
A History of Political Correctness - Aloha
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/penns-water-buffalo-incident-20-years/?all=1
======
mynameishere
It actually goes back to the early fights between socialists and communists.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Early-
to-...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Early-to-
mid_20th_century)

Religions change. It used to be about class; now it's about race. No sane
person gives it a thought except when they are materially associated with the
lunatics who get offended by racial thoughtcrimes.

~~~
detcader
What are "racial thoughtcrimes"? Maybe something like this?
[http://racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.html](http://racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.html)

~~~
yetanotherphd
I believe what he is referring to is the fact that people self-censor their
own thoughts, and fear the social repercussions if they don't.

For example, I studied econometrics, and one regression that is often run is
regressing CRIME (a dummy variable for whether someone has committed a crime)
on a number of right hand side variables, include BLACK, a dummy variable for
being Black. Now it is a well known fact that no matter how many right hand
side variables you include, the coefficient on BLACK will always be
significant and positive. That is, even after accounting for income,
education, etc., Black people commit more crime.

Now we are allowed to say this in class, because it is already understood that
by getting this far into a PhD, you have proven yourself not to be an evil
racist. For example, everyone _knows_ that the positive coefficient on BLACK
must be a result of complex social interactions and not genetics.

But ordinary people aren't so sophisticated, so they are not allowed to even
know that the coefficient on BLACK is significant. They would certainly be
accused of racism for stating the true fact that Blacks commit more crime even
after accounting for these other variables. And I assure you that none of us
PhD's would come to their defense when they were accused of this. After all,
that person might actually be a racist.

So thoughtcrime is thinking bad things about race, which can include true
things if you're not in the inner circle of people who are allowed to discuss
such matters openly.

~~~
dragonwriter
> For example, I studied econometrics, and one regression that is often run is
> regressing CRIME (a dummy variable for whether someone has committed a
> crime) on a number of right hand side variables, include BLACK, a dummy
> variable for being Black. Now it is a well known fact that no matter how
> many right hand side variables you include, the coefficient on BLACK will
> always be significant and positive. That is, even after accounting for
> income, education, etc., Black people commit more crime.

You can't directly measure how much crime is committed by people of different
races, so any purported measure of this uses some other proxy, most likely
_convictions_ of crime.

Of course, relative rates of conviction for crime may not reflect relative
rates of _commission_ of crime. Particularly, they may be distorted by biases
in (among other things):

* Crime reporting,

* Prosecution,

* Courts and juries

~~~
yetanotherphd
That is an unimportant nitpick, precisely the kind of objection that people
are taught to raise in the face of "racist" facts.

I assure you that the academics involved, all certified non-racists (and
mostly non-economists if you don't trust them), are aware of this and either
consider the bias to be small (in comparison with the effect being measured)
or have corrected for it.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, the fact that the supposed fact cannot actually be supported except by
assuming the non-demonstrable non-existence (or irrelevance) of several other
kinds of bias is not an "unimportant nitpick", as it means that the "fact" is
nothing of the sort, but a conclusion based in non-falsifiable conjecture.

(Note that I haven't said anything about whether or not its "racist" \--
that's your deal -- I'm just saying that characterizing it as a fact is
unjustifiable.)

~~~
001sky
_No, the fact that the supposed fact cannot actually be supported except by
assuming the non-demonstrable non-existence (or irrelevance) of several other
kinds of bias..._

Is this a parody of logic? Your point is not clear, regardless.

~~~
tptacek
His point is crystal clear: he's saying you can't claim to rigorously study a
relationship between race and crime by relying solely on conviction data,
because racial prejudice and its legacy (for instance: what neighborhoods
different races tend to live in, and whether those neighborhoods are
enforcement priorities) has a profound impact on criminal conviction.

~~~
001sky
But I could also argue that not all crimes are caught in the data, because the
law is written wrong. In fact, I could argue the _law_ as it is written is
thus criminal. After all, this is a democracy and the people are responsible
for the laws. The people are incapable of drafting the laws in a non
discriminatory manner (because racial prejudice and its legacy). Or, I could
argue the exact opposite. Both are equaly weak/strong. But, this style of
debate is _incoherent_. For it to be coherent, it would require _special
knowledge_. And is otherwise a variant of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

------
cjoh
It's too bad that the term political correctness is so generically incorrect.
Doing things like swapping out the N word for "african american," dropping the
word "retard" from your vocabulary, referring to adult women as "women," and
referring to people of non-european descent as more than "oriental" and
"mexican" is not "being politically correct," it's doing something that takes
you no effort that makes you less of an asshole.

