There is a political debate going on in Australia about whether there ought to be a plebiscite (like a referendum) on whether to allow same-sex marriage.

Originally the idea of having a plebiscite was seen as a way of allowing the populace to express an opinion on the question; the current Government had taken the plebiscite to the people in the last election.

But now the left side of politics are saying that debating the question in the lead up to the plebiscite will give free reign to 'hate speech'. The Labor leader has said:

'“The experts are making it really clear to me that there will be tremendous harm caused by a plebiscite, a divisive debate which will reignite some of the worst arguments of people who are opposed to gay Australians having equal rights.'

Their general view is:

'Many gay and lesbian advocates have opposed a plebiscite on the basis that it would unleash a campaign of hatred and homophobia that will be damaging to LGBTI people.'

So what the argument appears to be, is that any debate all is damaging, because, if there is something to be debated, then it must imply that there is some grounds for questioning marriage equality. And the marriage equality movement equates opposition with bigotry - so discussing, debating, or voting on the question, amounts to 'letting the bigots have their say'. The Greens are now saying the only appropriate course of action is to amend the marriage act by an act of Parliament; the implication being, those opposed to it are bigots, as there can be no rational reason to oppose it.

Should there be such referendums for every ideology, or opinion in your view, or just the ones you're sympathetic to? Should we seriously allow the public platform to every form of morbidity, and disgrace for genuine consideration so as to be all equals and fairies? I highly doubt you'd hold such a view.

That view you describe sounds about right to me, and would to you as well given the right subject, only on top of that, you would be mistaken, whereas I would not be.

I'm afraid sir, that I have the high ground.

lol that vid


How is the marriage equality debate in australia relating to The Hidden Psychological Causes of Political Correctness and do you have anything to say about that without describing in much length something that while interesting doesn't specifically respond to what I was saying about peoples psychology not political parties?

This statement in the OP is inane:

For instance, in our society a lady of weak stature can walk up to a gangster and preach her moral opinions with a finger pointed at him. She can do this all without fear of being physically assaulted... Why? Because she hides behind the law.

She can do that because the law protects her from assault - as it ought to. Do you want to argue that it ought not to protect her from having the gangster beat her up? Is that your idea of what constitutes 'political correctness'?

Should there be such referendums for every ideology, or opinion in your view, or just the ones you're sympathetic to? — Wosret

Changing the marriage act is no trifle. It is a momentous social change, therefore the Government elected to hold a plebiscite on it. The fact that this is now being fiercely combatted by those who stand most to benefit from it says a great deal about both 'political correctness' and basic questions of free speech, in my opinion.

I thought that that statement was stupid too, but because a "gangster" is a career criminal... so law is probably not as massive a deterrent as it would be for a non-career criminal one would think... presumably something else must be holding them back, one would hope, even as a thief or even murderer, they would have some sense of the low quality of beating women and children even at their own minor offense or harm.

I don't think it says much that many people would rather not suffer disgrace and affront to dignity even at the cost of their own continued oppression.

Though I did misunderstand the nature of the referendum as like, going the other way. Probably would have framed things differently if I'd have gotten that.

I thought that that statement was stupid too, but because a "gangster" is a career criminal... so law is probably not as massive a deterrent as it would be for a non-career criminal one would think... presumably something else must be holding them back, one would hope, even as a thief or even murderer, they would have some sense of the low quality of beating women and children even at their own minor offense or harm.

I don't think it says much that many people would rather not suffer disgrace and affront to dignity even at the cost of their own continued oppression. — Wosret

You have to read on. I said "Likewise, people hide behind political correct etiquette to protect their ego's."

THAT is why I gave the ganster/old women analogy.

You just read it literally, not as an analogy for anything and then thought that I was using that as an example to define political correctness. Maybe you are multi-tasking or something at the moment and that is why you seem to by-pass what was a pretty coherent analogy about how people use systems of either law, social codes and etiquite as a way to defend their ego and not just the rights as a human being.

I will say it loud and clear so you all know, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS...

Hey, I didn't mention it originally, because I didn't think it was important, but since he brought it up I thought that I might as well have shared my original impression, no offense.

