Political Correctness - What is it, why is it embraced/resented?

[Jok]

I think it is a function used for shaming. Shame is one of the primary ways a culture controls those who go against the status quo. It's ironic given that anti-shaming is also a thing in the current culture. Nonetheless, political correctness is a form of shaming for the purposes of influence and control. Personally, I don't see shaming as an altogether bad thing. It just depends on the situation.

Thanks for your post, it let me realize that I spelled Shaming wrong in mine so I fixed it lol

 

[public hermit]

Thanks for your post, it let me realize that I spelled Shaming wrong in mine so I fixed it lol

Finally, I posted something useful!

 

[Aussie Pete]

What is Political Correctness?

Why do some people embrace it and others resent it?
Is the divide based on majority vs minority, left vs right, nationalism vs globalism, corporate world vs non corporate, educated vs uneducated?

I just discovered a fantastic quote by Jon Toogood (singer of Shihad) which resonated with me.
"Let me tell you why we're politically correct. It's to stop s... like what happened in Christchurch. Being 'politically correct' is a technique to deal with large groups of diverse people living in the same place and it's about trying to respect each other even if you don't understand differences. That's what political correctness is there for."

Political Correctness is Satan's blender to stop people from being the individuals that God created them to be. PC won't stop violence. Man's nature is to rebel anyway. Enforcing PC leads to a dictatorship of thoughts. Who decides what is PC? It changes daily. The only principles worth following are God's. I can assure you that He is not in the least PC.

Multiculturalism is Satan's way of undermining the Church in the Western world. If there were no Muslims, there would be that much less violence. Muslims who complain about violence are breathtaking in their hypocrisy. It is the bloodiest religion on the planet, founded by a paedophile warlord who makes Adolf Hitler look like a Sunday School superintendent in comparison.

It's human nature to demand that the society you are in conforms to your demands. It is especially true of the next generation of settlers. The first generation often has some gratitude to the host nation. Their kids not so much.

Ask the French how well Islam and French culture get on. The latest terrorist incident can't be suppressed like many other attacks that don't make the news. Same with the UK, another country that sold its soul to Islam and is now paying the price.

 

[stevil]

I think it is a function used for shaming.

Agree, shaming rather than to use a more authoritarian approach and instead to outlaw some expressions of free speech.

It's ironic given that anti-shaming is also a thing in the current culture.

Shaming is used for all sorts of purposes, generally to get people to conform to something.
But there is a huge difference in:
1. Shaming a person for being LGBT
2. Shaming a person for discriminating against people who are LGBT.

For item 1 a person is who they are. Their being who they are isn't in order to be mean to others in society, it isn't to pick on groups of people in a diverse society.
For item 2 this is intended to attack and hurt other members of society.

So people who are "against shaming" are typically against hate or discrimination of groups of people in society.
And this means that they will be typically for "shaming" of people who discriminate or say things that are hurtful or mean to groups of people in society.
"shame" isn't the operative word, the operative word is "discrimination"
"Shame" is a tool that both sides can use.

Nonetheless, political correctness is a form of shaming for the purposes of influence and control.

Of specific contexts, yes, to try and get society to support and respect (or at least tolerate) diversity and their fellow society members. Well, at least publicly, You can't force a person to like LGBT people but hopefully you can convince them to not express derogatory or hurtful/hateful expressions towards this group in public.

 

[Strathos]

It's a term that can mean different things to different people. So it's very hard to define.

 

[public hermit]

Agree, shaming rather than to use a more authoritarian approach and instead to outlaw some expressions of free speech.



Shaming is used for all sorts of purposes, generally to get people to conform to something.
But there is a huge difference in:
1. Shaming a person for being LGBT
2. Shaming a person for discriminating against people who are LGBT.

For item 1 a person is who they are. Their being who they are isn't in order to be mean to others in society, it isn't to pick on groups of people in a diverse society.
For item 2 this is intended to attack and hurt other members of society.

So people who are "against shaming" are typically against hate or discrimination of groups of people in society.
And this means that they will be typically for "shaming" of people who discriminate or say things that are hurtful or mean to groups of people in society.
"shame" isn't the operative word, the operative word is "discrimination"
"Shame" is a tool that both sides can use.


Of specific contexts, yes, to try and get society to support and respect (or at least tolerate) diversity and their fellow society members. Well, at least publicly, You can't force a person to like LGBT people but hopefully you can convince them to not express derogatory or hurtful/hateful expressions towards this group in public.

I completely agree. Shaming is effective as a means for controlling nonsense and trouble.

