Rehabilitating "political correctness"s' negative image

Great Debates
1

A major liability emerged for the political left in this election, which was that, over the course of the past few decades, “political correctness” came to have an increasingly bad connotation associated with it, to the point where last year, in 2016, it may have been the deciding factor that swung the election to Donald Trump, as voters found Trump’s non-PC behavior to be “refreshing”.

Many defenders of political correctness insist that it is primarily about ensuring that people are treated well - that racial and sexist slurs are combated, etc. And that may indeed be their sincere intent and belief - that PC is about promoting decency and civility. However, that is increasingly not what PC is ***perceived ***as, by a large swath of America. PC has become ***perceived ***as a form of tyranny, a speech police, a form of punishing people who don’t obey “the speech rules,” a way of enforcing conformity.

A major step for Democrats to retake the White House and Congress in 2020 would be to rehabilitate the bad reputation that PC has developed, because as long as “PC” is perceived as being tyrannical and Red Guards-ish, it will be an anchor dragging down the Democrats’ electoral hopes. Not to say that Democrats can’t win elections despite it, but that the bad image of “PC” will make it harder. But how is to be done?

It is almost impossible to enforce speech conformity on people without suffering a backlash in return - in this instance, in the form of Trump votes at the ballot box. At the same time, how exactly does one discourage use of racial, sexist or other slurs *without *being perceived as a form of speech police?

2

I’ve posted on this recently in other threads; here’s my thoughts:

My approach to this issue starts from two points – courtesy/kindness/decency, and a broader societal view.

I’ll start with the second: Because of our history, certain slurs have a very high (and entirely reasonable) association with some of the worst atrocities humans have ever done. In order for such atrocities to take place, the majority/those-in-power need to have some level of contempt and dehumanizing opinions about the victims – usage of such slurs is part of that dehumanization. It’s much easier to enslave, torture, or kill a thing, animal, vermin, etc., than it is to do it to another person. Acceptance of common usage of these sorts of slurs is pretty much required (along with other things) for this sort of attitude to take hold in a populace. So I see it (common decency, I’ll call it – others might call it being politically correct) as an ongoing fight against those aspects of society, culture, and the like, that might be, even in a small way, turning us towards those attitudes. IMO we have to be vigilant, essentially forever, because this kind of thing might always be a part of us. If we let our guard up for a moment, or a day, or a year, or a century, these attitudes that enable atrocities could easily come roaring back. This might sound like a monumental task or something, but to me it’s very easy, and requires very little effort – if I see/hear someone behaving in such a way, with words or actions, I call them out and criticize them (or at least that’s my intention). Intent is impossible to determine with certainty, so I’m more concerned about the actions – at worst, I’ll challenge someone who meant something else, and we’ll have a conversation that might be very constructive and enlightening. There’s nothing wrong with having such discussions.

The courtesy and decency part is much easier – I find such language incredibly rude and unkind, for the most part. I think it’s reasonable to call out behavior that’s very rude and unkind. It doesn’t mean the person is a monster. Another aspect is that it gives people an opportunity to improve themselves. In my opinion, few people, if anyone, truly can know if they have some racist attitudes, beliefs, or impulses within them. If someone insists that they’re not racist, or not bigoted, this means nothing to me – this is something racist people say just as often as non-racist people. I certainly don’t know this for sure about myself. The best I’ll say is that I strive to not say racist things, or do racist things. If I make a mistake, I hope someone calls me out on it so I can improve myself. I’d find it discourteous to not call someone out and give them this opportunity to improve. Again, at worst, we might have a constructive and enlightening conversation, even if we disagree.

In short, conversation and discussion are good. I’m not for censorship – meaning government intervention into what anyone is or is not legally allowed to say – in any way whatsoever. But criticism isn’t censorship – “I think it’s very rude to say that”, or even “shut up you jerk!”, aren’t censorship. Challenges and discussion aren’t censorship. Debating what terms might be found offensive isn’t censorship. I recognize that some folks don’t care about offending others. That’s fine – everyone is free to offend. And everyone is free to criticize statements they find offensive, up to and including things like commercial boycotts. “Don’t support the company headed by XYZ” is just as protected by the First Amendment as “ethnic group ABC is worthless”.

If any of this sounds difficult, it doesn’t have to be. If you behave and speak with an open mind, and with some concern for your neighbors and fellow humans, you’ll probably be okay. Sometimes you might make a mistake – I know I have. But that’s just an opportunity to learn. Listen to others and see what they have to say. Sometimes it will be very helpful, sometimes it won’t, but it never hurts to listen, and never hurts to consider the views and opinions of others.

3

I think things really went off the rails with “trigger warnings” “microaggressions” and “cultural appropriation”. Ending focus on (or really any and all discussion of) those things would probably invite some conservatives and moderates to re-engage with the “we shouldn’t use racial slurs” aspects of PCness.

4

IMO these things are widely misunderstood. Trigger warnings are meant to enable and aid discussion, not prevent it. Some people really have trouble with certain topics due to their own traumatic experience – “hey, today I’m going to lecture about some issues related to sexual assault” can be very helpful to many folks to emotionally prepare themselves for such a discussion, or if their trauma and emotional reaction is severe enough that it could be disruptive to the classroom, to step out of the classroom for a few minutes.

I have a bit less understanding of microaggressions and cultural appropriation, but I’m happy to talk about what I understand about them.

5

I’m sure you’re right about the original intent of trigger warnings. They’re just another part of the anti-PC-hate these days. There’s even a book about it.

