5 ms·

The problem with the "anti-political-correctness" camp is that it traditionally goes much farther. It's all relative, I suppose, but "turns out cancel culture m

by _bxg1 7y ago

The problem with the "anti-political-correctness" camp is that it traditionally goes much farther. It's all relative, I suppose, but "turns out cancel culture might be bad" is a long way off from "I resent the very idea of having to be considerate towards others". And then those two and everything in-between get lumped all together, so that the former tends to be judged based on the latter's history.

andrewflnr 7y ago
> The problem with the "anti-political-correctness" camp is that it traditionally goes much farther. I think it only stereotypically goes farther. Consider the viewpoint of someone who sees no difference between an outspoken feminist and something at the head of one of these spirals, and consider whether you might be in the same position regarding the right wing. Certainly, the environment I grew up in was simultaneously disdainful of political correctness while demanding courtesy toward everyone.
api 7y ago
> The problem with the "anti-political-correctness" camp is that it traditionally goes much farther People always overcorrect. Always. One generation's parenting is too hands off? The next generation will helicopter parent. Political correctness getting too puritanical and histrionic? People react by literally embracing Naziism. Democracy shows signs of stagnation and corruption? We get neoreaction. The Internet seems to intensify this too because all the social platforms are programmed to prioritize content so as to drive engagement. Maximum divisiveness drives engagement, not balanced opinions.
jerf 7y ago
I don't think summarizing "anti-political correctness" as "I don't have to be considerate towards others" is even remotely connected to reality. I think you need to get out of your filter bubble.
- senderista 7y ago
  That's exactly how e.g. Trump uses the term at his rallies. On the right nowadays, "politically incorrect" simply means what everyone else would call "being an asshole". The term has been corrupted beyond recovery, and we should just stop using it.
  - jerf 7y ago
    I would simply re-iterate my point. I think you (also, as a different person than I originally replied to) need to get out of your filter bubble. You do not understand why people find political correctness offensive. Note how I do not phrase that as a question. It is definitely not that they just don't want to have to be nice to people. When you understand, you may well still not agree with it. (The idea that "understanding is agreement" is a very naive one, but popular nonetheless.) But you clearly do not understand it.
    - senderista 7y ago
      You are making assumptions about me that are simply invalid. In fact, I have deep concerns about the sort of culture originally denominated by "political correctness", especially its effect on freedom of thought within the academy. I am merely pointing out that the term has been coopted by people who use it maliciously and in bad faith, to the point that I don't think it makes sense to use it anymore.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    Likewise, the term "politically correct" has been corrupted beyond recovery for slightly longer.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  I grew up "outside of my filter bubble". I was raised on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the very mouthpieces of political-incorrectness. And I bought into it for a long time, until I gained some perspective on the world and came to understand that brashness is not a virtue. We live in a society. Something that offends someone else may not comprise a universal moral truth, but making an effort to consider how your words affect others, including others whose backgrounds you may not understand at all, does. And certainly, going out of your way to rail against others' sensitivities (political incorrectness) helps nobody. It's possible that your personal definition of "anti-political-correctness" is different from mine, but I venture to say that the public at large, presented with the term, interprets it the way I do.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    >going out of your way to rail against others' sensitivities (political incorrectness) helps nobody. It helps the people who are being bullied or silenced, with those sensitivities used as a justification. Typically those sensitivities aren't involuntary. They're inculcated and exaggerated, both individually and on a mass basis, specifically as a lever to gain power over other people. If that lever for power stopped working, the vast majority of those sensitivities would stop existing. Anti-PC is helpful because it sets out the right incentives. Instead of incentivizing people to become helpless, mentally-ill wrecks who "can't even" in the face of the slightest emotional or intellectual challenge, it incentivizes people to be the most centered and independent version of themselves they can.
  - jeegsy 7y ago
    > including others whose backgrounds you may not understand at all, does. There is a certain soft bigotry in the assumption that differences in background account for as much as people think they do. The "perspective that I gained in the world" is that ppl are remarkably similar with some mostly surface differences. The point is, there has to be room to ask "Is your taking offence to this legitimate under any reasonable standard?"
slowmovintarget 7y ago
Political correctness begins with notion that you can set a policy that adjudicates what is "right" i.e. "moral". What follows is a struggle for who has the authority to set moral policy. That's where you get these purity spirals from. Being against political correctness is being against the idea that another fallible individual has the authority to say what it is moral for you to speak or write. This stance rails against the notion that anyone should have any power over your speech save arguing against it with speech or writing. Political correctness, better termed "moral policing" always ends with the attempt to silence those judged to be "wrong". This is incompatible with the principles of liberty. Me personally? I'm against political correctness because of what it really is, not because I wish to be rude with impunity.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. Admittedly there is some overlap where people lose their jobs. Of course there has to a collective standard for morality. The problem with purity spirals and witch hunts is that they stop looking at specific criminal acts - slavery, theft, murder, and rape aren't morally justifiable, however you slice it - and become more about group conformity and public professions of ideology. Dissent, debate, and non-conformity become immoral acts in themselves - and that is not a valid moral position.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    > The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. That's the classic left—right apology. I find both wrong. Just as I don't think you get to burn down cars, just because other people are bashing other peoples' skulls in. For some reason, a large part of the extreme left pays lip-service to non-violence, but is always quick to deflect criticism about left violence by pointing to (more extreme) right violence. I don't find that convincing and believe both sides need to be locked up. Sure, the murderers longer than the car burners.

