Americans Strongly Dislike Political Correctness Culture

[imported_tajmahal]

It was defined for them in a series of questions. The link is in the article. There was a general question but then it digs down a bit more on certain topics and breaks it down a bit more between 'in America' and 'when I'm with people like me'

Thank you for the link, it's much appreciated.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Key words are "Moderation", and "Tact".

There are sociopaths taking it to extremes on both sides. There's a time and place for everything. Twitter is not that place, and being president talking about your own people is not that time.

Twitter is actually the perfect place for that. The problem is that people take Twitter seriously and not as a digital version of going to remote place and yelling shit to try and relieve stress. Even dumber, people immediately view things as for/against them, and seemingly get actual dopamine response when people agree with them, while anything that isn't in agreement sends them into a rage.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm an American and I really don't like being told what I don't like.

 

[pmv]

Hardly surprising. The comment from the American-Indian in the article says it all. What else would you expect?

Ideas about Political Correctness quite obviously are going to be critically-related to level of education. That's been obvious since the term first became commonplace. It's all about language and having the 'correct' analysis and being able to say exactly the right things (from having read the right books and having the time, space and economic resources to be able to support the 'right' attitudes).

It's been observed multiple time since the 'movement' appeared (decades ago - I remember when UK journalists picked the term up via the internet from the Americans - in an ironic example of cultural imperialism the term entirely eclipsed our own traditional 'ideological soundness') that it's a consequence of the slightly upside-down nature of what passes for the 'left' in the US, and the lack of a mass working-class movement there.

The US left largely retreated to the universities a long time ago, and their specialty has been, as befits university-educated middle-class people, analysing, and attempting to modify, language. They aren't exactly going to be seizing control of mines and factories, are they?

And it's always been clear that there's an awkward contradiction in PC culture, in that being able to engage in that ultra-careful analysis of language and manners, is itself a marker of class privilege. I'm horribly aware of it when I find myself doing it myself.

The annoying thing though is that Europe has clearly been slowly moving closer to the US pattern, with the decline in the traditional unionised working class movement, and indeed the changing nature of class itself (seems that an awful lot of educated younger people now suffer the same economic insecurity that education once insulated you from, so what class are they?).

But none of this necessarily is a reason for conservative gloating. Politics doesn't work like that. What things look like on the surface, or what people _say_ in response to polls, isn't necessarily a guide to what's really going on or what is going to happen. Probably especially so in the US where race and class interact in such complicated ways, and where both seem to be changing rapidly.

 

[Thump553]

My definition of political correctness-your hatred of the other side's sacred cows. Example: Person A thinks "undocumented persons" are "illegal aliens", Person B thinks that "proper respect" to the flag is more paramount than free speech under our Constitution and form of government.

PC is the other sides buzz words. Of course nearly everyone is going to hate it. But it is a meaningless, bogus issue meant only to distract.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white.

This is where American liberalism deviates from European democratic socialism.

In America, progressive activism primarily consists of a homogenous group of affluent white people solving first world problems.

In Europe, democratic socialism still maintains strong ties to labor, although the refugee crisis is starting to strain that coalition.

 

[dank69]

I like how the author characterizes 25% of Americans as a "small tribe."

 

[realibrad]

I'm not a fan of political correctness but I honestly can't think of a single instance where political correctness issue was raised that I witnessed or was involved in.

Other than in echo chambers and comedy shows, is political correctness a real issue?

That is because the off topic things are not done and so you will never really see or be part of them. Look at the social sciences and how they used to try and look at different races to identify specific issues those races were confronting. Today, analyzing things by race for anything other than medical (even that is kinda taboo) is see as gaslightting people to become racist.

So, what you see is things like the FBI no longer collecting crime statistics by race. That means you can't see if there is a specific thing that is required to help a underprivileged group because its PC.

 

[Vic]

Political correctness is standing for the flag (or not standing) and not having to feel shame for not appealing to either extremist side.

It is a major problem and it is ever growing and creeping into important foundations such as freedom of speech. Just because you don't like what someone says doesnt mean it is "hate speech" and that someone should get in trouble or their event should be cancelled.

The major problem that some people might disagree with you and say so?

 

[realibrad]

The major problem that some people might disagree with you and say so?

Clearly you misunderstood the post.

Its not that people disagree, its how they go about it. The extremes are controlling the discussion and pulling everyone to their side. That is why he said "Just because you don't like what someone says doesnt mean it is "hate speech" and that someone should get in trouble or their event should be cancelled."

