If what I've described, is somewhat accurate, and Wittgenstein is accurate in his description of "the honourable thing" here, then he's faced with a sort of dilemma at this section of "Philosophical Investigations". — Metaphysician Undercover

He is not faced with a dilemma, he has solved a dilemma. His solution is an age old one. I took the quote from the online appendix to Arthur M. Melzer's excellent book "Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing". This should not be confused with occult or hermetic esoteric writings. It was a common and well documented practice of the philosophers. The appendix can be found here: https://www.press.uchicago.edu/sites/melzer/index.html

The question is, how would you keep a secret, allowing some people access to that secret, and at the same time completely hiding the existence of the secret from all others. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no secret, only things that only a few will understand. Rather than say: "you will not be able to understand this" he simply keeps these things from view, locked behind a closed door that only a few will even notice is locked and that it requires a key to open. In other words, he is saying that what any reader who opens the book will find on the page is not what those who have the key will find. The majority of readers will not understand him.

But if we look at the other metaphor, there are things we are prevented from seeing because we push rather than pull, as if it is just a matter of exerting sufficient mental force.

It can't be done, so perhaps allowing that some people have the key, and others do not, is itself a dishonourable thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not a matter of allowing some people to have the key, but rather that only a few will find the key.

He's leading us right to the door of what he calls 'the ideal", "the preconceived idea of crystalline purity", what old called 'the kernel of meaning". But then he says let's turn things around (107), so that we won't see the need to look behind that door. I'm going to lead you away from the door now. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no door behind which we find hidden the preconceived idea of crystalline purity. The idea of crystalline purity refers to the Tractatus. He is not leading us there, he is saying that the idea is misleading, that he was misled.

Let’s be clear. The term was cooked up by people with placards declaring themselves “warriors”. — I like sushi

This is simply not true. The history of the term shows that it has been used in different ways that range from neutral to positive to pejorative. Wiki cites the Oxford English Dictionary:

Dating back to 1824, the term social justice refers to justice on a societal level.[9] From the early 1990s to the early 2000s, social-justice warrior was used as a neutral or complimentary phrase,[1] as when a 1991 Montreal Gazette article describes union activist Michel Chartrand as a "Quebec nationalist and social-justice warrior".

Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said in 2015 that "[a]ll of the examples I've seen until quite recently are lionizing the person".

According to Martin, the term switched from primarily positive to overwhelmingly negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter. The same year, an Urban Dictionary entry for the term also appeared. The term's negative use became mainstream due to the 2014 Gamergate controversy,emerging as the favoured term of Gamergate proponents to describe their ideological opponents. In Internet and video game culture the phrase is broadly associated with the Gamergate controversy and wider culture war fallout, including the 2015 Sad Puppies campaign that affected the Hugo Awards. Usage of the term as a pejorative was popularized on websites such as Reddit,4chan, and YouTube.

Use of the term has been described as attempting to degrade the motivations of the person accused of being an SJW, implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction".

The negative connotation has primarily been aimed at those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism. This usage implies that a person is engaging in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise his or her personal reputation. Allegra Ringo writes for Vice that "n other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice."
[citations removed]

But I notice that for some, especially conservative thinkers, SJW seems to be considered something bad — Anaxagoras

This is analogous to what has occurred with 'political correctness'. For some it is a reaction to the excesses that occur in the name of justice, but the term has become another tool in the rhetorical war of conservatives. The problem is that particulars get lost under the banner. It is possible to condemn particular actions carried out in the name of social justice within condemning the pursuit of social justice.

One question that must be addressed is whether the criticism of social justice is based on opposition to progressivism. The real target for many conservatives is progressivism, the fear of changes to the political and social order.

The question of control appears to be one sided only because one side is pushing for change. But make no mistake about it, all sides are struggling to be in control, whether it is to change or maintain the status quo.

↪Fooloso4 On a larger scale, it's a deactivation of the DMN (default mode network). — praxis

There are many ways in which the DMN can be disrupted. Are all of them spiritual? If not then you still have not explained what it means for it to be a particular brain state, and nothing besides.

In addition there is the question of whether you are merely replacing one default mode with another. Are you emptying the room or just refurnishing it?

A disjunction is often positied between the physical and the spiritual. I think that this is a mistake. It is not the deactivation of one's default mode, is becomes one's default mode, a bifurcated mode. One that conceals ourselves from ourselves.

If someone is guarding a door, and claiming there is nothing behind that door, so don't even bother trying to look, doesn't it make you want to have a look for yourself? — Metaphysician Undercover

This reminds me of something Wittgenstein says in Culture and Value:

A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.

