Politically correct

[Curious George]

The Cambridge dictionary says this:
avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive:

Sometimes this can become a form of censorship and can hide what is actually true. No, I don't think it SEEKS to censor, but I believe it sometimes does.

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

 

[Curious George]

Back to the OP, here are some examples of true sentences that normal people might want to use, but will probably get called out for if they do:

1.- Healthcare costs are high partially because there are a lot of fat people.
2.- Most terrorism is due to Islamic ideology.
3.- Average IQs are lower for blacks than for whites.
4.- Being a single mother often leads to poverty.
5.- Very few members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in god.
6.- When given free choice, few women choose to be engineers.
7.- It's hard to prove that there is a pay gap because of gender.
8.- Alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana.
9.- An unwanted grope is not as bad as rape.

And so on...

**numbering mine
Thank you for this. Sorry for not responding sooner.

So given the above statements, I am guessing that people want to attack other groups, or, with the case of 6,7 and 9 they want to challenge commonly held ideas.

So, they want to say something provocative without others being provoked? I am sure plenty of people believe one or more things on your list but does political correctness prohibit them from saying these things. If so, how so?

 

[icehorse]

His "findings" are in service of his ideology and have been disputed many times.

And confirmed many times. Of course it's controversial, I get that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And confirmed many times. Of course it's controversial, I get that.

Well, if you want to believe that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites and that social measures to address said disparity are a waste of time, that's your business.

 

[icehorse]

So, they want to say something provocative without others being provoked? I am sure plenty of people believe one or more things on your list but does political correctness prohibit them from saying these things. If so, how so?

I'll give you an example, and I could provide more if it would help:

There is a lot of poverty in the black community in the US. And groups like BLM would like for us to believe it's because the white patriarchy oppresses black people. To some degree that's true, but it's also the case that single motherhood is very high in the black community and single motherhood is a leading indicator for poverty. The BLMers don't want anyone to look at rates of single motherhood in their community, or they somehow want to make that another indicator of oppression somehow. So it's "politically incorrect" to talk about rates of single motherhood.

 

[icehorse]

Well, if you want to believe that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites and that social measures to address said disparity are a waste of time, that's your business.

Whoa fella, that's some serious strawmanning there!

First of all, if we say for the purpose of discussion that the intelligence distribution curves vary across races, the key point is that THEY ALL OVERLAP!! What this means in practice is that the overall distribution curve means nothing on an individual by individual basis. In fact, when it comes to social measures, it's far more likely that as insurance companies get ahold of genetic data, my rates will go up because of my genes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Whoa fella, that's some serious strawmanning there!

First of all, if we say for the purpose of discussion that the intelligence distribution curves vary across races, the key point is that THEY ALL OVERLAP!! What this means in practice is that the overall distribution curve means nothing on an individual by individual basis. In fact, when it comes to social measures, it's far more likely that as insurance companies get ahold of genetic data, my rates will go up because of my genes.

That's just what Murray is saying.

 

[Curious George]

I'll give you an example, and I could provide more if it would help:

There is a lot of poverty in the black community in the US. And groups like BLM would like for us to believe it's because the white patriarchy oppresses black people. To some degree that's true, but it's also the case that single motherhood is very high in the black community and single motherhood is a leading indicator for poverty. The BLMers don't want anyone to look at rates of single motherhood in their community, or they somehow want to make that another indicator of oppression somehow. So it's "politically incorrect" to talk about rates of single motherhood.

This example is hard to digest without the specifics of the example. Each case would be different. When discussing poverty in general it would not, at least in my view, be politically incorrect to discuss how single parenthood impacts socioeconomic standing. Who is going to be offended about that?

Now suggesting that the white patriarchy oppresses black people and black people are in poverty because of oppression from the white patriarchy are very general statements that assume a third statement with an abstract concept: white patriarchy exists.

However, it is clear that these statements are focusing on a specific cause of poverty (although it is embedded in a general statement with an abstract concept). So given the proposed statement about the impact of single motherhood, I can see why people would assume that the speaker has missed the point. What you are describing sounds a lot like a board meeting to discuss financial losses due to embezzlement and how to lessen these losses where some guy or gal in the corner pipes up with how much more financial losses are incurred to waste management.

There is a tie-in but it is off topic. I have heard of cases like this where someone makes off-topic statements and politically incorrect behavior is inferred: some people assume that people intentionally try to shift the topic to avoid discussing opression, because they don't care about the oppression.

I am having an issue understanding how this is political correctness preventing the people from saying these things. It may be the assumption of politically incorrect intent is wrong, but it is going off-topic that is preventing them from saying these things.

If the discussion went like this:
Person 1: white patriarchy oppresses black people and causes poverty.
Person 2: why do you think that.
Person 1: statistically, there is a disproportionate amount of black people in poverty.
Person 2: Yes, but that disparity can be wholly accounted for by other issues.
Person 1: like what?
Person 2: like the socioeconomic impact of single motherhood for instance.

In this situation, the topic was shifted based on the discussion of a statistical racial disparity amongst people in poverty. It was not a direct shift from talking about oppression.

