The Foolishness Of Political Correctness

I am from Russia, and Russians are generally regarded as the rudest people in the world.

Political correctness not only fails to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect;

But to the OP. The antidote for political correctness is plain and simple good manners. When talking about political correctness, the problem lies on the political aspect of it: it's only political, it's just in the present political climate correct.

The mistake is to think when I say 'how are you?', I am asking how you are. I'm not, and I don't want to know how you are.

'Excellent' is also the WRONG answer.

But people who criticism the promotion of political correctness in its present form, aren't usually advocating that people should have the right to say 'all the horrible things that naturally pop into their heads through the frictions in their lives'

The proponents of political correctness like to portray anyone who takes objection to political correctness as a bigot or a neanderthal. Any expression containing even a hint of anger brings on that response.

What really is political correctness and what do its critics criticise? This?

According to a FIRE report from February, although a majority of disinvitation attempts come from the left against the right, a greater proportion of attempts to shut down speakers are successful when they come from the right than from the left — 55 percent versus 33 percent. The sheer quantity of attempts to limit speech on campus would suggest that left-wing political correctness is more prevalent, but right-wing PC is more effective.
…
At issue here is not whether you agree with any of these positions. At issue, rather, is that while we assume the most dangerous thing you can say on a college campus is something like "There’s no such thing as rape culture," the consequences of doing so — of defying left-wing political correctness — pale in comparison to what happens when someone says something like mass shootings are perpetuated by "the white supremacist patriarchy." At Drexel University, George Ciccariello-Maher was placed on leave after receiving death threats, and eventually driven to resign, for saying exactly that.
(https://www.chronicle.com/article/Poli ... un/242143)
Conservatives were completely outraged last week after "Saturday Night Live" cast member Pete Davidson mocked then-candidate — now Congressman-elect — Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) for wearing an eye patch as the result of an injury he sustained as a military service member.
The National Republican Congression Committee condemned the joke, saying: "Pete Davidson and NBC should immediately apologize to Dan, and to the millions of veterans and military families who tune in every weekend — because they're not laughing." Fox News' Laura Ingraham lashed out, saying of Davidson on Twitter: "How long do you think this 'comic' & the writer responsible for this disgrace would last in @us_navyseals training?"

…

Trump has frequently demonized NFL players who kneel during the national anthem — which is a quintessential example of trying to enforce a certain form of "political correctness."
https://www.salon.com/2018/11/14/politi ... t_partner/
But a data analysis from March by the director of Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project suggests that this “crisis” is more than a little overblown. There have been relatively few incidents of speech being squelched on college campuses, and there’s in fact limited evidence that conservatives are being unfairly targeted.

...

The raw numbers here should already raise questions about the so-called political correctness epidemic. According to the Department of Education, there are 4,583 colleges and universities in the United States (including two- and four-year institutions). The fact that there were roughly only 60 incidents in the past two years suggests that free speech crises are extremely rare events and don’t define university life in the way that critics suggest.

Moreover, there’s a consistent pattern in the data when it comes to conservatives — one that tells a different story than you hear among free speech panickers.

“Most of the incidents where presumptively conservative speech has been interrupted or squelched in the last two or three years seem to involve the same few speakers: Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray, and Ann Coulter?,” Sanford Ungar, the project’s director, writes. “In some instances, they seem to invite, and delight in, disruption.”

What Ungar is suggesting here is that the “campus free speech” crisis is somewhat manufactured. Conservative student groups invite speakers famous for offensive and racially charged speech — all of the above speakers fit that bill — in a deliberate attempt to provoke the campus left. In other words, they’re trolling. When students react by protesting or disrupting the event, the conservatives use it as proof that there’s real intolerance for conservative ideas.

The other key thing that emerges from the Georgetown data, according to Ungar, is that these protests and disruptions don’t just target the right. “Our data also include many incidents, generally less well-publicized, where lower-profile scholars, speakers, or students who could be considered to be on the left have been silenced or shut down,” he writes.

Examples include Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s commencement speech being canceled after receiving death threats for criticizing President Donald Trump and the president of Sonoma State University apologizing for allowing a black student to read a poem critical of police violence at commencement.

...

Jeffrey Sachs, a political scientist at Canada’s Acadia University, put together a database of all incidents where a professor was dismissed for political speech in the United States between 2015 and 2017. Sachs’s results, published by the left-libertarian Niskanen Center, actually found that left-wing professors were more frequently dismissed for their speech than conservative ones:

...

Some campus free speech critics, I suspect, aren’t operating in good faith. For them, the entire debate is a way to attack universities as hopelessly and dangerously liberal — to undermine higher education for nakedly partisan reasons.

Indeed, four Republican-controlled state governments have set up new rules for political speech in public universities in response to concerns about free speech. At least seven other state legislatures are considering doing the same, efforts that the New York Times reports are “funded in part by big-money Republican donors” in a “growing and well-organized campaign that has put academia squarely in the crosshairs of the American right.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... georgetown


Most right-wing critiques ... are far more apocalyptic—some have unironically proposed state laws that define how universities are and are not allowed to govern themselves in the name of defending free speech.

…

At Texas A&M, Tommy Curry, a black professor, was driven from his home with his family after his controversial remarks on violence and race drew the attention of American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher; singling out left-wing college professors is a frequent source of content at Steve Bannon’s Breitbart News. The former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick cannot find employment in the the National Football League after his protests against police brutality. A police union in St. Louis urged members to bombard a local store owner with calls, after he accused some officers of misconduct, one of several recent examples of police unions attempting to intimidate critics. Black Lives Matter activists protesting the lack of accountability in lethal shootings of black men by police are routinely attacked as terrorists.