Political correctness is just a buzz term, it isn't like it's a new phenomenon, or it's more prevalent now. People say that opposites attract but Nazis and Jews usually don't become best of friends. We're all intolerant of other views, and to the extent that we appear to be tolerant is usually only to the extent that we believe that we have to, or are expected to -- but inside, not so much. Our "tolerance" most often is nothing more than risk management.

What kind of bizarre conclusions you seem to pull out of thin air? — Intrapersona

Hey, gosh, sorry, but the idea was expressed in such a way that it was very difficult to understand what you mean. So, no, I don't think I read it like a 10 year old, that wasn't the problem, it's just that it was a really poor analogy.

The intended function of political correctness is to redistribute social power from the dominant to the dominated by imposing a social penalty for the use of the type of language or behaviour that was traditionally employed to reinforce power structures the proponents of PC seek to rebalance in the service of social harmony (just as progressive taxation functions to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor by imposing a monetary penalty on wealth in order to maintain a balanced economy). Unsurprisingly, both political correctness and progressive taxation tend to be opposed by the same kind of people, i.e. those that refuse to acknowledge that there is any potential for imbalance in social structures or the economy that outweighs their "freedoms" in terms of speech or property or whatever other form of capital they wish to retain while exercising their (usually) God-given "rights".

So, the real question is not "Why are people taking offence?"

The answer to that is obvious. They are taking offence because their social capital (or that of the group to which they belong, associate with or sympathize with) is being depleted. The real question is "How far do we want to take political correctness?". Just like the real question is not "Why are people against regressive taxation?" but "How far do we want to take progressive taxation"? We need some of both in order to maintain balanced social structures / economies, but too much of either may provide a disincentive for creative expression / wealth creation that creates more of a drag than a boost.

The intended function of political correctness is to redistribute social power from the dominant to the dominated by imposing a social penalty for the use of the type of language or behaviour that was traditionally employed to reinforce power structures. — Baden

Great analysis.

So, at risk of being extremely non-PC, here is how that pans out in respect of gay rights - that gay advocacy has appropriated the language of human rights, by equating 'being gay' with other cultural identities such as 'being black' or 'being Jewish'. So this enables gay advocacy to turn the opprobrium which used to be heaped on gays back against their critics, who are now portrayed as, and widely accepted to be, the enemies of human rights and natural justice, just like those who used to oppose racial integration.

Yeah, when we all know that that nature stuff is bullshit, and they're all just unnatural evil perverts.

So, at risk of being extremely non-PC, here is how that pans out in respect of gay rights - that gay advocacy has appropriated the language of human rights, by equating 'being gay' with other cultural identities such as 'being black' or 'being Jewish'. — Wayfarer

It pans out the same for every group that has traditionally had low social capital; you use whatever means available to rebalance power relations and thus increase your relative capital. In other words, you take the social stigma imposed on you for being a minority and make use of another social stigma that attaches itself to the deployment of the original social stigma, which makes such deployment counter-productive. You can talk about rights, intolerance, lack of compassion, whatever. It's like putting a plug in a pistol that's pointed at you.

So this enables gay advocacy to turn the opprobrium which used to be heaped on gays back against their critics, who are now portrayed as, and widely accepted to be, the enemies of human rights and natural justice, just like those who used to oppose racial integration. — Wayfarer

Pretty much.

Yeah, all that, but you're on my side right? :D

Sure, you can even join me, Hanover and Banno at our next soirée. :D

Hurray!

So this enables gay advocacy to turn the opprobrium which used to be heaped on gays back against their critics, who are now portrayed as, and widely accepted to be, the enemies of human rights and natural justice, just like those who used to oppose racial integration. — Wayfarer

This suggests that there is a quantity of opprobrium that cannot be created or destroyed but only deflected from one to another. But gays were never regarded the enemies of human rights and natural justice, nor were blacks. The opprobrium is not the same opprobrium, and not on the same scale. One does not generally find racists and homophobes being lynched or beaten up by gangs, or even being imprisoned with hard labour.

Rather, it is the racists and homophobes who are trying to turn the opprobrium they receive back on their opponents, as if being called out on their prejudice is the same as the oppression they have meted out.

