Does this venn diagram make sense?

I think if political correctness has any meaning, then it means more than being polite, and having good manners.

Does this venn diagram make sense? — wax

Were you the one who said had problems with venn diagrams?

Basically Ok, but you are implying that a) the group of some people that might behave (?) cannot behave like Mussolini. And Mussolini, who once was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party, who preached of violent revolution, praised Karl Marx and criticized patriotism, couldn't ever have been politically correct (hypothetically, as he is quite dead and lived in a different time).

Brilliantly written.

I don't want to speak on anyone else's behalf, but by way of simply defending my previous praise of the position you've criticised, I think you have missed the point of what @MindForged was saying (at least, that which I thought was good about it).

The point is not that there is or is not foolishness on both sides, it is the nature of the weapon they are playing with. The worst that could happen in the cases you cite is that people unjustifiably lose their jobs,or people have to speak more carefully than they really need to. I'm not justifying this, I think it's stupid if someone loses their job over a silly remark, but it's just a job.

The bullshit that the right comes out with incites racial hatred and violence (of a serious nature). Global warming is real and serious, denying it to continue making a profit out of oil sales could cost the lives of thousands, the refugees the right would like to deny haven are fleeing serious persecution. It's not at all comparable with making people say "xshe" instead of "she", or whatever such nonsense.

As usual, this is just the typical right wing BS about "PC" stopping "problems from being solved" and such. What always always always turns out to be the actual motivation, the actual belief, is that the person complaining PC - never defined by them, notice - is they want to say something outlandish about another group or groups but don't want their words to be labelled as bigotry — MindForged

This might not apply to me, as I don't characterize PCism or SJWism as "stopping problems from being solved," but I simply take issue with people wanting to control others' thought/speech/expession. I have a problem with people wanting to control others in general, which is part of why I have the relatively unusual views about laws (far fewer things would be illegal if I were king), the prison system (I'd have a completely different system in place/different approach to criminal justice in general), etc. that I do, too.

Basically Ok, but you are implying that a) the group of some people that might behave (?) cannot behave like Mussolini. And Mussolini, who once was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party, who preached of violent revolution, praised Karl Marx and criticized patriotism, couldn't ever have been politically correct (hypothetically, as he is quite dead and lived in a different time). — ssu

yes, I realised that; I just didn't want to make the venn diagram too complicated.

The bullshit that the right comes out with incites racial hatred and violence (of a serious nature). Global warming is real and serious, denying it to continue making a profit out of oil sales could cost the lives of thousands, the refugees the right would like to deny haven are fleeing serious persecution. It's not at all comparable with making people say "xshe" instead of "she", or whatever such nonsense. — Isaac

(Yet you do notice that my example was about racism. Or the accusation of the university being racist. Not gender inequality or LGBTQ issues.)

First question:

How many conservative leaders you see in Europe that are so-called Climate deniers? Who of them doesn't think that climate change is an important issue? I guess you will find one or two politicians that will for some reason lick the rump of the Trump administration, but the vast majority of any right wing administration in Europe do see it as a serious problem that has to be tackled now.

Second question:

Who in the right really promotes racism? The vast majority of people who say they are conservative?How do they promote it? Do you think that the extreme right, bunch of nazi losers represent the right? It would be similar that saying that all leftist people are maoists.

This is the thing that I emphasize when talking about the polarization of the political debate: You don't actually engage the otherside, but only a stereotypical travesty of what the 'right' or the 'left' is made to look like by the opposing side.

This is a very American attitude. Yep, free speach is just for appearances sake in reality. And this of course is one reason for the toxic and agressive discourse. You see, it's all about winning with your argument... Seeking a consensus? Learning from others? Rubbish! — ssu

Free speech? Not remotely relevant to anything I said. I was talking about the suggestion that people not communicating is creating a toxic environment where both sides aren't listening to each other (this was what you mentioned). People aren't usually listening to each other anyway in political discourse. When it's not purely partisanship, it's usually just an appearance of seeming open. And of course it's American in attitude, thats the place I mostly refer to in my post. But if you want to talk about actual, existent, threats to free speech, I'm more than willing to. But even there you will see a clear tendency to which side is doing it (hint: college kids being dumb aren't remotely close).

