Hahahahaaa!!! :rofl: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
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
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. — 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.
But political correctness was never about hate speech. — NOS4A2
Would they agree with yours?. 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
Which people usually understand.PC in political discourse isn't wanted. Common decency in everyday life very much is. — Benkei
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.
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. — Maw
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
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.When someone talks about "political correctness", they usually cannot articulate precisely what it is. — fdrake
It's usually an "excessive version of (undefined allegedly progressive blah)", and everyone dislikes unspecified undefined allegedly progressive blah when it is excessive. — fdrake
Even that does tells a lot: progressive blah. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.