As long as you keep pushing you will remain trapped by your own efforts.

And this, from a draft of a foreword to his book Philosophical Remarks:

The danger in a long foreword is that the spirit of a book has to be evident in the book itself and cannot be described. For if a book has been written for just a few readers that will be clear just from the fact that only a few people understand it. The book must automatically separate those who understand it from those who do not. Even the foreword is written just for those who understand the book.

Telling someone something he does not understand is pointless, even if you add
that he will not be able to understand it. (That so often happens with someone you love.)

If you have a room which you do not want certain people to get into, put a lock on
it for which they do not have the key. But there is no point in talking to them about it,
unless of course you want them to admire the room from outside!

The honorable thing to do is to put a lock on the door which will be noticed only
by those who can open it, not by the rest.

We need to make a distinction between meaning as Sinn or sense and meaning as significant or of value.
— Fooloso4

Alright, can you bring an example that clearly shows this distinction? — Pussycat

Compare:

4.022
A proposition shows its sense.
A proposition shows how things stand if it is true. And it says that they do so stand.


4.031
Instead of, ‘This proposition has such and such a sense’, we can simply say, ‘This proposition represents such and such a situation’.

with:

6.41

The sense of the world must lie outside the world.

The same distinction in use can be found with Bedeutung. In English we also use the term 'meaning' in different ways.

So if that is the case, combined with the fact that W. was not happy in his life, we can safely infer that he did not exercise his will in a good way, and thus he was not rewarded, right? — Pussycat

If Wittgenstein was correct in claiming that happiness is the reward for the good exercise of the will and it was true that he was not happy, then that seems to be a correct conclusion. If you read Monk's biography and well as comments made by Wittgenstein in Culture and Value and elsewhere it is clear that he sometimes is critical of his actions. See also his comments about confession.

It's just a particular brain state, and nothing besides. — praxis

Is that a neurochemical state?

and no meaning either; ie the condition for meaning and value is the same. Is that what you are saying? — Pussycat

We need to make a distinction between meaning as Sinn or sense and meaning as significant or of value.

And as to happiness, do you think that Wittgenstein is saying that whoever surmounts these ethical propositions and sees the world aright, will be happy? Because if so, then how do you explain the fact that he led a most unhappy life himself? — Pussycat

Happiness is said to be a reward for the good exercise of the will (6.43)

It seems to me Kant's CI supports libertarianism. I could be wrong. — moralpanic

We have to look at Kant's concept of freedom. For Kant, to be free is to act in accordance with reason. For the Libertarian, we should be free to do any irrational thing we want provided we do not infringing on the rights of others. For Kant to be free to act in accordance with reason does not mean we are free to make the choice whether or not to act in accordance with reason. To put it differently we are not free to not be free.

↪Fooloso4 It is not a subjective state if it has correspondences with things that exist outside of one's head. — Ilya B Shambat

That is a very peculiar notion of a subjective state.

Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. — SteveKlinko

Cognitive science studies sensory experience. There is some ambiguity in your terminology. There can be no sensory experience that is not a conscious experience. A category of phenomena would be a category of things known via experience.

Your experience with the Physicalists might be right but my experience with them has been that they believe Consciousness is just an Illusion and is not even worth studying any further. — SteveKlinko

Yes, I have read such things and even had conversations with such people. Perhaps first and foremost of those who claim that consciousness is an illusion is Daniel Dennett.

What I am suggesting is that it is not an either/or issue. The choice is not between physicalism and consciousness. Physicalism is the rejection of supernatural explanations, but this leaves open questions of the effect of culture on consciousness; whether, so to speak, one can understand consciousness by looking at the hardware or if the software plays an essential part.

[Edited]

Speaking of the former in the way of Kant, it's clear to me that when the government decides what a person can and cannot put in his or her own body, that person is being deprived of his or her rationality — moralpanic

Not necessarily. If the argument can be made that rational thing to do is not put harmful substances into your body, and that is the argument Kant would make, then one would not be deprived of his or her rationality by not being allowed to make an irrational choice.

In terms of the CI: consider a maxim by which self-harm were to become a universal law. For more, see his arguments against suicide. See also his arguments on obedience to legal authority and freedom. To act on the basis of desire, in this case the desire to put certain things in your body that would be irrational to do, is not, according to Kant, to be free. To be free is to act in accordance with reason.

