13 ms·

Self-Censorship in Public Discourse: A Theory of 'Political Correctness' (1994) [pdf]

75 points by gwern 9y ago

hprotagonist 9y ago
Importantly, also [1994]. This is not the first time the PC wars have raged. I like David Foster Wallace's essay, "Authority and American Usage" (2005) as another take on things -- he was around for the PC wars in the early 90s too.
- nugi 9y ago
  Its been going so long, the talk show named after it has flipped script and is uncomfortably PC now. Oddly, back then, 'PC' was associated mostly with the conservative crowd.
- dang 9y ago
  Ah thanks. Year added above.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Every time this comes up, I always have to wonder, why is it so hard to not be a jerk to other people? That's really the essence of "being PC". Treat others with respect.
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  > why is it so hard to not be a jerk to other people? That's really the essence of "being PC". Treat others with respect. Other replies have already hit the main points of why this position doesn't really make sense. Mostly it comes down to "jerk" being a subjective term. However, I'd take thing a step further even. Why is it a problem if someone is a jerk? As adults shouldn't we be trivially able to disregard the aspects of someones communication we deem "jerky"? Why do we consider it reasonable to escalate hostility when someone is being (what we perceive as) a jerk? "Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement. Any harm done by words is self inflicted. If we use the basic, nearly automatic, capacity we have to filter communication, "jerks" aren't really a problem.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "Why is it a problem if someone is a jerk?" Why is it a problem for that jerk to simply not be a jerk? ""Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement." It's not. "Any harm done by words is self inflicted." It's not, and this "blame the victim" mentality you're displaying is, well, quite frankly, rather jerk-ish.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      Words lose their power over you when you stop taking offense. Remember when calling someone a "nerd" was a major insult? I do. I was called a nerd a lot in school. After I graduated, I started filling in "nerd" on forms asking my occupation. Some of my colleagues were horrified at that. But when I laughed, they started doing it, too. Now "nerd" has pretty much lost its perjorative tones, and is often a point of pride. Hypersensitivity over certain words enhances the words' power. Adopting the word destroys that power.
    - neveroffensive 9y ago
      > ""Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement." >> It's not. This is an objectively false statement. Unless the words are being uttered through a loud speaker, in which case that is a different story. You can not back your assertion with science or facts, only emotion and your own personal perception. It's your understanding, interpretation, and investment in words that causes you pain. Not the words themselves. > It's not, and this "blame the victim" mentality you're displaying is, well, quite frankly, rather jerk-ish. You're just illustrating my point. We use the term "jerk" to refer to true jerks sometimes, but often also to avoid facing hard truths. It's the same thing as calling someone a jerk for saying overweight people aren't beautiful. Edit: People hurt by words aren't victims of anything but their own weakness.
- martin1975 9y ago
  The problem is that nowadays stating one's views, convictions and principles that those "other people" disagree with is considered an offense. It's either agree with me or you're a Nazi.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    No, it really isn't. You might be able to find one or two extreme cases, but you're not going to find that as being the general case.
    - hateduser2 9y ago
      You will on reddit
      - mindcrime 9y ago
        And Facebook.
- xvedejas 9y ago
  The problem, at least for some, is giving up the discretion to decide what "being a jerk" is. Once you've let others decide the list of things that are jerkish, you've also given them the power to put their idea of political dissent on that list. You don't need political correctness to realize when you've been a jerk to someone.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    You don't need political correctness to realize when you've been a jerk to someone. Some people seem like they need it, or maybe even a carer to let them know. They’re not as bad as people who think that being abrasive and lacking social skills is some secret sauce on their “brilliance,” which you get too much in medicine, tech, and STEM in general. It isn’t the secret sauce, it’s what some people are willing to tolerate during your productive years, sometimes.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    I believe we can come up with at least some pretty standard definitions of "being a jerk". Telling a racist joke where the point is to dehumanize the targeted race? That's pretty clearly being a jerk. Purposefully misgendering a trans person? Again, very clearly being a jerk (this doesn't count the situation where you don't actually know what gender, and accidentally use the wrong one, but it would count if you then stuck to your mistake, and obstinately refused to correct it).
    - moduspol 9y ago
      How about not supporting BLM because one feels like the focus is incorrectly placed on police officers instead of high black-on-black murder rates in inner cities? Is that "being a jerk?"
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      > Purposefully misgendering a trans person? Again, very clearly being a jerk Your statement is more an attempt to establish a new norm and less an articulation of a well-established one. It's not unlikely that you'll encounter someone for which it's unknown as such.
