The (Semi-) Myth Of Political Correctness

[Cannot think of a name]

Because the process by which people arrive at non-sensical conclusions prevents them from grasping sensible explainations. Besides which no-one cares if a tiny minority of people have terrible views. Its only a problem when people choose to share them. The fallacy here is that racist, sexist or Homophobic views are somehow contributing to a debate. They aren't. If you aren't contributing, you need to be discouraged from taking part. Essentially they are just people blowing rasberries every time its their turn to talk. your saying "why not engage with them?"

I could add something onto this with a real case. In the Netherlands, we have Geert Wilders who spreads those hateful views, but at every stop in parliament he makes a turn to say "but the immigrants", "but the Muslims", "but the Islamic religion", etc. It's not like verbally harassing immigrants and minorities is contributing anything worthwhile, and the above post indeed shows pretty much why.

The reason I don't engage with people who hold anti-immigrant views, or insult those who do, is because those people, more often than not, talk nonsensical arguments like "but the immigrants do this", "but the immigrants do that", not providing any source at all. Why should I bother to engage with them if all they're saying is "the immigrants are bad" and aren't swayed from that path, no matter how hard we may be pushing or pulling. It's like beating a dead horse, except this dead horse talks bullshit and doesn't ever want to stop talking bullshit.

You're not talking to them as much as you're talking to anyone else who might hear them and think that this is a normal or okay idea.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want.

There actually are laws against hate speech in some countries. Just saying.

Yes. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I was speaking of it as an American phenomenon. I can't speak to issues in other nations with any informed knowledge.

[Quintium]

Because the process by which people arrive at non-sensical conclusions prevents them from grasping sensible explainations.

Usually, in the public debate, rhetoric nominally meant to convince your opponent is really meant to impress onlookers or get them thinking. Even if you think someone won't grasp an explanation that you think is sensible, you should try. I'm not saying - a mistake many seem to have made in this thread - that you are obliged to do so. Just that it would be in good taste if every side - even mine - behaved with at least an elementary bit of respect and reason. There's no meaningful debate if all parties to that debate think the other side won't get their point and just try to shout the other side down or apply social pressure to shut them up. You see, your explanation isn't necessarily 'sensible' to many people, and what they think is 'sensible' isn't sensible to you.

Basically: everyone, even myself, should be more tolerant in public debate. Hear the other side out instead of immediately turning to tropes, clichés and insults.

Besides which no-one cares if a tiny minority of people have terrible views. Its only a problem when people choose to share them.

See, there's a problem. "It's only a problem when people choose to share them." It's the idea that those who have what you think is a terrible view would be better off just keeping quiet and keeping a tight lid on their opinions. It's the spirit of the publishers who refused to publish George Orwell's works because his opinion was highly unpopular among the British academic class in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s. His view on the Soviet Union, while left-wing, was also 'terrible' in the view of many or most British academics in the 1930s and 1940s, and therefore the subject of self-censorship by publishers and ridicule during debates.

The fallacy here is that racist, sexist or Homophobic views are somehow contributing to a debate.

Once, I read something that was written by a biologist who just had to get it off his back. He worked in a place where acknowledging race was a strong political taboo. He worked with people who developed products, and who knew that 'races', while not defined clearly enough, did affect the likelihood of allergic responses to those products. They could not warn, for example, that some products would cause strong irritation or worse in African-Americans while working perfectly for Europeans or Asians.

That's the difference between political correctness and simply racist remarks. If I say "niggers are all retarded", that's racism. If I'm not allowed to state an observable truth or acknowledge the good parts of our history because that might offend people - that's political correctness.

Essentially they are just people blowing rasberries every time its their turn to talk. your saying "why not engage with them?"

Essentially, I fear what you say there is true for all sides of any political or social or cultural or religious debate. Yours and mine, his and hers - everyone does this to some extent.

[Gauthier]

A rant about political correctness from the side that gets offended when someone wants to talk about women's reproductive rights, gun regulation or progressive tax rates.

Once again IOKIYAR.

[The UK in Exile]

I could add something onto this with a real case. In the Netherlands, we have Geert Wilders who spreads those hateful views, but at every stop in parliament he makes a turn to say "but the immigrants", "but the Muslims", "but the Islamic religion", etc. It's not like verbally harassing immigrants and minorities is contributing anything worthwhile, and the above post indeed shows pretty much why.