…

During the debate over the Iraq War, the Republican chairman of the House Administration committee was so triggered by French opposition to the ill-fated invasion of Iraq that he directed the cafeteria menus to substitute “Freedom Toast” and “Freedom Fries;” his Democratic colleague Barbara Lee, who voted against the war, received boxes of letters calling her un-American, treasonous, and far worse. In the years following that conflict, liberal and left-wing critics of the war were frequently called treasonous; in 2006, President George W. Bush told campaign crowds that “the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.”
…

GOP lawmakers have used the state to restrict speech, such as barring doctors from raising abortion or guns with patients, opposition to the construction of Muslim religious buildings, and attempts to stifle anti-Israel activism.

…

Trump’s threat to tax Amazon because its owner Jeff Bezos is also the owner of The Washington Post, which has published coverage critical of the president; the White House’s demands that ESPN fire Jemele Hill, a black on-air host who called the president a white supremacist; and Trump’s attempt to chill press criticism by naming the media an “enemy of the people” have all drawn cheers from some conservative commentators.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... es/541050/



Some history of the use of the term:
Until the late 1980s, “political correctness” was used exclusively within the left, and almost always ironically as a critique of excessive orthodoxy.

…

But soon enough, the term was rebranded by the right, who turned its meaning inside out. All of a sudden, instead of being a phrase that leftists used to check dogmatic tendencies within their movement, “political correctness” became a talking point for neoconservatives. They said that PC constituted a leftwing political programme that was seizing control of American universities and cultural institutions – and they were determined to stop it.

…

In truth, these crusaders against political correctness were every bit as political as their opponents. As Jane Mayer documents in her book, Dark Money: the Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Bloom and D’Souza were funded by networks of conservative donors – particularly the Koch, Olin and Scaife families – who had spent the 1980s building programmes that they hoped would create a new “counter-intelligentsia”.

…

PC was a useful invention for the Republican right because it helped the movement to drive a wedge between working-class people and the Democrats who claimed to speak for them. “Political correctness” became a term used to drum into the public imagination the idea that there was a deep divide between the “ordinary people” and the “liberal elite”, who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk. Opposition to political correctness also became a way to rebrand racism in ways that were politically acceptable in the post-civil-rights era.

Soon, Republican politicians were echoing on the national stage the message that had been product-tested in the academy. In May 1991, President George HW Bush gave a commencement speech at the University of Michigan. In it, he identified political correctness as a major danger to America. “Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States,” Bush said. “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land,” but, he warned, “In their own Orwellian way, crusades that demand correct behaviour crush diversity in the name of diversity.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump

What I'm saying in general is that political correctness isn't an ideological innovation, it's about avoiding fights. People who assert the right to say all the horrible things that naturally pop into one's head through the frictions of life, are asserting the right to get their heads kicked in by the people they enrage. If people value honesty over a peaceful neighbourhood, they're liable to get what they want.

Well there you have it. Authoritarians with no authority, you can't get more straw of a man than that. That is to say anyone who wants to make accusations of political correctness is a proponent of political correctness, trying to control the debate.

I sort of see it the other way around; good manners is a subset of political correctness; it's just a kind of aspect of how it might present.

Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.

Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.

Political correctness is both an ideological invention and a way of avoiding fights.

Alas, fdrake stole my thunder while I did a quick google.

I've had this chat with Fooloso in other forums and it's important to realise that it occurs from both sides but only because people wrongly believe it doesn't. Acting as though the extreme left is benign is absolutely ridiculous, do you perhaps know nothing about history at all? Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to the present either.

Actually, I'll also point out that's an absurd characterisation of the extreme right as well.

So you were being serious, you're a moron. If you came here telling me the extreme right are just "chaps who care about their ethnic identity" I would have lambasted you the same way I did when you came and talked about the modern extreme left like they're no big deal. So don't talk to me like I'm some kind of extreme right apologist because I point out you have an extremely imbalanced perspective.

What's your stake in all this anyway?

I don't remember Fooloso as being a conspiracy theorist, he had appeared to me to be just saying that it existed on both sides when I previously read him using the same examples in the same topic. Perhaps he agrees with you that the modern extreme left is benign? Doesn't seem like he said that though and it wouldn't matter if he did.

I figured when you brought in the history of the extreme left to the discussion on political correctness, you had in mind figures like Stalin and Mao and Trotsky or the Naxalites or whatever. I saw this as a red herring, as even the supposed left which is besties with political correctness isn't Stalinist or Maoist or Trotskyist and the last one's too busy painting towns red with police blood to care about whether we say black or brown. If you look at the supposed characteristics of people who love political correctness, you'll find they're white working-middle class liberal weenies.

I'm interested in asking the further question; who benefits from the function of political correctness in public discourse? Is it the people who intentionally co-opted it as part of a rhetoric of scaremongering exaggeration, or is it the target of that rhetoric? The answer's pretty clear to me, given that it's the same rhetorical structure that's rooted in the initial cooption of the term.

A person who actually seeks to achieve things such as respect and tolerance will not be telling people to not say anything that somebody may consider offensive. He will allow people to say exactly what they are feeling and thinking, however offensive these things may be.

