Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

I call it (where we are now) the Post Truth era.

There have always been liars - those happy to utter deliberate untruths to serve their purposes.

And there have always been ignorant people who do not know the truth.

What seems new about the current "era" is

A) that so many people have access to internet as a broadcast medium, there's no filter, no quality control. Nobody has to think your ideas worthy or valuable in order for them to be broadcast. There are no gatekeepers, no prerequisite.

Arguably that's a good thing, in so much as those filters which were only the prejudices or groupthink of a certain class of people aren't there in this medium. A democratisation, if you like. But those filters did serve to filter out a certain amount of falsehood which now gets broadcast.

B) there's more shamelessness about lying (or anything else).

Partly because of the anonymity of the medium.

And partly because shame requires some common or accepted code of behaviour to have been violated. Whereas so many seem to think that a new medium (or rapid cultural change brought about by new technology) automatically invalidates or makes obsolete older standards of behaviour. Like honesty.

Regardless of its misuse, political correctness has, or had, earlier in its 'existence', a positive element too. It asks us to treat others with fairness and consideration, maybe even care. What is the term for this positive sentiment, if we (I!) must accept that Political Correctness has the negative meaning discussed and explained here in this topic?

You seem to be really not grasping the difference here.

Politeness or good manners treats everybody with fairness and consideration based on the speaker's own view.

Being PC is restricting speech about certain groups of people to what some elite third party has decided is acceptable terminology.

If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so. Most of the time you don't, and so no insult is warranted or intended. Given that we're talking about that majority of the time when there is no intent to insult or offend:

If I deliberately don't use some word to you because - based on my understanding of who you are, defaulting to the norms of my subculture - I think you might feel insulted or offended thereby, that is politeness or good manners. No other term is needed for this positive sentiment.

If I deliberately don't use some word to you because
- some unaccountable They have decided that you and not others are worthy of special consideration and have deemed the word in question to be offensive
- I fear the social censure I'm likely to get by dissenting from Their dictates in this matter
then that's political correctness.

It's not really a particularly fine or difficult distinction.

"They" may be motivated by fairness or consideration. Or something else entirely. It doesn't matter. The difference is in the process.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so.

Bearing in mind that insults are ad homs, attacking the messenger, not the message, I wonder why you would *want* such a "right"? Why would you wish to attack me (or anyone else)? And who are you (or I, or anyone) to decide whether I deserve such an attack? I ask because this sentiment seems foreign to the person I have seen in your previous posts.



A small but real world example: autists are attacked* because we're 'weird'. Some people think we deserve it. Do we?



* — clarification: these attacks are almost always verbal, not physical.

[Sy Borg]

It amazes me that, today, we cannot even say the word "******" in a descriptive context and must instead use "n-word". Or the "f-word" or the "c-word".

The ignoring of context and treating a word as taboo is childish IMO, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather that society try to teach people to understand context.

I don't think there would have been anything wrong with using that word in the context of the point I was making. My intent was opposed to the common use of the word in the past, and the same goes for "Redskins". I do think that re-naming the team was the right thing to do, though, as we shouldn't casually use words that come with so much baggage. "Redskins" is akin to saying 'savages' or 'gooks' or 'wetbacks'. These terms attribute negative traits to people who may or may not have these traits. They were intended to set in cement the idea that these groups are second-class citizens, if even that.

So, I think that the VFW guys are very self-centered to be upset that the name was changed. I do see your point that we should be better able to understand context, but so many people cannot these days that it just seems safer not to use certain terms, for fear of being misunderstood. Most folks here could see context. However, if your comments are misunderstood on many other forms of social media, you won't even get a chance to walk them back as you are 'down-voted' to oblivion by people who don't even see your point.

Precisely — "Who cares, wins". 😉 Courtesy doesn't prevent the discussion of difficult subjects, but it does ask that we do so without throwing personal insults. I think courtesy was invented to promote full and frank discussion without it leading to violence.

For all the negativity of political correctness, as this topic complains about, there is an underlying thread of substance — a simple request that we behave with care and consideration for others. Is that really so much to ask? Does anybody lose out if we do? Or do we all gain...? 🤔

It's come the full circle, where the act of political correctness can be a form of abuse. That's why people complain about it. If it was just a matter of not insulting vulnerable groups, most people would be fine with it. Particularly problematic is the failure to appreciate that values were different in the past. What people now describe as "disgusting" was normal.