I grew up in a rural culture before guns became popular, i.e. something more than an effective tool for ranchers. More than once, I saw an older gentleman dress down some young buck who bragged about carrying a gun. He would say something to the effect of, "Only a wuss would carry a gun." It was a way to control idiots and rabble-rousers by shaming then as being too weak to handle up fist to fist. Some might balk at that example, but it worked. I still live in a rural area and I haven't seen that shaming tactic in some time. The culture has changed and so have the things considered shameful.

 

[paul1149]

Being 'politically correct' is a technique to deal with large groups

So true; key word being "groups". PC is the Left's means of dealing with societal problem on the group rather than individual level. And as such quotas rule and individuality, individual responsibility, and any system of thought that supports them, gets trampled on.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But "fit in" in terms of what?

I mean, the PC movement is to support a diverse culture, to support people of various backgrounds, various beliefs, various cultures.

Who does it suppress, and in what context?
For example, which views does it suppress?

Which of these suppressed views don't go towards hurting or suppressing others in society e.g. minorities?

It's kind of cliquey in a way.

What was PC some time ago, is no longer PC - so it's more of a young person's game.

So in a sense like in Sun Tsu's art of war, it is an entity that is formless.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

PC is basically a canonization of secular inclusiveness.

As each generation becomes a certain age the definition of it progresses.

So no one can know what PC will be tomorrow.

What was PC today may be villianized 5 years from now.

It's all very relative, so it's best to just wait and see what remains after a decade, anything else is unreliable data.

The one good thing I see consistent in it, is that at the core the basis seems to be to treat others as you would want to be treated.

However, since over time the way people want to be treated changes - I'd rather just effort to be kind instead of following a set of complicated rules.

 

[stevil]

So true; key word being "groups". PC is the Left's means of dealing with societal problem on the group rather than individual level. And as such quotas rule and individuality, individual responsibility, and any system of thought that supports them, gets trampled on.

I'm all for individual responsibility, and I am against quotas with respect to "affirmative action".
But "PC" just means being respectful of others that also exist in your society doesn't it?
Why would this be a "left" thing? Wouldn't the "right" also want people to be respectful of others?

 

[stevil]

PC is basically a canonization of secular inclusiveness.

Just "inclusiveness" would be appropriate.
I don't know what "secular inclusiveness" would mean.

The one good thing I see consistent in it, is that at the core the basis seems to be to treat others as you would want to be treated.

However, since over time the way people want to be treated changes - I'd rather just effort to be kind instead of following a set of complicated rules.

Or treat others how they themselves want to be treated.

Really, just be kind and don't be a douche....
Why is that hard for some people? Why do they resent being PC?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Just "inclusiveness" would be appropriate.
I don't know what "secular inclusiveness" would mean.

Secular inclusiveness, means as a basis suspicious of anything spiritual or religious - unless it is seen to be on the fringe and considered worthy of inclusion.

Or treat others how they themselves want to be treated.

Really, just be kind and don't be a douche....
Why is that hard for some people? Why do they resent being PC?

PC has a "political" element that basically makes it impossible to actually be kind, since in many contexts it tells people to not be themselves. As a result, enforced kindness just results in people not expressing themselves and blowing up later on. It's armchair psychology at its finest.

 

[muichimotsu]

It’s the antithesis of logic, it’s a social training program that trains people to consistently violate logical fallacies.

Evidence?

And I don't know if you understand what violating a logical fallacy means versus what might've been your criticism, of committing logical fallacies. If I violate a logical fallacy, it's trying to correct it, technically, versus violating logical principles, which would be committing logical fallacies

 

[muichimotsu]

I think it's a doctrine that holds that speech is equivalent to violence. If you say something that offends someone else, it's the same as if you slapped them or punched them and so violence in retaliation is justified. My impression is that it is far more prevalent on the left, probably because they are more authoritarian than the right. Political correctness is a way of silencing people with opposing views.

So it does indeed exist on the right as well? As if right somehow has one meaning that cannot be authoritarian and left has to tend towards one? Isn't the political spectrum more than just authoritarian/libertarian anyway?

And no, political correctness as a guideline is different than legislation, which can go too far. In fact, it appears the early usage of the word by people on the left was satire of their more extreme left leaning peers, not something they were encouraging.

 

[muichimotsu]

Secular inclusiveness, means as a basis suspicious of anything spiritual or religious - unless it is seen to be on the fringe and considered worthy of inclusion.




PC has a "political" element that basically makes it impossible to actually be kind, since in many contexts it tells people to not be themselves. As a result, enforced kindness just results in people not expressing themselves and blowing up later on. It's armchair psychology at its finest.

It's not enforced kindness, it's enforced conscientiousness, as if someone should just be encouraged to continue in ignorance when they can move to correct something that was done merely because they didn't realize, not out of malice as some might mistakenly assume, violating Hanlon's razor.

