
The Emperor’s Woke Clothes - unquote
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/272486/political-correctness-minority
======
imgabe
I think "political correctness" as a term is generally interpreted by people
to be "a level of sensitivity beyond what I think is reasonable", so it stands
to reason that most people are going to be against it.

In order for this to make any sense, you'd have to break it down specific
things. Most people are going to agree with something like "racial slurs are
not ok". They're not going to consider it "politically correct" to not use
racial slurs, they'd just consider it common decency.

Maybe the same person who doesn't think racial slurs are ok, thinks it's
unreasonable for someone to get bent out of shape about being called the wrong
gender pronoun. But someone who takes the pronoun issue seriously is going to
consider that just common decency and is going to draw the line for
"politically correct" somewhere else.

~~~
mklingen
Exactly. I think people have been conditioned to see "political correctness"
as something bad, and have different views of what it means. You can oppose
"political correctness" and have literal nazis and KKK members nodding along
because they think it means "anything other than white supremacy", while at
the same time you can have centrists nodding along because they think it means
"using the correct gender pronoun in all settings."

I think this is a result of an intense propaganda campaign on the right that
has distorted the meaning of political correctness so that it can mean
anything the reader dislikes.

~~~
throwaway287391
> I think people have been conditioned to see "political correctness" as
> something bad, and have different views of what it means.

> I think this is a result of an intense propaganda campaign on the right that
> has distorted the meaning of political correctness.

I haven't looked up the etymology, but I've always assumed the term has been
pejorative/satirical/tongue-in-cheek since its inception. Think about it -- it
implies there's a different form of "correctness" that isn't actually
"correct", but merely " _politically_ correct" \-- i.e. correct only in the
context of overly carefully worded political pandering. I can't imagine
somebody unironically choosing to describe their own speech as "politically
correct".

~~~
mklingen
What I mean is that the definition of what counts as "politically correct" has
expanded to include lots of stuff. It's such a nebulous term that it can be
applied to anything the reader dislikes.

~~~
mc32
But hasn’t that come to be because activists want to broaden and redefine what
is not politically correct? Most people do not want to broaden the term, on
the other hand there are people who want to make specific topics and
utterances unacceptable things as mundane as stereotypes. Of course _some_
stereotypes are malicious, but many are simply lazyness. Some people would
rather suppress data if it counters an agenda, etc.

------
mikestew
TFA struck me as strawman hand-wringing. As pointed out by other comments,
"PC" is already a loaded term, defined by an individual's tolerance. The one
person quoted,

"It seems like everyday you wake up something has changed … Do you say Jew? Or
Jewish? Is it a black guy? African-American? … You are on your toes because
you never know what to say."

seems to worry more than I do. I don't keep tabs on this ever-changing
carousel of ethnic labels, but I do know what _not_ to say, and that seems to
have kept me out of trouble. Jew? Jewish? C'mon, is it really that common that
a Jew is getting bent out of shape because you didn't use "Jewish"? Perhaps a
vocal/powerful minority will hold the feet of other vocal/powerful people to
the fire, but it's not like their minions infiltrate the common man. My Jewish
neighborhood doesn't appear to care enough to say anything.

I've often wondered if those complaining aren't really saying, "Black?
African-American? I'm always confused on which term to use when denigrating
another ethnic group. For instance, in the following sentence, 'Blacks are
_always_ the ones...'." Maybe if you're polite, no one cares as long as you at
least tried to use one or the other.

------
jackconnor
This backs up Nassim Taleb's idea that this a small minority forces social
mores, when the perception is that we think it's the majority:
[https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-
dict...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-
of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Yup. Societal norms aren't built around the lowest common denominator, they're
build around whatever get the loudest complainers to STFU. Sometimes that's a
good thing. Sometimes that's a bad thing. When it comes to being offended on
behalf of other people I think it's almost always in the "bad thing" category.

------
unquote
_progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and
white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than
$100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate
degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African-
American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of
the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most
racially homogeneous group in the country._

~~~
learc83
>With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives

The "small tribe of devoted conservatives" is much, much larger than
"progressive activists". Activists in general tend to be richer and better
educated and since income corresponds with race, white. That's because if
you're poor, you don't have the time or the money to become an activist.

This isn't really saying very much.

~~~
isleyaardvark
The study itself describes "devoted conservatives" as 6% of the population
compared to 8% for "progressive activists".

That said, the actual amount of racially homogeneity described in the study
is:

Progressive Activists: \- Eleven percent more likely to be white - 80% V. 69%
– Seven percent more likely to be between ages 18 and 29 - 28% V. 21% – Twice
as likely to have completed college - 59% V. 29%

Devoted Conservatives: \- Nineteen percent more likely to be white - 88% V.
69% – Fourteen percent more likely to be older than 65 - 34% V. 20% - and much
less likely to be born between 1985 and 2000 - 11% V. 27% – More likely to
come from the South - 45% V. 38%

Link to study in question:
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a227...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf)

~~~
learc83
Sorry I only read the article. I didn't realize that "devoted conservative"
refereed to a specific subgroup within the study.

Regardless the study sorted people into groups and then the article attempts
to draw conclusions from that sorting that doesn't necessarily follow.

The demographics of the "progressive activists" doesn't say anything about the
makeup of people are likely to support policies that could be defined as
politically correct--just the makeup of people who are likely to support all
progressive policies.

The only thing you can get from the GP's quote is that white people tend to be
overrepresented on both extremes of the political spectrum.

------
learc83
Of course people are against political correctness. It's almost exclusively
used as a pejorative term.

People who support behaviors that other people would label politically
correct, wouldn't use that term themselves.