Because Conscious Experience is unexplainable by Science the Physicalists can only say they don't exist. — SteveKlinko

This is not my understanding of it. Not all physicalists deny conscious experience, they simply go by the assumption that there is a physical explanation of consciousness even though we have not yet and may never figure it out.

very real spiritual experiences — Ilya B Shambat

I do not know what this means. Some describe sex as a spiritual experience or music or any number of other things as a spiritual experience. The problem. as I see it, is when one is moved to make ontological claims based on the experience. As if there were a spiritual realm or reality that is in some way distinct from everyday reality that one has become familiar with via the experience. I do not know whether or not such a thing exists, but I am skeptical of the idea that the experience is of something other than one's interpretation of a subjective state.

How could the science of philosophy spill down to make good statements about "political correctness"? — Ansiktsburk

First philosophy as understood by Aristotle is the science of science, that is, knowledge of knowledge. Science, as the term is most often used today, is not the whole of science. Underlying the inquiry is the assumption that such a thing is possible.

In some dialogs he even comes to the conclusion that we cannot say. — Ansiktsburk

That the inquiry often end in aporia is of fundamental importance. It is easier to see in Plato than in Aristotle, but for both the concern is to protect knowledge and inquiry. Plato introduces a world of Forms accessible via noesis, Aristotle the rigorous and unadorned work of reason or dianoia. Plato conjures the road from dianoia to noesis, making clear that the fundamental questions do not yield to reasoned inquiry and require some kind of transcendence or exstasis. Aristotle proceeds as if reasoned inquiry does lead to the desired results, wisdom, but a careful reading shows that this is not the case. But this poses a grave threat to philosophy. If we cannot obtain knowledge and truth then we become vulnerable to an unending parade of claims of truth and knowledge by sophists, demagogues, and theologians.

Plato and Aristotle possess Socrates "human wisdom" and attempt to protect inquiry from those who claim divine knowledge. They are skeptics in the ancient sense of the word, those who proceed via inquiry. Zetetic skepticism is very different from the skepticism of the moderns who put doubt first and foremost, rendering inquiry pointless.

The examined life is the inquiry into and practice of how best to live given our ignorance of what is best. First philosophy, the science of science, is about knowledge of our ignorance. This is both the beginning and the end.

This is not to deny that we know anything. We know a great deal more than I think Socrates would have imagined, but all of our knowledge does not yield answers to the question of how best to live, either privately or publicly. The threat is not simply from those who claim to have the answers but, as Nietzsche knew well, from nihilism. The absence of divine wisdom means that we must resort to phronesis or practical wisdom. In place of eternal verities are temporal goals and fallible strategies for how to achieve them.

If we are to use the engineering analogy we should keep in mind that we are not dealing with things that behave in predictable ways or that can be engineered to work in predictable ways. Human beings do not have fixed natures but we are not completely malleable either. There are fundamental tensions at play between freedom and conformity, what one may take to be in his or her own best interest and the interest of the society, and social norms or custom and rational order.

I would like to focus on a question asked in the passage:

‘Whence did I get the notion of ‘thinking’?

The problem is that we think we know what thinking is because we think. A few related passages:

With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds—namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." ONE thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "one thinks"—even the "one" contains an INTERPRETATION of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the usual grammatical formula—"To think is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active; consequently"... It was pretty much on the same lines that the older atomism sought, besides the operating "power," the material particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates—the atom. More rigorous minds, however, learnt at last to get along without this "earth-residuum," and perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, even from the logician's point of view, to get along without the little "one" (to which the worthy old "ego" has refined itself).(BGE 17)

He is not denying that we think: “ONE thinks”. What he rejects is an “interpretation of the process” by which “the ‘one’” “does not belong to the process itself”.

This is easier to understand if we look an earlier section:

Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that "stood fast" of the earth--the belief in "substance," in "matter," in the earth-residuum, and particle- atom: it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has hitherto been gained on earth. One must, however, go still further, and also declare war, relentless war to the knife, against the "atomistic requirements" which still lead a dangerous after-life in places where no one suspects them, like the more celebrated "metaphysical requirements": one must also above all give the finishing stroke to that other and more portentous atomism which Christianity has taught best and longest, the SOUL- ATOMISM. Let it be permitted to designate by this expression the belief which regards the soul as something indestructible, eternal, indivisible, as a monad, as an atomon: this belief ought to be expelled from science! (BGE, 12)

But if we stop there we will not understand him. He continues:

Between ourselves, it is not at all necessary to get rid of "the soul" thereby, and thus renounce one of the oldest and most venerated hypotheses--as happens frequently to the clumsiness of naturalists, who can hardly touch on the soul without immediately losing it. But the way is open for new acceptations and refinements of the soul-hypothesis; and such conceptions as "mortal soul," and "soul of subjective multiplicity," and "soul as social structure of the instincts and passions," want henceforth to have legitimate rights in science. In that the NEW psychologist is about to put an end to the superstitions which have hitherto flourished with almost tropical luxuriance around the idea of the soul, he is really, as it were, thrusting himself into a new desert and a new distrust--it is possible that the older psychologists had a merrier and more comfortable time of it; eventually, however, he finds that precisely thereby he is also condemned to INVENT--and, who knows? perhaps to DISCOVER the new. (BGE 12)