The reason I don't engage with people who hold anti-immigrant views, or insult those who do, is because those people, more often than not, talk nonsensical arguments like "but the immigrants do this", "but the immigrants do that", not providing any source at all. Why should I bother to engage with them if all they're saying is "the immigrants are bad" and aren't swayed from that path, no matter how hard we may be pushing or pulling. It's like beating a dead horse, except this dead horse talks bullshit and doesn't ever want to stop talking bullshit.

You're not talking to them as much as you're talking to anyone else who might hear them and think that this is a normal or okay idea.

"This man is a moron" conveys the message faster than "this man is wrong because X,Y,Z". The XYZ approach creates the misleading impression that the man was interested in a discussion in the first place.

Hear the other side out instead of immediately turning to tropes, clichés and insults.

A lie isn't the other side of a debate. Its just a lie.

It's the idea that those who have what you think is a terrible view would be better off just keeping quiet and keeping a tight lid on their opinions

no one really cares if they are better off or not, point is, everyone else is better off.

Essentially, I fear what you say there is true for all sides of any political or social or cultural or religious debate. Yours and mine, his and hers - everyone does this to some extent.

Its perfectly justified if your right.

[Cannot think of a name]

You're not talking to them as much as you're talking to anyone else who might hear them and think that this is a normal or okay idea.

"This man is a moron" conveys the message faster than "this man is wrong because X,Y,Z". The XYZ approach creates the misleading impression that the man was interested in a discussion in the first place.
.

I was thinking more of the line between 'ignoring' all together and engaging rather than calling a stupid or abhorrent idea stupid or abhorrent and pretending the idea has merit.

[The UK in Exile]

"This man is a moron" conveys the message faster than "this man is wrong because X,Y,Z". The XYZ approach creates the misleading impression that the man was interested in a discussion in the first place.
.

I was thinking more of the line between 'ignoring' all together and engaging rather than calling a stupid or abhorrent idea stupid or abhorrent and pretending the idea has merit.

Sure, I'm quite happy to agree that ridicule is preferable to ignoring people who can't listen/won't keep quiet..

[Phocidaea]

"Political correctness" only goes too far when it gets to the point where overwhelming 99.9%-type majorities are forced to kowtow to the .1% to avoid offending them in any conceivable way.

Happily, this rarely occurs in real life (though the internet is rife with it).

[Cannot think of a name]

I was thinking more of the line between 'ignoring' all together and engaging rather than calling a stupid or abhorrent idea stupid or abhorrent and pretending the idea has merit.

Sure, I'm quite happy to agree that ridicule is preferable to ignoring people who can't listen/won't keep quiet..

Pretending a dumb idea has merit does a disservice to the idea of 'merit.'

[Gauthier]

"Political Correctness" is just the Republicans' special brand of "Lalalalalalala I can't hear you".

[Trotskylvania]

Political correctness "exists" only in so much as it is a deliberate reverse psychology.

This far reaching "PC" that its critics argue against doesn't exist. Instead, to label something or someone as being part of a "PC" conspiracy of perfidious liberalism is a means to silence discussion and close debate. Namely, to prevent criticism of bigots for their bigotry.

It serves no other purpose than that. Anyone who complains about "PC" discourse silencing opposition is themselves guilty of something far worse. They are actively engaged in negationism and denialism, poisoning the well against anyone who would dare to challenge bigotry by insinuating that they're part of some insidious conspiracy to "silence" dissent. They both deny the existence of a very real problem, and engage in an extended language game to silence their opponents.

[Ethel mermania]

And perhaps it's the people calling others racist, sexist or homophobic instead of responding to what they said who are the problem. If their point is really that nonsensical, why not explain that to them? Why immediately play the bigot card? That stifles public debate and creates an effect called 'polarisation' - the right moves to the right and the left moves to the left and ultimately you'll have a country that can barely be governed anymore because everyone's bickering over who's racist and who's politically correct.

Are conservatives REALLY so self-unaware as to not see the harm their words do? Can they really not see how stereotypical remarks about black men being criminals, black women being promiscuous welfare queens, and women in general being unable to manage a business or pursue a career in math or the sciences are hurtful? I mean, it's not like their totally unaware of the harm speech can do — because white men SURE as hell get angry when you remind them of how their forebears committed genocide against Native Americans or practiced chattel slavery...