And who here is defending the idiot in Chief here? This is exactly the point I'm talking about. — ssu

Um, I quite clearly referenced several examples which do not directly involve Trump. But even if I had only done so, the fact that he became president at all, and maintains surprisingly high favorability among the U.S. right wing, shows the truth here.

And what kind of lunacy would the 'left' be, if the extremely aggressive college students promoting victimhood-culture, safe spaces who see microaggressions and racism everywhere would be considered to be the left? — ssu

Do you hear yourself? College kids being idiots (in the best case scenario for your argument) is being compared to Nationwide policies by Trump and the GOP that leads to people (including kids) being grabbed off the streets and in their homes and being thrown into cages, bans on a specific religious group entering the country and ongoing absurdity where government workers and contractors are essentially being made to hamper one's free speech (no boycotting the nation of Israel) if they want to do business with the government.

This is the kind of "off the planet" nonsense I was talking about. The actual lay of the land has been so obscured by hysteria from the right that we are comparing things of vastly different scale in terms of effect and occurrence, and then saying "both sides are the problem". Just... No.

Do you hear yourself? College kids being idiots (in the best case scenario for your argument) is being compared to Nationwide policies by Trump — MindForged

If the topic was (somehow) political correctness, then refuting it by Trump and global warming.. :roll:

And anyway, I've been living in a country with a right wing administration and a right wing President. And when the migrant invasion was at it's peak, our right wing prime minister offered to have his now empty home in the countryside given to refugees. And Finland didn't close it borders.. even if we did have the anti-immigration party in the administration (which actually was a great thing: the party broke later into two parts). That's how racist, xenophobic and Trumpian the conservative were here.

In fact the vast majority of European countries with right-wing administration cannot be compared to Trump. Hence the idea that Trumpism is the present situation of the right is nonsense. I don't argue here that leftists here have it wrong because of... Maduro's Venezuela or because of North Korea. I fathom there aren't many staunch supporters of the Juche-ideology here.

If the topic was (somehow) political correctness, then refuting it by Trump and global warming.. :roll: — ssu

No, the refutation was against your nonsensical "both sides have made things toxic". Then, you're justification of that was to point at college kids while ignoring the other side are engaging in hysterical, prolonged campaigns of denying reality and affirming broad conspiracy theories which then become the justification of the acts done by Trump. Kids being obnoxious vs Trump throwing people in cages and trying to ban Muslim immigration.

You keep saying I'm Americanizing this but that's because I'm talking about America. And given you are complaoning to this stuff about kids on college campuses no platforming people and moaning about them bringing up microaggressions, surely you were talking about America as well. If not, then I don't know what phenomenon you're talking about.

This might not apply to me, as I don't characterize PCism or SJWism as "stopping problems from being solved," but I simply take issue with people wanting to control others' thought/speech/expession. I have a problem with people wanting to control others in general, which is part of why I have the relatively unusual views about laws (far fewer things would be illegal if I were king), the prison system (I'd have a completely different system in place/different approach to criminal justice in general), etc. that I do, too. — Terrapin Station

I don't think I was talking about you, but the first few posters in this thread. In any case, I think the characterization of "trying to control others thought/speech/expression" is a false one though.

And given you are complaoning to this stuff about kids on college campuses no platforming people and moaning about them bringing up microaggressions, surely you were talking about America as well. If not, then I don't know what phenomenon you're talking about. — MindForged

Really? You truly think that I have to be talking about America, or unless you don't know what I'm talking about?