What he is rejecting is the notion of a thinking substance. The soul is not something we have. In his refinement of the soul-hypothesis Nietzsche posits a “soul of subjective multiplicity”. This solves the problem of the seeming mystery of a thought that comes when it wishes rather than when I wish. It is not that the thought has some kind of independent existence and comes to me from elsewhere, but simply that there is not something within me, an “I” or “ego” or “little ‘one’” that is the agent of my thoughts. This is not a denial of agency, it is a denial of something within me, some substance or soul-atom that is the agent.

That there is some ambiguity does not mean that the meaning is whatever someone wants it to be — S

You seem to be unfamiliar with the idea that meaning is use. It is not whatever someone wants it to be but rather whatever has become common use.

I similarly made fun of your naivety by taking it to where it logically leads: horses that purr. — S

I know that you have gotten a lot of mileage out of this analogy, but you do not see that it fails in this case. A horse is something you can point to, political correctness is not. You can give examples of what you think political correctness is, but someone else might point to a whole other set of examples that run counter to yours.

If you're not Defender of The Faith, then why do you come across that way? — S

The way it comes across to you is not the way it is. Anyone who has been doing this long enough knows that there will always be someone who will not understand you. As I have been saying, you have not understood any of this.

You have been a contrarian to almost every critical thing that I have said of political correctness, as though you are trying to protect it, like an apologist. — S

A discussion of political correctness does not require one to choose sides. If I have argued against anything you have said it is because I think that you are either wrong or that there is more to it. I am pointing to the larger picture. A picture in which the battle over political correctness is only a symptom of a much larger problem.

It is merely complaining about how some people are abusing a term, rather than about political correctness proper. — S

I have already said that it is not an abuse of the term, it is about the use of the term, and how it plays a part in a larger political battle. It is your assumption, which you have repeated several times, that the term is being abused. As one of the articles I cited, which I take it you did not read, begins: "Political correctness, an often-ambiguous phrase ...". A term or phrase that is ambiguous does not have, or no longer has, a "proper" meaning that can being abused, just used in different ways and for different ends.

Accusations of irrationalism seem fair here ... — old

They are fair, but not accurate. Nietzsche leads the casual reader to such conclusions, but dig down and Nietzsche is rational but, in his own words, not irrationally rational.

Is understanding not what we are aiming for when we use words? — Metaphysician Undercover

Understanding evidently comes much easier to some than to others.

The guy did a lot of what Nietzsche wanted to do. — Valentinus

I won't get into the rhetoric of his pronouncements on Spinoza, but a postcard to Overbeck shows Nietzsche's admiration of Spinoza:

I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange!

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. It is not about discovery but creation. Yet one does not create ex nihilo.

As he well knows but does not so easily let on, thus it was for his kindred spirit, Plato. When he says:

I am a complete skeptic about Plato … (TI, 2)

this should be understood as one skeptic addressing another, one poet to another. One who would be commander and legislator to another who was and still is.

THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? . . . (BGE, 211)

P.S. I have not technically returned; just not suffering the anticipated effects of treatment yet. — Luke

Luke, I appreciate your continued attempt to bring clarity, but it appears to be a fool's errand. There is always some way in which something can be misunderstood. MU seems intent on demonstrating that fact.

You really have not understood any of this. For those who do, I am sure they find it all very amusing, but it reaches the point where it becomes all too tedious. I have tried on more than one occasion to put an end to this, but you persist. You would make a good Socratic interlocutor, attempting to save face, comically ignorant of your ignorance. Like Euthyphro accusing Socrates of making the argument go in circles and not staying still, you fail to see the logic of what follows from your claims and try to place the blame elsewhere.

But perhaps there is a glimmer of hope. It has finally become evident to you that I am not politically correct, and yet you continue to think that I am defending political correctness.If only your self professed talent for spotting logical errors could be used to spot your own logical errors. I am sorry that real life issues do not have the kind of clarity you find in the distinction between correctness and political correctness. The world does not divide along the joints of some kind of linguistic realism. A name does not mean that there must be some object that is its bearer.

No, a point about correctness broadly speaking is not relevant to a point about a very specific sort of correctness. — S

Do you ever tire of stating the obvious?

But political correctness isn't necessarily correct, and that's the obvious and important distinction which you tried and failed to gloss over in your original reply. — S

To reply in kind: nope and nope.

