Being PC does not erase the issues
Listen up, guys!
Tristan Reed made a very good argument for elegant feminism (“Listen up, people: Gendered words have to go,” Feb. 12).
I heartily agree that the term “freshpeople” sounds absurd and should be avoided for that reason alone.
Reed hit on an important part of a very pervasive issue.
Gender neutrality is part of a larger push for political correctness.
Big Brother tried this in George Orwell’s “1984.” Big Brother’s view of language, shared by proponents of political correctness, is based on the idea that the physical is what’s important. Words are the physical, important part; thoughts are just neurons firing about in the brain which have no real value.
People had a real problem thinking bad thoughts about the government, so the solution was to delete these thoughts from the new language.
Political correctness attempts to do the same thing: control minds by controlling vocabulary.
According to proponents of political correctness, by limiting vocabulary, you can limit thinking.
This idea has since been challenged by cognitive psychologists and linguists such as Noam Chomsky and the idea of a universal grammar. One of the assumptions of universal grammar is that human thought is not limited by vocabulary.
Even if Chomsky is wrong, political correctness still implies value judgments, and it’s difficult to enforce your vocabulary on another and still maintain a position of relativism on everything else.
Political correctness in all its forms is therefore an ineffective way of winning people over to your way of thinking.
That’s why I say we draw clear battle lines and fight for ideas in the open, where there is no ambiguity about sides or beliefs.
I, for one, will engage ideas and not complain about being offended. This complaint only squelches reasoned discussion.
Political correctness hides issues; it doesn’t solve them. As a society, we need to man up and face our ideological opponents.
Fight in the open.
Don’t sweep problems under the rug by making me say “person up.”
Dirt under the rug is still dirt, and we really need to clean house.
David Carreon
Fourth-year, civil engineering
UCLA label mania distressing
The quarterly UCLA Store sale Thursday got me thinking about why students seem to be obsessed with the UCLA label.
With three sweatshirts, two T-shirts and one pair of sweatpants all bearing the label, I am as guilty as anyone of this obsession.
Why do we feel the need to own all these branded items? It’s not like we need these things to help remind us of where we go to school.
Yet every time there is a sale, I feel the need to buy something. I almost feel foolish if I don’t.
Is it because my items become so worn that I need to replenish my stock?
Or maybe it’s because the clothes are not of the highest quality. But if they are not, why do I continue to buy more at a disturbingly high sale price?
Have we become so obsessed with labels and our own self-image that we need to be branded to say that we are somebody in this world?
Is this the guiding force behind wearing the label?
I sincerely doubt I am alone in this kind of thinking.
After all, on weekends and vacation trips home, I tend to see an abundance of UCLA and other college sweatshirts.
Will my college define who I am in this world?
I hope not. But if my closet is any indication, it very well might.
Jeanette Aldana
Fourth-year, sociology