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

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

I agree with your definition, but that is not the applied definition - this is why there are arguments against PC, it's not what it means on paper - it's about how it is actually applied. There are similar arguments within Christianity, Mr X says that Belief Y is characterized by negative behavioral pattern Z. However, Mr A says that Belief Y is really about definition or statement of faith C. The conversation goes on forever with no resolution.

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?

Well, it's not even about that anymore.

Those who are in the group that PC benefits, use it to attack others, and then use it as a shield to avoid reprisal. It's one of many applications that cause resentment because it is no longer an idea - it's a movement - and people are mean that's just the way it is.

I agree, I wish people would stop harming one another and stop being mean to one another. However, since this is not possible laws enforced by courts and ideologies enforced by peer pressure are created to try and treat the issue.

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

Johnny X is advised that saying generic word X now means insulting word Q because of his political demographic. 50 similar variables that only apply to his political demographic are added, some of which conflict. Over time Johnny X gets used to doctoring his speech to be considerate to others - but also notices that some people of other political demographics do not have any such rules. This causes resentment.

This is just an example though - It doesn't bother me.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

Yep the more people there are, the more difficult it gets to keep peaceful relations.

 

[stevil]

I agree with your definition, but that is not the applied definition - this is why there are arguments against PC, it's not what it means on paper - it's about how it is actually applied.

OK.

Well, it's not even about that anymore.

Those who are in the group that PC benefits, use it to attack others, and then use it as a shield to avoid reprisal.

I think I can kind of understand this.
I wouldn't consider PC as giving benefits for any group though. It ought to just bring parity.
I mean, Gay people buying a wedding cake isn't a special privilege. Non gays can already buy wedding cakes. This just brings parity.

Maybe someone could consider suing a cake maker for not making a cake due to the purchaser being gay, as being an attack on the cake maker, but really it is society saying that if you are going to provide a service for the general public, then you cannot exclude people based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. i.e. you cannot discriminate.

It's one of many applications that cause resentment because it is no longer an idea - it's a movement - and people are mean that's just the way it is.

I don't think people are inherently mean. I think people want to live their lives and not be hassled or discriminated against. People that fight against discrimination, they are not being mean, they are helping to make the world a more inclusive and kinder place.

I think some Christians resent that the world is "making" them accept gay behaviour by forcing them to bake cakes, or putting gay characters into tv shows or ....
There is a level of trying to normailse certain minority groups, but certainly the Christians are allowed to believe it is a sin, they are allowed not to want to attend a gay wedding, or not to marry someone of the same gender. Noone is telling them they must congratulate gay people getting married, noone is forcing their church to perform gay weddings, or forcing them to have gay friends.
I'm not quite sure why some people build up a resentment to the supposed "gay agenda".

Johnny X is advised that saying generic word X now means insulting word Q because of his political demographic. 50 similar variables that only apply to his political demographic are added, some of which conflict. Over time Johnny X gets used to doctoring his speech to be considerate to others - but also notices that some people of other political demographics do not have any such rules. This causes resentment.

This is just an example though - It doesn't bother me.

I think whatever rule applies to one group then it should equally apply to the other groups too.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think whatever rule applies to one group then it should equally apply to the other groups too.

I think it's good to note when there is an agreement.

In terms of laws I tend to support laws if it means reducing harm to people who are being injured physically, emotionally, or mentally due to them being invisible and not having protection against abuse.

I belong to an invisible group, it may be a few centuries before humanity is able to even see how they affect me. Since they cannot see this, they cannot be inclusive, but maybe someday.

 

[Jok]

Evidence?

Simply watching it in action. Political correctness today judges actions and truth statements based on who the person is, what their race is, gender, etc. This is logical madness. Many times in recent years I have heard this logical gem be stated as if it makes total sense “You can’t be racist if you are black.” I could not think of a single person who would not laugh out loud at such logic 30 years ago, that is why I say it is training people to practice lower levels of logic than what they are innately born with, the people who would laugh at that logic 30 years ago were just people who never took a logic course.

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

Commit a logical fallacy. I wasn’t saying two things just one thing so I must have just been sloppy with my sentence.