Correctness is necessarily correct, otherwise it wouldn't be correctness. — S

You need to get passed your Platonism.

I have a talent for spotting logical errors. — S

Congratulations. Some of us had to work hard at it. Still does not mean you see the larger picture.

No, talking about the meaning of correctness in general is a pointless digression. — S

It is not about the meaning of correctness in general, it is about what is correct in political matters, that is, public matters, things that may affect us all.

I made a point about the distinction between political correctness and being right. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you missed the point, when it's so obvious that that's what you did? — S

I have not missed the point. That is the point I have been addressing! I see I have to make this simpler:

The terms 'right' and 'correct' overlap in meaning. If something or someone is correct then it is also right. But if someone merely says that they are right, it does not mean that they are correct. To be correct in political matters is to "do the right thing". But the attempt to do the right thing is not an assurance that one will do what is right. Political correctness is about doing what is right in political matters. Or, according to its opponents, doing what is wrong. Being right and doing what one believes to be right are not the same.

Sure, and there's no horse "proper" either. — S

You really do not know what you are stepping into. To simplify matters I will only point out that 'horse' can be defined ostensibly, 'political correctness' cannot. When someone says "political correctness" they may mean a variety of different things. No one of these uses is the "proper" usage. Once again, try reading the historical links to the meaning of the term I have provided. As long as you are using the single example of a horse instead of actually looking at how the term is used, you will not get past you misunderstanding, which you ironically think is me being silly.

You must have a short attention span or something. Myself and others in this discussion. — S

There have been a variety of issues raised. If you did not have your head somewhere that obscures your vision you would see that.

It's not my fault that you have difficulty remaining on point. — S

The trouble is that your cannot follow point by point. A discussion of political correctness is not reducible to a point. If what I say does not address the point you want to remain on then why do you keep responding? You seem to have a strong need to be argumentative, but without the sense to know how poorly it reflects on you.

you unexpectedly and irrationally changed the subject without good reason. — S

It is evident that you misunderstood me. Go back and figure it out.

Yes, but that's irrelevant. A type of correctness is still not the same thing as correctness — S

Of course its relevant. It's relevant to the meaning of the term political correctness. Do you think the distinction between correctness and something of that type is what any of this is about?

Using it as code is still missing the main topic, which is about political correctness proper. — S

There is no political correctness "proper". That is what you fail to see. It is a term with a long and changing history. It has no "proper" meaning. It is used in several different ways to mean different things.

We are not doing what you accuse Trump and conservatives of doing. — S

"We" who? From the OP:

In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. — Ilya B Shambat

A worthy goal. But if one it to achieve it then he must understand what certain terms mean from that person's perspective. You may think you are using 'political correctness' in its correct sense but you are only using it in one of the opposite ways it is being used today.

But it's not as simple as that. I'm not incorrect about something just because I'm "politically incorrect" about something — S

What are you going on about? Of course you are not incorrect because someone considers what you say incorrect or politically incorrect

The cheerleaders for "political correctness" are not correct in a broader and more meaningful sense by default, and making that assumption is to not think about the topic philosophically. — S

Do you feel better having bashed that straw man? Yes, just because someone's position has "correct" in its title does not mean that it is correct. This is something you think is only obvious when one thinks philosophically? Is this epiphany a result of your thinking philosophically?

That's what we do here. It's a philosophy forum. — S

That may be what you do here, but philosophical argument is a means not an end.

I'm glad you acknowledge that. My concern was that you were confusing the two, given that the subject was the latter, and you switched to the former for no apparent reason. — S

The confusion is all yours. Political correctness is a type of correctness. Or at least it was until it became code for incorrectness. Which is to say incorrect by virtue of their politics. In either case, it is about being correct in matters political.

Why are you continuing to argue? Yes, there are distinctions between correctness and political correctness.

↪Fooloso4 But Trump is lying to his audience. There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not happy about it, but what he's doing is not complicated or mysterious. :chin:

And I can see no connection between what Trump is doing and 'political correctness', except that he mentions it. He mentions lots of other things too, and he lies about them too. I think the lying is the problem? — Pattern-chaser

Once again, we need to look at the history of the term, how it is being used, by whom, and to what end.

From the Harvard Political Review (http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/phrase-flux-history-political-correctness/), an article entitled: "A Phrase in Flux: The History of Political Correctness"

Political correctness, an often-ambiguous phrase, has in recent months become a hallmark of Republican rhetoric against Democrats. Those on the right have asserted that the First Amendment rights of Americans are slowly eroding. Those on the left have responded that our diversifying society is simply becoming more tolerant and accepting. Yet the American understanding of the phrase has been slowly changing since its inception, transforming from a descriptive phrase to one associated with polarization and partisanship. Examples of such change can be found today in the daily news cycle and embedded in our nation’s history.