Rule of thumb:

The proponents of political correctness like to portray anyone who takes objection to political correctness as a bigot or a neanderthal. Any expression containing even a hint of anger brings on that response. I am responding now to political correctness in a manner that is fully reasoned and that cannot be portrayed credibly as any such thing.

One person's political correctness is another's basic good manners.

You will need to be more specific about what form of political correctness you object to - giving examples - if a useful discussion is to occur.

That's a great post, thank you.

Fooloso4's post - a catalog of American liberal grievances with a tenuous relationship to the OP - was a careless copy-paste job from various online articles. I am pretty sure that not a word of it is original.

The irony here is that I actually read the article and quoted relevant points. You on the other hand seem not to have read the Wiki article you linked to. If you had you would know that the history of the term is not one of simply mockery and derision.

[ Re Fooloso4's post] a catalog of American liberal grievances with a tenuous relationship to the OP - was a careless copy-paste job from various online articles. I am pretty sure that not a word of it is original.

Yes, online articles that were linked and referenced. I originally posted this on another forum but when I reposted it here the quote function did not copy. The spacing and ellipsis show parts of the articles that are missing.

In fact, in a private message to someone I said: " It really is nothing more than what a few minutes of online research will yield." I just edited the post to make clear that I was quoting

?Fooloso4 Apologies, I mistook carelessness for plagiarism.

It would be good if you could post the link to the PN forum discussion if possible.
A comparison might be interesting.

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25670&p=388307&hilit=fooloso4#p388141

In fact, in a private message to someone I said: " It really is nothing more than what a few minutes of online research will yield."
— Fooloso4

And I hope the someone replied that it was a bit more than that !

The same people who call themselves feminists have been abetting the most viciously misogynistic ideology on the planet – Jihadist Islam. The same people who call themselves feminists have been excusing inner city thugs in their crimes against women. Of course they do not see the outcome of their policies; however the people who fund them and vote for them do.

I think the underlying problem is much more the polarization of the political discourse and the lack of even trying to engage the other side. This creates the current toxic environment

I think statements like this are both overstated in importance and is just an example "both sides are the problem" vacuousness. People don't really change their minds about politics through discussion with the other side, this is all for appearances sake in reality.

The liberals have their own vices, which is why I became disaffected with their wishy washy ideology.

. Those and innumerable cases like them are the chief causes of the toxicity.

But the right live on another planet and no amount of me pretending this isn't right wing lunacy most of the time is going to change that.

Does this venn diagram make sense?

As usual, this is just the typical right wing BS about "PC" stopping "problems from being solved" and such. What always always always turns out to be the actual motivation, the actual belief, is that the person complaining PC - never defined by them, notice - is they want to say something outlandish about another group or groups but don't want their words to be labelled as bigotry

Basically Ok, but you are implying that a) the group of some people that might behave (?) cannot behave like Mussolini. And Mussolini, who once was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party, who preached of violent revolution, praised Karl Marx and criticized patriotism, couldn't ever have been politically correct (hypothetically, as he is quite dead and lived in a different time).

The bullshit that the right comes out with incites racial hatred and violence (of a serious nature). Global warming is real and serious, denying it to continue making a profit out of oil sales could cost the lives of thousands, the refugees the right would like to deny haven are fleeing serious persecution. It's not at all comparable with making people say "xshe" instead of "she", or whatever such nonsense.

This is a very American attitude. Yep, free speach is just for appearances sake in reality. And this of course is one reason for the toxic and agressive discourse. You see, it's all about winning with your argument... Seeking a consensus? Learning from others? Rubbish!

And who here is defending the idiot in Chief here? This is exactly the point I'm talking about.

And what kind of lunacy would the 'left' be, if the extremely aggressive college students promoting victimhood-culture, safe spaces who see microaggressions and racism everywhere would be considered to be the left?

Do you hear yourself? College kids being idiots (in the best case scenario for your argument) is being compared to Nationwide policies by Trump

If the topic was (somehow) political correctness, then refuting it by Trump and global warming.. :roll:

This might not apply to me, as I don't characterize PCism or SJWism as "stopping problems from being solved," but I simply take issue with people wanting to control others' thought/speech/expession. I have a problem with people wanting to control others in general, which is part of why I have the relatively unusual views about laws (far fewer things would be illegal if I were king), the prison system (I'd have a completely different system in place/different approach to criminal justice in general), etc. that I do, too.

And given you are complaoning to this stuff about kids on college campuses no platforming people and moaning about them bringing up microaggressions, surely you were talking about America as well. If not, then I don't know what phenomenon you're talking about.

I think the characterization of "trying to control others thought/speech/expression" is a false one though.

People aren't just letting others' expression be and not applying various social pressures, etc., are they?

Yet your is counterpoint is that this doesn't matter because... Trumps inhumane policies and global warming. Even if global warming is important (and I did try to show that this isn't an issue only the left cares about in the World), in this context It's a strawman argument. It's like having the counterargument for ANY leftist or liberal idea that it doesn't work because... look at Venezuela. Colombia now holds over 1.1 million of the 3,4 million refugees from Venezuela escaping the Latin paradise of 'democratic socialism' (see UN News Venezuelan refugees now number 3.4 million; humanitarian implications massive, UN warns). And because you aren't talking about this very true crisis in Venezuela, but something else, your nonsensical.

I think the underlying problem is much more the polarization of the political discourse and the lack of even trying to engage the other side. This creates the current toxic environment.

grammatical errors

In response, I pointed out some of the actual and significant causes of the toxic environment between the right and the left that go beyond kids at universities not being open minded.

