5 ms·
The phrasing on the latter half seems likely to cause a big mess of an argument, despite its statistical accuracy. Is there a better way to put it?
by rainbowmverse 9y ago
The phrasing on the latter half seems likely to cause a big mess of an argument, despite its statistical accuracy. Is there a better way to put it?
- geofft 9y agoI would hope that this forum understands the importance of not censoring truths that are politically incorrect....
- rainbowmverse 9y agoNo topic is really out of bounds, but some require an extra order of thinking that isn't reflected in the simple and inflammatory language people tend to use to discuss them. Being politically incorrect is just another way of being and thinking lazy and wasting other people's time.
- AlexB138 9y agoI may be misunderstanding you, but politically attacking rich people and white people are some of the most popular things going right now, especially among the demographic common around HN. It's almost the opposite of politically incorrect. Not saying all complaints are unfounded, but it's far from politically incorrect in many groups.
- geofft 9y agoI don't think "politically incorrect" is necessarily correlated with "unpopular" - see, for instance, the number of news articles about how countless people are thrilled with Trump for saying out loud the "politically incorrect" things that they were just thinking.
- AlexB138 9y agoFair point. Still, political correctness is very much about avoiding offense or further disadvantage toward marginalized groups. It still doesn't fit to claim it's politically incorrect to go after rich white people. It's a pedantic point though, I admit.
- geofft 9y agoI agree that that's how the phrase is used in practice (and yeah, language is descriptive), but I don't think the idea itself has any fundamental reason why it's about offense towards the marginalized and not offense towards the powerful--especially given that the powerful, somewhat by definition, tend to control politics and standards of decorum.