
Why Grievances Grow - randomname2
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2019/03/egalitarian-complaints.html
======
tomlock
> A full 80% [of US] believe that “political correctness is a problem in our
> country.” … The woke are in a clear minority across all ages. … Progressive
> activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only
> 30% see it as a problem.

This is because the definition of "political correctness" is different from
person to person. It conveniently drifts so people can think they're against
some common problem when in reality some people use it to veil homophobia, and
others to complain about postmodernism.

It's a convenient term, but useless. You call someone politically correct and
they'll say no. You learn nothing about their position, you only get to engage
in some petty name calling. Feels good, right? Maybe we should stick to the
factual matters, the specifics of what legislation and culture is too
"politically correct" for you.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
The article explains what is meant by political correctness in this case:

 _What people mean by “political correctness.” … [is] their day-to-day ability
to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or
an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them._

It's about a careless word, a misinterpretation, an honest mistake or as
little as stating a fact in a questionable context being able to ruin a
person's life.

~~~
tomlock
> They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word
> choice

What topic? What word choice?

My point stands.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
The article is talking about people using political correctness to bully
others. A specific choice of topic and words is not important here.

~~~
tomlock
Oh but it is, if a choice of words determines if someone is being bullied or
not.

~~~
nkurz
I think you are right that few people self-describe as "politically correct".
Could you suggest a short alternative phrase that would improve Hanson's
article? Or do you feel that word-choice aside, the referent itself does not
exist?

~~~
tomlock
Political correctness, as a phrase, does not adequately convey meaning in the
same way "common sense" does not.

~~~
nkurz
OK, let's accept that. What's a better phrase that Hanson could use instead,
and while still making the same general argument? I agree that "political
correctness" is pejorative, but I also think there is some real underlying
phenomenon that Hanson is pointing at. What's a less charged term that he can
use to better convey his point without creating unnecessary offense?

~~~
tomlock
Perhaps the author could just describe the underlying "real" phenomena. Do you
really feel like the author is incapable of doing that? Why?

~~~
nkurz
I think the author describes it well, and makes quite clear that he is using
Yascha Mounck's definition from a recent article in the Atlantic: _" What
people mean by “political correctness.” … [is] their day-to-day ability to
express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an
unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them._
(quotes, ellipses and brackets in original)

He then links to the full piece that contains this definition:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-
majo...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-
dislike-political-correctness/572581/).

To write an article about this concept, he needs some short phrase. My guess
was that the issue you had with the article was not a lack of clarity, rather
a lack of charity. Like "Social Justice Warrior", or "cultural Marxism", or
other terms that people use predominately to refer to ideologies they disagree
with, calling it "political correctness" makes it hard to to have a productive
discussion with anyone who doesn't already agree. As someone who seems to take
offense to the current phrase, I was hoping you might be able to suggest a
less offensive alternative that would be equally clear.

~~~
tomlock
> To write an article about this concept, he needs some short phrase.

Really? Perhaps the author could have dispensed with the use of the term
altogether and just talked about...

> their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of
> familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to
> serious social sanctions for them.

...and then referred to that as "their concern". But I think the author
deliberately reached for the vague, inflammatory and loaded, but convenient
name. I think it is simpler to ascribe this to a lack of desire to have a
genuine conversation, than a lack of reader charity. Perhaps if the author was
attempting to provoke genuine discussion, that attempt would be clear in their
choice of words. I'm not particularly keen to write this article for the
author in a clearer manner than the one they managed.

~~~
nkurz
_than a lack of reader charity_

I'm sorry if that came across as accusing. I meant to imply that the author
would benefit from more charitable language, not that the reader had failed to
supply it. I now see that it could also be read the other way.

~~~
tomlock
Yeah sorry, my interpretation probably comes from philosophy where people are
often told to take a "charitable" interpretation of the text they're reading.

I think we agree.

------
tptacek
This piece opens with quotes from Yascha Mounk's Atlantic story which itself
digests the "Hidden Tribes" report from More In Common. I think Mounk's
article misrepresents the study; its lede is that large majorities of
Americans disfavor "political correctness", but that term is never defined in
the study. Meanwhile, according to the same study, a large majority of
Americans --- every segment, including the politically disaffected and
"traditional conservatives", excluding only the Trump-supporting "devoted
conservatives" \--- supported limiting dangerous and hateful speech. Notions
of "white privilege" and sexual harassment and Islamophobia also find healthy
support among segments that sum up to the majority of the study --- you only
starkly lose support for them (in the study) among the 25% of the survey that
are "conservative".

I would say that the report is actually pretty muddy on what Americans as a
whole think about PC culture (no surprise, both because the term isn't well-
defined and, more importantly, because studying PC culture wasn't the point of
the Hidden Tribes study).

I would thus say it's pretty dangerous to try to extrapolate from Mounk's
extrapolation of Hidden Tribes to conclusions about "grievance" politics.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
Good point.

The way I read the article is that yes in every society some speech is deemed
acceptable and some is not. But 80% of respondents think the pendulum has
swung a but too far.

~~~
tptacek
Is that what Yascha Mounk thinks or what his data says? My argument is that
the two things are not the same. For instance:

"Nowadays, too many ordinary behaviors are labelled as sexual harassment"?
51/49 in favor, not 80/20.

"Many white people today don't recognize the real advantages they have"? 52/48
in favor.

"Many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated"? 49/51
against.

"Today's feminists fight for important issues"? 54/46 in favor.

Yes, a clear majority agree with "Political correctness is a problem in our
country". But a similarly clear majority, plotted on the same graph, also
agree with "Hate speech is problem is our country". And, again, "political
correctness" isn't defined and is a fuzzy concept.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
Thank you for a great reply. Really.

It sounds to me like yes, the problems like racism and sexism do exist, but
the way they are used to bully and shame one's political opponents is
unacceptable.

Or may be I simply have fallen into this exact trap: put my own meaning into a
fuzzy article and then hastly proceeded to passionately agree with myself.

~~~
tptacek
So while I don't really agree with you (I would be "somewhat disagree" in an
opinion poll on that question), I think it's a totally legitimate premise to
have.

My objection is to the article's (really, two separate layers of articles!)
claim to have clear empirical support for that premise, when the data is
anything but clear.