People aren't letting others' expressions stand as written, but are also applying various social pressures, are they not?

Is there something wrong with applying social pressure against somebody's expression?

In my view, yes [there is something wrong with applying social pressure against somebody's expression].

I am curious to hear about how you come to that view. Is it derived from some set of moral principles, or is it more just a feeling? If principles, I'd like to hear about what they are and how the derivation proceeds.

t's related to me (1) being a free speech absolutist, (2) being against controlling others as much as possible, (3) being against mob mentalities, (4) being pro laissez-fairism, and (5) not being in favor of sanctions in response to "hurt feelings."

3 and 5 are not relevant though, as disapproval of things like racist or sexist speech is not based on the potential for hurt feelings and, until we see mobs out there actually harming people that speak racist or sexist things, claims of 'mob mentality' are baseless hyperbole.

many people acting in conjunction with each other to a particular end, and that's what I'm referring to by "mob mentality."

Stepping on some toes without always saying whose. Sorry in advance.

many people acting in conjunction with each other to a particular end, and that's what I'm referring to by "mob mentality."
— Terrapin Station

Under that definition, a group of Amish collaborating to raise a barn is an instance of mob mentality.

I think etiquette is a safeguard against people who are too stupid to get along. Like how you are not supposed to talk about religion and politics. Its because people are too stupid to be trusted to have those conversations...even though they are two of the main things people SHOULD be talking about.

Lol, sometimes thats what people need. Slap the PC right outta them.

Fuck etiquette.

I think etiquette is a safeguard against people who are too stupid to get along.

This misses the bigger picture. It is not about etiquette, although etiquette is certainly a part of it.

It is about social norms, which include but are not limited to behavior. They include values, allegiances, and our relations to others. In short, how are we going to live together?

We live in a time in which social norms have broken down. We are in the process of making repairs. PC is one means by which we are doing this. The extremes, which tend to get the most attention, do not tell the story. What deserves our attention is not the extreme answers but the question they attempt to answer: what should our social norms be?

Sure, etiquette is only part of it. I never said that it's the whole story, did I?

In answer to the question of how we're going to live together, I would say preferably without so much politically correct bullshit.

Breaking down social norms must be a bad thing?

Repairing them must be a good thing?

Political correctness is the right way of doing this?

Social norms aren't the be-all and end-all.

I'll do what I have to get by, but I'm not going to just pander to the status quo.

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is no status quo, only a struggle over what will become the status quo.

Sure, etiquette is only part of it. I never said that it's the whole story, did I?
— S

It is not about you. You expressed a common sentiment.

In answer to the question of how we're going to live together, I would say preferably without so much politically correct bullshit.
— S

What alternative do you favor?

No. The problem is living without them may be. I do not have high hopes for everybody trying to figure it out for himself.

I think so but I also think that it is an inevitable thing. People figure out how to live together. Just what that might look like is anyone's guess.

No, as I said, it is a symptom.

It should be pointed out that we are not at the point where social norms no longer exist.

That they will be is also in question.

As to whether we can do away with them, I don't think so.

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is no status quo, only a struggle over what will become the status quo. And in time it too must be challenged. But first it must be created. This is where we are.

People should be allowed, even encouraged, to express, rather than censor, their stupid opinions and racist humour, so as to reveal, rather than keep hidden and festering, their toxic idiocy and unthinking characterizations of others. Wouldn't you prefer Trump. for example, to make clear his zenophobia and his desire to promote it in others, than to keep it and the agenda it motivates well hidden?

A lot of PC people think of it like this about the struggle part. It's a power play: you exert power by getting people to adapt your discourse or ideas by arguing that they are otherwise against minorities etc.

Otherwise, customs and language naturally change by time.

Of course its a power play! Politics is always a power play. We need to pay attention to how it is being played. It is not just those who are accused of being PC who are playing. - All you need to know is that is is PC and you can dismiss it without a second thought.

The problem is the arguments are so weak, there is nothing worthwhile to them at all. This is what is obnoxious about both sidesism.

When the Left get-up to make a point about the moral seriousness of a cultural practice, the both sidesism paints like they are nazis to dare hold society responsible for these practices.

In this context, "compromise" is largely red-herring because the issues at stake or moral. There is no way to negotiate, for example, over whether whether white people are better than everyone else and we take any one else not to properly belong. The issues of divsion are so devisive because they ones involving a critical moral responsibility.

Actually, this shows perfectly the agressive PC attitude (contrary from the polite PC stance). It's starts from the idea that debate is only a power play

Yet the truth is that people on both sides of the political divide are annoyed by the victimhood tactics and crybullying of the agressive PC people.

The video has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with embarrassing a minor celebrity who has made past racist comments.

Where did I say I disapprove of the prank?

He embarrassed her for being a racist not for being politically correct. It makes zero sense otherwise. Don't you know the background?

Ok, well, I have no sympathy for her considering her background whatever his motives were. But it doesn't seem a very good illustration of why political correctness is a bad thing. I would say the principle of etiquette that frowns upon people shouting "nigger" for fun is pretty sensible.

You may have a point there. I still don't think the overall critique of political correctness is very powerful though. Attacks on it almost always tend to go for soft targets.

For example, I don't think it's appropriate to call children who have learning disabilities, 'mongoloids' or 'retards'. I, like most people, prefer PC terms. The children in question and their parents prefer it and I lose nothing by being PC. So, there's a harder target for you to attack.