...

A shift in PC rhetoric occurred in the 1960s, a period of intense social change in America. Historian Ruth Perry reminds us in her 1992 article Historically Correct that during the early days of modern “political correctness” both sides of the aisle were active participants. “Each side felt that the other side was standing in the way of liberation,” she observed. Phrases like “civil rights”, “Black power” and “feminist” became popular among liberals, while the House Un-American Activities Committee served as a bastion of anti-communist conservatism. Each side felt being politically correct was beneficial to society. Neither side “owned” the term, and it was for a time helpful and accepted to be politically correct.

In that time, political correctness encompassed not only words, but also actions. Republicans believed the anti-war protests during the late ’60s to be “politically incorrect” and Democrats considered support for civil rights legislation to be “politically correct.” In later years, according to Perry, the phrase quickly became a double-edged sword. The late 1990s saw another shift in the phrase and it was soon “used every which way—straight, ironically, satirically, interrogatively.” Political correctness was no longer a compliment, but a term laced with partisan feeling, owned by the left and despised by the right.

Today, “political correctness” is a term best associated with choice of words. In an interview with the HPR, Sanford J. Ungar, former host of NPR’s All Things Considered and former Washington editor of The Atlantic, posited that modern use of the phrase “comes from a reluctance or discouragement of people from saying something terribly unpopular”. Discerning both parties’ stances on the issue requires a mere look at their ideologies. Conservatism, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is a tendency or disposition “to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions,” including, but not limited to the American vernacular. Conversely, liberalism is a “belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress.” It therefore makes sense that those with liberal ideologies continue to institute new rules of language and speech.

A Political Battle

Today, some Republicans claim that the historically dual-ownership of “political correctness” has all but eroded. In the first Republican presidential debate on August 6, when asked about his history of controversial comments regarding women, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump sternly responded, “I frankly don’t have time for political correctness.” Earlier this month, in an interview on Meet the Press, Dr. Ben Carson was questioned by both sides of the aisle for his claim that he would not “advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” In a later campaign speech, responding to a question about anti-Muslim sentiments he retorted, “The only way we fix that is by fixing the PC culture in our country, which only listens to one narrative. And if it doesn’t fit their philosophy then they have to try to ascribe some motive to it to make it fit.” Shifting the media firestorm from oneself and onto a liberal “they” has been a prominent strategy for Carson and Trump throughout the campaign.

While the reasons for Trump and Carson’s success are numerous, it is clear that their rhetoric attracts many conservative voters. According to a September 24 national Quinnipiac poll of likely GOP voters Trump and Carson, in first and second place respectively, claim 42 percent of the party’s electorate, in a 15-person field. Focusing on Trump and Carson’s interpretation of “political correctness” as an insult, Ungar said, “I’m suspicious of the loose use, the reckless use, of the term to tar anybody you disagree with or that you are challenging.” However, Ungar makes a distinction: perhaps the shift in rhetoric is a sign of changing feelings towards the phrase. “It’s become very fashionable … for people to take the term and to use it as a mocking term, to use it as a way to discredit anybody who expresses concern about an underdog in anything.” This alteration in the use of phrase may be indicative of a polarization of the political process.

...

History has proven that the term “political correctness” is not set in stone. Its meaning has changed dramatically from its first use. Shifting attitudes in the political arena show that perhaps the phrase and what it stands for are changing once again. “People are understanding more and more, how dangerous it is to suppress opinions or to make some opinions unacceptable,” says Ungar. As the race for president continues, one could expect to see more backlash against the PC culture from the likes of Trump and Carson. What’s clear is that this isn’t the end of “political correctness”—it’s just the end of the term as we once knew it.

That's silly, because then it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, that I'm misusing the word "horse" to refer to cats. — S

Dig: many of the cats who blew the horn got hooked on horse.

But it does make sense to say that. It's silly to assume that an idiosyncratic meaning has priority, rather than the ordinary meaning. — S

I am sorry to say, but your still miss the point. Read the wiki article about how the term came to be used. There is no ordinary meaning. Those on the Right who use it dismissively mean something very different than those who are not engaged in the battle between conservatives and progressives. In the language of the sixties radicals, the term has been co-opted.

They aren't merely using the term, they're abusing the term. And your own comments about it strongly suggested this. That's why you disapprove. The acceptable usage is what you implicitly condone, over and above the way that people like Trump are using it. But you won't admit that. — S

You can call it an abuse, but as I see it, its just how the game is played. It is rhetorically skillful. What I disapprove of is the direction conservatives are pushing the U.S. in. My intention is to point to how they are using PC to that end.