The real question is "Why are people taking offence in the first place?"

When someone calls you a no-hoper, dope, space-cadet, weirdo, douchebag... They are conveying an emotional state through a single word. It is the emotion that is transferred which makes the person feel inferior. Yet, people who are developing these politically correct restrictions over words are putting the cart before the horse. The root is in peoples emotional state. The problem is the ego, not the words. — intrapersona

It is the person that resorts to name-calling that is the one feeling inferior. I see this all the time in discussions where the person doesn't have a good argument to make and they resort to petty personal attacks. The person being called a name shouldn't feel inferior at that point, but should feel superior as the behavior of name-calling is the behavior of someone feeling inferior.

The real question is why do some people take offense and others don't to the same speech? Why do some gays take offense to gay slurs and some don't. The difference needs to be explained and the explanation is that the gays that don't take offense have a better self-image than the one's that do take offense. They don't allow others to define them - especially others who don't know them. They don't give power to other people's words and they understand that the others' use of "offensive" speech is really a representation of the speaker not the one being spoken about. When we allow others to speak freely we get to know what they really think and what they are really about. Limiting other's speech limits your own freedoms in being able to know what people think.

We know what Trump thinks. He says what he thinks. He's often brutally honest. He may not be right, but he is honest. On the other hand you have Hillary who will smile and shake your hand, yet lie to your face and tell you what you want to hear, and then go and talk behind your back.

I'd much rather live in a society where people are free to say what they think than one where we can't say what we really think. People who are easily offended are the ones who were raised in such a way that they end up having a depleted self-image and any speech that affirms that is offensive.

Well observed.

I'd much rather live in a society where people are free to say what they think than one where we can't say what we really think. People who are easily offended are the ones who were raised in such a way that they end up having a depleted self-image and any speech that affirms that is offensive — Harry Hindu

It's not simply a matter of being personally offended or not, it's a matter of the relative distribution of social capital to the group you belong to. If your group gets less of that, you as a member lose out whether you are offended in a particular instance or not. It might be that you don't get the job you went for, or that you get ignored at a bar, or, yes, that you get ridiculed in a social situation and that depletes your self-image. But regardless of how you were raised or your ability to withstand that kind of treatment, you are on average better off as a minority having more of this capital redistributed in your favour, and political correctness is definitely an element in that equation. That doesn't mean we are not free to say what we think, what it means is that there is a penalty for saying things that are reflective of a less equal distribution of social power. In other words, your reward for stigmatizing or denigrating others is to experience the same sort of thing yourself.

It is an important feature of 'political correctness' that it is not a 'movement' (for want of a better word) initiated by oppressed groups but by intellectuals and academics on behalf of these groups (whether they wanted it or not). It was rooted in a kind of revivalist logical positivism that, contrary to Wittgenstein, deemed words inflexible carriers of historical social and cultural prejudice. You may think you are using a term in a perfectly friendly, non-judgemental way, but PC argued, you are, by definition, wrong. Judgement is inherent in the term no matter the context in which it is used.

And so we had the often totally illogical kind of revisionism that turned 'handicapped' into 'disabled' (despite many people's feeling that the latter was actually less accurate and more disparaging) and 'spastic' into 'suffering cerebral palsy' evolving eventually into the awful blanket term 'special' (a corruption of 'with special needs'?) Negro became black (?) or African American (??) and so on. You'll have your own opinion as to the true value of this but it was not long before PC started going mad! And always at the hands of the wise on behalf of the oppressed (or the seemingly oppressed) who still hadn't really decided whether they needed it or not.

That has since evolved to the point where a kind of professionally offended and highly vocal elite microcensors every article written, every speech made, every political decision, indeed every stray thought that sees the light of day often to the excruciated embarrassment of those on whose behalf they claim to be acting and the rage of those who consider themselves falsely 'accused' as the very wide brushes that this elite employs tar everyone!

So, to get back to the original question, I do not think it fruitful to go looking for psychological explanations for PC other than the comfort of identity and the simple belief that you are morally correct which is pretty much a given for any and all social, cultural, political and religious groups. There is plenty for philosophers to get stuck into in what is believed without the distraction of personal motivations for believing it!