- moduspol 9y ago
  I've been called a racist for suggesting everyone be treated equally regardless of race. You know, because that indirectly supports a racist society because it doesn't result in equal outcomes. If you really think that "being PC" just means not being a jerk to other people, you should consider talking to people with differing views more often.
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    and in what context did you make that suggestion? You were sitting around with your friends at the dinner table and suddenly you said I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of race? Or maybe you were in a discussion regarding reparations or the equal opportunity act and you suggested everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, meaning that you didn't think abuses of the past should be fixed (on edit: fixed in that particular way at least)? I mean it just seems a weird statement for you to make and censured for without some context.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      It can happen any time you are discussing college admissions decisions or hiring policy in tech. It is, in fact, quite politically correct to make a case for giving minorities perceived as disadvantaged a "leg up" in getting in the door, whether through admissions quotas or advantageous interviewing policies. Regardless of context, even. You can walk into work tomorrow, say that, and there will be no repercussions. Responding that you think the best candidate should be chosen regardless of race (even in context) can be called racist. I think you know this, though. The way that any time political correctness is brought up, there's a case being made that, "Well, maybe that's a dog-whistle and you're actually just a racist," contributes to the problem, too. One side gets the benefit of the doubt regardless of context. The other is presumed to be racist until proven otherwise.
- spicymaki 9y ago
  I think it is because we are entitled. Anything we give we must get something in return. What is the ROI of respect in this dog-eat-dog zero sum game?
- atlantic 9y ago
  Or, to rephrase that slightly: why is it so hard for other people not to agree with my view of the world? That's the essence of being PC. Recognise that I know best.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    That's not even close to what I said or implied.
    - hateduser2 9y ago
      You are not necessarily the master of your own truth
  - thebokehwokeh2 9y ago
    OP said simply this: > Treat others with respect. I guess you're implying that you disagree and that you should be a dick to everyone else?
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      > OP said simply this: >> Treat others with respect. No, the OP's comment was much longer than four words, and part of it implied that if you're not PC then you're a jerk. It's a lot easier to see the problem with the OPs comment if you think about what it means to be good, and how the definition of "being good" can vary so much between people. If you want to talk with people about what being PC really is, you have to use fewer vague, high-level abstractions like "jerk" and "respect" and more concrete examples.
      - s73v3r_ 9y ago
        Wrong. I simply said that a large part of "being PC" is not being a jerk to others.
    - dang 9y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16443737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16443737
- dictum 9y ago
  Discussions of "PC" fill me with existential dread, but here's my anecdata: I've seen a good share of rude and disrespectful people who chalk it to being "un-PC", and I've seen a good share of people who talk a great deal about empathy, inclusiveness and cultural sensitivity and are thorough jerks. As the former pride themselves in being rude, the latter excuse (or justify) their behavior on the need to go against the status quo/not perpetuate inequalities, etc. It's much like how the "feminism = equality" slogan is inaccurate; not being accurate does not mean it's the opposite, but that it's an oversimplifying definition for the masses that actually ignores all the theory, politics, history and movements of it.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I think a lot of "PC" people are disrespectful jerks themselves. There is a value in PC but nowadays it seems mainly used to shut up dissenting voices and marking them as evil.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > why is it so hard to not be a jerk to other people? That's really the essence of "being PC". Treat others with respect. Not really. "Political correctness" encompasses a set of values that aren't the only good values. There are other positive values that are incompatible with it in one way or another. Saying "it's just about not being an asshole" is just a way of claiming everyone with different values than you is an asshole.
  - intopieces 9y ago
    Which positive values are incompatible with political correctness?
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      An obvious one drops out if you take apart the term "politically correct" itself and think about it: the value that people should independently make their own judgements, potentially against pressure to conform. That's incompatible because political correctness requires conformity; either to a political authority or a zeitgeist, from which an individual is not allowed to stray far.
    - fowsefnmw3 9y ago
      Undocumented immigrants increase the supply of labor, and therefore applies downward price pressure. If you are someone who trims/removes trees, reducing this foreign labor arbitrage is a positive. (While undocumented immigration may be a positive for efficiency/economy as a whole, it certainly is not if you are facing increasing competition as a supplier of a service)
