<p>‘Doh’ is mocking of competence-challenged nuclear power station operatives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My kids are real sharp on this stuff. If they get any politically-correct responses to anything they say, my kids come back immediately with something such as, “If you have a constructive argument to contribute, then by all means speak up. But, if you are only going to add hot air, please take it somewhere else.”</p>
<p>It works like a charm because people notice right away my kids will not take any of their nonsense. The end result is always a clueless “huff and puff” statement, and the person leaves. “All hat and no cattle,” as they say in Texas.</p>
<p>This is the problem with this entire “privilege” approach. The people displaying such attitudes assume that they are on some moral high ground and that the recipient will bow down. If you do not take it, the entire thing has zero power to affect anything. Our family just does not take crap from anyone, and it works great for us. I should add that one should do as one expects. We do not take crap, but neither do we give it. </p>
<p>
Glad that works for your kids. It doesnt seem to get that same response around here.</p>
<p>^^ Of course not, the forum is anonymous. It is quite different when the person saying it to you is looking right at you and not flinching an inch. Real “war” is nothing like the simulations. </p>
<p>There are lots of reasons why that doesnt work here. The anonymiity is but one of them.
But lets stay on topic, as this thread is probably taking its last gasps.</p>
<p>It is different in college classroom when the professor is supporting the purveyors of checking.</p>
<p>I have to take issue with the assumption that “politically correct” equals “hot air” (i.e., free of informational content). Much “politically correct” speech is actually a sincere attempt to present ideas in a way that does not carry sexist or racist connotations. To call a woman “bossy” is to be perjorative; to call the same woman “assertive” is not, as just one example. Both adjectives can be used to describe the same behavior, but only one would be described as “politically correct.”</p>
<p>I agree re professors. But, my current kid in college takes on his professors as well. Fearless dude. I taught him how to do it, and the profs really engage. His grades are clearly unaffected. </p>
<p>The way I was thinking it was even hot air has informational content, just not useful content. There is a point though that politically-correct speak amounts to nothing more than an attempt of censorship. And then it brings us back to whom determines “Where are you from?” has racial connotations? Etc…</p>
<p>There are but so many words in the English language and who gets to determine the negativity of standard phrases is becoming an impediment to basic conversation. As my kids say, it is not even worth it to try and say hello in many situations anymore. If that is the result of politically-correct speak, then maybe its approach should be revisited. It may be a sincere attempt, but with such polarizing results, it is clearly not effective.</p>
<p>And this, I thought, was the point of the article. If something is not liked or agreed with, then label it as coming from the privileged to try and marginalize it. What is really weird is it implies that the views or actions of the so-called privileged are less worthy, without giving any fundamental reason except to say one cannot understand because one has not experienced “my life.” That makes no logical sense - scientists understand and figure a lot off things out that they can never experience, so that excuse boat is full of holes. Understanding does not require experience; it requires intelligence. Experience is the supporting evidence after-the-fact.</p>
<p>@awcntbd “This is the problem with this entire “privilege” approach. The people displaying such attitudes assume that they are on some moral high ground and that the recipient will bow down. If you do not take it, the entire thing has zero power to affect anything. Our family just does not take crap from anyone, and it works great for us.”</p>
<p>I agree but this approach does not always work. I have a D at boarding school and I can tell you that things are somewhat “heated” on campus these days. These kids have to take the dressing down or be publicly accused of racism. No one wants that stigma, no matter how misplaced or undeserved the label might be. On a small campus with young teenagers who don’t have the most well developed “filters”, they learn pretty quickly to keep quiet and steer clear. And that is the unfortunate part - my D “steers clear” which only serves to broaden the divide. Her reasoning is: why risk the chance of some misunderstanding that will “morph” into some big “to do” about racism? </p>
<p>My D has heard the phrase “check your privilege” twice directed at a group she was a part of. IMO,in both instances the phrase was used as a weapon in an effort to provoke. In these types of circumstances, the only effective defense is to “steer clear.” Although I think she would have liked to respond in a manner like your children, she knew the consequences would outweigh the benefits of doing so.</p>
<p>Nice post, Harvestmoon. </p>
<p>@HarvestMoon1 - I hear you. It is important to use discretion, no doubt. Your D did the right thing. However, I can also say my kid’s campus is rather homogeneous, not that heated, and most of his issues are political discussions. Your D’s situation sounds rather strained. Best to avoid at that point, I agree.</p>
<p>"If something is not liked or agreed with, then label it as coming from the privileged to try and marginalize it. What is really weird is it implies that the views or actions of the so-called privileged are less worthy, without giving any fundamental reason except to say one cannot understand because one has not experienced “my life.” </p>
<p>Well said. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What exactly is hard about being white in America? I certainly love being white. It has made my life immensely easier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its not about the sum total. The black kid whose parents are rich still lacks the white privlege of the white poor kid. Is this really so hard to understand? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>$16hr for life guarding? Thats ridiculous. I have never heard a life guard making that much unless they were a manager. I made minimum wage.</p>
<p>"
$16hr for life guarding? Thats ridiculous. I have never heard a life guard making that much unless they were a manager. I made minimum wage."</p>
<p>Apparently the place that her son got hired values people who are in the position of saving lives more than yours did. Additional skills as an EMT makes him highly qualified for a position as a lifeguard. I hope my grandchildren, when I have them, are watched over by someone so qualified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have to take crap from anyone because I have reasonable thought out opinions on things that make sense. You hit the nail on the head though. When majorities deny experiences of people born out of the mainstream they certainly do lose all power and you really don’t have to give a crap if you don’t want to, what are they going to do about it? Its all about character. No one is going to force you out of your beliefs.</p>
<p>"When majorities deny experiences of people born out of the mainstream they certainly do lose all power "</p>
<p>Well, then, it should be easy. Just get majorities to deny experiences of people and poof, the majorities will lose all power. Privilege problem solved.</p>
<p>BTW, how much am I responsible for understanding in advance of speaking the perspective of *everyone I might come in contact with or who might be my audience? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being a lifeguard really isn’t a hard job. I did it for 5 years and saved multiple people. If you are a good lifeguard you shouldn’t even need EMT skills, not that they are even worth that much. Getting an EMT is hardly a burden or time committment at all. People stack them as resume builders.</p>