7 ms·

Are there any examples of discussions or arguments having to do with political correctness that are actually thought-provoking? Seems like it's always the same

by Bakary 4y ago

Are there any examples of discussions or arguments having to do with political correctness that are actually thought-provoking? Seems like it's always the same ideas that come up whether the people involved are for it or not.

naasking 4y ago
What are the arguments you've heard? I'm sure there are some you haven't.
deltasevennine 4y ago
Yes. It's rather interesting from my perspective. There are actually three sides. Not two. Three. The first side is those who support political correctness. This side is singular. Simple. The other two sides are those who don't. This is where it gets interesting. One side that doesn't support it actually has hatred for marginalized groups. They aren't politically correct because of actual raw hatred. These people include racists, nazis, the KKK, etc. This group is a huge minority of the population. The third group are those that are not racist. They are normal people who respect other races, genders, sexual orientations but do not support political correctness. The argument here is more interesting. Why should I have to refer to a male with a penis as a "she" when objective reality and scientific truth defines this person as a biological "he"? Why do I have to redefine and complexify well established and obvious vocabulary, to make it fit someone else's perception or reality as we know it? That is the core of the argument. Which is more important? Emotional well being and social harmony Or Objective Reality/Truth? The answer is not clear. Scientific studies show that well-being is associated with lying to oneself. People who are happier are less aware of the objective truth and people who are brutally honest with themselves tend to meet the clinical definitions of depression. The majority of people you meet lie to themselves. Do we construct a reality that allows us to be happy or do we face the horror of objective reality? It's too late for me already. I've chosen the later and I can't go back. But the question is still interesting to me; given some aspect of the knowledge I have now and the ability to go back to the cross roads before I made that choice.... Would I be better off going down the other path? What is more important? Happiness? Or Truth? That to me is a profound question, and the core central question that's being asked by this culture war. We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. But of course we'd also be, in a way, lying to ourselves.
- silicon2401 4y ago
  > We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct That's objectively false. I would not be happier if everyone were politically correct, because I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. You can say whatever heinous, horrendous things you want about me and my loved ones as long as I'm able to walk away and disengage (if you pursue and target me, it changes from free speech to harassment/assault IMO). I'm also a strong believer in the ideal of objectivity, so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    > so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods. But as a believer in free speech, you must support peoples' freedom to engage in lies, no?
    - Banana699 4y ago
      As long as they don't impede my own right to free speech? sure, go ahead, delude yourself to your heart's content. Free speech advocates aren't the ones screaming hysterically about "dead naming" and 3rd person pronouns.
    - silicon2401 4y ago
      You can lie all you want as long as it doesn't impact others; that's why we have things like slander and libel. If you want to say your favorite color is blue when in fact it's red, I'd support you every day of the week. If you want to force me to say you're blond when in fact you're a redhead, then I would expect a civilized society to protect my freedom to not repeat your lie. Similarly I would expect a civilized society to protect you from me if I start saying something negative about you that actually impacts you negatively.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    >That's objectively false. No. If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. Everyone would be happier. This is objectively true. You just misinterpreted what I mean here. >I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. This is off topic. Free speech is part of the battle but it's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to something much deeper then that. Proponents of political correctness are attempting to redefine reality. They want to change the concept of gender as "fluid" and non-binary and they are trying to change this from a scientific aka "objective" standpoint. Compelled speech is just a tool to push this agenda, and while I don't support it, the arguments behind free speech aren't interesting to me. It's this entire idea of attempting to categorize this new interpretation of gender as the objective truth that interests me.
coldtea 4y ago
There can't be any thought-provoking arguments about this, if one dismisses them in advance as non-thought-provoking. Which is usually the case.
AndrewOMartin 4y ago
Most arguments come strongly down one side or another to the exclusion of any sane discussion. Allow me to quote a quote. From pseudalopex on July 3, 2020. > Stewart Lee: "What is political correctness? It's an often clumsy negotiation towards a kind of formally inclusive language. And there's all sorts of problems with it. But it's better than what we had before."[1] > [1] https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727838
_fat_santa 4y ago
I've read a ton about it over the years and my conclusion is that it's just not that deep of a concept. One side says: "We need more inclusive language" where the other side says "we need free speech". Pretty much any and every conversation or article I read has boiled down to these two points. The reason it gets discussed so much is that it's easy for both sides to point to "violations" on the other side. One side keeps ranting and raving that that the other side is being homophobic/transphobic/racist/classist/etc, the other side looks at that outrage, and responds in kind with it's own outrage going "look how wild this is". But every conversation just ends up with each side presenting examples of what they consider to be strange behavior by the other side. The real interesting part is not what the talking points are, but who is pushing then and the distribution of those talking points. My theory is the number of people that actually care about political correctness is vanishingly small. But because their ideas are so over the top to the other side, their opponents amplify their talking point. This amplification on social media results in the issue being perceived as a much bigger issue than what it actually is. And as a result of that amplification, people outside of that "culture war" start looking at the signals and assume the issue is much bigger than it really is and respond accordingly. Your HR manager might browse twitter every morning and gets the impression that racism in the workplace is a massive problem because "everyone on twitter is talking about it". So they institute a new diversity training policy to respond to that. TL;DR: The political correctness crowd is very small, but through amplification on social media, their ideas are being falsely perceived as being a much bigger issue than they really are.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This one has always stuck with me: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.htm...