      - Slansitartop 9y ago
        That's not really a value, but more of an economic analysis [1]. Translated into a values, I'd say it'd be something like "focus on helping your long-term community members," meaning you'd try to preserve your local tree-trimmer's standard of living. The conflicting PC value is something like "focus on helping newcomers, regardless of any negative effects on your community's existing members," meaning you'd support the immigrants and immigration, even if it pushes your local tree-trimmer into poverty. [1] I'm starting to get annoyed with how economics seems to be used as a substitute for so many ways of thinking that it's totally unsuited to replace. Not just here, but all kinds of discussions. It has too firm a hold on people's minds.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  The "jerk" framing is useful, but probably not in the way you mean it. There will always be in this world obnoxious, boorish, impolite people. We should all try not to be such. But their existence doesn't mean the world is in a state of crisis, nor should we compromise time-tested principle of freedom to deal with the (non) crisis.
  - InclinedPlane 9y ago
    Ah yes, a perfect microcosm example of what's wrong with people who think "PC" types are being "too sensitive". They, and you, seem to think that everything in the world is hunky dory, and the only problems that exist in the world are a tiny subset of "jerks" who are intentionally so. And can't we call just get along and keep the jerks on the sidelines? This view is very popular but it is completely counterfactual and ahistorical. Firstly, it completely ignores the issue that it is possible to hurt other people without intending to do so. This is something that is basically impossible to not do as an ordinary flawed human being. You will hurt other people, period. You will do it, I will do it, everyone will do it. The question is how do you respond. If your response to being called out on hurting other people is to say "no, that didn't happen, you weren't hurt, your hurts are imaginary, because I didn't intend any hurt, I will not change my behavior and you can go fuck yourself for hurting my feelings" well, you had a moment of opportunity to not hurt someone intentionally and you lost it. You can no longer claim the mantle of "not intentionally hurting other people" after that point. On the other hand if you take the time to engage with being called out, educate yourself, and understand why someone has been hurt by what you said then maybe you have a chance of not being seen as a jerk. Secondly, we do not live in a utopia. We live in a civilization where the most apt metaphor is a city built on top of a hill of skulls. There are a lot of skeletons in our civilizational closet, and we have not yet expunged the taint of all those crimes and misdeeds from our society. There are still long lasting impacts and there are still enormous instances of institutionalized sexism, racism, nativism, and so forth in our society, culture, and systems of government. Pretending those don't exist, pretending that simply adopting a stance of neutrality is tantamount to "being a good guy" is giving those institutionalized forms of injustice legitimacy. Not everyone can simply go around day to day pretending glibly that these problems don't exist. For some the actions of even a small minority dramatically impact their lives (how safe they are day to day, for example), for many more the institutionalized injustices that still exist in society affect every day of their entire lives in profound ways. And when they see people like you who try to tell them that it's not a big problem, they are going to speak up and they're going to be right to do so. These things might not be a crisis to you but you should consider yourself fortunate you have that advantage.
- benchaney 9y ago
  People use the "Don't be a jerk" definition of PC when they are trying to argue for its importance, and a very different definition when it comes to actually branding people as anti-PC. Well, it doesn't work like that. You have to be consistent.
ralusek 9y ago
Strange coming out of Brown, although this is from 1994, because it is now consistently ranked in the top 10 furthest left among universities...which is saying something considering that American universities have an average distribution of 12:1 in left:right representation among educators.
- hprotagonist 9y ago
  When he wrote it, he was at BU, for what it's worth.
  - grzm 9y ago
    He (Glenn Loury) is at Brown now. As for his political views, he hosts a podcast for Bloggingheads TV where he delves into a range of topics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Loury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Loury
tunesmith 9y ago
"Political correctness" is one of those high-signal low-content phrases. People on opposite sides of the debate can't even agree on what it means. I wrestled with it by trying to come up with a 2x2 matrix (https://medium.com/@tunesmith/the-competing-definitions-of-political-correctness-bcac2764100e https://medium.com/@tunesmith/the-competing-definitions-of-p...) - I generally believe it's possible to exchange ideas completely, honestly, and respectfully without compromising meaning or passion. I still get stuck on the subject of trolling, though. It's distributed and weaponized in a way that wasn't possible in Aristotle's days. Difficult to find a principled way to shut it down that is consistent with the principles of free exchange of ideas.
- narrator 9y ago