No, I made the relationship clear: it is not a mutually inclusive relationship. The one is independent of the other. How hard is that to understand? — S

To say that they are independent of each other does not describe what the relationship between them is. Certainly you would not deny that there is a relationship between what is correct and what is right.

As has been pointed out, political correctness relates to the status quo. — S

In some cases it does, in other cases it is about changing the status quo, sanctioning certain terms that are deemed offensive.

Defender of The Faith — S

Nonsense. There have been and will continue to be excesses made in the name of PC. That I think is quite evident. What I am pointing to is what is going on elsewhere on the PC front.

Calling me derivative and unoriginal is an ad hominem — S

I said that in this you are no different than the rest of us.

... your assertion that my independence is an illusion is a bare assertion which can rightly be dismissed. — S

Go ahead, but in doing so you dismiss a significant portion of the history of ideas.

No, you don't get to decide what it's about. You don't have that authority. — S

Different participants have contributed in different ways. If you do not like the issues I discuss then go on your merry way.

.. you're merely picking on an easy target like Trump who isn't even here to defend himself. — S

It is not about Trump. It is about our social order and fabric. The tactics used by conservatives in this battle were in place well before Trump. I am talking about the history of political correctness. It is essential to understanding what is going on. (edited to remove statement from quotes).

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road.
— Fooloso4

Well, why don't we ask DingoJones and @Ilya B Shambat and others who has best represented their objections out of the two of us? — S

See above. It is not about me either. This is not a vote. If they agree with you fine. If they question something I have said they they are of course free to raise that with me.

it's "conservatives" or "Trump". Lame. — S

Trump and conservatives are part of the equation. If that is something you wish to deny, then fine. If there are other aspects of PC you would rather discuss, then fine. I am not jumping into those conversations and telling you to discuss this instead. If this aspect of the problem is not something you want to address then simply drop it.

And that's not how it should be used, right? So he was misusing it. — S

If the term is used according to its intended meaning and affect then it is not being misused.

You clearly disapprove of the way that he was using it, yet at the same time, you keep trying to disagree with me about this misuse of which we both disapprove. — S

The term has no meaning independent of its use. This is how the term is being used tactically by some conservatives. I do not approve of the tactic but have no compunction to assure that the term be saved to be used in a specific way.

No, I wasn't suggesting anything. I meant what I said and nothing more. Don't read things in to what I said. — S

What you said is that there is a distinction between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. The problem is that the distinction leaves the relationship between PC and doing what is right ambiguous.

It would be nonsense to suggest that it is politically correct to frown on political correctness. — S

The point is that you are doing the very same thing that would be called PC by someone who does not like that you are frowning on what they are doing. They too think they are doing good rather than harm and they do not like your interference, which they see as the real source of harm.

You are so eager to contradict me that you're not really thinking things through. — S

Once again, it is not about you. You are so eager to protect your image that you're not really thinking things through. I am not talking about you. I am talking about political philosophy.

It is about independence. I don't have to be a slave to society, I can be my own master. — S

There is a tension here between the individual and society that is as old as political philosophy itself. It has not been reconciled. In terms of freedom of thought, you are as derivative and unoriginal as the rest of us, and more so than some. Your independence is an illusion (and even this is not strictly about you either).

For Christ's sake. I am not Trump, and I am not defending him. I meant the people in this discussion, not an idiot like Trump. — S

Once again, it is not about you or the people in this discussion. It is about the political power struggle and the tactics being used.

I think what I said: that I am better able to represent the objections (being made in this discussion) than you are. Don't make that about Trump this time. — S

No, this one is about you and your imagined unbiased view and superior knowledge that leads you to think that you should be trusted rather than questioned or criticized.

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road.


.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars.
— Fooloso4
Have you ever thought that you could generalize this? That this could be said about a lot of issues and movements today. — ssu

There is nothing new here. This tactic was in use long before PC.

Oh okay, then Donald Trump wasn't misusing the term for his own agenda, and therefore Fox News really were being too politically correct. Funny, I thought you were making the opposite point. — S

Trump was using the term exactly as conservatives intend to use it, to summarily dismiss anything said by the opposition. Fox was not being too politically correct. They were doing what any company to does, maintain viewers and sponsors. They pride themselves on not being PC.

There is a distinction which has been acknowledged between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. — S

Are you suggesting that the politically correct do not want to do what is right? Do they think that what is correct is wrong?