What is it about the Golden Rule that makes it so damned hard for some people to understand? Why do some people seem to lack the ability to fully absorb the first lesson that their grandmothers likely ever taught them, namely: "Don't be rude, and don't speak ill of people behind their backs?"

No, I think that conservative carping about "political correctness" is a backlash to the changes in society that have broadened the power base, making it more inclusive. They HATE those changes, and their response to those changes is increasingly to get in the faces of those they dislike, and to make it clear in no uncertain terms that they think things ought to go back to the way they once were.

I mean, it's not as any of this OUGHT to be a mystery to anyone. Common sense aside (i.e., "You know that if you say hurtful things about people, they're going to REACT, right?"), it's not like we haven't had lots and lots and lots and lots and LOTS of examples of, say, women responding badly to slut shaming or aspersions against their mental abilities, or minorities getting upset about hateful stereotypes.. After a point, you'd think that any intelligent person would LEARN from all of this; we are therefore either left with two possibilities: Either conservatives are stupid or they've chosen deliberately to be rude.

So would you rather we operate on the former premise, or the latter?

That has nothing to do with political correctness. I'll give you a better example.
Recently, many progressive politicians wanted to change a nineteenth-century royal carriage in my country because it depicted black people offering gifts to white people. That's political correctness. The changing, denying or ignoring of certain parts of reality, or history, or certain parts of the public debate in order to prevent offending people you've decided you do not want to offend. It's blatant revisionism for ideological reasons.

European political and social dynamics are different from American ones; I can't comment without further data on how those who wanted to change the carriage felt about its appearance, and whether they believed its use intimates that they should be seen as subservient to their lighter-skinned peers.

And it's not like that sort of thing doesn't cut both ways: There is, after all, the rather humorous example of Ken Cuccinelli and the Great Seal of the State of Virginia.

Well, I've never rhetorically had a new asshole torn by anyone. They've tried, but they've always failed, and you are no exception.
The best they could do were strawmen, insults, harsh language, threats and reports to moderators on an online forum.

I can't recall actually having tried with you, so...

let me ask two questions, (and remember i am usually on my phone and can not give you the reply your answers deserve). And note i have already stated that there is no place in polite society for calling anyone nigger or spic or redskin.

In the current age of political correctness, do you think the moynihan report could be issued? And do you dispute that the topic and findings are worthy of serious political discourse?

[Alien Space Bats]

let me ask two questions, (and remember i am usually on my phone and can not give you the reply your answers deserve). And note i have already stated that there is no place in polite society for calling anyone nigger or spic or redskin.

In the current age of political correctness, do you think the moynihan report could be issued? And do you dispute that the topic and findings are worthy of serious political discourse?

Let me ask you this: Given the explosion in single-mother families among whites and Latinos as well as blacks, is the Moynihan Report still even valid?

I realize that's not the question you asked; yet it raises, I think, an even set of questions that are definitely worth asking.

I remember studying the Demographic Transition as an economics major back in college. At that time (i.e., in the 1970's), there was ample debate within the economics community over whether or not the DT hypothesis was applicable to non-European cultures. We'd seen the characteristic "graying" of Western populations predicted by the DT model in Europe and America, and we were starting to see it in Japan. But a lot of economists argued that we'd likely never see it in places like Latin America (where, supposedly, the Latin cultural value known as "machismo" would prevent the predicted reduction in fertility; at the same time, other scientists believed that similar values within Islamic culture would prevent its occurrence in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India as well). Indeed, there were those that argued that its appearance in Japan was an anomaly, a foreign import instantiated as a consequence of the "imitative nature" of Japanese culture. China, Vietnam, and Korea, being less "imitative", would not follow the same pattern.

But that was then, and this is now. Those who argued that human beings universally respond to economic incentives turned out to be correct: Not only has the DT pattern clearly manifested itself across the rest of East and South Asia, but it has in fact prevailed in spite of the alleged power of "machismo" in Latin America and the Muslim world.

So looking back at the Moynihan Report, I'd have to say that no, it wouldn't have been published today — but not because of "political correctness". No, it wouldn't have been published because sociologists wouldn't accept the idea that blacks have children out of wedlock for one reason ("ghetto culture" and the legacy of slavery) while whites and Latinos have children out of wedlock for another (the spread of birth control, better social support for single mothers, the increasing inability on the part of poor single men to earn enough to support a family, the breakdown of the "shotgun wedding", etc.). Occam's Razor would instead suggest that the simplest and most universal explanation be embraced as the likeliest cause; since Moynihan's explanations for single-parent families only apply to blacks while alternate theories apply to everyone, those alternate theories would win.