  The biggest problem with political correctness is the friction between politically correct ideas and actual empirical reality. If there weren't that friction, political correctness wouldn't even be necessary. It would just be called telling the truth. That friction is always there though and constantly generating painful cognitive dissonance that require constant positive pressure in the form of censorship and downvotes to maintain the fiction that reality is being accurately described. For example, try posting FBI murder rate statistics by race of perpetrator and victim to any forum where political correctness is highly active. Instant downvotes and censorship to maintain ideological hygiene. This is the constant positive pressure that is needed to alleviate the friction between reality and political correctness. There is a belief that pretending that reality is a way that it is not will make it the way that it is pretended to be. We all experience a very small segment of actual reality, so this actually works for people who are insulated from certain realities that might be ideologically unhygienic.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    I think the question in that situation is, why did you post those stats in the first place? Are they relevant to a discussion? Or did you just want to rile people up?
    - ignoramceisblis 9y ago
jonstewart 9y ago
Can we not?
ggm 9y ago
There is PC, and there is the accusation of PC. One is held to be self-censorship. The other is a tool to disarm your opposition by accusing them of behaviours which disfavour their intellectual honesty, or claim your own views are being excluded. Speaking in code is normal. "we dont like your sort" is a phrase which can crop up in a western, bad guys talking to good guys, or in a realtors office "white realtor to black purchasor" or in a cake shop "christian cake maker, to gay couple" -There is no visible pejorative quality to your or your sort but contextually its understood. The PC moment, is denying the existence of the power relationships in the topic. I have an intense dislike of a six letter word used in the times of Mark Twain and others to discuss african-americans. I cannot abide the word, I walk out of conversations where it comes up, and I avoid its use. I am appalled by the ?ironic? re-adoption of this word by the rap community, it is a huge thorn in the side of millions of people worldwide. Is this being PC? its what I feel. If somebody cannot rationally discuss race relations in the USA without use of this word, what have we come to? is english as a language so bancrupt, we have no alternatives? The odd thing for me, is that the five letter alternative also starting with N, Negro, is now also a pejorative, when for so many years it wasn't. Truly, this is a minefield to negotiate. Then African-American, now people of colour. I like "people of colour" a lot. But I also know, in some time to come, it too will fall from grace. Yet, my residual hate for the six letter word remains. Nothing said here about PC will rid me of a sense the word is wrong, its use is wrong, and the intentionality using it, strongly disposes me to characterise somebody as belligerent in a power relationship. Even used ironically.
- hippich 9y ago
  USA was country of immigrants, and still is. Should newcomers carry same baggage of language? Should they be shamed for using these words?
  - ggm 9y ago
    How do newcomers acquire the use of these words? If we shift to one side slightly, how do lebanese arrivals learn to laugh at Polack jokes? What moment says its ok to laugh at those crazy poles, call them polacks, and have to sit by while the other guy tells jokes about rag-heads from the middle east? its a perpetuating hell. the only path out (I feel, but possibly wrongly) is to break the cycle.
truculation 9y ago
I see PC as a means by which some members of a ruling group try to secure their status within that group by self-righteously condemning other members of the group and the group itself. The PC beliefs themselves are adapted to cowing the spirits of the ruling group and to controlling thought. Only the most virtuous and the most wicked of the group are unaffected by the onslaught. 'Controlling thought' because in order to win the PC contest it isn't enough to memorise what to say, you have to give up control at a deeper level which includes the self-censoring of forbidden thoughts.
lolc 9y ago
Interesting, and written at the same time as the book "Private Truth, Public Lies" by Timur Kuran. I found the book to be highly useful in understanding how preference falsification shapes "absurd" societies. Looks like this article analyzes the mechanisms that lead to "public lies" in more detail. Without having read the article I'd like to point out that societies can be organized along many different and mutually exclusive beliefs. Neither of the beliefs is wrong in the absolute, but a society depends on its members to accept one belief for people to work together as a group. The development of pluralism is a rather new form of organization that is alien to most cultures. It is a triumph of humanism to have reached this point. We're in constant negotiation over which beliefs are acceptable, and which ones would destroy our society. It is a good thing that the field is wide, but it must be understood that the field of public discourse will have off-sides. If the enemies of humanism find themselves shunned this is in accordance with my beliefs of how a society should be organized.
gallblubber 9y ago
Another aspect of political correctness is that each speech act is seen to either 'perpetuate' or not this or that negative dynamic, and is incorrect or correct accordingly. So a weight is given, even to exchanges between private individuals, based on a simplistic and unverifiable model of how communications interact to shape society.