And where does it tell people not to be themselves? The idea that you are your beliefs in an identical sense is absurd because beliefs are abstractions to describe our interaction with the world, they aren't substantive things like our physiological traits or immutable psychological aspects such as sexual orientation or gender identity. They shift because we are beings with intellect and reasoning and that's fine.

 

[muichimotsu]

The meaning has evolved. But today it’s extremely common that people are being told that they are politically incorrect if they are NOT consistently committing ad hominem and genetic fallacies. Connotative language disguised as an argument is the meaning of “Begging the question fallacy”, I can go on Facebook right now and see endless arguments that are nothing but connotative language being thrown back & forth with each person sincerely believing that they are making good arguments. Societies have always committed these fallacies, but unlike taking a logic course where a person would clean up their logical errors, I see today’s version of political correctness as actually training people to go in the opposite direction, to actually train people to not only commit more fallacies but to also reinforce (via social shaming) that doing so is a sound way to reason.

However I am just pointing out the ugly side of it, I am all for the roots of political correctness where you avoid offending people.

It's not about not offending so much as not marginalizing, which is more serious and systemic than making a mistake and learning from it because you were initially ignorant.

"Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, such as groups defined by ethnicity, sex and gender." Merely being offended is a consequence of a free market of ideas, but a persistent notion that all speech is permissible is antithetical to any civil society that values minority rights while majority rules (though that gets more complicated with what constitutes a majority)

 

[stevil]

Secular inclusiveness, means as a basis suspicious of anything spiritual or religious - unless it is seen to be on the fringe and considered worthy of inclusion.

Not exactly.

I think Secular just means not giving any group or religion any special privileges.
"inclusive" means accepting everybody, not excluding anyone.
"secular inclusive" wouldn't mean any different to the above.

PC has a "political" element that basically makes it impossible to actually be kind, since in many contexts it tells people to not be themselves.

If being yourself means making racial or gay slurs or attacking groups then yes PC means these people are strongly encouraged not to be mean to others.
Why is it that some people deem "being mean to others" as an essential part of their own being?

As a result, enforced kindness just results in people not expressing themselves and blowing up later on.

Are you able to provide an example so that I can better understand this point?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's not enforced kindness, it's enforced conscientiousness, as if someone should just be encouraged to continue in ignorance when they can move to correct something that was done merely because they didn't realize, not out of malice as some might mistakenly assume, violating Hanlon's razor.

And where does it tell people not to be themselves? The idea that you are your beliefs in an identical sense is absurd because beliefs are abstractions to describe our interaction with the world, they aren't substantive things like our physiological traits or immutable psychological aspects such as sexual orientation or gender identity. They shift because we are beings with intellect and reasoning and that's fine.

I googled it.
"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

I think the issue has more to do with. I will do my thing over here, and you do your thing over there - PC reduces the amount of room for people to do things separately or in parallel. Like it was designed to antagonize.

So don't boo hoo if some of the less intelligent people respond with rage.

I won't though.

 

[muichimotsu]

So true; key word being "groups". PC is the Left's means of dealing with societal problem on the group rather than individual level. And as such quotas rule and individuality, individual responsibility, and any system of thought that supports them, gets trampled on.

It isn't an either/or issue, you can solve problems on a group and individual level with different methods. The idea that someone should be shamed in regards to violating a societal norm is hardly abnormal and suggesting that something changing to be more open minded or tolerant of a group once marginalized is weak or anything of that nature misses the point of human thought: we shift with new information and perspectives, we don't rigidly stick to one perspective or we risk stagnation and damage to culture and morale at large

If all political correctness fit into one box, it'd be easier, but concepts like this will evolve, sometimes not for the better, especially in the legislation angle which can become too authoritarian or statist. But when there is a prominent trend of something negative like marginalizing a racial group, some kind of punishment in the extreme forms is not unjustified, though perhaps sometimes the free market of ideas can solve the issue by people choosing to not associate with a known bigot

 

[muichimotsu]

I googled it.
"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

I think the issue has more to do with. I will do my thing over here, and you do your thing over there - PC reduces the amount of room for people to do things separately or in parallel. Like it was designed to antagonize.

So don't boo hoo if some of the less intelligent people respond with rage.

I won't though.

The problem is we can't always do that in the context of public accommodations and those things that should apply neutrally to all citizens and not permit discriminatory treatment, like with a private club that, legally, could deny entry to black people even if it's not politically correct because they're protected under those exceptions from the Civil Rights Act, iirc

But the idea of political correctness seems more a social norm aspect, where you would generally distance yourself from people who are bigoted and they either gain perspective by considering that they were wrong or they slink more into the fringe and persist in not wanting to engage in a civil manner at all, which is just some people's lot until they can realize that "live and let live" doesn't always work practically the more connected and diverse society becomes. It used to be easier, but we have over 350M people in America alone