 

[muichimotsu]

Simply watching it in action. Political correctness today judges actions and truth statements based on who the person is, what their race is, gender, etc. This is logical madness. Many times in recent years I have heard this logical gem be stated as if it makes total sense “You can’t be racist if you are black.” I could not think of a single person who would not laugh out loud at such logic 30 years ago, that is why I say it is training people to practice lower levels of logic than what they are innately born with, the people who would laugh at that logic 30 years ago were just people who never took a logic course.

Again, evidence. Your interpretation doesn't make it so and you may in fact be misunderstanding the idea in regards to language, which is not as cut and dry as we'd like it to be. I don't judge someone as a racist because they're white, but because they are marginalizing a non white person. There's racism against whites, but it's in a particular context and I wouldn't make it about their race that's not white, but the fact that they are being prejudiced against someone not of their race (though internalized racism is also a thing)

I don't ascribe to that, because I'm pretty sure there's more to that statement that is alluded based on cultural context. Black people can be racist in the personal sense, sure, even in America, but I think what is being referred to is systemic racism, which is very much marginalizing black people, so they cannot be racist, because they are suffering from that system

The problem with logic in terms of what you're talking about is not strictly logic on the formal sense, it's informal, discussing cultural concepts like race and prejudice and how there's a variety of manifestations of that. The idea that it's absolutely impossible for a black person to be racist is different than what is probably meant in many contexts without people qualifying it, because they just expect everyone to know, which is presumptuous and unfortunate. Racism is not just what those in a privileged racial group like to think it is, because it isn't just about explicit problems we can agree upon, but implicit biases that form cultural norms and such in our institutions, including law enforcement.

Commit a logical fallacy. I wasn’t saying two things just one thing so I must have just been sloppy with my sentence.

And that's a formal mistake versus more informal ones like a misunderstanding of a statement taken at face value without further inquiry about what is meant by the word racist by the person speaking, in a similar vein to other such ideas that can seem confusing or contradictory if we're using outdated vernacular and lexicons

 

[coffee4u]

Political correctness should be about courtesy and respect, but it isn't any more. Sure it pretends to be, it gives lip service to that end, but in reality it is anything but respectful because courtesy and respect go two ways.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't think people are inherently mean. I think people want to live their lives and not be hassled or discriminated against. People that fight against discrimination, they are not being mean, they are helping to make the world a more inclusive and kinder place.

I disagree, but that's only because I experience something that I didn't used to experience. When I talk to people, I experience their shadow selves interacting with me as an external emotional entity.

People on the surface say they want equality, but at the root, cannot be equal. It is a paradox. Perhaps in the future, if people can see how they affect people like me - then maybe they'll have a shot at being equal.

(or perhaps it will open up avenues to be even more discriminatory)

 

[muichimotsu]

Yep the more people there are, the more difficult it gets to keep peaceful relations.

It's not just a matter of numbers, but the proliferation of technology that allows for a greater spread of potential misinformation based of propaganda and ideology, fast information rather than accurate information.

And peaceful interactions are as much a problem of information as they are of another issue that I'd only recently heard about: the double empathy problem, which is supposedly us fundamentally not having an easy time really understanding other people's perspectives, especially when it comes to different experiences. And that applies especially well to racial relations, since black people's experiences are going to be very different than white people, even assuming both tend towards a similar outcome based on intersectional issues of income disparity because of the region's government and various problems that affect people regardless of race, though seemingly still more to minorities than white people.

When I can walk around my majority white neighborhood at midnight (rarely) and not have any concern of someone calling the cops on me or such but I don't have remotely the same confidence that a black person or other person of color could do that, it isn't just an assumption, it's because I live in the rural South and we're still trying to move forward from an outdated tradition people want to cling to out of ignorance that glorifies the Confederacy. And that reflects an attitude of whiteness being the norm, black people a minority to a point that I didn't really meet or know many black people until college, barely knowing any even up to high school.

 

[muichimotsu]

Political correctness should be about courtesy and respect, but it isn't any more. Sure it pretends to be, it gives lip service to that end, but in reality it is anything but respectful because courtesy and respect go two ways.

People deserve respect, their ideas and expressions of it should always be open to criticism, especially when they are creating a contentious climate from white people thinking they're getting discriminated against because of their race rather than being called out on their privilege.