I am a huge fan of Star Trek's original series. There's all manner of sexism going on in the show, and sometimes alleged racism, which some today would consider "disgusting", but you have to understand context. People complain about the women's short dresses as though they were being objectified, when the high hemlines were suggested by the actors themselves because mini skirts were hip at the time. But today's prudish lens sees that as exploitative sexism. There is also no concept by today's dowdy, starched up people of what randy little apes young people in the 60s were. At the time, young people had discovered the contraceptive pill and HIV was still decades away, and they had finally discarded the prudish religious shackles of the 1950s - a wowserism now being revisited today.

Today all manner of pretty bland behaviour everything is being described as disgusting, disgraceful, shocking. So, if saying something dumb ten years ago while drunk is "disgusting" and 'shocking", then how would rape and torture be described?

[Consul]

"political correctness (PC). During the course of the twentieth century people became increasingly aware of the ways in which language and behaviour can serve to stereotype and denigrate, and thereby to reinforce attitudes that promote discrimination. A gradual but systematic reform of political language began, with words like ‘n#gger’ and ‘yid’ disapproved and eventually expelled from the language. What began as a commendable pursuit of objectivity and courtesy soon took on a life of its own, however, so that each new way of labelling people – however accurate – could be deemed ‘politically incorrect’ by someone, and so become a target of hostility. Thus ‘negro’, which replaced ‘n#gger’, was soon disapproved, to be displaced by ‘black’, to be displaced in turn (in the US context) by ‘African-American’. Harmless though these linguistic reforms might appear, they generated minefields for the unwary who, having inadvertently referred to some hitherto disfavoured minority with the wrong label, or even used that label in a way that could be misunderstood, might be accused of a thought-crime – as illustrated by Philip Roth in The Human Stain, 2000. For this reason the concept of ‘political correctness’ has become a topic of intense controversy in the US and elsewhere, those on the right attacking it as a threat to free speech and an excuse for witchhunts, those on the left endorsing it (though seldom under this description, which has now acquired a perjorative flavour) as a necessary preliminary to fair and respectful public dialogue.

The controversy has been fuelled by recent tendencies to judge not just language but also behaviour and even opinions in terms of their political correctness. It has been judged politically incorrect to open doors for women, to invite homosexuals to dinner without their current partners, to hunt animals, or to advocate a traditional curriculum in the humanities: though again, someone who thought in that way would not describe those practices as ‘politically incorrect’, but find some other and more neutral expression with which to condemn them. PC has advanced beyond good manners to become a social policy, directed towards a multicultural, inclusive, caring and non-judgemental society. Those who will not or cannot live in such a society are therefore the victims of PC, which seems to exclude them from institutions where its advocates are in the ascendant. The effect on university life in the US has been welcomed and deplored with equal vehemence, PC being used not only to police the language and attitudes of the professoriat, but also to advance and destroy careers within it, on grounds that many feel have little to do with academic excellence. Moreover, recent studies have shown that PC acts not merely to marginalize opinions, but also to marginalize facts, so that the UK Home Office, for example, has issued a report attributing the increase in HIV cases to increased sexual activity among the young, for fear that the truth – that the increase is due to immigration from Africa – would be unacceptable to bien pensant opinion."

(Scruton, Roger. The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. pp. 530-1)

"bien-pensant. French: someone with the ‘right ideas’. Used ironically to denote anyone whose opinions are adopted in order to conform to what is socially acceptable – specifically among those who are well-off, liberal and half-educated."

(Scruton, Roger. The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. p. 60)

[Sy Borg]

(quoting Roger Scruton) "The effect on university life in the US has been welcomed and deplored with equal vehemence, PC being used not only to police the language and attitudes of the professoriat, but also to advance and destroy careers within it, on grounds that many feel have little to do with academic excellence. Moreover, recent studies have shown that PC acts not merely to marginalize opinions, but also to marginalize facts, so that the UK Home Office, for example, has issued a report attributing the increase in HIV cases to increased sexual activity among the young, for fear that the truth – that the increase is due to immigration from Africa – would be unacceptable to bien pensant opinion."