~~~
pg
The funny thing is, your own comment could make you look like an "asshole" in
a few decades when moral fashions change again. That's part of the problem
with political correctness. The other and much worse part is that in some
situations the choice of words that you present as (as it indeed is) such a
trivial matter can have very nontrivial consequences.

~~~
cynicalkane
If we suppose the choice of words is a trivial matter then one wonders what a
nontrivial choice of words would look like, if that is even possible.

The "choice of words" argument reminds me of a teenager, upon swearing at his
mother, protesting that he is "just using a word". Of course he gets grounded
anyway, and in time most people learn to outgrow that pseudological pedantry.
In reality we use words that mean things and express ideas, and the ideas
expressed in words like the N-word are generally odious and useless. And I
would hesitate to assume that avoiding referring to an entire category of
people with a swear word, associated with centuries of stereotypes and
oppression, is merely a "moral fashion". I didn't know that conveying the
barest level of respect toward your fellow man was a "moral fashion".

~~~
pg
Conveying respect is not a fashion. The fashions are in who you're supposed to
respect and how you're supposed to show it.

You can read more about this here:

[http://paulgraham.com/say.html](http://paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
comicjk
How about respecting all people, if it's no trouble to you, in the way they
want to be respected?

And by the way, wordsmith, it's "the fashions are in _whom_ you're supposed to
respect."

~~~
pg
I don't think you'd actually want to do that. There have been throughout
history lots of people who on account of their birth or religion have wanted
to be treated as superior to some other group. Would you just want to go along
with that?

In fact it would be impossible to do what you suggest, because the ways in
which people want to be respected could be (and often have been) incompatible.
For example, what if two people with different religions both want to be
treated as believers in the one true religion?

There are also plenty of individual cases we'd both find hard to swallow.
Murderers who wanted to be regarded as upstanding people, and so on.

(And "who" in this case is much stronger. "Whom" introduces a jarringly
pedantic note.)

~~~
comicjk
Yes, all this is the reason I said "if it's no trouble to you." Certainly the
desire for politeness can go too far, but avoiding a handful of loaded words
is not very far. I don't think it's quite fair to compare a black man not
wanting to be called boy with a murderer wanting to be called innocent.

~~~
pg
It's no trouble to me to reinforce someone's mistaken feeling of superiority
to someone else. The problem is for the someone else. So the threshold you
propose is insufficient.

And I nowhere compared the two cases you mention. (That was an extreme case of
putting words into one's mouth even for HN.) You're acting as if I said for
∀x-P(x) when in fact it's pretty clear I said -∀xP(x).

I'm done with this conversation, incidentally. I find that threads in which I
have to say "no, what I said was" to this extent are always irrecoverable.

------
PhasmaFelis
So, here's part of the problem: Sandy Hingston mentions some genuinely absurd
overreactions (a student enraged when a grocery circular put an Black History
Month banner next to an ad for chicken); and she also mentions Jennifer
Livingston, who called bullshit on a guy who tried to guilt-trip her for
_being fat in public_ ; and Hingston implies that _both of these are equally
bad_.

This right here is half the problem. The reason we have people who are
offended by everything is because of people who refuse to permit anyone to be
offended by anything. Ms. Hingston, their bullshit is an overreaction to your
bullshit. If you refuse to acknowledge any difference between oversensitive
conniptions and calling out genuine assholes, you really have no business
speaking on the subject.

~~~
pbateman
Here is exactly how you deal with some guy writing in to tell you you're too
fat: _delete the email and get on with your life_.

It's simple, it's easy, it solves the problem.

Of course it's not the modern solution of publicly bullying your correspondent
into a retraction while claiming the moral high ground but it works and it's
less unpleasant.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
It is, of course, important to pick one's battles; but wherever possible,
bullshit should be called out and dragged into the light, not quietly
tolerated. Especially when, as in this case, it is widespread, entrenched,
pernicious bullshit.

And you've got the "bullying" backwards. It wasn't Ms. Livingston doing it.
You should know by now that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
will never hurt me" is a comforting lie we tell to children.

------
yk
Thats a remarkably bad article, almost to the point of satire. It just
sparkles some anecdotes over the fallacy that politeness is somehow impeding
free speech. If you are offending someone, then you should apologize or the
offended party has every justification to think of you as an asshole. The free
speech issue is actually calling someone a asshole here. And if you can not
express your opinion in a way that does not offend, chances are that you
should reconsider your opinion. In the unlikely case that a opinion is both
offensive and reasonable, you will have to live with people calling you
insensitive.

