↪Pattern-chaser
"Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile."

Rudeness and violence are not the same thing, nor are politeness and violence each other's opposites. — Ilya B Shambat

No, they aren't opposites. They are the choices we have in this particular context. But rudeness is a form of violence. A mild form, admittedly, but violent just the same. If you think "violent" is too strong, then substitute "conflict" instead. The meaning remains the same. And the violence/conflict still offers no benefit to anything or anyone.

↪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.

Certainly you would not deny that there is a relationship between what is correct and what is right. — Fooloso4

Oh my goodness. Political correctness is very different from correctness.

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

Why are you continuing to argue? — Fooloso4

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

Yes, there are distinctions between correctness and political correctness. — Fooloso4

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.

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.

That may be what you do here, but philosophical argument is a means not an end. — Fooloso4

I never said that it was an end. It is obviously what we both do here - it's what we're doing now - and that's all that I said, capiche? Our exchanges would be much more productive if you restricted yourself to addressing what I say, rather than what you imagine me to be saying, as you've done a few times now.

The confusion is all yours. — Fooloso4

Incorrect. I am not confused. The problem was that you appeared to be, because you unexpectedly and irrationally changed the subject without good reason.

Political correctness is a type of correctness. — Fooloso4

Yes, but that's irrelevant. A type of correctness is still not the same thing as correctness, so you're still wrong. It is merely correct according to a particular standard which is itself open to criticism. That is indeed correctness of a type, but it is trivial.

Or at least it was until it became code for incorrectness. — Fooloso4

Using it as code is still missing the main topic, which is about political correctness proper. Myself and others are criticising political correctness proper. We are not doing what you accuse Trump and conservatives of doing.

Which is to say incorrect by virtue of their politics. — Fooloso4

Well, yes, obviously political correctness will only ever be correct or incorrect in accordance with a particular politics. It doesn't fully accord with my politics. So, from my point of view, it is a bit of a misnomer to call it political correctness.

In either case, it is about being correct in matters political. — Fooloso4

But it's not as simple as that. I'm not incorrect about something just because I'm "politically incorrect" about something, which is what some people seem to be suggesting. That's basically just saying that I don't accord with standards of "political correctness" and I'm perhaps incorrect in a broader sense, as a result, in someone else's opinion. 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.

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?

It is evident that you misunderstood me. Go back and figure it out. — Fooloso4

Nope and nope.

Of course its relevant. — Fooloso4

No, a point about correctness broadly speaking is not relevant to a point about a very specific sort of correctness. It is fallacious to think that a logical consequence of the former must apply to the latter. Correctness is necessarily correct, otherwise it wouldn't be correctness. 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. You failed in that tactic because I spotted it and pointed out the error. There isn't much you can get past me in this regard. I have a talent for spotting logical errors.

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? — Fooloso4

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

There is no political correctness "proper". — Fooloso4

Sure, and there's no horse "proper" either. Those fluffy horses which purr and meow are just as much horses as the horses which are actually horses. I'm sure those fluffy horses which purr and meow would fit right in in a horse race, and no one would bat an eyelid.

Are you done being silly yet?

"We" who? — Fooloso4

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

What are you going on about? Of course you are not incorrect because someone considers what you say incorrect or politically incorrect. — Fooloso4

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? — Fooloso4

Why are you blaming me when instead of simply acknowledging my point, you responded with an irrelevant point which didn't even address the more specific point that I was making? It's not my fault that you have difficulty remaining on point.

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.

When someone says "political correctness" they may mean a variety of different things. No one of these uses is the "proper" usage. — Fooloso4

We simply ought to use different words to describe what actually we are talking about.

So, is it:

a) Avoiding words that can be interpreted as being derogatory (excluding, marginalizing, or insulting) against minorities

b) Enlarging the above from just speech to other actions like policies towards minorities.

c) Making accusations of someone else being hostile to minorites.

One can notice that a), b) and c) are quite different from each other and hence we can easily have a confusion in the debate. Usually the "anti-PC" crowd is basically talking about b) and c) and someone just thinking about a) might not understand their point.

