3 ms·

If you want a serious definition of political correctness: The censure or suppression of speech which is deemed to offend the dignity of select classes of peop

If you want a serious definition of political correctness: The censure or suppression of speech which is deemed to offend the dignity of select classes of people, regardless of whether the speech is in fact true. That is where political correctness differs from defamation, which is inherently deceitful.

Pils 7y ago
Did you just make up that definition? The only result on Google is your comment.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Is the wording my own? Yes. However, I don't think I am by any means equivocating or redefining the term here. When people criticize political correctness, their complaint is generally that they are prohibited or reprimanded for saying things that are true (or might be true) but may be offensive to particular classes of people. The goal is generally not to actually offend people, but to preserve a society in which truth, even uncomfortable truth, can be discussed. EDIT: If you look at Wikipedia[1] you'll find that my definition matches almost precisely in meaning to the definition listed there. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
  - Pils 7y ago
    Okay, just clarifying. You are in fact redefining the term. Which isn't an issue, it has been redefined many times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness (Which I see you've edited to be included in your response). My problem with your definition is that it obscures the fact that "political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative, whereas your definition gives it a more neutral, clinical meaning. If we were discussing religious dogmatism, it would be the difference between "devout" and "puritanical." Your definition obscures the normative usage of the phrase, and can lead to people talking past each other.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      I am not redefining the term here. There is no bait-and-switch. I am entirely consistent both with the Wikipedia article and with Dr. Haidt. Yes, the term is often used in a negative sense (and, to be clear, I think political correctness is bad) but it's original connotation was positive. My definition was consistent with both. The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided, or if I applied it in an inconsistent manner. Neither I nor Dr. Haidt do this. EDIT: so there is the pejorative and non-pejorative sense that is worth addressing. As the wikipedia article says, it is used in a pejorative sense when used to refer to situations where the suppression of potentially offensive speech is deemed excessive or unwarranted. I (and Dr. Haidt) do use it in that sense, with the clarification that by "excessive or unwarranted" we specifically mean "without regard to the truth or falsehood of the speech expressed". That is the best way to summarize how the term is actually used in modern parlance with a great deal of consistency, particularly by groups such as Heterodox Academy. Anyone who has a negative visceral reaction to the use of the phrase "political correctness" needs to be sure that they can understand and address that meaning of the word. It's not just a general "boo" word, but one with specific content and describes a real phenomenon.
      - Pils 7y ago
        I should've expanded on my example more, since Anglo-American history is not universally taught around the globe. The Puritans were a more radical branch of the Church of England, famous for their early role in the American colonies. "Puritanical," according to Wiktionary, has two meanings: one referring to things related to the aforementioned group, and the other to "Precise in observance of legal or religious requirements; strict; overscrupulous; rigid (often used by way of reproach or contempt)."[0] Of course, one could argue that this is an adequate synonym for the word "devout." However, saying the Pope is devout is very different from saying the Pope is puritanical (and, given the word's history, somewhat ironic). It is technically correct, similar to your definition. > The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad? [0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puritanical https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puritanical
Nasrudith 7y ago
I'm not sure how well that technically fits - even putting aside euphemismitic misappropriation of the "People don't like it when you hurl terms of abuse at them and think you are a jerk - how unfair!" there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > even putting aside euphemismitic misappropriation of the "People don't like it when you hurl terms of abuse at them and think you are a jerk - how unfair!" There is of course a vast gulf between expressing uncomfortable truths and active ridicule. If you would like some examples, I'm sure Dr. Haidt's speeches are replete with them. Many other well-spoken liberals academics (such as Dr. Steven Pinker) have also addressed this. > there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance. Simply being outside the Overton Window of whatever politics are at play in a given society is not sufficient to be politically incorrect. "Politically incorrect" wasn't even a term in the political lexicon in the way it is today, so anachronistically applying an incorrect definition is of course going to lead to aberrant results. If you would like another source aside from myself, I present the first line from the Wikipedia entry on Political Correctness: >The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    That the term gets used often enough to complaim about people being upset at being referred to in outright slurs is the whole point. The term is connotationally polluted as said usage is associated with those who are either unself aware or disingenuous. In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Histor... Being totally outside the overton window may effectively the same thing - although it may receive the handwave "offensive all of proper society" or similiar. Especially back when obscenity laws were in force in naked defiance of the first ammendment.