The article was in Helsingin Sanomat and it was about the University of Tampere. So it might come to you as a shock, but other countries have exactly similar silly things going on in their universities. Or more accurately, the media portrays the universities having similar things going on. Why? Because media copies what sells and likely some journalists see themselves as fellow progressives, so they'll write a similar story from here what they have read from the States. And yes, when you are talking about political correctness, it is about language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Then you DO talk have to talk about microaggressions and all the typical things, because that IS part of the present discourse. And the result when talking to academia studying racism and minority relations is similar. You really think that a junior, or more accurately assistant professor of minority studies, would say that racism wasn't a problem in the university here? Nope, there ought to be schooling at the subject for university staff.

Yet your is counterpoint is that this doesn't matter because... Trumps inhumane policies and global warming. Even if global warming is important (and I did try to show that this isn't an issue only the left cares about in the World), in this context It's a strawman argument. It's like having the counterargument for ANY leftist or liberal idea that it doesn't work because... look at Venezuela. Colombia now holds over 1.1 million of the 3,4 million refugees from Venezuela escaping the Latin paradise of 'democratic socialism' (see UN News Venezuelan refugees now number 3.4 million; humanitarian implications massive, UN warns). And because you aren't talking about this very true crisis in Venezuela, but something else, your nonsensical.

I think the characterization of "trying to control others thought/speech/expression" is a false one though. — MindForged

People aren't just letting others' expression be and not applying various social pressures, etc., are they?

People aren't just letting others' expression be and not applying various social pressures, etc., are they? — Terrapin Station

I don't want to try to control your expression, but I feel obliged to point out that asking questions with such fundamental grammatical errors that they are incomprehensible is not conducive to constructive discussion.

Yet your is counterpoint is that this doesn't matter because... Trumps inhumane policies and global warming. Even if global warming is important (and I did try to show that this isn't an issue only the left cares about in the World), in this context It's a strawman argument. It's like having the counterargument for ANY leftist or liberal idea that it doesn't work because... look at Venezuela. Colombia now holds over 1.1 million of the 3,4 million refugees from Venezuela escaping the Latin paradise of 'democratic socialism' (see UN News Venezuelan refugees now number 3.4 million; humanitarian implications massive, UN warns). And because you aren't talking about this very true crisis in Venezuela, but something else, your nonsensical. — ssu

Again, my point is simple to the extent that I think you're purposefully ignoring it. Let's be extremely clear. You're point was this:

I think the underlying problem is much more the polarization of the political discourse and the lack of even trying to engage the other side. This creates the current toxic environment. — ssu

In response, I pointed out some of the actual and significant causes of the toxic environment between the right and the left that go beyond kids at universities not being open minded. Namely, widespread support for extreme racially/ethnically directed national policies towards foreigners, absurd suggestions on how to deal with what problems there are and even a persistent misrepresentation of the reality of the situation, claims (from one side, mind you) that a global climate crisis is a hoax, etc.. So by comparison, are you claiming that the toxicity is equally the fault of safe-space liberals complaining about the racism the right is making every attempt to validate?

The problem isn't that one can bring up any ideological issue(e.g. Venezuela) to turn away criticism of one sides members. No, the problem is your claim of "both sides are making things toxic" implies they are roughly equal in responsibility for that toxicity. And I don't see why anyone ought to take the example you gave seriously by comparing to the panoply of conspiratorial nonsense propped up by one side to the dumb actions of, mostly, literal kids on the other side.

There's no grammatical "error" there.

grammatical errors — andrewk

It is a clumsy sentence, but I don't see any confounding grammatical error.

People aren't just letting others' expressions be stand as written, but not are also applying various social pressures, etc., are they not?[/quote]

In response, I pointed out some of the actual and significant causes of the toxic environment between the right and the left that go beyond kids at universities not being open minded. — MindForged

Ok. Let's forget the silly campus political correctness as it obviously isn't any root cause for anything here (although for political correctness, it is part of the racism debate)

So basically the question is that where does this toxicity come from. The way you present it that it obviously comes just from the wicked policies of the right and assume I'm trying to push blame on the sane people on the left like Trump after Charlottesville talked about all sides. And if I try to reason that Trump isn't what conservatism is in other places (like in Europe), that naturally is totally meaningless. Nothing matters than the US at the present. Fine. So why the toxicity?