If the discussion doesn't include a natural shift in discussion it is going to appear very off-topic. Communication is very much like a dance, and when you have groups swinging to very different rhythms there is going to be discontent. While I can see how the assumption of political incorrectness in the example you gave might be unwarranted, I hope you can think of instances of your example where it could be perfectly correct.

 

[icehorse]

That's just what Murray is saying.

That's how statistical distributions work in general.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You think the people complaining want to use language that is disrespectful and discourteous?

Speaking for myself: that's precisely what I think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will openly agree that originally when political correctness first became prevalent it really did address seriously wrong expressions. 100% agree. The thing is that we have now entered a weird Twilight Zone era where almost anyone can take offense to almost anything and feel justified doing so regardless of the intent of the person targeted. It is not meant to further dialogue but rather is primarily an attempt to shut down dialogue altogether in an incredibly arrogant authoritarian manner.

Indeed. Just say the words "white privilege" and then listen for the absolute howls as people rush to take offense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can deal with treating people equally. It's kind of natural for me. It gets a little awkward if I have to constantly guard against an unintentional offense because of someone's political identity.

When you say "constantly guard against an intentional offense because of someone's political identity," I can't help but wonder if you mean what I would mean by "constantly take responsibility for the effects my words and actions have on others."

 

[Curious George]

Speaking for myself: that's precisely what I think.

I worry that most people know or have heard over someone getting offended over details that they themselves would not. This in tandem with when people interrupt discussions to suggest better word choice, people (better not say "rule of thumb" or "handicapped" or "gyp") has created an amorphous group which has become opposed by many people.

This mental categorization is known as politically incorrect. The opposition to politically incorrect is, in many cases, not a want to say something else but a combination of not wanting to deal with tangential word choice in communication, and disbelief in some people's ability to assume offense or disrespect was intended when none was. This is opposition to politically correctness is compounded by people wanting to continue to use, without offensive intent, words that are offensive to some (gay to mean stupid is probably in the top ten on this list). While this latter bit is, arguably, people who want to use disrespectful or discourteous speech, it is a want to use it without intent of disrespect or discourtesy.

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?

 

[YmirGF]

When you say "constantly guard against an intentional offense because of someone's political identity," I can't help but wonder if you mean what I would mean by "constantly take responsibility for the effects my words and actions have on others."

For me, it's often more modifying my speech to communicate with others without getting things into a yelling match in 10 seconds (or less). I simply listen and adapt accordingly, though I do tend to push boundaries, gingerly at first, until I have a clearer picture where the person(s) stand on issues.

For example, if someone starts going off on Trump, I'll usually just agree with them to shut down the conversation as it is fairly difficult to support Trump, especially in a hostile environment. I am a weasel though, in that I will let a few comments pass by and then just ask a somewhat related to what they are saying, which usually gets a, "Well, yeah!"

All that said, in my neck of the woods, one does not have to pay much attention to politically correct jargon and buzzwords. That seems to be more of an issue in urban areas.

 

[Nakosis]

When you say "constantly guard against an intentional offense because of someone's political identity," I can't help but wonder if you mean what I would mean by "constantly take responsibility for the effects my words and actions have on others."

I think one needs to do that anyway. If someone takes unintentional offense at something I say I'll be happy to explain why they were wrong to do so.

It'd just be easier to not waste the time by choosing not to take offense in the first place. When folks get offended it hard for most to not respond in a hostile manner.

When you're trying to discuss or solve something, it usually goes much smoother when everyone involved remains in an agreeable mood.

 

[Nakosis]

Indeed. Just say the words "white privilege" and then listen for the absolute howls as people rush to take offense.

Especially when originally it wasn't meant to be offensive at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I worry that most people know or have heard over someone getting offended over details that they themselves would not. This in tandem with when people interrupt discussions to suggest better word choice, people (better not say "rule of thumb" or "handicapped" or "gyp") has created an amorphous group which has become opposed by many people.

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.

This mental categorization is known as politically incorrect. The opposition to politically incorrect is, in many cases, not a want to say something else but a combination of not wanting to deal with tangential word choice in communication, and disbelief in some people's ability to assume offense or disrespect was intended when none was. This is opposition to politically correctness is compounded by people wanting to continue to use, without offensive intent, words that are offensive to some (gay to mean stupid is probably in the top ten on this list). While this latter bit is, arguably, people who want to use disrespectful or discourteous speech, it is a want to use it without intent of disrespect or discourtesy.

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.

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?

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.

 

[icehorse]

If the discussion doesn't include a natural shift in discussion it is going to appear very off-topic. Communication is very much like a dance, and when you have groups swinging to very different rhythms there is going to be discontent. While I can see how the assumption of political incorrectness in the example you gave might be unwarranted, I hope you can think of instances of your example where it could be perfectly correct.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

I think the discussion would be more like:

#1: My black community is poor because it's oppressed by the white patriarchy.
#2: I'm not sure I agree with that, because of the impact single motherhood has on poverty.
#1: No! You are not allowed to say that! It's because of the white patriarchy! You must be a racist!

(In fact, an exchange similar to that occurred in this thread)

 

[icehorse]

A person who uses a term without knowing that it's offensive doesn't intend disrespect.

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.

 

[icehorse]

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.

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.