Which brings me to this gem:

    
    
        Yes, of course there are students, and citizens, who
        have genuine grievances. But we no longer distinguish
        between them and those claiming harm where none exists.
    

Problem is, there is no objective scale to the subjective qualia of being
offended. People have every right to be offended whenever they are.

[Edit: botched formatting.]

~~~
jniles
I thoroughly disagree.

The point is that we are seeing too much PC, and it is corrupting the nature
of public debate. All comments become subjective to the audience, rather than
subjective to the speaker. The examples cited by the author all are
encompassed in the quote

" I think it’s these very small things that reinforce cultural and racial
stereotypes.. "

to which the author disagrees. You are correct, there is no appropriate scale
to measure being offended, which is why unchecked (read: no scale to judge) PC
results in kids being kicked out of school, a huge industry being built around
PC counseling, etc. The author is not proposing removing PC altogether, just
that it is being laughably abused to the detriment of everyone.

I'd be inclined to agree.

~~~
yk

        " I think it’s these very small things that reinforce   
         cultural and racial stereotypes.. "
    

I tend to agree with the quote. To use a analogy to programming languages, in
Python one is always tempted to use lists, whether they are the appropriate
data structure or not. And experience then comes in the form of many solutions
using lists.

As for too much PC, I think the problems are rather created by lazy thinking
instead of PC. So in a way there is a industry which exploits PC, but the
solution is not less PC, the solution is more critical thinking. ( And bad
articles really do not help with that.)

~~~
newnewnew
What if critical thinking comes up with the "wrong" answers? Most of the
biggest thought criminals on the internet merely mention facts that exist for
anyone to see. What if, after running lots of multiple regressions to get rid
of confounding variables, distasteful conclusions persist?

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Political Correctness and being insulted are not the same.

The former is institutionalised politeness where we use less objectionable
terms. We'll call black people blacks and not niggers or negroes, we'll call
call inuit inuit and not eskimos, we'll call Native Americans Native Americans
and not Red Indians, and so on.

But being offended is not about PC. Now, yes, PC terms ultimately derive from
avoiding using derogatory phrases towards people. But someone suing someone
else for being offended by their remark is not "Political Correctness gone
mad", as the Daily Mail might say. It is likely just somebody's overreaction.

I think PC culture is a good thing. We take a tiny effort to use more neutral
language and it makes a whole lot of difference for some groups of people.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Exactly. The right-wing's redefinition of PC, and subsequent use of such as an
attack on anything it disagrees with is possibly the biggest strawman of our
time.

------
detcader
All this weaponization of the words "political correctness" is quite obviously
a nervous white phenomenon, a defense mechanism -- for example, do we talk
about the banning of the ethnic studies program and Latino/Latina social
studies books in Arizona as "political correctness gone awry"? [1] No, but
that's obviously what it is: latin@ teachers exposing latin@ high school
students to material [2] that offends white people. If anyone but white people
are offended they're "just being PC"; if white people are offended, they get
to be "victims of reverse racism"; same for gender of course.

As a colleague of mine put it: "Political correctness, as a concept, is a
figment of right wingers, that usually accompanies ideas like agenda, or
guilt. I think what we're referring to when speaking of sensitivity is
something other than the typical "PC" concept. Inclusivity, and thoughtfulness
are nearly unarguably good things.

I think most reactionaries, and lesser angry white guys typically dislike the
increased sensitivity that goes along with this more inclusive attitude
America has today. No one has a right not to be offended. No one should expect
civil treatment 100% of the time; people aren't that thoughtful. Further,
there's no responsibility to not harm or injure another's sense of well being
through speech.

I'm free to be a racist ignoramus, and alienate anyone I choose to talk to in
public, and it's a good thing. It's also a good thing that I will have to face
consequences for socially unacceptable behavior. I'm mostly tired of trite
apologies from people that lacked the backbone to stand behind their speech,
for instance, Tracy Morgan, who repented quickly about his anti-gay stand up.
I wish people had the foresight to realize the consequences, and if they
decide to say something, they should have enough will to counter criticism as
a valid personal opinion, which all types of heinous stuff are. It's
heinousness is not the same as lacking in credibility, or serious intent."

FIRE is an explicitly right-wing org whose purpose is to deliberately conflate
violation of free-speech rights (which only the government can do) with
criticism and banning of certain kinds of speech by non-government people and
institutions from their forums and spaces, when it is not illegal to do so.
It's a bit like the ADF, whose purpose is to conflate criticism of Zionism
with anti-Semitism... it also reminds me of people who complain about CPS, but
that's just me

[1] [http://saveethnicstudies.org/](http://saveethnicstudies.org/)

[2] [http://azethnicstudies.com/banned-
books](http://azethnicstudies.com/banned-books)

~~~
growupkids
Perhaps PC is really about finding offense when none is intended.

~~~
arrrg
Intention isn’t all that matters.

The point is to be thoughtful about what you say and if someone else says they
are offended to actually listen and apologise. Basic empathy and all that.

It’s all quite simple and not very hard to do.