Someone throwing out racial stereotypes is permissible in a free market of ideas, but it should not be without consequences for a civil society, even if it just means you're ostracized. I'm not advocating for state intervention, though I do have a thread in Ethics and Morality regarding the problem of public institutions that still try to push the galling idea that the Confederacy is just about Southern pride, when it definitively is not. It might not be politically correct for someone to have a Confederate flag in their house, but that's a private citizen and has to be addressed in a different way than a state or any public entity glorifying a racist secessionist group under the pretense of cultural heritage.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's not just a matter of numbers, but the proliferation of technology that allows for a greater spread of potential misinformation based of propaganda and ideology, fast information rather than accurate information.

And peaceful interactions are as much a problem of information as they are of another issue that I'd only recently heard about: the double empathy problem, which is supposedly us fundamentally not having an easy time really understanding other people's perspectives, especially when it comes to different experiences. And that applies especially well to racial relations, since black people's experiences are going to be very different than white people, even assuming both tend towards a similar outcome based on intersectional issues of income disparity because of the region's government and various problems that affect people regardless of race, though seemingly still more to minorities than white people.

When I can walk around my majority white neighborhood at midnight (rarely) and not have any concern of someone calling the cops on me or such but I don't have remotely the same confidence that a black person or other person of color could do that, it isn't just an assumption, it's because I live in the rural South and we're still trying to move forward from an outdated tradition people want to cling to out of ignorance that glorifies the Confederacy. And that reflects an attitude of whiteness being the norm, black people a minority to a point that I didn't really meet or know many black people until college, barely knowing any even up to high school.

I understand the invisibility factor, if it is not your experience - you just have to take their word for it, but still don't have any first hand experience to paint a real picture.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Political correctness still has trappings of the colonial way of reasoning so ends up excluding as much as it includes. might cause resentment.

Discuss.

 

[muichimotsu]

I understand the invisibility factor, if it is not your experience - you just have to take their word for it, but still don't have any first hand experience to paint a real picture.

That's where an element of trust comes in, plus empathy in the sense of not only understanding rationally, but also in that their suffering is important even if you have not experienced it directly, seeing that their pain is real and that you can do something, even if it's just listening to gain better comprehension

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That's where an element of trust comes in, plus empathy in the sense of not only understanding rationally, but also in that their suffering is important even if you have not experienced it directly, seeing that their pain is real and that you can do something, even if it's just listening to gain better comprehension

Yeah that's true.

It is pretty difficult to keep sane if people keep telling you what you're experiencing is not real.

 

[muichimotsu]

Political correctness still has trappings of the colonial way of reasoning so ends up excluding as much as it includes. might cause resentment.

Discuss.

Except it's trying to correct those colonial ideas by bringing up how a majority white perspective can encourage damaging stereotypes and vernacular that treats minorities like their perspective doesn't matter at all. There's a balance to be struck, but calling out privilege seems like the opposite of colonialism

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah that's true.

It is pretty difficult to keep sane if people keep telling you what you're experiencing is not real.

Or you have the attitude that your perspective is more important, subconsciously because of how a culture treats you as more important or more easily believed. Like how a white person will virtually have far less likelihood of being shot by police or brutalized even while doing the same thing a black person would suffer that fate from.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Except it's trying to correct those colonial ideas by bringing up how a majority white perspective can encourage damaging stereotypes and vernacular that treats minorities like their perspective doesn't matter at all. There's a balance to be struck, but calling out privilege seems like the opposite of colonialism

It's got a ways to go, the framework is still colonial, it will be a while before the collective consciousness recognizes this and examines it with an alternate framework - which is not yet available.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Or you have the attitude that your perspective is more important, subconsciously because of how a culture treats you as more important or more easily believed. Like how a white person will virtually have far less likelihood of being shot by police or brutalized even while doing the same thing a black person would suffer that fate from.

Yeah it was such a shock. One day I started feeling what other people did, like my body was less there than before and all of a sudden intents became actions - the abuse I took for the first few months was more than enough to help me forget what I was like before that.

Though I still have a vague recollection.

However, what am I talking about? Who gets it? I too am invisible.

 

[stevil]

However, what am I talking about? Who gets it? I too am invisible.

Sorry, I am very literal and unspiritual etc. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Feeling what other people did??????

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sorry, I am very literal and unspiritual etc. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Feeling what other people did??????

Yeah, it was so extreme at the beginning. I'd look at someone and a part of their body would be transposed onto me even if I didn't have the anatomy.

But now it's not so extreme, I'm me again.

However, the way it affects me when I'm in a room and everyone's hating on one another and I feel them all inside of me. Too much, just not there yet.