And I think many who take up arms against political correctness probably feel the same way. Makes me wonder sometimes where the points of disagreement actually lie. Do we just define things differently?

Apologies

Piss pot Toby jug!

In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. For me to do so the next person will have to be able to tell me their honest opinions however offensive these may be.

Given that, I suppose the most sensible way to conduct the debate is to avoid "PC is good" vs "PC is bad" type positions and focus in on actual real-life examples and see what's going wrong (or right) with them, and why.

Given that, I suppose the most sensible way to conduct the debate is to avoid "PC is good" vs "PC is bad" type positions and focus in on actual real-life examples and see what's going wrong (or right) with them, and why.

First of all, my attitude is not PC.

It has been my recent experience on another philosophy forum that any rational discussion of such things is impossible there because of a group of rabid anti-PC members who are too emotionally involved and convinced of the truth of their caricatures.

With this in mind one seriously could ask why someone would get so emotional about it, really.

It is quite possible to deliver any opinion honestly and with courtesy. "Political correctness" is just another name for courtesy. Politeness. :roll:

Because there is more to it. Some people feel that their way of life is being threatened by those who are going to tell them how to live, what to say and do.

Frankness involves honesty and directness, and being polite doesn't allow that in at least some conceivable cases.

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults.

And that's its point and purpose. Address the message, not the messenger, and politeness will get you wherever you want to go, with complete honesty, but without conflict. Politeness avoids conflict.

Few believe these conspiracies, yet these kind of even more outrageous ideas naturally lead to accusations that critical comments of the PC culture etc. are just 'disguised' attacks from racists.

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S. Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as "politically correct".

...

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US. It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term "thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination." Similar critical terminology was used by D'Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as "canon busting"). These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D'Souza's.

...

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies – especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews's view that PC is best described as "Left Eclecticism", a term defined by Kimball as "any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism."

PC is the face of the conservative battle against progressivism.

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults.

Not thinking it through properly or lying to yourself? Which is it?

There can be a big difference between insulting someone and just saying something which they don't want to hear.

That is what “PC” is, forcing people to do things a certain way.

One of the points I made in the OP is that political correctness degrades people's character. They cannot tell their honest opinions, so they become insincere.

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults. And that's its point and purpose. Address the message, not the messenger, and politeness will get you wherever you want to go, with complete honesty, but without conflict. Politeness avoids conflict.

“Politically correct” is exactly about controlling language, which words can be used and in what places.

Yet political correctness exists

For example Stephen Pinker argues that freedom of speech is important and universities and science shouldn't make censor findings that seem politically incorrect

Pinkers arguments do show that this isn't just an invention of the American right.

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance?

I dont think your quite getting it. If the point at which you are on the issue is figuring out what “PC” means, you need to do more research. Take a look at the things that actually get done in the name of “PC”. It is in theory and in practice about some people forcing other people to talk in certain ways. Even if this is to enforce “polite” engagement, it is still forcing people...and its forcing one persons views upon another since not everyone agrees about the importance of being polite, the value of being polite, what is considered polite and what kinds of things are not polite by necessity.

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? :chin:

You don't think I get it, but you are posing a specific example relating to my question:

politically correct
adjective
uk ? /p??l?t.?.k?l.i k??rekt/ us ? /p??l?t?.?.k?l.i k??rekt/ abbreviation PC
?
Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.
?
A politically correct word or expression is used instead of another one to avoid being offensive:
Some people think that "fireman" is a sexist term, and prefer the politically correct term "firefighter".

Thesaurus: synonyms and related words

Polite and respectful

chivalrous chivalry civility civilized civilly couth deferential deferentially euphemism gallant gallantly gracefulness graciously graciousness keep a civil tongue in your head idiom polite tactfully urbane urbanely well mannered

You go on to ignore the distinction between speech and actions that I made

There can be a big difference between insulting someone and just saying something which they don't want to hear.
— S

Exactly. :up: Politeness disallows the former, while facilitating the latter.

Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with.

If you have a dfferent way of defining “PC”, then you are free to commit to your idiosyncratic definition but I dont have to use it that way, I didnt mean it that way and I dont think anyone else does either. “Politically correct” is exactly about controlling language, which words can be used and in what places.

I understand where your coming from, but I think you are perhaps missing the bigger picture. Its not just about people not being nice when talking to each other, and its not just about suggesting people do things in a nicer way.
I would politely invite you to look closer at this issue, and hopefully my previous posts will make more sense.

Lol, you just cant help yourself can you? I am surprised that more discussion about humour hasn't been brought up. Comedy is one clear area where PC is focused on. What people are and are not allowed to be entertained by.

But I suggest that PC is a Good Thing overall, and that any problems it brings with it can be easily and politely dealt with. :smile: :up:

So the only real issue in this example is: is politeness an important enough thing that society would add it to the list (murder, child abuse, etc)?

Who gets to judge politeness? S is offended by your use of a smiley face emoji. Should that be a jail worthy offense?

Bring back @JudgeJeanine Pirro. The Radical Left Democrats, working closely with their beloved partner, the Fake News Media, is using every trick in the book to SILENCE a majority of our Country. They have all out campaigns against @FoxNews hosts who are doing too well. Fox .....

Fox must stay strong and fight back with vigor. Stop working soooo hard on being politically correct, which will only bring you down, and continue to fight for our Country. The losers all want what you have, don’t give it to them.