Yeah, yeah. Tu quoque! You're very predictable, and not very politically correct either.

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.

I think what Dr Glenn Loury says about political correctness goes to the heart of the issue well:

"Political correctness is at the end of the day is a cognitive and intellectual cul de sac where we are trapped by the need to not be seen as on the wrong side of history and therefore we say things that we don't actually believe ourselves, but are the things expected of us to say."

Basically political correctness stifles debate when some argument, which can be a totally objective observation, is picked up by the "worst people", the racist supremacists, the xenophobe nativists, the islamophobes, misogynists or homophobes or whatever. Then this argument comes to be a sign of the 'hate speech' of the extremists and to bring it up is interpreted that the speaker has sympathies for the extremist views. As few have sympathies for extremist views, they shun away from the subject. And then some issue, which can indeed be important, becomes 'politically incorrect'.

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.

And much of your complaining isn't on target. It is complaining about how some people are abusing a term, rather than about political correctness proper.

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.

That there is some ambiguity does not mean that the meaning is whatever someone wants it to be, nor that there are no proper or improper usages. If I recall correctly, the comedian Stewart Lee, who I've previously mentioned, made fun of his nan on stage by parodying her sipping a cup of tea, complaining that it was cold, and then complaining that this was political correctness gone mad. The obvious joke being that that's not an example of political correctness at all, properly speaking. The joke wouldn't work otherwise. Yet it did, and everyone laughed.

horses that purr — S

It is a well known fact that motors purr, yet motors are not cats.

Women have cat fights, yet yet are not cats. But that is readily explainable: All women are cats, all men are dogs. Positive and negative connotations apply to both.

With regard to your claim that all women are cats and all men are dogs, I beg to differ. @Noah Te Stroete and I are both men, yet I am a cool cat, and he is a pussy. And his mum is a bitch.

Wubba Lubba dub dub! (Holy Lol, if you google that, it says "Did you mean 'I am in great pain. Please help me'").

You mean the whole debate is so irrelevant, not much to even discuss it or what?] — ssu

Does one debate whether murder, torture, lying or stealing are wrong? Insofar as the major conflict is occurring between politically aligned groups, those concerned with minority rights and conservative/centrists, there is nothing to debate about.

We are talking about a critical moral issue of prejudice and discrimination against minorities. If “both sides” were to be right, we would be justifying that some level of prejudice against minorities. We would be signalling to society, on some level, it was great to consider minorities lesser, unnatural or people who didn’t belong in our society.

A classical liberal approach of talk about and “rationally” debate to find the positives of either side doesn’t work in this case. It has no comprehension of an individual in the social context of other. When we get to questions of responsibility of an individual’s actions in society, it baulks. It imagines what we do and say has no consequence for others, just so long as we don’t hit them or really suggest they ought to have a different point of view.

We might say, it is the entirely capitalist account of freedom and society, in which their are only self-made individuals free to act and do businesses with other self-made individuals, in whatever deal the can arrange for themselves (i.e. “debate the ideas until both sides get a piece they are content with”).The very idea an individual action or viewpoint being morally unacceptable is taken to be impossible. It’s all understood to be just a game of opinions.

Ethics of society has much more at stake. There are objective feature of people and their actions towards others. Individuals have a moral responsibility toward to behave in ways which form ethical social situations. A key part of that is avoiding ideas and ideologies which form an unethical society, responsibility which neither set by an individuals wants or collage of parts of opposed viewpoints stitched together.

But has 'the Left' really embraced political correctness? If you go past the stereotypical portrayal of cultural marxists against the alt-right, does this really fall into the left/right divide? — ssh

Sure, I was talking about the minority concerned Left against the alt-right and centrists.

If we move outside that, many of The Left are opposed to "PC" as much as the alt right or and centrist. I've criticised a lot of them over the years.

