn't (as seems the case), then there is a problem.
I trust admins to promote stuff that I want to read first,
then I have a look at the normal posts, especially if they have comments
(although this often means they are controversial postings).
Occasionally, as I'm on the features list, I check hiddens,
to see if I agree with the decision. This system, although flawed,
works to help me, as a regular IMC 'user', find out the kind of
information I want
to know, and to pass it on to other people.
Remember that there is a hell of a lot of good work going on,
and that for the average 'user', it is still the best resource around. ;-)))
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
More information about the IMC-UK-Features