Fox News is not caving in to political correctness, they are simply concerned that they will loose viewers and sponsors.

Not that I agree with Trump overall on this, but "concerned that they will lose viewers and sponsors" is what is meant by "caving in to political correctness" isn't it?

If it were something Trump and his supporters did not like they too would, and have, threatened to boycott.

Just curious if there are any examples of this.

Ah I just thought of one possibility. The Kathy Griffin thing, although I don't know how we could make that fit the concept of political correctness really.

What is the concept of political correctness really?

Ah I just thought of one possibility. The Kathy Griffin thing, although I don't know how we could make that fit the concept of political correctness really.

Maybe if some people didn't shield the concept from any conceivable faults, as though it is simply out of the question, unthinkable, then we might actually get somewhere. We could benefit from some out-of-the-box thinking here.

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking.

Basically a better definition for politically correct would be something like "minority friendly" than politically correct.

And then there ought to be really a universal definition of "politically correct" meaning "language, policies or measures" that emphasize and/or enforce the current and dominating political views or political system in any country.

"Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile."

Rudeness and violence are not the same thing, nor are politeness and violence each other's opposites. There are many people who are polite who are complete sharks. I think that what you are looking for is action that is genuinely good. Genuine goodness is something that I can respect and that I believe I practice. It has nothing to do with being polite and everything to do with righteousness of action.

So "political correctness" can be misused for a dubious agenda. Big deal. So can lots of things.

You miss the point. There is no misuse of political correctness.

It is a label, a code that says bullshit here. That is precisely its use.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars.

I have emphasized the importance of the abnormal age we live in. Demographics are changing and the bounds of acceptable behavior is changing too. Calling out the language and behavior of others is something we are going to see more of, not because PC is contagious but because the old boundaries no longer hold.

The anti-PCers are objecting to the very thing the PC are trying to accommodate, integration. They are not simply resisting the conversation they are resisting the very need to do this.

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking.

That didn't go down too well in France. Macron ended up pissing off just about everyone.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars.

"No, PC means that you're polite" - "No it doesn't".

Still smiling about that Macron comment... Yes, let's have out-of-the-box thinking in Europe: so let's vote for a federalist investment banker. He definitely will have "new ideas" as we have already seen. :grin:

Well, he was trying to spin himself as sort of new centrist-style political force, at least. And he does have some elements of both. But yes, too rightwing for my liking. I am not a fan. His "new ideas", like suddenly hiking up a tax which caused widespread protests for weeks on end until he finally made concessions, have not exactly been a screaming success.

No, horses are fluffy and purr!

Let's be clear. When Trump attacks others for being PC it is not because he is bothered by their attempt to avoid language or behavior that can be seen as offensive or excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people.

Be extremely cautious with people that market themselves as centrists or anything new. They are absolutely the worst. Everybody will finish hating them. Just remember Tony Blair and his implementation of "Third way". How cool was that for Britannia?

Far better are those who indeed are centrist, yet openly acknowledge that they are either conservative/right-wing or left-wing/progressive and specifically in what issues. Sincerity is important in a politician.

Oh okay, then Donald Trump wasn't misusing the term for his own agenda, and therefore Fox News really were being too politically correct. Funny, I thought you were making the opposite point.

There is a distinction which has been acknowledged between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right.

I am objecting to political correctness for its bad side, or for those who only think that they're doing good, but are actually causing harm, and are actually doing something which should be frowned upon,

... simplistic herd-morality-type thinking...

...which offers uncritical praise.

Calling out language and behaviour should be seen as neutral without any context. Add a context, and we can sensibly judge whether it is right or wrong in that particular case.

No, they are objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity

Trust me, I am better able to represent the objections than you are, because you are trying to represent them from the outside, and your biases are an obstacle for accurate and fair representation.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars.
— Fooloso4
Have you ever thought that you could generalize this? That this could be said about a lot of issues and movements today.

Trump was using the term exactly as conservatives intend to use it, to summarily dismiss anything said by the opposition.

Are you suggesting that the politically correct do not want to do what is right? Do they think that what is correct is wrong?

So, those who think they are doing good but are actually causing harm should be frowned upon. That sounds very PC.

We are herd animals. You are not breaking with the herd when you repeat what every other herd animal who fancies himself an individual says. We are social beings. If we are going to live together we need to have some form of agreement as to what is and is not acceptable behavior and speech.

Of course context matters! Labeling something PC is the opposite of examining context. All you need to be told is that it is PC. Game over.

Long before PC there was censorship. It is not a PC invention. For most of my life it has been conservatives who have pushed for censorship. The underlying dispute is not over censorship but who gets to be the censor and what are they censoring.

When Trump objects to PC he is not objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity.

Trust you? That sounds authoritarian. Since you are "inside" you think that you are unbiased?

And that's not how it should be used, right? So he was misusing it.

You clearly disapprove of the way that he was using it, yet at the same time, you keep trying to disagree with me about this misuse of which we both disapprove.

No, I wasn't suggesting anything. I meant what I said and nothing more. Don't read things in to what I said.

It would be nonsense to suggest that it is politically correct to frown on political correctness.

You are so eager to contradict me that you're not really thinking things through.

It is about independence. I don't have to be a slave to society, I can be my own master.

For Christ's sake. I am not Trump, and I am not defending him. I meant the people in this discussion, not an idiot like Trump.