Which ought to give us pause to think: One of the things "political correctness" does is force us into thinking of everybody as the same. This ties in well with the scientific method's "assumption of mediocrity", suggesting that maybe "political correctness" isn't just good manners, but good science as well.

[Ethel mermania]

let me ask two questions, (and remember i am usually on my phone and can not give you the reply your answers deserve). And note i have already stated that there is no place in polite society for calling anyone nigger or spic or redskin.

In the current age of political correctness, do you think the moynihan report could be issued? And do you dispute that the topic and findings are worthy of serious political discourse?

Let me ask you this: Given the explosion in single-mother families among whites and Latinos as well as blacks, is the Moynihan Report still even valid?

I realize that's not the question you asked; yet it raises, I think, an even set of questions that are definitely worth asking.

I remember studying the Demographic Transition as an economics major back in college. At that time (i.e., in the 1970's), there was ample debate within the economics community over whether or not the DT hypothesis was applicable to non-European cultures. We'd seen the characteristic "graying" of Western populations predicted by the DT model in Europe and America, and we were starting to see it in Japan. But a lot of economists argued that we'd likely never see it in places like Latin America (where, supposedly, the Latin cultural value known as "machismo" would prevent the predicted reduction in fertility; at the same time, other scientists believed that similar values within Islamic culture would prevent its occurrence in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India as well). Indeed, there were those that argued that its appearance in Japan was an anomaly, a foreign import instantiated as a consequence of the "imitative nature" of Japanese culture. China, Vietnam, and Korea, being less "imitative", would not follow the same pattern.

But that was then, and this is now. Those who argued that human beings universally respond to economic incentives turned out to be correct: Not only has the DT pattern clearly manifested itself across the rest of East and South Asia, but it has in fact prevailed in spite of the alleged power of "machismo" in Latin America and the Muslim world.

So looking back at the Moynihan Report, I'd have to say that no, it wouldn't have been published today — but not because of "political correctness". No, it wouldn't have been published because sociologists wouldn't accept the idea that blacks have children out of wedlock for one reason ("ghetto culture" and the legacy of slavery) while whites and Latinos have children out of wedlock for another (the spread of birth control, better social support for single mothers, the increasing inability on the part of poor single men to earn enough to support a family, the breakdown of the "shotgun wedding", etc.). Occam's Razor would instead suggest that the simplest and most universal explanation be embraced as the likeliest cause; since Moynihan's explanations for single-parent families only apply to blacks while alternate theories apply to everyone, those alternate theories would win.

Which ought to give us pause to think: One of the things "political correctness" does is force us into thinking of everybody as the same. This ties in well with the scientific method's "assumption of mediocrity", suggesting that maybe "political correctness" isn't just good manners, but good science as well.

The numbers while narrowing do still show some racial disparity, with blacks still leading in teen births out of wedlock. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf page 6. (and damm you for making me go pull it out, i really hate that part of NSG but i digress ) Ghetto culture which i would argue is a factor in the birth rate, i might agree is racially blind, in the sense that all kids in that environment would turn out that way, (personal experience, i grew up in a rough neighborhood) its just that urban black kids are there now. So when you argue against "moyinhan" you may be more right than wrong.

but that sort of sidesteps the question. I think moyinhan right or wrong is a worthy paper, and should be debated and examined. I dont under todays climate it would be. and i see that as the damage of political correctness

[The Alpine Federation]

My signature has a very sensible point on political correctness. The subjects for political correctness may have changed since the early 1940s, but the ways in which it is generally carried out have not. It's not so much overt government censorship - which is a shame, because then people couldn't deny it - but rather a sickening, deceptive form of self-censorship by those genuinely afraid of offending someone or something they're afraid to offend.

Let's be honest with ourselves: Conservative carpring about political correctness is largely an effort to avoid getting called out for being racist, sexist, or homophobic. It's as if Conservative America is telling the rest of us, "Look, if I want to call a black man 'nigger', a woman 'slut', and a gay man 'faggot", that's not my problem — it's yours. Grow a pair, accept my right to offend you, AND DON'T TALK BACK."

