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

[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?

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.

I don't care about any of that. That's just societal gaming. If a rapist is on the loose, should we avoid distributing photos for fear of stereotyping? What if people are mean to people who look like the man (or woman) in the photo?

The more information that is withheld "for our own good" the more information will be withheld generally. Generally, I was maximal information and minimum holding back.

[Sy Borg]

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?

Well, you just used it right then without wanting to insult anyone. You just proved yourself wrong. Academic use. Discussing history, formally or informally. But that's not allowed either, despite the context clearly being harmless.

Thus, you were not allowed to mention the naughty word, even though your intentions would have been opposite to that which might have been accused. Context is everything. Or it used to be. It seems that only absolutes are considered now.

It's pathetic. What have created is modern, secular blasphemy. Oooh ooh ooh ... words are such scary voodoo ... the mere mention of a scary word without asterisks will conjure up demons from the Dungeon Dimensions ...

I thought we were adults, who had shaken off such immature crap when we emancipated ourselves from superstitious religions, and from the oppressively worwserish 1950s? It's interesting to watch cycles repeat within one's lifetime. Old mistakes are revisited with gusto. Progress always involves backwards steps.

[LuckyR]

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?

Well, you just used it right then without wanting to insult anyone. You just proved yourself wrong. Academic use. Discussing history, formally or informally. But that's not allowed either, despite the context clearly being harmless.

Thus, you were not allowed to mention the naughty word, even though your intentions would have been opposite to that which might have been accused. Context is everything. Or it used to be. It seems that only absolutes are considered now.

It's pathetic. What have created is modern, secular blasphemy. Oooh ooh ooh ... words are such scary voodoo ... the mere mention of a scary word without asterisks will conjure up demons from the Dungeon Dimensions ...

I thought we were adults, who had shaken off such immature crap when we emancipated ourselves from superstitious religions, and from the oppressively worwserish 1950s? It's interesting to watch cycles repeat within one's lifetime. Old mistakes are revisited with gusto. Progress always involves backwards steps.

I generally agree with the ideas within your posting though certain people complaining about the use of, say the N word is more than a tad short of not being "allowed". Folks use the N word every day in multiple contexts and others complain or don't complain about it depending on numerous variables.

[Lagayascienza]

As mentioned above, I'm not saying the cannot be used in appropriate contexts. We might for example be discussing the history of racism in America and how that manifested. The word would come up in that contexts and its use would be unproblematic. I'm sure folks will be able to think of other contexts where it might be used.
I am not being prescriptive. I can't tell others what to do. Hell, if people want go around using the word in public in everyday life with all its derogatory connotations, then go right ahead.

[Good_Egg]

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.

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.

You raise several points, but this seems the most important.

Intention is in the mind of the speaker.

You may hold a moral philosophy in which intention is unimportant. Utilitarianism is known for being focused on consequences. If you want to argue that intention doesn't matter, that's one thing.

What is clearly false is your inference of intent-to-insult from the usage of a word that you consider insulting. Language doesn't work like that.

(Or perhaps, more precisely, such inference is only valid amongst a tight-knit community who all use language in the same way. Whereas PC is a clash between people from different subcultures who use language in different ways).

PC is a language convention. It's a group of people who say something like "We grew up playing "Cowboys and Indians", but now consider the term "Indians" to be disrespectful to the culture of Native American tribes, and agree between ourselves that we're not going to say that"
And then try to tell the rest of the world that they shouldn't talk about playing "Cowboys & Indians" because such usage indicates intent to insult.

And pat themselves on the back about how "caring" they are as they go around speech-policing a convention that nobody else has signed up to.

Once again, intent is in the mind of the speaker.

As an analogy, consider a religious group who believe in a God of love and mercy. Who develop religious doctrine amongst themselves. And then want to punish the rest of the world for blasphemy if they speak in ways that dissent from those doctrines. Because, obviously, blasphemy indicates an intent to spit in the face of love and mercy. What could possibly be more indicative of malice ?

To which you might wish to reply that you value love and mercy as highly as they do, and are as well-meaning as they are, but disagree with some of their doctrine and don't accept their speech-conventions.

But they can't hear you because in their minds they've identified the words with what they would mean by them. Believe those words to be objectively inherently malicious.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

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.

There's some pretty selective quoting going on here. My comment (above) was not made in response to the words of yours that appear to directly precede it. This is taken from the previous post, with no elisions:

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.

You raise several points, but this seems the most important.

Intention is in the mind of the speaker...

We've been around this circle before, gaining little except a dash of mutual frustration. My comments responded to your words, when you said this, "If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so." In this case, you state your intention to insult quite clearly.