An important point. Another example is the media refusing to name the race of perpetrators of violent crime. While this reduces the chance of racial retribution, it also denies useful information for those hoping to stay safe, and masks socially dysfunctional enclaves. Which is the greater good?

Personally, I prefer frankness. The practice of manipulating news for social engineering purposes creates an interesting situation. Look at the freedom of the media in the west to undermine a country how it can impact on its national security. Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes can keep people calm by feeding them a strictly edited, and distorted, "reality".

In the current milieu, it seems that the regimes have the advantage. However they always end up stagnating because the leader's minions will to be too afraid to tell the truth. What lieutenant wants to be the one reporting problems in their jurisdiction to the dictator while all their peers pretend that their areas of responsibility are going AOK? It's a good way to be demoted, imprisoned or killed. So a dictator's assistants will all fail to tell their leader the truth, and the dictator will become ever more ignorant and bereft of sensible ideas - but no one will dare point that out.

I suppose that's the ultimate political correctness. Without some measure of freedom and chaos, stagnation follows. People often fail to appreciate what it means to live in a pluralistic society. It means relying on people who would do job that you would, or could, never do. These people will have very different interests and values, but civil society relies on the mature interaction between those variant views.

However, the social contract has been broken. The promise was that if one worked and studied diligently, one could afford to buy a home and start a family. Now there are ever more workers struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and in no position to start a family. That leads to resentment, and that resentment can come out in many ways. One way is to reject almost everything about the generations blamed for the problems, given that they have little to lose. Any excuse to take a jab.

[gad-fly]

According to Collins on internet:

ADJECTIVE
If you say that someone is politically correct, you mean that they are extremely careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who have a disadvantage, or who have been treated differently because of their sex, gender, race, or disability.
The politically correct are people who are politically correct.

Note "extremely careful" and "not to offend or upset". In the present tense, this would apply to Hamas which has been refeerred by some government as a terrorist group, but probably not to Israel which apparently has no disadvantage. Apparently, as I have said. Can't we all claim some disadvantage: Female, Male, white, black, rich, poor, and so on. Perhaps God is the only exception, but that is beside the point.

Not only is "politically correct" a loaded and tilted adjective. The crux of the problem, I believe, is that you cannot apply it as an adjective to anyone except to yourelf, so help you God.

my suggeestion: treat the adjective as evil. See no evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil.

[Pattern-chaser]

An important point. Another example is the media refusing to name the race of perpetrators of violent crime. While this reduces the chance of racial retribution, it also denies useful information for those hoping to stay safe, and masks socially dysfunctional enclaves. Which is the greater good?

Although it is buried quite deeply, I think you may be perpetuating a myth here? The myth that the positive side of political correctness seeks to oppose. PC says that it is unreasonable — and wrong — to tar a whole community with the same brush. That, just because an Asian man raped a woman, that all Asian men might do so. Your mention of "useful information" seems to say that you want/need to know that the criminal was Asian, so that you can (presumably) guard against other/all Asian men? This, if I have interpreted your comment correctly, is what PC seeks to prevent, isn't it?

Yes, the "greater good" is what we're looking for here, isn't it? Isn't that what PC is all about, the greater good?

[Pattern-chaser]

If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so.

Bearing in mind that insults are ad homs, attacking the messenger, not the message, I wonder why you would *want* such a "right"? Why would you wish to attack me (or anyone else)? And who are you (or I, or anyone) to decide whether I deserve such an attack? I ask because this sentiment seems foreign to the person I have seen in your previous posts.

This has bothered me all night, after posting yesterday. Why would a decent person want to reserve the right to (verbally) harm someone? Wouldn't a simple expression of disagreement fully meet their needs?

[Good_Egg]

Why would you wish to attack me (or anyone else)?

I'm not sure. I wasn't intending to get into questions of whether insults serve any purpose at all, or whether the world would be a better place if they could be somehow excluded from language altogether.

I was trying to set the case of deliberate insult on one side, to focus on cases where no insult is intended. Because I think we can all recognise that many cases of politically-incorrect speech are not intended as insulting.

And that part of the objection to speech-policing in the name of PC is that blindness to intention and context as seen by those involved.

Regardless of its misuse, political correctness has, or had, earlier in its 'existence', a positive element too. It asks us to treat others with fairness and consideration, maybe even care. What is the term for this positive sentiment, if we (I!) must accept that Political Correctness has the negative meaning discussed and explained here in this topic?