Firstly, you have a political system of two entrenched political parties that totally dominate political landscape in the US with absolutely no reason to seek any kind of consensus. This is because either one party is in power or the other one is, and in time, sooner or later, the places will turn. No third party will threaten their domination of the power in the US. This creates huge complacency and stagnation in the system (breeds corruption too) as the politicians when out of power can simply wait either as Congress members, think tank personnel or work in the lucrative private sector jobs (basically as lobbyists) and wait the few years until their party gets back to power in the future. As basically the divide is between a centrist party and a right wing party, these two parties have to truly portray that they are so totally different from the other. In many cases they aren't so different. This creates the hostility between the parties: unlike in multiparty countries where political parties have to build coalitions between two or more parties and hence have to have cordial or diplomatic relations with their peers on the other side of the aisle, in the US this would be extremely counterproductive and ad hominem attacks and portrayal of the other as basically evil works extremely well.

Secondly, the "winner takes it all" and "no need for consensus" environment creates the "fighting with tooth and nail to the end" tactic to be successful. Let's take for example the issue that Americans so love, gun control. The gun lobby has simply the idea that the gun control lobby will never stop to anything other than total ban on guns, hence it's logical to fight everything at all times without any effort to seek a consensus. (It's just like Netanyahu's Israel's policy towards the Palestinians: nothing good can come out of giving land to the Palestinians, war is just a natural state for Israel.) Add in the mix the idea that some Americans have about their guns and you have totally opposing views. This political situation creates the situation where seeking to form consensus or a bipartisan agreement simply isn't a winning strategy. It's seen as surrender, not as an accomplishment.

Thirdly, the US has a real problem with collective policies. That Americans pay way more for Health Care than anybody else yet don't have a universal system and have dismal health statistics is case and point example of how bad the situation is. Hence liberal ideas to mimic the Nordic welfare countries will likely fail. For them to work, you have to have a lot less corruption.

Fourth, when it comes to Trump, he is a loser who didn't believe he would win. Once he won, he hasn't believed that he could win any new voters (which actually could have been possible if Trump would have been a competent leader), so he sticks to his hardcore supporters. These likely love Trump the most because he angers so much the liberal left (and the economy hasn't yet tanked). So Trump is just fine with separating babies from their mothers.

People aren't letting others' expressions stand as written, but are also applying various social pressures, are they not? — Bitter Crank

Nice work. That is a sentence that's easy to respond to.

Is there something wrong with applying social pressure against somebody's expression? Well, as far as I can see, everybody does it, so I can't see how anybody could seriously suggest there is something wrong with it.

If somebody is swearing loudly and continuously in a busy shopping street, the police will eventually pick them up for public disorder. If somebody does the same in a social group like a school or club, they will face, at a minimum, the disapproval and dislike of members of the group, and maybe expulsion.

If a person says that Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists, or just lazy and stupid, people will send that person to Coventry - except in the US, where they'll elect them president, or the UK where they'll give them a lucrative contract to talk about motor cars on television.

Social pressure is how society manages to maintain civilised modes of interaction - what we call politeness and civility. Like any tool, it can be misused, but that is the fault of the misuser. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the tool.

All of this is precisely the truth.

I’m a little torn here because I agree with the sentiments expressed in general but not the path taken to get there.

In the second post if I employ someone and they repeatedly say “no, I’m not good” when asked ina general manner “How are you today?” I would not look on them with forgiving eyes because people are not usually asking for a honest reply about your life problems and mood at that particular time, it is more of a form of greeting and it would often be seen as impolite to say “No, I’m not good” unless it was a one-off occasion where you’re having particular issues that may effect your work that day - it woudl be counter productive for your job to say otherwise.