75 points by gwern 9y ago

Importantly, also [1994]. This is not the first time the PC wars have raged. I like David Foster Wallace's essay, "Authority and American Usage" (2005) as another take on things -- he was around for the PC wars in the early 90s too.

nugi 9y ago
Its been going so long, the talk show named after it has flipped script and is uncomfortably PC now. Oddly, back then, 'PC' was associated mostly with the conservative crowd.
dang 9y ago
Ah thanks. Year added above.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Every time this comes up, I always have to wonder, why is it so hard to not be a jerk to other people? That's really the essence of "being PC". Treat others with respect.

neveroffensive 9y ago
> why is it so hard to not be a jerk to other people? That's really the essence of "being PC". Treat others with respect. Other replies have already hit the main points of why this position doesn't really make sense. Mostly it comes down to "jerk" being a subjective term. However, I'd take thing a step further even. Why is it a problem if someone is a jerk? As adults shouldn't we be trivially able to disregard the aspects of someones communication we deem "jerky"? Why do we consider it reasonable to escalate hostility when someone is being (what we perceive as) a jerk? "Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement. Any harm done by words is self inflicted. If we use the basic, nearly automatic, capacity we have to filter communication, "jerks" aren't really a problem.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "Why is it a problem if someone is a jerk?" Why is it a problem for that jerk to simply not be a jerk? ""Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement." It's not. "Any harm done by words is self inflicted." It's not, and this "blame the victim" mentality you're displaying is, well, quite frankly, rather jerk-ish.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    Words lose their power over you when you stop taking offense. Remember when calling someone a "nerd" was a major insult? I do. I was called a nerd a lot in school. After I graduated, I started filling in "nerd" on forms asking my occupation. Some of my colleagues were horrified at that. But when I laughed, they started doing it, too. Now "nerd" has pretty much lost its perjorative tones, and is often a point of pride. Hypersensitivity over certain words enhances the words' power. Adopting the word destroys that power.
  - neveroffensive 9y ago
    > ""Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement." >> It's not. This is an objectively false statement. Unless the words are being uttered through a loud speaker, in which case that is a different story. You can not back your assertion with science or facts, only emotion and your own personal perception. It's your understanding, interpretation, and investment in words that causes you pain. Not the words themselves. > It's not, and this "blame the victim" mentality you're displaying is, well, quite frankly, rather jerk-ish. You're just illustrating my point. We use the term "jerk" to refer to true jerks sometimes, but often also to avoid facing hard truths. It's the same thing as calling someone a jerk for saying overweight people aren't beautiful. Edit: People hurt by words aren't victims of anything but their own weakness.
martin1975 9y ago
The problem is that nowadays stating one's views, convictions and principles that those "other people" disagree with is considered an offense. It's either agree with me or you're a Nazi.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  No, it really isn't. You might be able to find one or two extreme cases, but you're not going to find that as being the general case.
  - hateduser2 9y ago
    You will on reddit
    - mindcrime 9y ago
      And Facebook.
xvedejas 9y ago
The problem, at least for some, is giving up the discretion to decide what "being a jerk" is. Once you've let others decide the list of things that are jerkish, you've also given them the power to put their idea of political dissent on that list. You don't need political correctness to realize when you've been a jerk to someone.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  You don't need political correctness to realize when you've been a jerk to someone. Some people seem like they need it, or maybe even a carer to let them know. They’re not as bad as people who think that being abrasive and lacking social skills is some secret sauce on their “brilliance,” which you get too much in medicine, tech, and STEM in general. It isn’t the secret sauce, it’s what some people are willing to tolerate during your productive years, sometimes.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  I believe we can come up with at least some pretty standard definitions of "being a jerk". Telling a racist joke where the point is to dehumanize the targeted race? That's pretty clearly being a jerk. Purposefully misgendering a trans person? Again, very clearly being a jerk (this doesn't count the situation where you don't actually know what gender, and accidentally use the wrong one, but it would count if you then stuck to your mistake, and obstinately refused to correct it).
  - moduspol 9y ago