I think what I said: that I am better able to represent the objections (being made in this discussion) than you are. Don't make that about Trump this time.

If the term is used according to its intended meaning and affect then it is not being misused.

The term has no meaning independent of its use. This is how the term is being used tactically by some conservatives. I do not approve of the tactic but have no compunction to assure that the term be saved to be used in a specific way.

What you said is that there is a distinction between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. The problem is that the distinction leaves the relationship between PC and doing what is right ambiguous.

The point is that you are doing the very same thing that would be called PC by someone who does not like that you are frowning on what they are doing. They too think they are doing good rather than harm and they do not like your interference, which they see as the real source of harm.

Once again, it is not about you. You are so eager to protect your image that you're not really thinking things through. I am not talking about you. I am talking about political philosophy.

There is a tension here between the individual and society that is as old as political philosophy itself. It has not been reconciled. In terms of freedom of thought, you are as derivative and unoriginal as the rest of us, and more so than some. Your independence is an illusion (and even this is not strictly about you either).

Once again, it is not about you or the people in this discussion. It is about the political power struggle and the tactics being used.

No, this one is about you and your imagined unbiased view and superior knowledge that leads you to think that you should be trusted rather than questioned or criticized.

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road.

That's silly, because then it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, that I'm misusing the word "horse" to refer to cats.

But it does make sense to say that. It's silly to assume that an idiosyncratic meaning has priority, rather than the ordinary meaning.

They aren't merely using the term, they're abusing the term. And your own comments about it strongly suggested this. That's why you disapprove. The acceptable usage is what you implicitly condone, over and above the way that people like Trump are using it. But you won't admit that.

No, I made the relationship clear: it is not a mutually inclusive relationship. The one is independent of the other. How hard is that to understand?

As has been pointed out, political correctness relates to the status quo.

Defender of The Faith

Calling me derivative and unoriginal is an ad hominem

... your assertion that my independence is an illusion is a bare assertion which can rightly be dismissed.

No, you don't get to decide what it's about. You don't have that authority.

.. you're merely picking on an easy target like Trump who isn't even here to defend himself.

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road.
— Fooloso4

Well, why don't we ask DingoJones and @Ilya B Shambat and others who has best represented their objections out of the two of us?

it's "conservatives" or "Trump". Lame.

?Pattern-chaser
"Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile."

Rudeness and violence are not the same thing, nor are politeness and violence each other's opposites.

?Fooloso4 But Trump is lying to his audience. There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not happy about it, but what he's doing is not complicated or mysterious. :chin:

And I can see no connection between what Trump is doing and 'political correctness', except that he mentions it. He mentions lots of other things too, and he lies about them too. I think the lying is the problem?

Political correctness, an often-ambiguous phrase, has in recent months become a hallmark of Republican rhetoric against Democrats. Those on the right have asserted that the First Amendment rights of Americans are slowly eroding. Those on the left have responded that our diversifying society is simply becoming more tolerant and accepting. Yet the American understanding of the phrase has been slowly changing since its inception, transforming from a descriptive phrase to one associated with polarization and partisanship. Examples of such change can be found today in the daily news cycle and embedded in our nation’s history.

...

A shift in PC rhetoric occurred in the 1960s, a period of intense social change in America. Historian Ruth Perry reminds us in her 1992 article Historically Correct that during the early days of modern “political correctness” both sides of the aisle were active participants. “Each side felt that the other side was standing in the way of liberation,” she observed. Phrases like “civil rights”, “Black power” and “feminist” became popular among liberals, while the House Un-American Activities Committee served as a bastion of anti-communist conservatism. Each side felt being politically correct was beneficial to society. Neither side “owned” the term, and it was for a time helpful and accepted to be politically correct.

In that time, political correctness encompassed not only words, but also actions. Republicans believed the anti-war protests during the late ’60s to be “politically incorrect” and Democrats considered support for civil rights legislation to be “politically correct.” In later years, according to Perry, the phrase quickly became a double-edged sword. The late 1990s saw another shift in the phrase and it was soon “used every which way—straight, ironically, satirically, interrogatively.” Political correctness was no longer a compliment, but a term laced with partisan feeling, owned by the left and despised by the right.

Today, “political correctness” is a term best associated with choice of words. In an interview with the HPR, Sanford J. Ungar, former host of NPR’s All Things Considered and former Washington editor of The Atlantic, posited that modern use of the phrase “comes from a reluctance or discouragement of people from saying something terribly unpopular”. Discerning both parties’ stances on the issue requires a mere look at their ideologies. Conservatism, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is a tendency or disposition “to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions,” including, but not limited to the American vernacular. Conversely, liberalism is a “belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress.” It therefore makes sense that those with liberal ideologies continue to institute new rules of language and speech.

A Political Battle

Today, some Republicans claim that the historically dual-ownership of “political correctness” has all but eroded. In the first Republican presidential debate on August 6, when asked about his history of controversial comments regarding women, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump sternly responded, “I frankly don’t have time for political correctness.” Earlier this month, in an interview on Meet the Press, Dr. Ben Carson was questioned by both sides of the aisle for his claim that he would not “advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” In a later campaign speech, responding to a question about anti-Muslim sentiments he retorted, “The only way we fix that is by fixing the PC culture in our country, which only listens to one narrative. And if it doesn’t fit their philosophy then they have to try to ascribe some motive to it to make it fit.” Shifting the media firestorm from oneself and onto a liberal “they” has been a prominent strategy for Carson and Trump throughout the campaign.

