Archive for May, 2018

D’wave, Qbits and AI

Sorting Out Political Correctness

I was recently asked to watch a video debating the subject of political correctness.

This is my reply.

Thank you for this link, Dick. (I am not name calling, that is his actual name.)

Since you asked me to look at this, I would love to address two points about it: one being the failure of debate and the other being the failure of the label of “political correctness”.

The Failure of Debate

When we argue a subject cognitively, theoretically, based on beliefs and positions, it can be extremely difficult to generate win-win solutions because the goal of debate isn’t to build bridges between values.

In debate, the goal is to win, to prove my point is more valuable than yours. It’s a win-lose game.

Debate disconnects us from our hearts and bodies and actions. And it disconnects us from each other.

Moreover, debate fails because it addresses a global category, a concept, instead of addressing a person or behavior. One cannot eat an elephant all at once, one can only digest it one bite at a time.

Values, not Labels

Debating the concept of “political correctness” underscores the underlying problem with political correctness: the concept is (as best as I can tell) almost always disconnected from the core values. The phrase “political correctness” is a label that does not specify what specifically we actually want.

What core values are we standing up for when we ask someone not to use the word nigger? Respect. Are there are situations where human beings have used that word in loving, respectful ways toward each other? Yes. So the issue is not about the word, because those who choose disdain will likely continue to treat others with distain even while they stop using the word. Addressing the word use is not helpful if we continue to ignore the underlying inflammation behind the distain.

Demands and arguments for political correctness fail because we debate the surface semantics instead of addressing the underlying core values.

Instead, I wish people would address the subject one bite at a time like this:

“Sir, I am sure you don’t mean any disrespect, but when you call me honey, I don’t experience respect. I’d like it better if you save pet names for if and when we are in a mutual, intimate relationship, please. Thank you.”

This speaks to the core values – respect, mutuality, authentic intimacy.

Here’s another option:

“I imagine you did not mean to insult me just now. Did you?”

By asking an individual to take a specific look at their specific behavior, we call them into personal responsibility.

Here’s another:

“Interesting. Why would you call me that/do that/say that?”

With an eye to core values, we can build bridges. We communicate, rather than punish. We open doors to win-win solutions instead of perpetuating polarized antagonism.

With values-based awareness, we stand, solidly, for the power of educating core values and empowering generative requests instead of the weak expressions of distain like namecalling, ridicule or belittling, “retard, fag, grab her pussy”.

(Generative requests are requests that generate win-win solutions. They resolve.)

Over time, if a person persists in distain or is unwilling to integrate requests, then you can choose to upgrade to a more direct heart-to-heart about why, or address needs for support that lead to their anger, or use the law of 2 feet and chose somewhere else. I believe that addressing pain, hate and anger would be far more effective than allowing our pained, disenfranchised neighbors to continue escalating from “politically incorrect” behavior to mass shootings.

Not all words are the problem they are made out to be. Sometimes people hear attack when there is none. Sometimes people treat others with distain even without words. Demanding “nice words” veils authenticity, obscures personal accountability and generates resentment by suppressing the issue instead of caringly resolving it.

If we want to see a company hire as many women as men, that is a measurable, specific, doable request. The categorical broad brush stroke called ”be politically correct” is not a specific, doable action that includes the other person’s values.

Some people are not willing to be sincere, and have deep rooted reasons for distain. We cannot address the underlying innocence without presence, care and dialogue.

By addressing the core values and making doable win-win requests, we can digest the subject one action at a time. We invite dialogue. We build bridges. We create deep resolution, not bandaids.

If the hope is to resolve culture wars, I don’t see us bridging this, or any other differences, unless we learn win-win resolutions based in core values and doable requests.

The title of this post is based on my 5-step win-win problem-solving tool called, “SORTTing It Out” (yes, 2 Ts).

If anyone reading this would like coaching to support more “political correctness“ in your life, work or community,  or to learn more about SORTTing It Out, you can contact me, or subscribe to my free newsletter for more details:
27 Tips For Sanity – https://TipsForSanity.com/subscribe

Wow!

This video shows how Google’s new product, Google Duplex, will make appointment setting calls for you. Wow.

 


Thank you Love!

Thank you to the friends who help keep my content flowing. To share your love with me, please Click Here to Donate. Thank you <3

Quick Browse

RSS Quote of the Day

  • Mark Twain
    "Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
May 2018
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

RSS My Recent Twitters

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

All Entries Copyright (c) 2007-2014 Gail Taylor. All Rights Reserved.