9 out of 10 Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, and in fact many express admiration for it,

88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness.

Once again a few triggered politicos and grievance-mongers ignore the will and voices of their community.

88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness. — NOS4A2

As I've pointed out to you before, the study in that article doesn't define political correctness, leaving the term completely open to interpretation per respondent, making the analysis useless.

As I've pointed out to you before, the study in that article doesn't define political correctness, leaving the term completely open to interpretation per respondent, making the analysis useless. — Maw

Hahahahaaa!!! :rofl:

That's so funny, maw! Oooohhh, a proper defintion of political correctness is not used!!! Oh, that's a foul, a foul cries referee maw.

That's so funny, maw! Oooohhh, a proper defintion of political correctness is not used!!! Oh, that's a foul, a foul cries referee maw. — ssu

I didn't say a "proper definition", I said no definition was provided to those who were surveyed when they were asked a question about it. The article that @NOS4A2 provided even states: "But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind."

Do you think a definition would have been useful to provide if, as the survey points out, "82 percent of Americans agree that hate speech is a problem in America today"? Because for some, this would fall under political correctness. Given this, what does it mean when "88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness", do you think each and every Native American surveyed would agree with your meaning, and how do you know that? (I also don't see where in the survey is says 88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness, and it doesn't provide an actual sample size for that group).

As I've pointed out to you before, the study in that article doesn't define political correctness, leaving the term completely open to interpretation per respondent, making the analysis useless.

People have been speaking about, writing about, and have been warning us about political correctness for decades. Quibble all you need, but I wager most people understand the general sense of the term by now.

People have been speaking about, writing about, and have been warning us about political correctness for decades. Quibble all you need, but I wager most people understand the general sense of the term by now. — NOS4A2

If people are discussing a term over the course of a decade and approaching it from varying angles and perspectives then yeah it would be valuable for the study to provide a working definition to respondents for clarification, especially given that 82% of respondents in this study said that hate speech was a problem.

If people are discussing a term over the course of a decade and approaching it from varying angles and perspectives then yeah it would be valuable for the study to provide a working definition to respondents for clarification, especially given that 82% of respondents in this study said that hate speech was a problem.

Hate speech is a problem. But political correctness was never about hate speech.

But political correctness was never about hate speech. — NOS4A2

For you. Not everyone has categorically drawn lines between speech that is considered hateful or offensive or just unpleasant and rude, and where political correctness intersects between this and other types insults and expressions, which is why it would have been prudent for the study to have provided a definition, otherwise it allows people like yourself to interpret it in whatever way you want to interpret it, and, in your case specifically, a self-serving way.

Lol. As per usual, the literal exact opposite of what you just said is the case. Political correctness is, in both definition and in practice, almost entirely about condemning and avoiding derogatory/hateful language and rhetoric towards particular (religious, ethnic, etc) groups.

From where I'm standing PC used to be about the political parties not allowing certain subjects to even be discussed. Such as racism and communism in the USA.

Meanwhile, idiots have started to equate common decency with PC, thinking that it's a valuable political position to hold to be able to call people names, using slurs and even use hate speech because "free speech".

In all matters, context matters. PC in political discourse isn't wanted. Common decency in everyday life very much is.

. Given this, what does it mean when "88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness", do you think each and every Native American surveyed would agree with your meaning, and how do you know that? — Maw

Would they agree with yours?

Maw, let me give another example.

If people would be asked "Do you think extremism is a problem in our country?" without defining the term more, would you think the questionnaire is useless? I bet you and NOS4A2 will surely differ in your views about just what kind of extremism is really the problem, but does that change the real issue?

PC in political discourse isn't wanted. Common decency in everyday life very much is. — Benkei

Which people usually understand.

Is "spokesperson" rather than "spokesman" political correctness? Is "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" political correctness? Is "Japanese homosexual" rather than "Jap fag" political correctness?

Do I say that I'm for or against political correctness if I don't like "Jap fag" but don't care about "spokesman" or "Merry Christmas"?

It's not a binary issue.

Many things aren't binary.

But in woke PC culture they are! :grin:

Many things aren't binary.

But in woke PC culture they are! — ssu

Actually in woke PC culture non-binary is a big thing. ;)

Look around you. Most people can't manage to be decent or respectful.

For you. Not everyone has categorically drawn lines between speech that is considered hateful or offensive or just unpleasant and rude, and where political correctness intersects between this and other types insults and expressions, which is why it would have been prudent for the study to have provided a definition, otherwise it allows people like yourself to interpret it in whatever way you want to interpret it, and, in your case specifically, a self-serving way.

It’s just untrue that political correctness has anything to do with hate speech, and it appears that the only one who needs a definition is yourself.

Lies. This is just how the PC police see themselves.

I bet you and NOS4A2 will surely differ in your views about just what kind of extremism is really the problem, but does that change the real issue? — ssu

Yes, that undeniably changes the issue because then you can't say "80% of respondents agree that extremism is a problem" or any other aggregate judgements, because that binds myself and NOS4A2 together in an unsound and baseless way, since we don't agree on the actual content of the word 'extremism' given definitions that are detached from one another. Likewise, without a given definition of 'political correctness' we have no way of knowing if respondents are aligned in their interpretation of the word or if there are disagreements in its meaning, which is precisely why the article (eventually) states, "But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind."

It’s just untrue that political correctness has anything to do with hate speech. — NOS4A2

You can huff and puff all you want but that's ultimately just your opinion.