by Bakary 4y ago

naasking 4y ago

What are the arguments you've heard? I'm sure there are some you haven't.

deltasevennine 4y ago

Yes. It's rather interesting from my perspective. There are actually three sides. Not two. Three. The first side is those who support political correctness. This side is singular. Simple. The other two sides are those who don't. This is where it gets interesting. One side that doesn't support it actually has hatred for marginalized groups. They aren't politically correct because of actual raw hatred. These people include racists, nazis, the KKK, etc. This group is a huge minority of the population. The third group are those that are not racist. They are normal people who respect other races, genders, sexual orientations but do not support political correctness. The argument here is more interesting. Why should I have to refer to a male with a penis as a "she" when objective reality and scientific truth defines this person as a biological "he"? Why do I have to redefine and complexify well established and obvious vocabulary, to make it fit someone else's perception or reality as we know it? That is the core of the argument. Which is more important? Emotional well being and social harmony Or Objective Reality/Truth? The answer is not clear. Scientific studies show that well-being is associated with lying to oneself. People who are happier are less aware of the objective truth and people who are brutally honest with themselves tend to meet the clinical definitions of depression. The majority of people you meet lie to themselves. Do we construct a reality that allows us to be happy or do we face the horror of objective reality? It's too late for me already. I've chosen the later and I can't go back. But the question is still interesting to me; given some aspect of the knowledge I have now and the ability to go back to the cross roads before I made that choice.... Would I be better off going down the other path? What is more important? Happiness? Or Truth? That to me is a profound question, and the core central question that's being asked by this culture war. We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. But of course we'd also be, in a way, lying to ourselves.

silicon2401 4y ago
> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct That's objectively false. I would not be happier if everyone were politically correct, because I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. You can say whatever heinous, horrendous things you want about me and my loved ones as long as I'm able to walk away and disengage (if you pursue and target me, it changes from free speech to harassment/assault IMO). I'm also a strong believer in the ideal of objectivity, so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  > so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods. But as a believer in free speech, you must support peoples' freedom to engage in lies, no?
  - Banana699 4y ago
    As long as they don't impede my own right to free speech? sure, go ahead, delude yourself to your heart's content. Free speech advocates aren't the ones screaming hysterically about "dead naming" and 3rd person pronouns.
  - silicon2401 4y ago
    You can lie all you want as long as it doesn't impact others; that's why we have things like slander and libel. If you want to say your favorite color is blue when in fact it's red, I'd support you every day of the week. If you want to force me to say you're blond when in fact you're a redhead, then I would expect a civilized society to protect my freedom to not repeat your lie. Similarly I would expect a civilized society to protect you from me if I start saying something negative about you that actually impacts you negatively.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  >That's objectively false. No. If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. Everyone would be happier. This is objectively true. You just misinterpreted what I mean here. >I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. This is off topic. Free speech is part of the battle but it's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to something much deeper then that. Proponents of political correctness are attempting to redefine reality. They want to change the concept of gender as "fluid" and non-binary and they are trying to change this from a scientific aka "objective" standpoint. Compelled speech is just a tool to push this agenda, and while I don't support it, the arguments behind free speech aren't interesting to me. It's this entire idea of attempting to categorize this new interpretation of gender as the objective truth that interests me.

coldtea 4y ago

There can't be any thought-provoking arguments about this, if one dismisses them in advance as non-thought-provoking. Which is usually the case.

AndrewOMartin 4y ago

Most arguments come strongly down one side or another to the exclusion of any sane discussion. Allow me to quote a quote. From pseudalopex on July 3, 2020. > Stewart Lee: "What is political correctness? It's an often clumsy negotiation towards a kind of formally inclusive language. And there's all sorts of problems with it. But it's better than what we had before."[1] > [1] https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727838

_fat_santa 4y ago

I've read a ton about it over the years and my conclusion is that it's just not that deep of a concept. One side says: "We need more inclusive language" where the other side says "we need free speech". Pretty much any and every conversation or article I read has boiled down to these two points. The reason it gets discussed so much is that it's easy for both sides to point to "violations" on the other side. One side keeps ranting and raving that that the other side is being homophobic/transphobic/racist/classist/etc, the other side looks at that outrage, and responds in kind with it's own outrage going "look how wild this is". But every conversation just ends up with each side presenting examples of what they consider to be strange behavior by the other side. The real interesting part is not what the talking points are, but who is pushing then and the distribution of those talking points. My theory is the number of people that actually care about political correctness is vanishingly small. But because their ideas are so over the top to the other side, their opponents amplify their talking point. This amplification on social media results in the issue being perceived as a much bigger issue than what it actually is. And as a result of that amplification, people outside of that "culture war" start looking at the signals and assume the issue is much bigger than it really is and respond accordingly. Your HR manager might browse twitter every morning and gets the impression that racism in the workplace is a massive problem because "everyone on twitter is talking about it". So they institute a new diversity training policy to respond to that. TL;DR: The political correctness crowd is very small, but through amplification on social media, their ideas are being falsely perceived as being a much bigger issue than they really are.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

This one has always stuck with me: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.htm...