Thus, my response to criticism of "political correctness": If you want to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or religious bigot, go ahead — shoot off your mouth. Use whatever hateful language and vile epithets you want; that IS indeed your right.

But don't whine when I rhetorically tear you a bloody new asshole, calling you out for your small-minded hatefulness and unsuitability as even a poor facsimile of a human being. If you're going to reserve the right to be insensitive to others around you, then I'm going to reserve the right to make your asshattery abundantly clear to the world, and ride you off into the sunset like a broken quarterhorse until you can't stand the sound of my voice in your ear.

Because if you insist on exercising your God-given right to bring discomfort and misery to the loves of others, then I'm going to make it my Karmic mission to bring discomfort and misery to yours. First Amendment, bitches.

Awesome!

[The TransPecos]

The reason PC is a problem is that you either get shouted down, personally attacked, or threaten (or worse) by a plethora of official and unofficial agencies just looking for someone to hassle or sue. IMHO, PC is a pervasive problem.

[Liriena]

The reason PC is a problem is that you either get shouted down, personally attacked, or threaten (or worse) by a plethora of official and unofficial agencies just looking for someone to hassle or sue. IMHO, PC is a pervasive problem.

Define PC.

[The TransPecos]

The reason PC is a problem is that you either get shouted down, personally attacked, or threaten (or worse) by a plethora of official and unofficial agencies just looking for someone to hassle or sue. IMHO, PC is a pervasive problem.

Define PC.

May I suggest the top entry on the first page.

[Blasted Craigs]

I think the "problem" many people have for PC, is they miss the days of old when one could be racist, sexist, or xenophobic without fear of public aversion. In other words, they yearn for the right to make racist remarks without the fear of someone calling them "racist".
Cause you know, it's totally not racist, sexist, or xenophobic to make broad, sweeping generalizations about a group of people based off their religion, skin tone, sex, sexual preference, age, or handicap alone, with no other facts about the person ever considered.


Take for example the old saying that women should not vote because they only vote for whoever is the cutest candidate. This may be slightly funny (though offensive) as satire, but is grossly untrue in reality. And to express such an opinion, one should accept the label of sexist, even if this is the only way one is sexist. For the truth is, when one often expresses a sexist, racist, or xenophobic remark as a truth or belief, one often has additional beliefs that follow in the same vein.

Example, for the person that believes the above, they will often also think the women's place is in the kitchen and that they should not be allowed to work. It follows the flawed logic of slippery slope, but is often true. This is also why so many publicly challenge such absurd notions. If one believes the former, it is easier to get them to believe the latter. This is how racism, sexism, and xenophobia often spread. In small increments, until one sees the chosen group as "subhuman", and barely deserving of life, or not deserving life at all.

To sum up, it is free speech to say ignorant, demeaning things in public. It is not free speech to say those same things and expect to be unchallenged. Free speech does not protect someone from being called an ignorant, distasteful boor by the rest of society.

And to dispel the myth, one cannot go to jail for hate speech. Their is no "PC police". It is simply that people reject the ignorant claims people in the past ignored, thus making it harder for the ignorant and vile beliefs to spread.

[Sebastianbourg]

Who thought it was a good idea to revive this thread?

[Shaggai]

Let's be honest with ourselves: Conservative carpring about political correctness is largely an effort to avoid getting called out for being racist, sexist, or homophobic. It's as if Conservative America is telling the rest of us, "Look, if I want to call a black man 'nigger', a woman 'slut', and a gay man 'faggot", that's not my problem — it's yours. Grow a pair, accept my right to offend you, AND DON'T TALK BACK."

Thus, my response to criticism of "political correctness": If you want to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or religious bigot, go ahead — shoot off your mouth. Use whatever hateful language and vile epithets you want; that IS indeed your right.

But don't whine when I rhetorically tear you a bloody new asshole, calling you out for your small-minded hatefulness and unsuitability as even a poor facsimile of a human being. If you're going to reserve the right to be insensitive to others around you, then I'm going to reserve the right to make your asshattery abundantly clear to the world, and ride you off into the sunset like a broken quarterhorse until you can't stand the sound of my voice in your ear.

Because if you insist on exercising your God-given right to bring discomfort and misery to the loves of others, then I'm going to make it my Karmic mission to bring discomfort and misery to yours. First Amendment, bitches.

Awesome!

This thread is over a year old. Don't gravedig.