~~~
jordigh
Hell, the modern usage of the word was _coined_ as a pejorative term:

> The contemporary pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative
> criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. This usage was
> popularized by a number of articles in The New York Times and other media
> throughout the 1990s,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and was widely used in the
> debate about Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American
> Mind,[7][9][18][19] and gained further currency in response to Roger
> Kimball's Tenured Radicals (1990),[7][9][20][21] and conservative author
> Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what
> he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization and multiculturalism
> through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school
> and university curricula.[7][8][20][22]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness)

~~~
extra88
Yes, my understanding in the 90s was the term was used in some
leftist/progressive circles sarcastically [0] but was latched on to by their
critics as if it was meant sincerely. I'm sure some young people on college
campuses at the time happily adopted the sincere use.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#1970s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#1970s)

------
drewrv
Replace "political correctness" with "being polite" and pearl-clutching about
thoughtcrimes and the death of democracy seems absurd. Can someone explain how
the two differ?

~~~
dsr_
Yes.

When "politically correct" is used as an attack on someone else's words, it
nearly always means "being polite to a person or group the attacker dislikes".

When "politically correct" is used by a small number of academic theorists to
describe the conscious substitution of vocabulary in order to conform to a
particular subculture, it means... what I just said.

There are a reasonably large number of people who think that the second
definition describes every situation actually covered by the first.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>being polite to a person or group the attacker dislikes"

If person A describes person B as homosexual" or "African American" instead of
"gay" or "black" instead of in order to not offend person C who is straight
and white is that an example of being polite or political correctness?

I would say the latter.

~~~
drewrv
I think the language we'd use around person C depends on the context. "Gay"
and "black" are fine to say at a bar but weird in a more formal setting like a
courtroom or company-wide presentation. There's a ton of other language like
this, nobody is upset that they can't tell fart jokes in a courtroom.

------
skybrian
This article would be a lot better with concrete examples. There are vague
descriptions of some kind of power struggle, but I can't tell who is fighting,
what they are fighting about, or what their tactics are.

------
vertline3
Seems a case of what Taleb called 'Tyranny of the Small Minority" or, "the
most intolerant wins", In his book "Skin in the Game".

Anyway I only gave the book 3 stars, but an example is Subway removing pork
from stores after strong demand from a religious group.

~~~
learc83
>is Subway removing pork from stores after strong demand from a religious
group

Subway didn't actually do that though. Some franchises in India have lamb and
chicken instead of pork and beef, and some have no meat options at all. 185
franchises in Muslim neighborhoods in the UK (out of over 1500) serve only
halal meat, which means by definition they don't serve pork.

Those were just business decisions based on local preferences. You can't get
pork at a Subway in a 90% Muslim neighborhood because there isn't a demand for
it, not because people forced subway to stop selling it.

~~~
vertline3
Right local pressure, not worldwide.

I was under the impression there was some pressure and not just lack of
demand, but if that's not the case then a possibility is Taleb's use of the
kosher lemonade example.

[http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/subway-removes-ham-and-
ba...](http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/subway-removes-ham-and-bacon-from-
menu-after-demand-by-muslims/)

This post said it was removed by 'Strong demand' so you can see where I came
to my understanding. Whereas it did not say removed by lack of demand, as what
I think you implied.

See it is easier to remove the product, than it is to keep the surfaces clear
of the offending product. Do you see how it would be wise to remove it? The
point still stands.

~~~
learc83
Strong demand refers to demand for halal meat, not demand that they remove
anything.

The article you reference is a rehash of a sensationalist Daily Mail article.
The orginal article is even linked at the bottom.

That article distorted a PR release by subway talking about customer demand
for one type of product, and presented it as something else.

The demand for halal meat was actually in opposition to animal rights groups
who campaigned against halal meet because they don't agree with the way the
animals are slaughtered.

This story is actually a counter to your point in that respect.

The problem is that the Daily Mail took something akin to McDonalds serving
biscuits in some places and english muffins in others, and turned it into a
"Muslims are taking over" scare piece.

There is a better example of your original point. McDonald's stopped carrying
halal meat in the US after a lawsuit by animal rights groups.

~~~
vertline3
Thanks for your thoughtful reply

------
Dirlewanger
I think it's hilariously ironic that most of the comments here are along the
lines of "well, people generally interpret political correctness as 'things I
don't like', so of course they think it's a problem". Sounds an awful lot like
the Progressive Activists mentioned in the study. It's not us that's out of
touch, it must be the majority of Americans!

~~~
tomlock
But the "majority of americans" doesn't consistently agree on what is and
isn't political correctness, so it really is based on "things I don't like".