While the reasons for Trump and Carson’s success are numerous, it is clear that their rhetoric attracts many conservative voters. According to a September 24 national Quinnipiac poll of likely GOP voters Trump and Carson, in first and second place respectively, claim 42 percent of the party’s electorate, in a 15-person field. Focusing on Trump and Carson’s interpretation of “political correctness” as an insult, Ungar said, “I’m suspicious of the loose use, the reckless use, of the term to tar anybody you disagree with or that you are challenging.” However, Ungar makes a distinction: perhaps the shift in rhetoric is a sign of changing feelings towards the phrase. “It’s become very fashionable … for people to take the term and to use it as a mocking term, to use it as a way to discredit anybody who expresses concern about an underdog in anything.” This alteration in the use of phrase may be indicative of a polarization of the political process.

...

History has proven that the term “political correctness” is not set in stone. Its meaning has changed dramatically from its first use. Shifting attitudes in the political arena show that perhaps the phrase and what it stands for are changing once again. “People are understanding more and more, how dangerous it is to suppress opinions or to make some opinions unacceptable,” says Ungar. As the race for president continues, one could expect to see more backlash against the PC culture from the likes of Trump and Carson. What’s clear is that this isn’t the end of “political correctness”—it’s just the end of the term as we once knew it.

Certainly you would not deny that there is a relationship between what is correct and what is right.

Why are you continuing to argue?

Yes, there are distinctions between correctness and political correctness.

That's what we do here. It's a philosophy forum.

I'm glad you acknowledge that. My concern was that you were confusing the two, given that the subject was the latter, and you switched to the former for no apparent reason.

That may be what you do here, but philosophical argument is a means not an end.

The confusion is all yours.

Political correctness is a type of correctness.

Or at least it was until it became code for incorrectness.

Which is to say incorrect by virtue of their politics.

In either case, it is about being correct in matters political.

you unexpectedly and irrationally changed the subject without good reason.

Yes, but that's irrelevant. A type of correctness is still not the same thing as correctness

Using it as code is still missing the main topic, which is about political correctness proper.

We are not doing what you accuse Trump and conservatives of doing.

In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective.

But it's not as simple as that. I'm not incorrect about something just because I'm "politically incorrect" about something

The cheerleaders for "political correctness" are not correct in a broader and more meaningful sense by default, and making that assumption is to not think about the topic philosophically.

It is evident that you misunderstood me. Go back and figure it out.

Of course its relevant.

It's relevant to the meaning of the term political correctness. Do you think the distinction between correctness and something of that type is what any of this is about?

There is no political correctness "proper".

"We" who?

What are you going on about? Of course you are not incorrect because someone considers what you say incorrect or politically incorrect.

Do you feel better having bashed that straw man? Yes, just because someone's position has "correct" in its title does not mean that it is correct. This is something you think is only obvious when one thinks philosophically? Is this epiphany a result of your thinking philosophically?

No, a point about correctness broadly speaking is not relevant to a point about a very specific sort of correctness.

But political correctness isn't necessarily correct, and that's the obvious and important distinction which you tried and failed to gloss over in your original reply.

Correctness is necessarily correct, otherwise it wouldn't be correctness.

I have a talent for spotting logical errors.

No, talking about the meaning of correctness in general is a pointless digression.

I made a point about the distinction between political correctness and being right. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you missed the point, when it's so obvious that that's what you did?

Sure, and there's no horse "proper" either.

You must have a short attention span or something. Myself and others in this discussion.

It's not my fault that you have difficulty remaining on point.

When someone says "political correctness" they may mean a variety of different things. No one of these uses is the "proper" usage.

If you're not Defender of The Faith, then why do you come across that way?

You have been a contrarian to almost every critical thing that I have said of political correctness, as though you are trying to protect it, like an apologist.

It is merely complaining about how some people are abusing a term, rather than about political correctness proper.

horses that purr

You mean the whole debate is so irrelevant, not much to even discuss it or what?]

ssh:But has 'the Left' really embraced political correctness? If you go past the stereotypical portrayal of cultural marxists against the alt-right, does this really fall into the left/right divide?

ssu:Truly a red herring as those being critical of PC usually don't have any ideas like that in mind. It is truly a tiny cabal that march with tiki-torches and yell "Jews will not replace us".

With regard to your claim that all women are cats and all men are dogs, I beg to differ. Noah Te Stroete and I are both men, yet I am a cool cat, and he is a pussy. And his mum is a bitch.

That there is some ambiguity does not mean that the meaning is whatever someone wants it to be

I similarly made fun of your naivety by taking it to where it logically leads: horses that purr.

?aporiap Interesting. I suppose the etiquette that I would advocate is being honest. If someone expresses an offensive view, then the correct response is to refute it rather than try to censor it. Generally the gross stereotyping of which you speak is wrong and can be refuted. However artificial blindness is not the solution. Artificial blindness and bigotry feed into one another. A man notices a social phenomenon and proposes a typically false explanation; the academic says "this is a stereotype" or "this is a generalization," the man looks at it again and says that it is definitely going on, so he decides that the academic is full of crap and goes on with his bigoted explanation. The real way to deal with this is to realize that, if something exists at a rate greater than chance, then there must be a reason for it, although it is usually not the reason that you expect. So the generalizations and stereotypes should be used as grounds for further research to find an actual explanation.