    How about not supporting BLM because one feels like the focus is incorrectly placed on police officers instead of high black-on-black murder rates in inner cities? Is that "being a jerk?"
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > Purposefully misgendering a trans person? Again, very clearly being a jerk Your statement is more an attempt to establish a new norm and less an articulation of a well-established one. It's not unlikely that you'll encounter someone for which it's unknown as such.
moduspol 9y ago
I've been called a racist for suggesting everyone be treated equally regardless of race. You know, because that indirectly supports a racist society because it doesn't result in equal outcomes. If you really think that "being PC" just means not being a jerk to other people, you should consider talking to people with differing views more often.
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  and in what context did you make that suggestion? You were sitting around with your friends at the dinner table and suddenly you said I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of race? Or maybe you were in a discussion regarding reparations or the equal opportunity act and you suggested everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, meaning that you didn't think abuses of the past should be fixed (on edit: fixed in that particular way at least)? I mean it just seems a weird statement for you to make and censured for without some context.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    It can happen any time you are discussing college admissions decisions or hiring policy in tech. It is, in fact, quite politically correct to make a case for giving minorities perceived as disadvantaged a "leg up" in getting in the door, whether through admissions quotas or advantageous interviewing policies. Regardless of context, even. You can walk into work tomorrow, say that, and there will be no repercussions. Responding that you think the best candidate should be chosen regardless of race (even in context) can be called racist. I think you know this, though. The way that any time political correctness is brought up, there's a case being made that, "Well, maybe that's a dog-whistle and you're actually just a racist," contributes to the problem, too. One side gets the benefit of the doubt regardless of context. The other is presumed to be racist until proven otherwise.
spicymaki 9y ago
I think it is because we are entitled. Anything we give we must get something in return. What is the ROI of respect in this dog-eat-dog zero sum game?
atlantic 9y ago
Or, to rephrase that slightly: why is it so hard for other people not to agree with my view of the world? That's the essence of being PC. Recognise that I know best.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  That's not even close to what I said or implied.
  - hateduser2 9y ago
    You are not necessarily the master of your own truth
- thebokehwokeh2 9y ago
  OP said simply this: > Treat others with respect. I guess you're implying that you disagree and that you should be a dick to everyone else?
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > OP said simply this: >> Treat others with respect. No, the OP's comment was much longer than four words, and part of it implied that if you're not PC then you're a jerk. It's a lot easier to see the problem with the OPs comment if you think about what it means to be good, and how the definition of "being good" can vary so much between people. If you want to talk with people about what being PC really is, you have to use fewer vague, high-level abstractions like "jerk" and "respect" and more concrete examples.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      Wrong. I simply said that a large part of "being PC" is not being a jerk to others.
  - dang 9y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16443737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16443737
dictum 9y ago
Discussions of "PC" fill me with existential dread, but here's my anecdata: I've seen a good share of rude and disrespectful people who chalk it to being "un-PC", and I've seen a good share of people who talk a great deal about empathy, inclusiveness and cultural sensitivity and are thorough jerks. As the former pride themselves in being rude, the latter excuse (or justify) their behavior on the need to go against the status quo/not perpetuate inequalities, etc. It's much like how the "feminism = equality" slogan is inaccurate; not being accurate does not mean it's the opposite, but that it's an oversimplifying definition for the masses that actually ignores all the theory, politics, history and movements of it.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I think a lot of "PC" people are disrespectful jerks themselves. There is a value in PC but nowadays it seems mainly used to shut up dissenting voices and marking them as evil.
Slansitartop 9y ago
> why is it so hard to not be a jerk to other people? That's really the essence of "being PC". Treat others with respect. Not really. "Political correctness" encompasses a set of values that aren't the only good values. There are other positive values that are incompatible with it in one way or another. Saying "it's just about not being an asshole" is just a way of claiming everyone with different values than you is an asshole.