------
cproctor
This article takes one finding from a survey (that most Americans feel
"political correctness is a problem") and runs free with broad interpretations
that are not supported by the study. The article borrows the study's
credibility, but not its broader point about polarization.

My instinct, on seeing this finding, was to unpack how people might understand
the term "political correctness" and the rhetorical contexts in which it is
used. Considering how much the article relies on one survey question, there is
very little unpacking of the term--just one paragraph which poses two slanted
alternatives and concludes that people probably mean what the author thinks
they mean. I'm open to discussing how some activism might be more valuable to
the activists than to anybody else, but this article doesn't make a very
strong case.

I wonder how Americans feel about "chain migration" or "fake news." Meh.

------
e67f70028a46fba
_> How did an elite, repressive minority policing speech and culture through
political correctness come to browbeat the American democratic majority?_

Setting aside whether or not this situation is good, the author clearly thinks
it is not, or even accurately describes the situation, the answer to this sort
of question can be found in this excerpt from "Skin In The Game" by Nassim
Taleb:

[https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-
dict...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-
of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15)

------
andrewla
This article makes the mistake of conflating dislike of political correctness
with opposition to political correctness.

Nobody likes having to be PC, but I think we all to some extent realize that
there are words that we can use whose very usage is considered offensive. For
example, Donald Trump is often called non-PC by his supporters and racist by
his opponents; but even he's not going around using the "N-word" (which I'm
not even comfortable writing in this pseudononymous context).

Of course we chafe at perceived restrictions to what we are "allowed" to say,
and we all dislike that things not intended as offensive will be automatically
interpreted as offensive even if we were not aware of the offensive
implications. Nobody likes that we have all become mini-police officers who
wince when someone makes an innocent mistake. And it's entirely possible that
this has a slippery slope of treating things as offensive that nobody actually
finds offensive because we're worried that some possibly imaginary people will
be offended -- that is, we are offended on other people's behalf.

But even so we continue to tiptoe around the fringes, waiting for pop culture
and colloquial usage to tell us whether it is appropriate to say "black" or
"the gays", both of which seem to have entered ordinary non-offensive usage,
but at one point felt pretty offensive.

~~~
munchbunny
_For example, Donald Trump is often called non-PC by his supporters and racist
by his opponents;_

To be clear, even if he had used entirely politically correct terms, the
"racist" charge would still be there over the clearly-racist-in-intent
immigration ban, supporting literal white supremacists, and dog whistling on
the national stage.

Reality is that you won't suffer much at all in repercussions if you get a
word slightly or somewhat wrong. Most people know to avoid using the N-word,
or "chinks", or "fags", etc. You see repercussions when it's clear you also
carry actual racist beliefs, or when it's clear that you're intentionally
calling someone by the wrong pronoun because you're trying to take a political
stand.

I've used the wrong pronoun plenty of times, and people have subtly corrected
me, but nobody has batted an eyelash because I wasn't making some sort of
stand. "Oh, it's 'she' now, ok, sorry." Despite only living in extremely
liberal areas, I've also never been asked to use any exotic pronouns. The more
I see people complaining about it, the more I think that it's a straw man.

Sure, there are examples of people being oversensitive, but oversensitive
people are a fact of life. You can choose not to be around them.

------
naravara
>How did an elite, repressive minority policing speech and culture through
political correctness come to browbeat the American democratic majority?

Does the author of this article not realize who controls literally every lever
of power in the country?

By "the American democratic majority" does he mean "people who spend too much
time on Twitter" and "tenured college professors?" Because that's the only way
this thesis about anyone being browbeaten into submission can have even a
tenuous relationship with reality.

------
village-idiot
Honestly, I have no idea what in the hell people are talking about when they
mention "PC Police". I have never actually witnessed this IRL, even back in
college when I was self assured and more likely to run my mouth without
thinking.

I occasionally had people stare at me like I was an idiot, often when I was
being an idiot. But I never really got silenced or punished for it.

Maybe my college was an unusually free speech kinda place, but I am yet to be
convinced that there's actually a problem of any sort.

~~~
Myrmornis
Sounds like you've yet to have the pleasure of encountering a diversity
program in your workplace.

~~~
village-idiot
They just make it very clear that you can’t discriminate (or appear to
discriminate) by protected characteristics during hiring. I have yet to have
my speech “policed” for correctness.

I mean, professionalism is expected, but not “PC”.

~~~
Myrmornis
Ah, OK. Where I work (Bay Area tech company) it would be basically impossible
to question (however politely) dogma such as

"The pipeline isn't the problem; the work environment is the problem". <==
This refers to the hiring pipeline and difficulties of hiring programmers from
under-represented backgrounds

"Seeking to hire candidates from under-represented backgrounds does not mean
that the standards for evaluation are being lowered even slightly for anyone."

~~~
village-idiot
Sounds like a bay area problem.

Where I'm at (LA), I've never heard of anyone saying that. Not the biggest
sample size, but around here it seems like the general attitude is “so the
best you can” not “it’s your responsibility to fix all wrongs, no matter the
cost”