It isn't a surprise that over 80% of a group dislike a nebulously defined pejorative. Does disliking political correctness entail anything about your opinion on any of the following:
(1) Censorship of hate speech in media.
(2) A cosmopolitan attitude.
(3) Equality of opportunity.
(4) Race/sex/gender indifferent hiring practices.
(5) Politeness.
...
I could go on.

When someone talks about "political correctness", they usually cannot articulate precisely what it is. It's usually an "excessive version of (undefined allegedly progressive blah)", and everyone dislikes unspecified undefined allegedly progressive blah when it is excessive.

The survey designers may as well have asked "Do you dislike things which you think are bad?"

It does not take any effort whatsoever to specify the term. I am immediately suspicious when a survey designer asks a loaded question because they're literally trained not to do that.

Do you like excessive profit motive from oil companies?

Of course you don't.

You can huff and puff all you want but that's ultimately just your opinion.

An opinion that I can defend. Your opinion, however, lacks any such argument.

Nah. Its literally what the phrase means in English. As you can see if you check any dictionary or encyclopedia entry. And of course, the anti-PC dipshits real problem with political correctness is that they want to make bigoted categorical statements about particular groups (e.g. Muslims, etc) and basic decency- political correctness- looks down upon it. And hence your crybaby tantrums about the tyranny of political correctness, basic decency, and simple common sense. Which is of course why no one likes you or takes you seriously. When you stake out things like basic decency as partisan or controversial, you're only removing yourself from adult conversations.

:100: :up:

its not even an opinion, its just a blatantly/trivially false factual claim.What poor NOS here is claiming political correctness has nothing to do with, is literally the very definition of political correctness, as well as how it manifests in practice in the vast majority of cases (obviously like anything else there can be abuses.. but these are exceptions, not the rule)

:cool:

Yes, that undeniably changes the issue because then you can't say "80% of respondents agree that extremism is a problem" or any other aggregate judgements, because that binds myself and NOS4A2 together in an unsound and baseless way, since we don't agree on the actual content of the word 'extremism' given definitions that are detached from one another. — Maw

And here above is the illogicality of partisan wokeness clearly displayed.

So you are unsoundly and baselessly bounded together with NOS4A2 if you both agree that "extremism is a problem", because the two of you likely think that the extremism of the other side is a problem. With this same logic I guess to ask if "terrorism is a problem" would be wrong too, because you might be thinking of terrorism of the extreme right and NOS4A2 might be thinking about jihadist terrorism or terrorism on the left.

As if people wouldn't differ just on what "is a problem" or what "extremism" or "an act of terrorism" is. No, at the present you either have to have a unified World view about everything or otherwise it's meaningless.

No wonder that people hate the idea of seeking a consensus.

As if people wouldn't differ just on what "is a problem" or what "extremism" or "an act of terrorism" is. No, at the present you either have to have a unified World view about everything or otherwise it's meaningless. — ssu

Fill out this survey please:

Do you believe consensus building is always of vital importance in political dispute resolution?
(Yes/No)

Has there ever been a situation in which consensus building was not of vital importance?
(Yes/No)

Do you think that every human has a right to express their viewpoint?
(Yes/No)

Do you think Naziism is a viewpoint?
(Yes/No)

Oh, and if you wouldn't mind, please give me your employer's email address...

When someone talks about "political correctness", they usually cannot articulate precisely what it is. — fdrake

If someone talks about "great art" or "great food", can they articulate what that precisely is? Will they have different opinions about it? Yes, absolutely. Do we have to cancel the use of these terms as we may differ on what exactly contributes to good art or a fine meal? No, we still can get the idea when talking about great art and great food.

Besides, political correctness is far better defined as those terms above: using language that avoids offending members of particular groups in society. Now I agree with you that many can understand it in a larger context, for example that in a dictatorship it's not politically correct to criticize the policies of the state. That obviously has a different meaning for political correctness, just as populism is many times misunderstood to mean popular, whereas the term populism has a very distinct definition.

Yet to say

It's usually an "excessive version of (undefined allegedly progressive blah)", and everyone dislikes unspecified undefined allegedly progressive blah when it is excessive. — fdrake

might actually be a great definition about don't like, actually. Even that does tells a lot: progressive blah.

Besides, coming to Maw's argument that the fact that 88% of Native Americans don't like PC doesn't matter because PC wasn't defined, that people can have various understanding of the terms (as you pointed out), is a bit condescending. It reminds me of what one Native American commented. He liked the term "Indian" because it always reminds him how wrong white Europeans where about his people.

No, yes, yes, no.

I don't know who fdrake is so no, why would you need my employer?

Even that does tells a lot: progressive blah. — ssu

Yes. And it's entirely up to the survey interpreter to decide what is meant by progressive blah. Is hatespeech mitigating law progressive blah?

Headline demonstrating bias: "Liberals finally seeing the end of their worldview, 88% of Native Americans don't believe in political correctness"

Are race+gender non-discriminatory hiring practices part of progressive blah?

"Liberal narratives of inclusive hiring no longer desired by public, (blah high)% of people no longer approve of political correctness"

It's really really easy to twist that survey result however an interlocutor wants to. And that's exactly what's been seen in this thread. You're all approving of the vague statistic, Nos approves of it for different reasons, you think Maw dislikes it because it goes against their worldview, you think I dislike it because it goes against my worldview... That's not an us problem, that's a methodology problem. It's a shit question.