So, its obvious that what he is saying is that people are trying to go above and beyond simply disagreeing. Do you need it explained any further?

 

[Commodus]

One thing I've noticed: the people who complain particularly loudly about "political correctness" and "SJWs" are usually good justifications for both of those to exist. Their griping basically amounts to "waaaah, I want to be an inconsiderate asshole without facing repercussions, but these people won't let me!"

There is such a thing as being overly sensitive about terminology, but if you see "PC" language and "SJWs" as major problems... actually, you're the problem.

 

[realibrad]

One thing I've noticed: the people who complain particularly loudly about "political correctness" and "SJWs" are usually good justifications for both of those to exist. Their griping basically amounts to "waaaah, I want to be an inconsiderate asshole without facing repercussions, but these people won't let me!"

There is such a thing as being overly sensitive about terminology, but if you see "PC" language and "SJWs" as major problems... actually, you're the problem.

So make everyone suffer so you can stop the few? How many of those inconsiderate assholes are out there? I know I do not run into many in my life, but, if I go searching I can find them on the internet.

 

[Commodus]

So make everyone suffer so you can stop the few? How many of those inconsiderate assholes are out there? I know I do not run into many in my life, but, if I go searching I can find them on the internet.

How are you suffering by using considerate language? It's not a government mandate; it's just asking you to not use derogatory language, or treat people pushing for social equality as existential threats.

If you want to find those inconsiderate assholes... well, some of them are running the US right now, but if you want fish in a barrel you just have to go to 4chan or the subreddit for a certain gaming non-scandal. We've also had a couple of particularly inconsiderate assholes on this forum, one of whom still drops in every now and then to post ludicrous conspiracies.

 

[Vic]

Clearly you misunderstood the post.

Its not that people disagree, its how they go about it. The extremes are controlling the discussion and pulling everyone to their side. That is why he said "Just because you don't like what someone says doesnt mean it is "hate speech" and that someone should get in trouble or their event should be cancelled."

So, its obvious that what he is saying is that people are trying to go above and beyond simply disagreeing. Do you need it explained any further?

So people shouldn't be allowed to express extreme opinions? How will we be deciding what is extreme and what is not?
And how are they going beyond simple disagreement, and how would you propose stopping that?
It is obvious that you assume there is a simple solution to this when there clearly isn't. Do you need that explained any further?

 

[Jhhnn]

So make everyone suffer so you can stop the few? How many of those inconsiderate assholes are out there? I know I do not run into many in my life, but, if I go searching I can find them on the internet.

Well, there's currently an inconsiderate asshole in the oval office. The term fairly defines talk radio, Sean Hannity & a whole constellation of right wing talking heads.

 

[realibrad]

How are you suffering by using considerate language? It's not a government mandate; it's just asking you to not use derogatory language, or treat people pushing for social equality as existential threats.

If you want to find those inconsiderate assholes... well, some of them are running the US right now, but if you want fish in a barrel you just have to go to 4chan or the subreddit for a certain gaming non-scandal. We've also had a couple of particularly inconsiderate assholes on this forum, one of whom still drops in every now and then to post ludicrous conspiracies.

Its not just using considerate language. Aside from giving that much power, the issue is who decides what is considerate language? Who decides what is considerate topics?

As I mentioned before, some things are no longer allowed to be researched because of PC culture. So, even though things are appearing to get worse for those groups that used to be studied, we do not look at the specifics of those groups any longer.

 

[realibrad]

So people shouldn't be allowed to express extreme opinions? How will we be deciding what is extreme and what is not?
And how are they going beyond simple disagreement, and how would you propose stopping that?
It is obvious that you assume there is a simple solution to this when there clearly isn't. Do you need that explained any further?

The guy above you thinks you should not. That said, again, the issue is not expressing your extreme opinion. Its the actions taken and how people are pushed to support those actions that is the topic.

You are commenting and loading the situation with your presumptions and its clouding what you are reading.

People are allowed to have extreme views. People are allowed to disagree and express that disagreement. The problem happens when people do it vehemently and then call for something to be done. If there was no threat of anything, then I would bet most would not care. The problem is that those that are very PC also believe the state should do something to enforce what they believe should be done.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its not just using considerate language. Aside from giving that much power, the issue is who decides what is considerate language? Who decides what is considerate topics?

As I mentioned before, some things are no longer allowed to be researched because of PC culture. So, even though things are appearing to get worse for those groups that used to be studied, we do not look at the specifics of those groups any longer.