Truly a red herring as those being critical of PC usually don't have any ideas like that in mind. It is truly a tiny cabal that march with tiki-torches and yell "Jews will not replace us". — ssu

They don’t need to be. A major point in all of this is discrimination and devaluing or minorities is not limited to genocidal nazis. Indeed, most of it is not. In everyday life, someone is far more likely to be affected be discrimination from someone with no designs on genocide, in many cases the sort of person who thinks they aren’t prejudiced because “they aren’t nazis who want genocide.” The immorality here is not just nazi’ who want a minorities out now, it’s anyone who devalues or consider them to not properly belong to our society.

The ethical society is not just one that doesn’t genocide minorities, it’s one which holds them belong. One that refuses to consider them “unnatural,” suppose they are interlopers for having different colour skin or coming from a different culture, degrade them for being different or think of the majority as the primary owner of the society. Many critics of “PC” have precisely theses ideas in mind. They want their derogatory jokes about minorities, their assumed ownership of society over others and their casual superiority of those who are different.

With regard to your claim that all women are cats and all men are dogs, I beg to differ. Noah Te Stroete and I are both men, yet I am a cool cat, and he is a pussy. And his mum is a bitch. — S

:lol: Fucker. My wife and I got a good laugh out of that. :up:

I'm glad, and my joke also serves a relevant purpose here, as it often does, which in this case is to reveal the benefits of what some would call political incorrectness or something similar, and the flaws of its opposite. I knew you'd appreciate it and not get all up in arms about me coming out with something like that.

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.

On a superficial level, it might indeed seem to someone like you as though I'm unfamiliar with "meaning is use". But I'm most certainly not, and the resolution here is simply to not take what I say on such a superficial level, but instead to make better use of your brain and be more charitable. A particular common usage isn't necessarily what is considered proper usage. Just ask those who say that "gay" is not an insult, for example. They obviously don't mean to deny that the word is commonly used that way. Rather, it's suggestive of proper and improper usage.

Again, it doesn't follow from the fact that people point to different things that there is no proper or improper usage. This implicit line of reasoning from you is invalid.

And I knows what I knows, and am knowingly far from humble about it. Big deal. I offer no apology if you find that offensive.

If it's from the set I know, Lee was making fun of people who complain "political correctness has gone mad." The joke was about the absurdity of complaining "political correctness has gone made" about health & safety laws.

(some NSFW language).

Yes, I remember it, and obviously none of those jokes would work if there wasn't a proper and improper usage of the term. He would just be met with silence and confused facial expressions. Fooloso4's argument has been demolished.

No, I'm saying you've misread the meaning of the entire set.

He's not attacking the use social responses (which Fooloso4 is talking about) termed "political correctness ," but rather suggesting that the complaint "political correctness has gone mad" is absurd because the social responses cited as "PC" aren't unethical or madness at all.

Lee's not talking about proper and improper uses of "political correctness". He's saying the complaint "political correctness gone made" is an absurd and unethical action, given what the "political correctness" entails.

Okay, but in that case you're obviously mistaken, because he clearly says "Basically, there's a whole generation of people who've confused political correctness with health and safety legislation". It was the main punchline for that whole bit, and it was met with laughter. The joke wouldn't even make sense if these were genuine examples of political correctness. [Edited by moderator]

Yes, since he's referring to the instance of someone referring to health and safety laws, rather than "PC" as the various expectations on speech and thought towards valuing of people of minority groups (which is "PC" for the rest of his set).

The joke being, again, the absurdity of "political correctness gone made," since it doesn't have any solid ground-- that people just throw it out the phrase whenever others/society pull them up on having to act responsibly towards others-- rather than it being a legitimate criticism of our society.

You're missing my specific point, and his if you still disagree with me over this. I clearly wasn't talking about what he was doing with his whole set, or making any other point about his set which you might want to talk about instead. I was just talking about a very specific part of it, and in that very specific part he was doing exactly what I said, and it supports my point, as I've demonstrated. I'm not interested in your disjointed thoughts and misinterpretations. He was very clearly suggesting improper usage. That was what was made it so funny, and it wouldn't even make sense otherwise, let alone be funny. So I don't want to waste any more of my time arguing with you about that. He explicitly ruled out the examples as counting as political correctness, properly speaking, putting it down to confusion.