Politically correct

[Curious George]

BTW: I know there's a story that claims the expression "rule of thumb" has something to do with spousal abuse, but it's actually false. The actual origin is that the distance from the tip of your thumb to your first knuckle is close enough to an inch that you can use it to measure (or "to rule") if you don't need to be really precise.

For the others: what's wrong with using other terms? I kinda get how someone might not know that "handicapped" isn't the preferred term any more, but "gypped?" It was always horribly racist. Only use it if you're okay with racism and want everyone around you to know it.


If you know that a phrase will be taken as offensive but you choose to use it anyway, then you are using it with the intent of disrespect. At the very least, you know that it's disrespectful and you just don't care.


A person who uses a term without knowing that it's offensive doesn't intend disrespect. A person who is trying not to use an offensive term but occasionally slips due to force of habit doesn't intend disrespect. OTOH, someone who knows that what they're saying is offensive and says it anyway intends disrespect.

Well I am not a mind reader, so I have no way to test what you seem to know about others intent. You seem sure, I am uncertain. But nothing you have said resolves that uncertainty.

 

[Curious George]

In other circles it would be a problem to say: "Lowering taxes for the rich, doesn't increase job creation."

Again, the statement goes against cherished beliefs, and often no conversation or nuance can occur if you start with such a bold negation.

Are you saying this is a politically incorrect statement?

 

[Curious George]

BTW: I know there's a story that claims the expression "rule of thumb" has something to do with spousal abuse, but it's actually false. The actual origin is that the distance from the tip of your thumb to your first knuckle is close enough to an inch that you can use it to measure (or "to rule") if you don't need to be really precise.

For the others: what's wrong with using other terms? I kinda get how someone might not know that "handicapped" isn't the preferred term any more, but "gypped?" It was always horribly racist. Only use it if you're okay with racism and want everyone around you to know it.

They are just examples of words that are interrupted. Whether they are offensive or not or even have a basis to be offensive is immaterial.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I am not a mind reader, so I have no way to test what you seem to know about others intent. You seem sure, I am uncertain. But nothing you have said resolves that uncertainty.

My certainty was based in the fact that YOU told us what was going on in these hypothetical people's minds, remember? In case you forgot:

In other words, I think the group that actually wants to be disrespectful or discourteous is rather small. Does this fit with your line of thinking because even though the group that wants to be disrespectful or discourteous is rather small a larger group still wants to say things that are to some disrespectful and discourteous?

What I told you is that if someone "wants to say things that are to some disrespectful and discourteous" and know that they're such, the disrespect is intended.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's misuse of terms, but I worry more about the situation where opinions or ideas are held as being politically incorrect. In a lot of circumstances I would be in big trouble if I said:

"The main reason that there aren't many female engineers isn't sexism."

This statement goes against a common idea that many feminists hold, and to challenge the idea is viewed as politically incorrect.

Not politically incorrect; factually incorrect.

"Political correctness" might enter the discussion when we consider why you might ignore the actual sexism that influences the career choices of women, or why you would ignore the many women who say that they've experienced the opposite of what you suggest, but the claim itself? It's simply factually incorrect.

Think of it like the Intelligent Design movement: their rhetoric uses the language of "challenging ideas" and "evaluating all sides," but the facts they're trying to dispute are so obvious to anyone who's familiar with the subject that it's pretty clear they're trying to promote an agenda, not an open dialogue.

 

[icehorse]

Are you saying this is a politically incorrect statement?

Yes, in some circumstances.

 

[icehorse]

Not politically incorrect; factually incorrect.

"Political correctness" might enter the discussion when we consider why you might ignore the actual sexism that influences the career choices of women, or why you would ignore the many women who say that they've experienced the opposite of what you suggest, but the claim itself? It's simply factually incorrect.

Think of it like the Intelligent Design movement: their rhetoric uses the language of "challenging ideas" and "evaluating all sides," but the facts they're trying to dispute are so obvious to anyone who's familiar with the subject that it's pretty clear they're trying to promote an agenda, not an open dialogue.

Well this is a bit of a tangent, but statistically, I believe my claim is correct. Of course there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, as you suggest, but there is not statistical data to back up your claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well this is a bit of a tangent, but statistically, I believe my claim is correct.

I don't doubt your sincerity; I doubt the soundness of your conclusion.

Of course there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, as you suggest, but there is not statistical data to back up your claim.

Except there is.

 

[icehorse]

I don't doubt your sincerity; I doubt the soundness of your conclusion.

Except there is.

I don't doubt your sincerity either:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't doubt your sincerity either:

I'm not going to use my cell phone data up to watch your video. Care to tell me what you think his relevant points are?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@icehorse - for your reading pleasure:

What are the “barriers facing women in STEM”? • Ontario Sociey of Professional Engineers

And if you don't want to read the full article, here are the three barriers to women in engineering it lists:

1. Cultural bias and discrimination
2. Lack of mentorship in early stages of career
3. Pay equity.

1 and 3 are a direct result of sexism. 2 is a result of not having many senior female engineers, which is a result of women and girls being discouraged from the field (e.g. by factors 1 and 3), so it's an indirect result of sexism.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not going to use my cell phone data up to watch your video. Care to tell me what you think his relevant points are?