Maybe what you're asking here is what's positive about PC ?

The answer being that the speech-policing involved is in many cases well-meaning. Those who advocate being PC are often utilitarians, seeking to act in accordance with their principle, seeing a small loss of spontaneity in the majority as an acceptable price to pay for avoiding gross offence being inflicted on a minority.

Those of us who think they're mistaken do so either because we reject utilitarianism, believing in some sort of right to do with free expression. Or because we think their calculus of utility is faulty - tunnel-vision focused on the hurt feelings of "protected groups" at the expense of other issues (around freedom and authority) that matter to everyone.

[Sy Borg]

An important point. Another example is the media refusing to name the race of perpetrators of violent crime. While this reduces the chance of racial retribution, it also denies useful information for those hoping to stay safe, and masks socially dysfunctional enclaves. Which is the greater good?

Although it is buried quite deeply, I think you may be perpetuating a myth here? The myth that the positive side of political correctness seeks to oppose. PC says that it is unreasonable — and wrong — to tar a whole community with the same brush. That, just because an Asian man raped a woman, that all Asian men might do so. Your mention of "useful information" seems to say that you want/need to know that the criminal was Asian, so that you can (presumably) guard against other/all Asian men? This, if I have interpreted your comment correctly, is what PC seeks to prevent, isn't it?

Yes, the "greater good" is what we're looking for here, isn't it? Isn't that what PC is all about, the greater good?

If there is, as per your example, an Asian rapist or murderer at large, then might it be useful for local residents to know that?

Perhaps the media should not report the gender, age or former occupation of the criminal too? In fact, why report crime at all? Perhaps it would be for the greater good if people were told nothing about local events? Perhaps ignorance really is bliss?

[popeye1945]

Politically correctness is an attempt to control the free speech of others, to the tune of trying to legislate/dictate the pronouns one must use to address some troubled psychological states, and if you do not abide to the dictated speech, you might be found guilty of a hate crime. A slippery slope giving the state unlimited power over the individual, it is oppression really, but perhaps just a start.

[Pattern-chaser]

Ah, I remember now. The trials of old age, and associated memory-loss! Anyway, when I first became aware of the phrase "political correctness", I think it was a positive thing. But very quickly, the nay-sayers identified a few cases were it was applied inappropriately, maybe exaggerating enforcement, and the common phrase became "This is political correctness gone mad!" Soon, the negative meaning was the most often-used, and the original phrase took on the new and negative meaning. That's how I remember it, anyway.

Why would you wish to attack me (or anyone else)?

I'm not sure. I wasn't intending to get into questions of whether insults serve any purpose at all, or whether the world would be a better place if they could be somehow excluded from language altogether.

Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood. It looked as though you were saying the 'right' to (verbally) harm someone else was the sort of right that was important enough to defend, perhaps quite strongly? And, when I saw it written down so starkly, I was moved to respond. Is there such a thing as a 'right' to harm others? [N.B. I'm not talking about self-defence.]

I was trying to set the case of deliberate insult on one side, to focus on cases where no insult is intended. Because I think we can all recognise that many cases of politically-incorrect speech are not intended as insulting.

And that part of the objection to speech-policing in the name of PC is that blindness to intention and context as seen by those involved.

If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so. Most of the time you don't, and so no insult is warranted or intended...

As I checked back, to retrieve the above quote, I see your intention was also veering in the direction you describe. But the sentiment you expressed above, er, appalled me. Now, as I write, I wonder if it harks back to American adherence to the dogma of Free Speech, recently championed by Elon Musk and his eX-Twitter? Free Speech above all else, it sometimes seems. It even seems to allow some aspects of Hate Speech, but perhaps not all.

Regardless of its misuse, political correctness has, or had, earlier in its 'existence', a positive element too. It asks us to treat others with fairness and consideration, maybe even care. What is the term for this positive sentiment, if we (I!) must accept that Political Correctness has the negative meaning discussed and explained here in this topic?

Maybe what you're asking here is what's positive about PC ?

The answer being that the speech-policing involved is in many cases well-meaning. Those who advocate being PC are often utilitarians, seeking to act in accordance with their principle, seeing a small loss of spontaneity in the majority as an acceptable price to pay for avoiding gross offence being inflicted on a minority.