It is an important feature of 'political correctness' that it is not a 'movement' (for want of a better word) initiated by oppressed groups but by intellectuals and academics on behalf of these groups (whether they wanted it or not). — Barry Etheridge

Necessarily so. The oppressed lack social capital, which means they themselves are generally powerless to change the terms used to define them. That's just the nature of being oppressed. The people who pushed for new words in order to even things out had to be of some social standing to have any influence over any far-reaching social change, and of some intellectual standing to have an influence over linguistic usage, ergo intellectuals and academics.

And so we had the often totally illogical kind of revisionism that turned...'spastic' into 'suffering cerebral palsy' evolving eventually into the awful blanket term 'special' (a corruption of 'with special needs'?) — Barry Etheridge

It's not a matter of logic. Neither replacing nor retaining the status quo is illogical, but that doesn't mean one choice isn't obviously preferable to the other.. When I was young the term used for the medical condition was "spastic", and that was also one of the terms commonly used to mean "a complete idiot". So, given the choice as a sufferer, you probably would have to be a complete idiot to not prefer "suffering cerebral palsy" or "special needs".

Negro became black (?) or African American (??) and so on. — Barry Etheridge

And before "negro" was acceptable, "nigger" was. So, what's the point here? The move was hardly a bad thing. Of course, it can go too far. I don't know whether "Black" or "African American" is actually the preferred term among members of that group, for example, but obviously "negro" or "nigger" isn't. And the former consideration pales in comparison to the latter.

So, to get back to the original question, I do not think it fruitful to go looking for psychological explanations for PC other than the comfort of identity and the simple belief that you are morally correct which is pretty much a given for any and all social, cultural, political and religious groups. — Barry Etheridge

The psychological explanation for PC is largely the recognition of the desire for self-esteem among those who would be denied it due to their position in society, and the willingness to help provide the circumstances under which it can be more easily fostered by those who see that as a gift without a price.

So, given the choice as a sufferer, you probably would have to be a complete idiot to not prefer "suffering cerebral palsy" or "special needs". — Baden

Strangely it has emerged that many groups actually prefer to use some of the non-PC terms themselves. One of the UK's leading charities for people with learning difficulties refused for many years to yield to pressure to stop using the term 'mentally handicapped' and still retains a nod to it in its new name. There is a self-help group for the mentally ill which has been involved in a very public effort to 'reclaim' the word 'bonkers', one for the physically disabled that includes 'gimp' in its name, and then there's this!

This is precisely my point. The trouble with being offended on behalf of other people is that it is based on the assumption that you know what is best for them better than they do themselves which can be far more patronising and belittling than any of the allegedly offensive terms and behaviour you are crusading against. The great irony of pc is the great disservice it does to those it claims to be protecting first by failing to consult with them what they actually want in the way of representation and then by attracting attention exclusively to itself in raising the ire of a public that, rightly or wrongly, considers itself falsely accused, further alienates and isolates them.

Far from the altruism that you appear, naively in my opinion, to attribute to the pc brigade, then I am forced to conclude that it is and probably always was primarily self-serving moral superiority.

So what the argument appears to be, is that any debate all is damaging, because, if there is something to be debated, then it must imply that there is some grounds for questioning marriage equality. And the marriage equality movement equates opposition with bigotry - so discussing, debating, or voting on the question, amounts to 'letting the bigots have their say'. The Greens are now saying the only appropriate course of action is to amend the marriage act by an act of Parliament; the implication being, those opposed to it are bigots, as there can be no rational reason to oppose it. — Wayfarer

Nothing than the old scheme of oppression that the New Left has always been peddling. "Don't force us to live the way you want, we'll force you to live the way we want"

The psychological explanation for PC is as simple as the recognition of the desire for self esteem among those who would be denied it due to their position in society, and the willingness to help provide it by those who see it as a gift without a price. — Baden

It's impossible though. Self-esteem is something internal, not external. The fact they are seeking self-esteem outside of themselves is the problem, not the solution.

You appear to be saying that society is valuing nomos/custom over nature. Much of what is natural in us is forced to sublimate itself in society to customary forces. The naturally stronger gangster is powerless against the weak lady, because violence is against the law.