[Good_Egg]

We've been around this circle before, gaining little except a dash of mutual frustration. My comments responded to your words, when you said this, "If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so." In this case, you state your intention to insult quite clearly.

Sorry PC, I don't think I learned anything about political correctness from the post quoted here.

It seems to me totally obvious that there are occasions in life when one person has the intent to insult another. And occasions when there is no such intent.

Is intent to insult ever justified ?

I don't have a fully-worked out answer to that. But would provisionally see intent to insult as legitimate in some circumstances:
- as a warning of relationship deterioration, a constructive alternative to termination of relationship
- as a warning to a third party not to pay attention to what a particular person says.

We can discuss that, or the nature of insult in general, if you think it's relevant to the topic.

But it seems like you're deliberately refusing to recognise that many cases of politically incorrect speech involve no intent to insult. And that therefore any defence of political correctness which relies on an inferred intent to insult is fatally flawed.

What choice is there ? If one thinks that talking about "Cowboys and Indians" is inherently insulting, regardless of intent, then does it follow that the speaker must be either being deliberately insulting or is ignorant ? Is there a third choice ?

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems to me totally obvious that there are occasions in life when one person has the intent to insult another. And occasions when there is no such intent.

Is intent to insult ever justified ?

Probably not.

But my comment here has always been differently aimed, at someone (anyone) who reserves (i.e. grants themselves) the 'right' to insult someone, if *they* judge that it is 'deserved'. I see only breathtaking arrogance in this sentiment, that someone reserves the 'right' to judge someone else, and to harm (i.e. punish) them if they seem to fall short in some way.

[Pattern-chaser]

But it seems like you're deliberately refusing to recognise that many cases of politically incorrect speech involve no intent to insult.

They don't? I thought it *characteristic* of "politically incorrect speech" that it insults someone, or some community?

[LuckyR]

We've been around this circle before, gaining little except a dash of mutual frustration. My comments responded to your words, when you said this, "If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so." In this case, you state your intention to insult quite clearly.

Sorry PC, I don't think I learned anything about political correctness from the post quoted here.

It seems to me totally obvious that there are occasions in life when one person has the intent to insult another. And occasions when there is no such intent.

Is intent to insult ever justified ?

I don't have a fully-worked out answer to that. But would provisionally see intent to insult as legitimate in some circumstances:
- as a warning of relationship deterioration, a constructive alternative to termination of relationship
- as a warning to a third party not to pay attention to what a particular person says.

We can discuss that, or the nature of insult in general, if you think it's relevant to the topic.

But it seems like you're deliberately refusing to recognise that many cases of politically incorrect speech involve no intent to insult. And that therefore any defence of political correctness which relies on an inferred intent to insult is fatally flawed.

What choice is there ? If one thinks that talking about "Cowboys and Indians" is inherently insulting, regardless of intent, then does it follow that the speaker must be either being deliberately insulting or is ignorant ? Is there a third choice ?

While I don't disagree with your logic as written, as far as the topic of Political Correctness is concerned, IMO you're missing the point. Namely, that people have engaged in deliberately and unintentional insulting speech forever (and will forever more), that's neither novel nor all that interesting. What was novel about the concept of Polital Correctness (when it became a trend) was 1) those being insulted speaking out about it (instead of silently "taking it" as the disenfranchised classically have done), 2) the mainstream media taking those (previously ignored) complaints seriously and 3) surprising no one, the power structure being unused to pushback, responded by trying to claim victimhood themselves by coming up with the PC label to complain about the complaints.

[Sy Borg]

We've been around this circle before, gaining little except a dash of mutual frustration. My comments responded to your words, when you said this, "If I think you deserve to be insulted, I reserve the right to do so." In this case, you state your intention to insult quite clearly.

Sorry PC, I don't think I learned anything about political correctness from the post quoted here.

It seems to me totally obvious that there are occasions in life when one person has the intent to insult another. And occasions when there is no such intent.

Is intent to insult ever justified ?

I don't have a fully-worked out answer to that. But would provisionally see intent to insult as legitimate in some circumstances:
- as a warning of relationship deterioration, a constructive alternative to termination of relationship
- as a warning to a third party not to pay attention to what a particular person says.

We can discuss that, or the nature of insult in general, if you think it's relevant to the topic.

But it seems like you're deliberately refusing to recognise that many cases of politically incorrect speech involve no intent to insult. And that therefore any defence of political correctness which relies on an inferred intent to insult is fatally flawed.

What choice is there ? If one thinks that talking about "Cowboys and Indians" is inherently insulting, regardless of intent, then does it follow that the speaker must be either being deliberately insulting or is ignorant ? Is there a third choice ?