I'm not aware of being a "Utilitarian", but I would agree with your description, above. I place care and consideration for others pretty close to the top of my personal priority tree. Hence my motto, "Who cares, wins". Why should a community, minority or not, have to endure gross insults, often meant and intended as such? These insults achieve nothing positive. They just offend others, and the most important point: the speaker means and intends to offend/hurt/harm/insult.

If we have an issue with a community, it is probably best to address it directly (and courteously), rather than to attack the members of that community. Ad hominem attacks are not the best way to engage with our fellows, IMO. They achieve lots, but all of it is negative and unhelpful. Those who are attacked double-down on the position that provoked the insult in the first place. And so on. Nothing helpful.

Those of us who think they're mistaken do so either because we reject utilitarianism, believing in some sort of right to do with free expression. Or because we think their calculus of utility is faulty - tunnel-vision focused on the hurt feelings of "protected groups" at the expense of other issues (around freedom and authority) that matter to everyone.

Now we're harking back to my mention of America's Sacred Cow, Free Speech, I think? There's also a hint of a straw-man attack here too, as you transform a caring view into "tunnel-vision" that overturns the sense and the sentiment of caring, making it into something bad and undesirable. One can care about, and respect, views both lesser and greater, I think. There is no need to sacrifice one in the name of the other. But then, that's exactly the misunderstanding that the straw-man attack is intended to produce, yes?

[Lagayascienza]

The only reason I would want to use the n…… word would be to denigrate and insult people of African American ethnicity. But why would I want to do that?

I guess that if I were a white, poorly educated, unemployed male near the bottom of the socioeconomic heap who drove a bomb and couldn’t get a girl and who was pissed off about not being able to express the last thing he feels superior about, well, yeah, I can kinda see how not being able to freely use the n…… word when and where he wanted might be like just another nail in the coffin of previous privilege which he took for granted based on his colour and ethnicity. It probably wouldn’t occur to him that the real cause of his loss of status is his failure to work hard during the day, go to night school to get a better education and so improve his chances of getting a nice car and a girl. It’s much easier sit on his stoop as an incel sucking on Bud and to blame immigrants, n……s , and whomever else he can think of, and on whom he can vent his resentment.

Too bad for him. The rest of us will get on with being decent people who take individual people as we find them and try not to unduly offend. Accusations of political correctness be damned. I don’t need to use the n…... word in everyday contexts and I’m fine with that sort of political correctness.

[Lagayascienza]

And further to the above, I can see why a politician who tells guys like the one mentioned above that he is still the best, and that all his problems are caused by others, n....., immigrants, whoever, will get this guys vote. It's just what a guy like him wants to hear. As Homer Simpson explains to his son who asks why Homer throws his used MacDonalds pack onto the street instead of putting it in the trash can says, " Duh, it's easier".

[Pattern-chaser]

An important point. Another example is the media refusing to name the race of perpetrators of violent crime. While this reduces the chance of racial retribution, it also denies useful information for those hoping to stay safe, and masks socially dysfunctional enclaves. Which is the greater good?

Although it is buried quite deeply, I think you may be perpetuating a myth here? The myth that the positive side of political correctness seeks to oppose. PC says that it is unreasonable — and wrong — to tar a whole community with the same brush. That, just because an Asian man raped a woman, that all Asian men might do so. Your mention of "useful information" seems to say that you want/need to know that the criminal was Asian, so that you can (presumably) guard against other/all Asian men? This, if I have interpreted your comment correctly, is what PC seeks to prevent, isn't it?

Yes, the "greater good" is what we're looking for here, isn't it? Isn't that what PC is all about, the greater good?

If there is, as per your example, an Asian rapist or murderer at large, then might it be useful for local residents to know that?

I am very hesitant indeed about casting aspersions here, but isn't this almost a *definition* of discrimination, of all the -isms? The information you describe as "useful for local residents" would only be as useful as you suggest if many/most/all Asian men were rapists, or given to the occasional rape! But they aren't.

That is why discrimination is considered wrong, because it tars a whole community with the same brush, unreasonably. For the simple truth (of this hypothetical example) is that rapists come from all human 'races'. The only thing we can reasonably (and correctly) say about any sub-community of mankind is that rapists are almost all male. Not Asian, nor of any particular religious or political persuasion, just male.