6

So, we really need to be nicer to the rude assholes? Nope. (Last time I checked, “asshole” was not a Protected Group.)

But thanks for your concern!

7

“PC” has gone way beyond discouraging people from using slurs. It’s un PC to say ‘black guy’, because you’re two PC levels behind - you were supposed to say ‘African American’, despite the US-centric terminology, and now you’re supposed to say ‘person of color,’ or ‘POC’ for short. It might be wrong to call someone ‘queer’ - that used to be an insult, but is reclaimed now, but even though it’s part of the LGBTQ acronym it might be bad for someone to use it unless they’re queer enough for it to be OK to use it. And beyond terminology, you get whole fields of people trying to be actively offended - cultural appropriation is the current bugbear, where you can be called ‘racist’ if you think it’s OK any person should be able to wear whatever hair style or clothing suits them, instead of the PC segregation of styles into ‘acceptable for whites’ ‘acceptable for blacks’ ‘acceptable for Native Americans’ and so on. And then you get things like ‘microaggressions’, which takes a valid concept and expands it to the point of silliness.

And because these things are all invented, they’re often self-contradictory and turn into a catch-22 mess. For example, if you cast a white actor for a character that is traditionally considered another race, then it’s called whitewashing and you’re a racist for doing it or supporting it. But if your first pick to play a Mexican character is a Mexican person, then you’re guilty of microaggression, at least according to the first google link I got searching on ‘microagression’. It starts to look less like any kind of good thing, and more like a trick to always be able to pin a ‘crime’ on a someone apparently in a majority group.

And finally, you have people doing what you’re doing, and pretending that the backlash against PC is just people wanting to use slurs. If that’s all it was, it wouldn’t get nearly as much pushback, and the people pushing back would get a lot more snubbed by polite society.

8

That “original intent” is how I see trigger warnings actually used by the left 99% of the time. In what other way is it used significantly?

9

Thanks iiandyiiii, great thoughts.

I think that it would also be helpful to have “levels of consequences”, for lack of a better term. If someone unintentionally uses a bigoted word, with no malice aforethought, then he/she shouldn’t be punished the same as someone who wilfully, maliciously, does so. (For instance, many people don’t know that the term “kaffir” is offensive in some countries and so could accidentally refer to kefir yogurt in a way that sounds like a horrible slur.) Oftentimes the PC police have punished people equally harshly regardless of malice or lack of malice, which has led to a “If I’m punished equally severely for being 20% racist vs. 100% racist, then I might as well be 100% racist” backlash.
Also, sometimes the people who cry “bigotry” are the ones who are narrowminded. An example is how Cracked recently condemned an Australian TV ad for depicting black people eating fried chicken, calling it racist - not realizing that fried chicken doesn’t have racial connotations in Australia.

10

Not one bit what I said.

11

I think seeing this discussion as about “punishment” is incorrect – it’s about discussion and understanding, not about “punishing” wrongdoing, as I see it. I don’t criticize the use of racial slurs to “punish” the user, but rather to express to them and others that these words are quite reasonably seen as offensive slurs by decent folks, and using them is extremely rude and discourteous. Even if criticism might serve as a deterrent, in some way, to the public use of racial slurs, I still don’t see it as punishment – perhaps “consequence” is a better word.

12

A relevant Bill Maher segment:

13

But this is almost a nothing criticism. Maybe the Cracked writer learned something. No one was harmed by such a discussion. Or perhaps the Australian ad men learned something, and might choose a different advertising image in the future.

This is certainly not something to get worked up about in any way whatsoever – criticism is not such a big deal.

14

Yes - but oftentimes it matters more what the receiver, or the bystander, perceives something to be, than what the *deliverer *perceives it to be.

15

Who’s been focusing on that stuff? From where I sit, the problem is that politics is mainstream entertainment. We humans get a little dopamine hit every time someone agrees with our opinions. It’s very soothing. You might not have an opinion on microaggressions, because it’s such a new and obscure concept, but when it’s pointed out to you in your information bubble, surrounded by your conservative friends, it feels good to make a comment and hear everyone agree with you. So within that bubble, there’s an incentive for everyone to go out and find everything ludicrous example of far-left nuttiness they can and bathe in the positive reinforcement.

This is, of course, a human problem, not a partisan one, but being anti-PC is certainly something that conservatives have glommed onto in order to keep that dopamine flowing.

I don’t even know what political correctness means anymore. When you can say something “un-PC” at a political rally, to thunderous applause, how is that any longer politically incorrect? Sometimes I feel like I’m living in crazy town.

16

Pretty sure this is where the discussion and understanding part comes in…

17

Universities mostly.

Is that where you think I am? In my conservative bubble, here on the Dope?

18

Are you currently attending school at a university?

19

I don’t understand how “PC” became so loaded. I don’t even understand why people are angered by it. When people sneer at it, I am bewildered. What I hear is:

“I hate being reminded that I’m a bigot! I hate being reminded I’m insensitive and self-absorbed! I hate being told that the way I talk and act hurts other people who don’t have the luxury of being the kind of oblivious jerk I am demonstrating I am!”

Although that seems like a convincing argument to never call anyone out for being rude, insulting, demeaning, sneering, hateful, nasty, racist, misogynist, etc etc in their speech, I have yet to be convinced.

I can understand that it’s possible to go overboard with it. But so fucking what? It’s a corrective to millennia of the opposite.

20

No.