Pils 7y ago

Did you just make up that definition? The only result on Google is your comment.

lliamander 7y ago
Is the wording my own? Yes. However, I don't think I am by any means equivocating or redefining the term here. When people criticize political correctness, their complaint is generally that they are prohibited or reprimanded for saying things that are true (or might be true) but may be offensive to particular classes of people. The goal is generally not to actually offend people, but to preserve a society in which truth, even uncomfortable truth, can be discussed. EDIT: If you look at Wikipedia[1] you'll find that my definition matches almost precisely in meaning to the definition listed there. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
- Pils 7y ago
  Okay, just clarifying. You are in fact redefining the term. Which isn't an issue, it has been redefined many times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness (Which I see you've edited to be included in your response). My problem with your definition is that it obscures the fact that "political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative, whereas your definition gives it a more neutral, clinical meaning. If we were discussing religious dogmatism, it would be the difference between "devout" and "puritanical." Your definition obscures the normative usage of the phrase, and can lead to people talking past each other.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    I am not redefining the term here. There is no bait-and-switch. I am entirely consistent both with the Wikipedia article and with Dr. Haidt. Yes, the term is often used in a negative sense (and, to be clear, I think political correctness is bad) but it's original connotation was positive. My definition was consistent with both. The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided, or if I applied it in an inconsistent manner. Neither I nor Dr. Haidt do this. EDIT: so there is the pejorative and non-pejorative sense that is worth addressing. As the wikipedia article says, it is used in a pejorative sense when used to refer to situations where the suppression of potentially offensive speech is deemed excessive or unwarranted. I (and Dr. Haidt) do use it in that sense, with the clarification that by "excessive or unwarranted" we specifically mean "without regard to the truth or falsehood of the speech expressed". That is the best way to summarize how the term is actually used in modern parlance with a great deal of consistency, particularly by groups such as Heterodox Academy. Anyone who has a negative visceral reaction to the use of the phrase "political correctness" needs to be sure that they can understand and address that meaning of the word. It's not just a general "boo" word, but one with specific content and describes a real phenomenon.
    - Pils 7y ago
      I should've expanded on my example more, since Anglo-American history is not universally taught around the globe. The Puritans were a more radical branch of the Church of England, famous for their early role in the American colonies. "Puritanical," according to Wiktionary, has two meanings: one referring to things related to the aforementioned group, and the other to "Precise in observance of legal or religious requirements; strict; overscrupulous; rigid (often used by way of reproach or contempt)."[0] Of course, one could argue that this is an adequate synonym for the word "devout." However, saying the Pope is devout is very different from saying the Pope is puritanical (and, given the word's history, somewhat ironic). It is technically correct, similar to your definition. > The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad? [0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puritanical https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puritanical

Nasrudith 7y ago

I'm not sure how well that technically fits - even putting aside euphemismitic misappropriation of the "People don't like it when you hurl terms of abuse at them and think you are a jerk - how unfair!" there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance.

lliamander 7y ago
> even putting aside euphemismitic misappropriation of the "People don't like it when you hurl terms of abuse at them and think you are a jerk - how unfair!" There is of course a vast gulf between expressing uncomfortable truths and active ridicule. If you would like some examples, I'm sure Dr. Haidt's speeches are replete with them. Many other well-spoken liberals academics (such as Dr. Steven Pinker) have also addressed this. > there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance. Simply being outside the Overton Window of whatever politics are at play in a given society is not sufficient to be politically incorrect. "Politically incorrect" wasn't even a term in the political lexicon in the way it is today, so anachronistically applying an incorrect definition is of course going to lead to aberrant results. If you would like another source aside from myself, I present the first line from the Wikipedia entry on Political Correctness: >The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That the term gets used often enough to complaim about people being upset at being referred to in outright slurs is the whole point. The term is connotationally polluted as said usage is associated with those who are either unself aware or disingenuous. In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Histor... Being totally outside the overton window may effectively the same thing - although it may receive the handwave "offensive all of proper society" or similiar. Especially back when obscenity laws were in force in naked defiance of the first ammendment.