That's bullshit-

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21

 

[realibrad]

Well, there's currently an inconsiderate asshole in the oval office. The term fairly defines talk radio, Sean Hannity & a whole constellation of right wing talking heads.

Hannity likes to stir the pot because the Right loves to be upset at something. I would say that his biggest harm is agitation of his base.

What is your point though?

 

[Zorba]

One thing I've noticed: the people who complain particularly loudly about "political correctness" and "SJWs" are usually good justifications for both of those to exist. Their griping basically amounts to "waaaah, I want to be an inconsiderate asshole without facing repercussions, but these people won't let me!"

There is such a thing as being overly sensitive about terminology, but if you see "PC" language and "SJWs" as major problems... actually, you're the problem.

This is a good way to generalize people. If someone doesn't think a college kids life should be ruined over a joke in poor taste of Twitter they must be a hateful person right? Or if someone thinks it is insane that a high school girl was attacked for her choice of prom dress that the internet thought she was too white for, they must be the problem.

Making broad generalizations about people that disagree with you is the first step in treating them as "others" and prevents any real discussion or understanding.

But I can be against internet vigilantism over minor indiscretions (many of which aren't even real indiscretions) and still be for respectful speech.

I can also be pro-respectfulness but see that some people take it too far. Like when a 22 white guy complained to HR about my Coworker from Mexico going by the nickname Nacho, which is an extremely common nickname for Ignacio in Mexico (Nachos the food were named after a guy named Ignacio, FYI) and that he had gone by since he was a little kid. How would you like to be told your very common nickname that you had gone by for 50 years was now offensive to young white people and you couldn't use it anymore. I don't see how that is respectful and it shows complete cultural ignorance.

BTW: I already said I don't think PC is an issue and I think it had produced some very good outcomes. But the extremes take it too far, one of those is the stereotypical internet-SJW. The right has their extremist PC people too, but they generally want to control speech about guns.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hannity likes to stir the pot because the Right loves to be upset at something. I would say that his biggest harm is agitation of his base.

What is your point though?

My point is that inconsiderate assholes are now conservative idols & role models.

 

[UNCjigga]

I'm sick of political correctness--it's high time we started calling out the retards in the Trump Administration for being the retards that they are, without having to worry about offending anyone with mental disabilities.

 

[senseamp]

They strongly dislike it until they get offended.

 

[Commodus]

This is a good way to generalize people. If someone doesn't think a college kids life should be ruined over a joke in poor taste of Twitter they must be a hateful person right? Or if someone thinks it is insane that a high school girl was attacked for her choice of prom dress that the internet thought she was too white for, they must be the problem.

Making broad generalizations about people that disagree with you is the first step in treating them as "others" and prevents any real discussion or understanding.

But I can be against internet vigilantism over minor indiscretions (many of which aren't even real indiscretions) and still be for respectful speech.

I can also be pro-respectfulness but see that some people take it too far. Like when a 22 white guy complained to HR about my Coworker from Mexico going by the nickname Nacho, which is an extremely common nickname for Ignacio in Mexico (Nachos the food were named after a guy named Ignacio, FYI) and that he had gone by since he was a little kid. How would you like to be told your very common nickname that you had gone by for 50 years was now offensive to young white people and you couldn't use it anymore. I don't see how that is respectful and it shows complete cultural ignorance.

BTW: I already said I don't think PC is an issue and I think it had produced some very good outcomes. But the extremes take it too far, one of those is the stereotypical internet-SJW. The right has their extremist PC people too, but they generally want to control speech about guns.

This is why I said people who gripe particularly loudly. You're not! I'm talking about the sky-is-falling people who believe that political correctness has ruined the country, or who proudly boast about being "incorrect." (Despite his show title, I don't think Bill Maher is all that adamant about it.) I'm talking about GG supporters who think "SJWs" are a horrendous threat to society, or the "I'm totally not a sexist, but all feminists are bad" types.

There is a careful balance to walk. It's just that the people who are especially vocal in opposing the trend are often the reason that trend exists.

 

[Vic]

The guy above you thinks you should not. That said, again, the issue is not expressing your extreme opinion. Its the actions taken and how people are pushed to support those actions that is the topic.

You are commenting and loading the situation with your presumptions and its clouding what you are reading.

People are allowed to have extreme views. People are allowed to disagree and express that disagreement. The problem happens when people do it vehemently and then call for something to be done. If there was no threat of anything, then I would bet most would not care. The problem is that those that are very PC also believe the state should do something to enforce what they believe should be done.

While this might be your definition of political correctness, it is not the definition of the poster I was originally replying to, nor the definition generally used by most people.