Anyway, I’m with the general politeness attitude expressed by some here. I can perfectly understand that being PC can be conflated with politeness. For people who aren’t trying to make some ideological point they likely regard them as pretty much synonymous.

I think keeping your choice of words, the effect of your actions (speech as an act), is something we need to pay more attention to in some situations more than others; hence my comment above about the workplace. That said I think the problem stems from others annoucing to you that it is not okay to say x or y when in fact it is okay to say anything but certainly not to all people in all situations - and human judgement on the right time to say something will obviously err and that is precisely where many are ready and waiting to declare some offense like it is the most important part of human communication and something that should be iradicated from discourse (which seems naive at best imo).

Ironically the issues that cause polarisation are the issues that we cannot afford not to address. The question is the manner in which we address them, being bold and fearless AND on constant guard in what are inevitably nuanced topics with multiple perspectives. Only from a common grounding can a common discourse become apparent to us. If the ground is refused, and it may be prudent to do so, we need to carefully assess why and think about how surrounding topics can be more readily addressed in a civil manner without resorting to claims of intense offense and/or hostility.

Is there something wrong with applying social pressure against somebody's expression? — andrewk

In my view, yes. The fact that it's common doesn't excuse it.

In my view, yes [there is something wrong with applying social pressure against somebody's expression]. — Terrapin Station

I am curious to hear about how you come to that view. Is it derived from some set of moral principles, or is it more just a feeling? If principles, I'd like to hear about what they are and how the derivation proceeds.

I am curious to hear about how you come to that view. Is it derived from some set of moral principles, or is it more just a feeling? If principles, I'd like to hear about what they are and how the derivation proceeds. — andrewk

I'm not a fan of a "principles" approach--I think it inevitably leads to absurdities to make principles a trump card.

But in general, it's related to me being a free speech absolutist, being against controlling others as much as possible, being against mob mentalities, being pro laissez-fairism, and not being in favor of sanctions in response to "hurt feelings."

Functionally, P.C. is an iteration of the ad hominem fallacy. It is totally meaningless in terms of establishing truth, value, logical consistency etc. and therefore belongs to the realm of rhetoric rather than philosophy

t's related to me (1) being a free speech absolutist, (2) being against controlling others as much as possible, (3) being against mob mentalities, (4) being pro laissez-fairism, and (5) not being in favor of sanctions in response to "hurt feelings." — Terrapin Station

1, 2 and 4 are consistent with the conclusion. It sounds like you are a libertarian. Fair enough - it's just a different ethical system.

3 and 5 are not relevant though, as disapproval of things like racist or sexist speech is not based on the potential for hurt feelings and, until we see mobs out there actually harming people that speak racist or sexist things, claims of 'mob mentality' are baseless hyperbole.

Correctedness is a value. "Being politically correct" is behaving in accordance with the values which constitute being politically correct. While it may also be used as a fallacy, it is not inconsistent, or meaningless. The very simple proof of that being that when someone accuses you of being politically incorrect, you rarely are at a complete loss as to what they are refering to.

3 and 5 are not relevant though, as disapproval of things like racist or sexist speech is not based on the potential for hurt feelings and, until we see mobs out there actually harming people that speak racist or sexist things, claims of 'mob mentality' are baseless hyperbole. — andrewk

(3) is relevant because what I'm referring to with the phrase "social pressure" and the like is more often than not a factor of many people acting in conjunction with each other to a particular end, and that's what I'm referring to by "mob mentality."

Re (5) hurt feelings was a big theme in related threads this past week.

And yeah, I'm basically a (minarchist) libertarian on these sorts of issues.

many people acting in conjunction with each other to a particular end, and that's what I'm referring to by "mob mentality." — Terrapin Station

Under that definition, a group of Amish collaborating to raise a barn is an instance of mob mentality. It's what most people call 'cooperation'.

Being anti-cooperation is an unusual stance.

The context was social pressure against speech, wasn't it? (I would hope there wouldn't be a requirement to specify the context in every sentence, because that would be a pain in the butt to type)