I am objecting to political correctness for its bad side, or for those who only think that they're doing good, but are actually causing harm, and are actually doing something which should be frowned upon, — S

So, those who think they are doing good but are actually causing harm should be frowned upon. That sounds very PC.

... simplistic herd-morality-type thinking... — S

We are herd animals. You are not breaking with the herd when you repeat what every other herd animal who fancies himself an individual says. We are social beings. If we are going to live together we need to have some form of agreement as to what is and is not acceptable behavior and speech.

...which offers uncritical praise. — S

I know no one, either personally or more importantly,in what I read in what Trump calls the "fake media" that offers uncritical praise of PC. Today, as in the past, there have been those who are concerned with justice, with determining and doing what is right. When well intentioned actions have unintended or problematic consequences then this is brought to light.

Calling out language and behaviour should be seen as neutral without any context. Add a context, and we can sensibly judge whether it is right or wrong in that particular case. — S

Of course context matters! Labeling something PC is the opposite of examining context. All you need to be told is that it is PC. Game over.

Long before PC there was censorship. It is not a PC invention. For most of my life it has been conservatives who have pushed for censorship. The underlying dispute is not over censorship but who gets to be the censor and what are they censoring.

No, they are objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity — S

When Trump objects to PC he is not objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity. There is nothing he wants more that authoritarian hive-mind conformity. When conservative political pundits bash PC they are not objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity they are objecting to anyone but them being in control.

Trust me, I am better able to represent the objections than you are, because you are trying to represent them from the outside, and your biases are an obstacle for accurate and fair representation. — S

Trust you? That sounds authoritarian. Since you are "inside" you think that you are unbiased?

Let's be clear. When Trump attacks others for being PC it is not because he is bothered by their attempt to avoid language or behavior that can be seen as offensive or excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people.

So "political correctness" can be misused for a dubious agenda. Big deal. So can lots of things. — S

You miss the point. There is no misuse of political correctness. It is a label, a code that says bullshit here. That is precisely its use.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars.

I have emphasized the importance of the abnormal age we live in. Demographics are changing and the bounds of acceptable behavior is changing too. Calling out the language and behavior of others is something we are going to see more of, not because PC is contagious but because the old boundaries no longer hold.

The anti-PCers are objecting to the very thing the PC are trying to accommodate, integration. They are not simply resisting the conversation they are resisting the very need to do this.

Yes, I have referenced that article in a couple of earlier posts. But this does not tell me what you mean by political correctness and why you are not sure whether the Kathy Griffin thing is something different.

Just curious if there are any examples of this. — Terrapin Station

Here is a good place to start:

[url=http://]http://www.boycottleftwingers.com/[/url]

Ah I just thought of one possibility. The Kathy Griffin thing, although I don't know how we could make that fit the concept of political correctness really. — Terrapin Station

What is the concept of political correctness really?

Not that I agree with Trump overall on this, but "concerned that they will lose viewers and sponsors" is what is meant by "caving in to political correctness" isn't it? — Terrapin Station

If it were something Trump and his supporters did not like they too would, and have, threatened to boycott. Except they would not call it political correctness when the media outlet caved.

If it is still not clear, here is what is at issue. In the words of Trump, from a tweet in response to the suspension of Fox News host Jeanine Pirro.

Bring back @JudgeJeanine Pirro. The Radical Left Democrats, working closely with their beloved partner, the Fake News Media, is using every trick in the book to SILENCE a majority of our Country. They have all out campaigns against @FoxNews hosts who are doing too well. Fox .....

Fox must stay strong and fight back with vigor. Stop working soooo hard on being politically correct, which will only bring you down, and continue to fight for our Country. The losers all want what you have, don’t give it to them.

According to Trump, under the sway of political correctness, Fox News has somehow aligned itself with the "Radical Left Democrats" and "their beloved partner, the Fake News Media" to "SILENCE a majority of our Country".

The "fake media" aka "enemy of the people" and Democrats have joined forces to silence the majority through political correctness. The irony, which I am sure is lost on the majority of Trump supporters, who wrongly believe they represent the majority of the country, is that Fox has become Trump's propaganda machine. He is bothered that one of their biggest Trump supporters has been suspended and wants to set them straight. He wants to control the discourse through the media and resorts to one is his favorite tricks - accuse others of what you are guilty of.

Fox News is not caving in to political correctness, they are simply concerned that they will loose viewers and sponsors. Trump uses it as an opportunity to discredit legitimate news outlets, Democrats, and those who do not picture all Muslims as the enemy by making it about "political correctness". His concern is not with free and open discussion, but with silencing all those he sees as his enemies; convincing his followers that his enemies are the enemies of the people.