~~~
pandaman
I am offended by your implications. Please apologize now.

~~~
detcader
never seen this type of humor in this context before in my whole life

~~~
pandaman
This is not humor. I am genuinely offended by socipathic implications claiming
that somebody who does not follow PC lacks "basic empathy" (which is the PC
code for "subhuman").

Of course, offending bigots and haters is fine from your point of view. If you
had any empathy (not the "basic" kind ) you knew how do _we_ feel about this
crap.

PS. I guess you down voted me to offend me? Tough cookies, I am actually not
offended by that. "Basic empathy" though does indeed offend me.

------
Glyptodon
Sadly I'm afraid of sharing this article.

------
mvaliente2001
Oh, god, how I hate political correctness! I can understand that people get
upset and offended. They can boycott someone they don't like, but that PC
bullshit infuriates me. It only makes communication difficult and people more
manipulable.

Take terms like "imbecile", "Idiot" and "retarded". They were medical terms
applied using more or less objective measurements. What happened then? They
became un-PC and were replaced by "intellectual disability". How much time
before the "dis-" is considered offensive? Maybe we should use sometime
abstract like "green thinker" and "orange thinker"? But it doesn't matter what
term we chose, it'll be associated to something negative and it'll become an
insult _for the general population_.

Do you want to live in a world where you have to say that the umpire has
"visual impediments" for fears to offend to blind people? No, "impediments" is
too strong, maybe "visually challenged"? No, too negative. "Almost all the
senses of the umpire are up to the level of a person of his age, with the
possible exception of one that, although its absence doesn't demerit him at
all as a human being, maybe would suggest that he'll be better in another line
of work, like piano tuner."

~~~
DanBC
> Take terms like "imbecile", "Idiot" and "retarded".

These words now have an everyday use. They are no longer used medically
because medical science advances and we have much better understanding.

> They were medical terms applied using more or less objective measurements.

They were medical terms used to detain people in hospital, or to deny them
medical treatment, or to keep them in prison, or to deny them rights to fair
trial or to justice if they were abused or murdered.

> They became un-PC and were replaced by "intellectual disability".

No. They became outmoded and less useful because times change.

> Do you want to live in a world where you have to say that the umpire has
> "visual impediments"

I don't want to live in a world where it's acceptable to kill someone who has
a low IQ just because they have a low IQ. I don't want to live in a world
where someone with a low IQ is denied medical treatment. I don't want to live
in a world where someone with a low IQ is raped with no consequence. I don't
want to live in a world of lazy stupid designers who can't make a website
accessible to all. I don't want to live in a hateful, hurtful, world where
ignorant bigots can spew their bile and get offended when people tells them
they're being an arsehole.

~~~
mvaliente2001
I'm not sure that we're participating in the same conversation. They were
medical terms, yes. They have an every day use, yes (that was exactly my
point). They became outmoded and less useful, yes. But, no, not everyone who
has used or uses those words is a proponent of IQ-based euthanasia, rape, and
segregation.

Any reasonable people will criticize someone who bullies others who are in a
weaker position. It's the bullying what is to condemn, not their particular
use of words.

~~~
DanBC
> But, no, not everyone who has used or uses those words is a proponent of IQ-
> based euthanasia, rape, and segregation.

But using those words leads to a culture where these things are more possible.

Ann calls Bob a retard.

i) Bob has a learning disability. Ann is either a bully, and should be
condemned. Or Ann is using outmoded terminology, and she should appreciate the
help she's given when people give her better information.

ii) Bob doesn't have a learning disability. Ann is a friend and they're having
fun. What they do between themselves is up to them, but they're using hate
speech casually, and they should at least consider the effect that use has on
people who have learning disabilities.

iii) Bob doesn't have a learning disability. Ann isn't a friend, and she's
using it as an insult. Ann needs to realise that her use of the term as an
insult is contributing the continued abuse of people with learning
disabilities. By using the word we diminish people with LD as less-than-
people.

Part of the confusion is cultural difference. It's normal use in US to say
"That's retarded!" and it's not at all offensive to most people. But it's
really offensive to people from other countries.

------
jaibot
Before engaging in any discussion of this genre, I encourage people to take
some IATs, if only to have some quantifiable introspection going in.

[https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html)