Men are violent, it is part of our nature as men (self-preservation). The expression of that violence is anger, which cannot be expressed physically in most societies without repercussions that may be equally as physical. The sublimation of violence is found in language used by both strong and weak.

When someone calls you a no-hoper, dope, space-cadet, weirdo, douchebag... They are conveying an emotional state through a single word. It is the emotion that is transferred which makes the person feel inferior. Yet, people who are developing these politically correct restrictions over words are putting the cart before the horse. The root is in peoples emotional state. The problem is the ego, not the words.

In so far as the ego is constituted by language, it cannot escape it. The feelings the custom/nomos gives words adhere in words, and our reactions to words are normatively anticipated. When you call someone a "no-hoper, dope, space-cadet, weirdo, douchebag", or 'filthy immoral rich, fat cat bastard" these words have commonly understood meanings (which seem to be more spacially then temporally located). They are meant to convey an adverse attitude toward another. While the way you convey your thoughts are particular, the words you use go beyond you and convey what is commonly understood.

Language enables civilized violence. The repression of such expression, I think will lead to further sublimation, at least for the foreseeable future, or until such time as new norms become foundational (if). Perhaps one issue with this...if that subordination of violence to custom means the lack of public expression then it will surface in private conversations, out of the sight of the public...disguising itself, taking on more acceptable public faces. Perhaps it becomes more dangerous when it must grow out of sight.

Made a couple of edits (now in italics) to the last paragraph of my previous post as it was an overly simplistic way to put things. Psychological explanations for social movements are never really straightforward. Re your objection @Agustino, it's only true up to a point, self-esteem is in a very real way limited by social capital.

If it is indeed limited, then there is no way to grant it to those who lack it. If person X thinks of me as inferior, and I know they think of me as inferior, it is useless to get them to call me great, be respectful towards me, etc. - I still know that deep inside this is just show, and it's not what they're thinking. And nothing will change this, because deep inside they can't be made to suddenly respect me if they don't already.

You need to look at this from a wider angle. Increased social capital provides a more favourable environment for the fostering of self-esteem. This doesn't happen overnight. It's part of a process of social change.

I think the idea of 'political correctness' is a mistaken generalisation, and even to start accepting the term is to succumb to an agenda instigated or supported by people who use the phrase. Let us talk about each instance as it comes, and we find that we are talking about a variety of debates about a variety of words.

Lots of people in different contexts use words of opprobrium among themselves. People who've experienced mental distress, for instance, often talk to each other happily about loonies, barminess, being in the bin, fruitcakes and so on. To talk to one's own language community on equal terms is quite different from talking with those outside it who are trying to generalise about you. Jewish jokes are for Jews to tell each other.

There are different rules of politeness whoever you are and whoever you're with. No-one talks to Grandma the way they talk to their friends or their teacher or the driver on the bus. Much of my attempt to stop people being, say, racist in front of me is simply to persuade them to act with social decorum and decency. I think to call my attitude 'political correctness' is an attempt to silence me and justify their rudeness and, by their rudeness, their assertion of power. I'm not having it.

I understand your point, but trust me (or believe me! as Donald J. says) - it won't change anything. I'm from an ex-Communist country, these "increased social capital" memes are bullshit. It is virtually impossible to change the inner attitudes people have towards one another on a mass scale. Even with a very limited group it's very difficult. All that will happen is that you get people to be educated to no longer display an inner attitude outwards - but you can never regulate that fully. If for example you're someone who hates black people - then I can take you and enforce all the regulations I want on you. You will not be able to curse black people, you will have to talk politely and respectfully to them, etc. but in your mind, you'd still think the same way about them. Nothing will have changed, except that you will have learned that success in your society depends on wearing a mask - just like your avatar in fact. That's really what political correctness is all about. A useless meme, there just for the show.

But on the contrary - you will create a new class of power hungry totalitarians who will use the new rules to dominate the world around them, the very same way it had been dominated before. It really doesn't matter - those who seek to be powerful, will use whatever tools exist to make that possible. They will not care what it takes to be powerful - they will not care if they have to curse the "white man" or the "black man" to be powerful - they will do whatever it takes.