by _bxg1 7y ago

andrewflnr 7y ago

> The problem with the "anti-political-correctness" camp is that it traditionally goes much farther. I think it only stereotypically goes farther. Consider the viewpoint of someone who sees no difference between an outspoken feminist and something at the head of one of these spirals, and consider whether you might be in the same position regarding the right wing. Certainly, the environment I grew up in was simultaneously disdainful of political correctness while demanding courtesy toward everyone.

api 7y ago

> The problem with the "anti-political-correctness" camp is that it traditionally goes much farther People always overcorrect. Always. One generation's parenting is too hands off? The next generation will helicopter parent. Political correctness getting too puritanical and histrionic? People react by literally embracing Naziism. Democracy shows signs of stagnation and corruption? We get neoreaction. The Internet seems to intensify this too because all the social platforms are programmed to prioritize content so as to drive engagement. Maximum divisiveness drives engagement, not balanced opinions.

jerf 7y ago

I don't think summarizing "anti-political correctness" as "I don't have to be considerate towards others" is even remotely connected to reality. I think you need to get out of your filter bubble.

senderista 7y ago
That's exactly how e.g. Trump uses the term at his rallies. On the right nowadays, "politically incorrect" simply means what everyone else would call "being an asshole". The term has been corrupted beyond recovery, and we should just stop using it.
- jerf 7y ago
  I would simply re-iterate my point. I think you (also, as a different person than I originally replied to) need to get out of your filter bubble. You do not understand why people find political correctness offensive. Note how I do not phrase that as a question. It is definitely not that they just don't want to have to be nice to people. When you understand, you may well still not agree with it. (The idea that "understanding is agreement" is a very naive one, but popular nonetheless.) But you clearly do not understand it.
  - senderista 7y ago
    You are making assumptions about me that are simply invalid. In fact, I have deep concerns about the sort of culture originally denominated by "political correctness", especially its effect on freedom of thought within the academy. I am merely pointing out that the term has been coopted by people who use it maliciously and in bad faith, to the point that I don't think it makes sense to use it anymore.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Likewise, the term "politically correct" has been corrupted beyond recovery for slightly longer.
_bxg1 7y ago
I grew up "outside of my filter bubble". I was raised on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the very mouthpieces of political-incorrectness. And I bought into it for a long time, until I gained some perspective on the world and came to understand that brashness is not a virtue. We live in a society. Something that offends someone else may not comprise a universal moral truth, but making an effort to consider how your words affect others, including others whose backgrounds you may not understand at all, does. And certainly, going out of your way to rail against others' sensitivities (political incorrectness) helps nobody. It's possible that your personal definition of "anti-political-correctness" is different from mine, but I venture to say that the public at large, presented with the term, interprets it the way I do.
- jlawson 7y ago
  >going out of your way to rail against others' sensitivities (political incorrectness) helps nobody. It helps the people who are being bullied or silenced, with those sensitivities used as a justification. Typically those sensitivities aren't involuntary. They're inculcated and exaggerated, both individually and on a mass basis, specifically as a lever to gain power over other people. If that lever for power stopped working, the vast majority of those sensitivities would stop existing. Anti-PC is helpful because it sets out the right incentives. Instead of incentivizing people to become helpless, mentally-ill wrecks who "can't even" in the face of the slightest emotional or intellectual challenge, it incentivizes people to be the most centered and independent version of themselves they can.
- jeegsy 7y ago
  > including others whose backgrounds you may not understand at all, does. There is a certain soft bigotry in the assumption that differences in background account for as much as people think they do. The "perspective that I gained in the world" is that ppl are remarkably similar with some mostly surface differences. The point is, there has to be room to ask "Is your taking offence to this legitimate under any reasonable standard?"

slowmovintarget 7y ago

Political correctness begins with notion that you can set a policy that adjudicates what is "right" i.e. "moral". What follows is a struggle for who has the authority to set moral policy. That's where you get these purity spirals from. Being against political correctness is being against the idea that another fallible individual has the authority to say what it is moral for you to speak or write. This stance rails against the notion that anyone should have any power over your speech save arguing against it with speech or writing. Political correctness, better termed "moral policing" always ends with the attempt to silence those judged to be "wrong". This is incompatible with the principles of liberty. Me personally? I'm against political correctness because of what it really is, not because I wish to be rude with impunity.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. Admittedly there is some overlap where people lose their jobs. Of course there has to a collective standard for morality. The problem with purity spirals and witch hunts is that they stop looking at specific criminal acts - slavery, theft, murder, and rape aren't morally justifiable, however you slice it - and become more about group conformity and public professions of ideology. Dissent, debate, and non-conformity become immoral acts in themselves - and that is not a valid moral position.
- Tomte 7y ago
  > The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. That's the classic left—right apology. I find both wrong. Just as I don't think you get to burn down cars, just because other people are bashing other peoples' skulls in. For some reason, a large part of the extreme left pays lip-service to non-violence, but is always quick to deflect criticism about left violence by pointing to (more extreme) right violence. I don't find that convincing and believe both sides need to be locked up. Sure, the murderers longer than the car burners.