- intopieces 9y ago
  Which positive values are incompatible with political correctness?
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    An obvious one drops out if you take apart the term "politically correct" itself and think about it: the value that people should independently make their own judgements, potentially against pressure to conform. That's incompatible because political correctness requires conformity; either to a political authority or a zeitgeist, from which an individual is not allowed to stray far.
  - fowsefnmw3 9y ago
    Undocumented immigrants increase the supply of labor, and therefore applies downward price pressure. If you are someone who trims/removes trees, reducing this foreign labor arbitrage is a positive. (While undocumented immigration may be a positive for efficiency/economy as a whole, it certainly is not if you are facing increasing competition as a supplier of a service)
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      That's not really a value, but more of an economic analysis [1]. Translated into a values, I'd say it'd be something like "focus on helping your long-term community members," meaning you'd try to preserve your local tree-trimmer's standard of living. The conflicting PC value is something like "focus on helping newcomers, regardless of any negative effects on your community's existing members," meaning you'd support the immigrants and immigration, even if it pushes your local tree-trimmer into poverty. [1] I'm starting to get annoyed with how economics seems to be used as a substitute for so many ways of thinking that it's totally unsuited to replace. Not just here, but all kinds of discussions. It has too firm a hold on people's minds.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
The "jerk" framing is useful, but probably not in the way you mean it. There will always be in this world obnoxious, boorish, impolite people. We should all try not to be such. But their existence doesn't mean the world is in a state of crisis, nor should we compromise time-tested principle of freedom to deal with the (non) crisis.
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  Ah yes, a perfect microcosm example of what's wrong with people who think "PC" types are being "too sensitive". They, and you, seem to think that everything in the world is hunky dory, and the only problems that exist in the world are a tiny subset of "jerks" who are intentionally so. And can't we call just get along and keep the jerks on the sidelines? This view is very popular but it is completely counterfactual and ahistorical. Firstly, it completely ignores the issue that it is possible to hurt other people without intending to do so. This is something that is basically impossible to not do as an ordinary flawed human being. You will hurt other people, period. You will do it, I will do it, everyone will do it. The question is how do you respond. If your response to being called out on hurting other people is to say "no, that didn't happen, you weren't hurt, your hurts are imaginary, because I didn't intend any hurt, I will not change my behavior and you can go fuck yourself for hurting my feelings" well, you had a moment of opportunity to not hurt someone intentionally and you lost it. You can no longer claim the mantle of "not intentionally hurting other people" after that point. On the other hand if you take the time to engage with being called out, educate yourself, and understand why someone has been hurt by what you said then maybe you have a chance of not being seen as a jerk. Secondly, we do not live in a utopia. We live in a civilization where the most apt metaphor is a city built on top of a hill of skulls. There are a lot of skeletons in our civilizational closet, and we have not yet expunged the taint of all those crimes and misdeeds from our society. There are still long lasting impacts and there are still enormous instances of institutionalized sexism, racism, nativism, and so forth in our society, culture, and systems of government. Pretending those don't exist, pretending that simply adopting a stance of neutrality is tantamount to "being a good guy" is giving those institutionalized forms of injustice legitimacy. Not everyone can simply go around day to day pretending glibly that these problems don't exist. For some the actions of even a small minority dramatically impact their lives (how safe they are day to day, for example), for many more the institutionalized injustices that still exist in society affect every day of their entire lives in profound ways. And when they see people like you who try to tell them that it's not a big problem, they are going to speak up and they're going to be right to do so. These things might not be a crisis to you but you should consider yourself fortunate you have that advantage.
benchaney 9y ago
People use the "Don't be a jerk" definition of PC when they are trying to argue for its importance, and a very different definition when it comes to actually branding people as anti-PC. Well, it doesn't work like that. You have to be consistent.