The summary of the video is: The most egalitarian societies in the world - in Scandinavia - have years of data showing that when barriers to entry (and participation), are removed, women rarely choose to be engineers. And further, men rarely choose the "caring" professions.

 

[Estro Felino]

The summary of the video is: The most egalitarian societies in the world - in Scandinavia - have years of data showing that when barriers to entry (and participation), are removed, women rarely choose to be engineers. And further, men rarely choose the "caring" professions.

Interesting...
In my country there are no barriers either...but in my law school 8 out of 10 students were females.
I have to admit that in the faculty of engineering, most students were males. So this would confirm your claim.
I guess these examples, nevertheless, cannot be used to generalize at a global level

 

[Shad]

3. Pay equity.

That section never goes into any real details such as results produced, effort, employment type, employer, personal choice, etc. A person could earn a raise due to a number of factors which having nothing to do with being male or female. That section only looks at totals and sex, nothing more it seems.

Have you ever negotiated an employment contract? That alone is a major factor in pay rates

 

[Curious George]

My certainty was based in the fact that YOU told us what was going on in these hypothetical people's minds, remember? In case you forgot:



What I told you is that if someone "wants to say things that are to some disrespectful and discourteous" and know that they're such, the disrespect is intended.

Again you are going from using the term knowing that some feel disrespected to intending disrespect. It doesn't follow. They could simply not care or the want to not change their speech outweighs their want to not disrespect. Yes it is a possibility that people do not intend disrespect but are still disrespectful. My telling what was going on in minds of some of the people using these terms is meant to describe that possibility. You pushing back and saying if someone knows people feel disrespect and still chooses to use the term they are intending disrespect is stating that all of these people intend disrespect. The knowing that some will find an idea or word disrespectful does not necessitate the intention of disrespect in articulating that idea.

 

[Curious George]

Well this is a bit of a tangent, but statistically, I believe my claim is correct. Of course there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, as you suggest, but there is not statistical data to back up your claim.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of the claim, there is a challenge to that not the politically correctness of the claim. Are you suggesting that it is politically incorrect because people challenge the truthfulness of the matter?

 

[Curious George]

Yes, in some circumstances.

Well this is the first time I have heard political incorrectness extends into discussions of economics. Do you see why I am wondering if there is an amorphous idea of political correctness floating about our politics? If everyone is pointing to different concepts of political correctness, such that there is no clear conception of what political correctness is, then isn't it likely that many of the people, complaining about political correctness, are complaining about something entirely different than for what people, advocating for political correctness, are pushing?

 

[icehorse]

Well this is the first time I have heard political incorrectness extends into discussions of economics. Do you see why I am wondering if there is an amorphous idea of political correctness floating about our politics? If everyone is pointing to different concepts of political correctness, such that there is no clear conception of what political correctness is, then isn't it likely that many of the people, complaining about political correctness, are complaining about something entirely different than for what people, advocating for political correctness, are pushing?

I see your point. It's possible I'm conflating a bit here, but I see certain groups hold on to some ideas like "sacred cows". E.g. many feminists would say "If we can make all outside factors equal, females will participate in STEM careers as frequently as males". And if one were to challenge that idea, one might be accused of being politically incorrect or insensitive or something similar.

I think that cries of "that's politically incorrect!" come more frequently from the extreme left, but I don't think that's always the case. My example of the trickle down idea seems to me to be a "sacred cow" for the right, but perhaps to question the idea would not be met with cries of "politically incorrect".

So maybe it's more accurate to say that sometimes when sacred cows are challenged, the response might be "that's politically incorrect!".

 

[Curious George]

I see your point. It's possible I'm conflating a bit here, but I see certain groups hold on to some ideas like "sacred cows". E.g. many feminists would say "If we can make all outside factors equal, females will participate in STEM careers as frequently as males". And if one were to challenge that idea, one might be accused of being politically incorrect or insensitive or something similar.

I think that cries of "that's politically incorrect!" come more frequently from the extreme left, but I don't think that's always the case. My example of the trickle down idea seems to me to be a "sacred cow" for the right, but perhaps to question the idea would not be met with cries of "politically incorrect".

So maybe it's more accurate to say that sometimes when sacred cows are challenged, the response might be "that's politically incorrect!".

Well again there is the timing issue here. If I say that many women are deterred from joining the sciences by sociological pressures, and you say the reason for the disparity is purely women choosing, then you aren't really listening to my point or discussing the topic at hand. I certainly can see how one might suggest that such behavior is politically incorrect, but I think it more likely to say that it is red herrings. Now it is possible that some people are inferring intent and thus claiming it is politically incorrect behavior. But I am guessing that is not your purpose at all. You are challenging the issue and neglecting the steps that are needed to challenge the issue without raising red herrings. But here I am not even talking about statistics. I am discussing gender roles and how those impact women in the STEM fields.

 

[icehorse]

Well again there is the timing issue here. If I say that many women are deterred from joining the sciences by sociological pressures, and you say the reason for the disparity is purely women choosing, then you aren't really listening to my point or discussing the topic at hand. I certainly can see how one might suggest that such behavior is politically incorrect, but I think it more likely to say that it is red herrings.

Interesting "play within a play" going on here.

I think my original claim was something like "sexism isn't the main reason why...". Of course I'm not denying that sexism is a problem, I'm only disputing the relative weights of the factors involved in the STEM disparity.