While I don't disagree with your logic as written, as far as the topic of Political Correctness is concerned, IMO you're missing the point. Namely, that people have engaged in deliberately and unintentional insulting speech forever (and will forever more), that's neither novel nor all that interesting. What was novel about the concept of Polital Correctness (when it became a trend) was 1) those being insulted speaking out about it (instead of silently "taking it" as the disenfranchised classically have done), 2) the mainstream media taking those (previously ignored) complaints seriously and 3) surprising no one, the power structure being unused to pushback, responded by trying to claim victimhood themselves by coming up with the PC label to complain about the complaints.

I think that point was made two decades ago, or more. Part of my HR role late last century involved EEO admin, attending seminars by minorities and reporting back to management etc. It was all the same stuff back then. Things were less worldly, but also less heated, than today.

Now comedians and satirists are under siege. Societal observers are being gagged, for fear of social media mobbing. When people criticise films they are accused of being a "toxic fandom" - just for wanting movie houses not to distort or sideline their old heroes. Everything is put under a sexual or racial lens.

PC obsessives do not respond to logic and reason. People are being "cancelled" for dumb remarks they made decades ago in a different cultural milieu They are demonised for saying "blasphemous" words like n1gger, even if the context is anti-racist.

The issue is largely "presentism" - treating historical events as though modern concepts and values were present. The upshot is it makes people of the past seem more ruthless and bloody-minded in their treatment of the vulnerable than they actually were. Meanwhile, how has the PC project gone? There's much more racism and sexism now than twenty years ago. People didn't think about it so much back then. To a greater extent, people were just people because not many were obsessing about race and gender.

[Good_Egg]

But it seems like you're deliberately refusing to recognise that many cases of politically incorrect speech involve no intent to insult.

They don't? I thought it *characteristic* of "politically incorrect speech" that it insults someone, or some community?

You have it backwards.

It's true that

people have engaged in deliberately and unintentional insulting speech forever (and will forever more),

One characteristic of political correctness is that it considers the words themselves to be intrinsically insulting.

Whereas any philosophically adequate description of insult takes account of intent and context and the use/mention distinction.

The example of PC that has arisen so far in the discussion seems to be a sports team called the Washington Redskins.

Did the people who originally named it intend insult ? Seems not. No undesirable characteristic is attributed to anyone thereby.
Do the people who want to retain the name intend insult ? Seems not. Seems like that's no more than an attachment to the traditions of their community.

Any lawsuit brought against the team for defamation of character (the legal version of insult) would be thrown out.

[Pattern-chaser]

[To Good_Egg]

While I don't disagree with your logic as written, as far as the topic of Political Correctness is concerned, IMO you're missing the point. Namely, that people have engaged in deliberately and unintentional insulting speech forever (and will forever more), that's neither novel nor all that interesting. What was novel about the concept of Polital Correctness (when it became a trend) was 1) those being insulted speaking out about it (instead of silently "taking it" as the disenfranchised classically have done), 2) the mainstream media taking those (previously ignored) complaints seriously and 3) surprising no one, the power structure being unused to pushback, responded by trying to claim victimhood themselves by coming up with the PC label to complain about the complaints.

Thanks, Lucky! I think I've been trying to say that, but you've put it better than I've managed so far.

[Pattern-chaser]

Now comedians and satirists are under siege. Societal observers are being gagged, for fear of social media mobbing. When people criticise films they are accused of being a "toxic fandom" - just for wanting movie houses not to distort or sideline their old heroes. Everything is put under a sexual or racial lens.

I quite agree. But just because an idea can be — and is being, as you describe — misapplied or misused, doesn't mean the idea is without use or value. Sympathy and empathy can be misused too, but they remain valuable despite this. So yes, I agree that such excesses are undesirable, but not that we should throw the baby out with the bath-water.

[Pattern-chaser]

But it seems like you're deliberately refusing to recognise that many cases of politically incorrect speech involve no intent to insult.

They don't? I thought it *characteristic* of "politically incorrect speech" that it insults someone, or some community?

You have it backwards.

It's true that

people have engaged in deliberately and unintentional insulting speech forever (and will forever more),

One characteristic of political correctness is that it considers the words themselves to be intrinsically insulting.

Whereas any philosophically adequate description of insult takes account of intent and context and the use/mention distinction.

I think intent, here, can be a distraction. It is observably true that insult and offence can be offered inadvertently. But I think it's also reasonable to observe that many/most insults are intentional, even though the insulters may deny their intent when challenged. [The latter is a *characteristic* feature of neurotypical discourse, that few of them ever notice, but which *screams* its presence to autists.] Those who knowingly indulge in "politically incorrect speech" — i.e. most of them — intend to insult, that's rather the point of what they're saying, isn't it? And the question of intent fades away when we know the intention.