ralusek 9y ago

Strange coming out of Brown, although this is from 1994, because it is now consistently ranked in the top 10 furthest left among universities...which is saying something considering that American universities have an average distribution of 12:1 in left:right representation among educators.

hprotagonist 9y ago
When he wrote it, he was at BU, for what it's worth.
- grzm 9y ago
  He (Glenn Loury) is at Brown now. As for his political views, he hosts a podcast for Bloggingheads TV where he delves into a range of topics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Loury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Loury

tunesmith 9y ago

"Political correctness" is one of those high-signal low-content phrases. People on opposite sides of the debate can't even agree on what it means. I wrestled with it by trying to come up with a 2x2 matrix (https://medium.com/@tunesmith/the-competing-definitions-of-political-correctness-bcac2764100e https://medium.com/@tunesmith/the-competing-definitions-of-p...) - I generally believe it's possible to exchange ideas completely, honestly, and respectfully without compromising meaning or passion. I still get stuck on the subject of trolling, though. It's distributed and weaponized in a way that wasn't possible in Aristotle's days. Difficult to find a principled way to shut it down that is consistent with the principles of free exchange of ideas.

narrator 9y ago
The biggest problem with political correctness is the friction between politically correct ideas and actual empirical reality. If there weren't that friction, political correctness wouldn't even be necessary. It would just be called telling the truth. That friction is always there though and constantly generating painful cognitive dissonance that require constant positive pressure in the form of censorship and downvotes to maintain the fiction that reality is being accurately described. For example, try posting FBI murder rate statistics by race of perpetrator and victim to any forum where political correctness is highly active. Instant downvotes and censorship to maintain ideological hygiene. This is the constant positive pressure that is needed to alleviate the friction between reality and political correctness. There is a belief that pretending that reality is a way that it is not will make it the way that it is pretended to be. We all experience a very small segment of actual reality, so this actually works for people who are insulated from certain realities that might be ideologically unhygienic.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  I think the question in that situation is, why did you post those stats in the first place? Are they relevant to a discussion? Or did you just want to rile people up?
  - ignoramceisblis 9y ago

jonstewart 9y ago

Can we not?

ggm 9y ago

There is PC, and there is the accusation of PC. One is held to be self-censorship. The other is a tool to disarm your opposition by accusing them of behaviours which disfavour their intellectual honesty, or claim your own views are being excluded. Speaking in code is normal. "we dont like your sort" is a phrase which can crop up in a western, bad guys talking to good guys, or in a realtors office "white realtor to black purchasor" or in a cake shop "christian cake maker, to gay couple" -There is no visible pejorative quality to your or your sort but contextually its understood. The PC moment, is denying the existence of the power relationships in the topic. I have an intense dislike of a six letter word used in the times of Mark Twain and others to discuss african-americans. I cannot abide the word, I walk out of conversations where it comes up, and I avoid its use. I am appalled by the ?ironic? re-adoption of this word by the rap community, it is a huge thorn in the side of millions of people worldwide. Is this being PC? its what I feel. If somebody cannot rationally discuss race relations in the USA without use of this word, what have we come to? is english as a language so bancrupt, we have no alternatives? The odd thing for me, is that the five letter alternative also starting with N, Negro, is now also a pejorative, when for so many years it wasn't. Truly, this is a minefield to negotiate. Then African-American, now people of colour. I like "people of colour" a lot. But I also know, in some time to come, it too will fall from grace. Yet, my residual hate for the six letter word remains. Nothing said here about PC will rid me of a sense the word is wrong, its use is wrong, and the intentionality using it, strongly disposes me to characterise somebody as belligerent in a power relationship. Even used ironically.

hippich 9y ago
USA was country of immigrants, and still is. Should newcomers carry same baggage of language? Should they be shamed for using these words?
- ggm 9y ago
  How do newcomers acquire the use of these words? If we shift to one side slightly, how do lebanese arrivals learn to laugh at Polack jokes? What moment says its ok to laugh at those crazy poles, call them polacks, and have to sit by while the other guy tells jokes about rag-heads from the middle east? its a perpetuating hell. the only path out (I feel, but possibly wrongly) is to break the cycle.

truculation 9y ago

I see PC as a means by which some members of a ruling group try to secure their status within that group by self-righteously condemning other members of the group and the group itself. The PC beliefs themselves are adapted to cowing the spirits of the ruling group and to controlling thought. Only the most virtuous and the most wicked of the group are unaffected by the onslaught. 'Controlling thought' because in order to win the PC contest it isn't enough to memorise what to say, you have to give up control at a deeper level which includes the self-censoring of forbidden thoughts.

lolc 9y ago

Interesting, and written at the same time as the book "Private Truth, Public Lies" by Timur Kuran. I found the book to be highly useful in understanding how preference falsification shapes "absurd" societies. Looks like this article analyzes the mechanisms that lead to "public lies" in more detail. Without having read the article I'd like to point out that societies can be organized along many different and mutually exclusive beliefs. Neither of the beliefs is wrong in the absolute, but a society depends on its members to accept one belief for people to work together as a group. The development of pluralism is a rather new form of organization that is alien to most cultures. It is a triumph of humanism to have reached this point. We're in constant negotiation over which beliefs are acceptable, and which ones would destroy our society. It is a good thing that the field is wide, but it must be understood that the field of public discourse will have off-sides. If the enemies of humanism find themselves shunned this is in accordance with my beliefs of how a society should be organized.

gallblubber 9y ago

Another aspect of political correctness is that each speech act is seen to either 'perpetuate' or not this or that negative dynamic, and is incorrect or correct accordingly. So a weight is given, even to exchanges between private individuals, based on a simplistic and unverifiable model of how communications interact to shape society.