Politically correct

[Milton Platt]

How does it hide what is actually true? That is what I am asking.

It can make the truth unclear sometimes.....it can lack the emphasis needed, or muddy the water with vague language.

For instance, politicians don't tell lies, they "misspeak"

 

[Curious George]

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.

I don't think it matters whether you are denying that sexism is a problem or not when discussing political correctness. I am suggesting that I don't see how what you are saying is an instance of something upon which all people agree fits the definition of politically incorrect. As I said, I get that it can be viewed as such by some. Those some, however, are likely inferring intent that isn't necessarily present. And if they are not, then I believe they are a very small group.

Certainly claims such "sexism is not the main reason..." are just claims. I think they are designed to be antagonistic. If you are the one putting forth the claim first, then great. But unless someone is saying, "sexism is the main reason," it is an abrupt change in subject that is going to be abrasive.

a wise person doesn't speak abrasively and then get upset when people act abrasively towards them. If you are making the first claim then I would imagine that you would anticipate pushback.

But I don't think either of those scenarios fall under politically incorrect.

We seem to have many different definitions of politically incorrect. One person in this thread suggested it was any attempt to suppress the truth for the sake of social obligation; you are suggesting that it is speaking unpopular ideas; I am familiar with politically correct as an editing of offensive speech or behavior not ideas.

So now we have at least three tiers of politically correctness. Which one is the correct one? This is a problem when people are complaining about political correctness and I am thinking they think the word police are after them. I don't see any word police.

In reality, however, the people complaining probably all have there own perception of what political correctness is. Hence, I wanted to know what people felt like they couldn't say. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[Curious George]

It can make the truth unclear sometimes.....it can lack the emphasis needed, or muddy the water with vague language.

For instance, politicians don't tell lies, they "misspeak"

In what circumstances do you want to use emphasis, and what emphasis do you want to use that you cannot?

 

[icehorse]

(responses are reordered a bit)

We seem to have many different definitions of politically incorrect. One person in this thread suggested it was any attempt to suppress the truth for the sake of social obligation; you are suggesting that it is speaking unpopular ideas; I am familiar with politically correct as an editing of offensive speech or behavior not ideas.

I see no issue with the idea that there are probably several flavors of PC and PI.

Certainly claims such "sexism is not the main reason..." are just claims. I think they are designed to be antagonistic. If you are the one putting forth the claim first, then great. But unless someone is saying, "sexism is the main reason," it is an abrupt change in subject that is going to be abrasive.

I think your use of the word "antagonistic" is a great example of how PC creeps into conversations. So for the sake of discussion let's consider again the claim "In the West, sexism is not the main reason for gender income inequality".

If making that claim is considered "antagonistic" then it seems that there is a sacred cow in the room, correct? It's just a factual claim that might or might not be true.

I suspect that one reason (of many), that such sacred cows exist, is that it's believed that there are a lot of bad actors in the world who could use such a claim to undermine the elimination of sexism. A sort of "the population can't handle the truth" orientation. And there might be some merit in that perspective. But in the end, I'd contend that if you're fighting for a cause, e.g. the elimination of sexism, then in the long run you're better off being as factually accurate as possible, regardless of the bad actors and weak thinkers who are in the mix.

 

[Curious George]

(responses are reordered a bit)



I see no issue with the idea that there are probably several flavors of PC and PI.



I think your use of the word "antagonistic" is a great example of how PC creeps into conversations. So for the sake of discussion let's consider again the claim "In the West, sexism is not the main reason for gender income inequality".

If making that claim is considered "antagonistic" then it seems that there is a sacred cow in the room, correct? It's just a factual claim that might or might not be true.

I suspect that one reason (of many), that such sacred cows exist, is that it's believed that there are a lot of bad actors in the world who could use such a claim to undermine the elimination of sexism. A sort of "the population can't handle the truth" orientation. And there might be some merit in that perspective. But in the end, I'd contend that if you're fighting for a cause, e.g. the elimination of sexism, then in the long run you're better off being as factually accurate as possible, regardless of the bad actors and weak thinkers who are in the mix.

I am not sure that it is a sacred cow. I think of it as a charged statement. Similarly, I think the statement that sexism is the main cause... is antagonistic. Though, I do think it less so. The reason I think it less antagonistic is based on the potential audience. The people that are 1likely concerned with women in STEM fields are also likely concerned with sexism. The statement potentially diminishes the role, correctly or incorrectly, of sexism as an issue. Similarly, a statement about sexism as the main role emphasizes it as an issue. Statements are very much antagonistic if the create a hierarchy where no hierarchy is easily discernable. I can say light is faster than sound without being antagonistic. I cannot say Chevy is faster than Ford without being antagonistic.

Now maybe that is not the best analogy. After all, some people treat Chevy and Ford very much like sacred cows. PC and Mac is about the same. But, when we examine this, are we going to conclude that any emotional investment is the creation of a sacred cow? That would really diminish what it means to be a sacred cow.

 

[icehorse]

I am not sure that it is a sacred cow.

The claim itself isn't a sacred cow, it's that the claim challenges the inferred sacred cow that: "of course the gender pay gap is mostly because of sexism".

I can drop the "sacred cow" phrase (it might be politically incorrect after all ), instead what if I called it "an article of faith" (oops, that might be PI as well!).

So I think this is an example of a common situation. Certain ideas become articles of faith, and to challenge those ideas is viewed as evil. Those challenges might be called "racist" or "sexist" or "insensitive" or "offensive" and so on. So perhaps we can say that when such feedback is offered, it's a sign that PC boundaries have been trampled on.

I think of it as a charged statement. Similarly, I think the statement that sexism is the main cause... is antagonistic.

I guess I should understand how you're using the word "antagonistic"? If you're thinking it's antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic, then I disagree. If you're saying it's antagonistic because the nature of criticism is antagonistic, well... sure.

 

[Curious George]

The claim itself isn't a sacred cow, it's that the claim challenges the inferred sacred cow that: "of course the gender pay gap is mostly because of sexism".

I can drop the "sacred cow" phrase (it might be politically incorrect after all ), instead what if I called it "an article of faith" (oops, that might be PI as well!).

So I think this is an example of a common situation. Certain ideas become articles of faith, and to challenge those ideas is viewed as evil. Those challenges might be called "racist" or "sexist" or "insensitive" or "offensive" and so on. So perhaps we can say that when such feedback is offered, it's a sign that PC boundaries have been trampled on.



I guess I should understand how you're using the word "antagonistic"? If you're thinking it's antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic, then I disagree. If you're saying it's antagonistic because the nature of criticism is antagonistic, well... sure.

I am saying I think it is antagonistic because it is meant to draw a response. It is effectively throwing down the gauntlet.

I question the use of "sacred cow" only because it implies that people worship the idea. That they are tied so strongly to the idea that the idea is a god to them. But you aren't using it that way, are you? You are using it as something people accept as true.

One might say "of course sexism is the cause of the pay gap" just as someone might say "of course Charles Barkley was better than Magic Johnson (or vice versa)." It is just something they believe. It may have been reinforced by the people they have been around and they just accept it as a given.

Your statement is designed to challenge those people. Hence, it is antagonistic.