
Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape [pdf] - Melchizedek
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf
======
PostOnce
The linked report is WAY more interesting than the article. Covers much more
ground (not just 'PC culture') and in a better way.

I just started reading it not knowing what I was in for, somehow both easy to
digest but still broad and not that shallow. Infographics, survey responses,
profiles of 'typical' people in each segment of the political spectrum, etc.
Quite an enjoyable presentation.

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

~~~
dang
Alright, let's switch to that, since most of the thread below is just
semantics about the term 'political correctness'. All: I'm sure we can do
better than that, so please try.

(The submitted URL was
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-
majo...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-
dislike-political-correctness/572581/?single_page=true))

~~~
Melchizedek
Do you really think most people have the time to read a _160 page_ report?

~~~
PostOnce
I got to page 38 before I even thought to look at how long it was, it's kind
of engrossing, and because it's mostly quotes and infographics, it doesn't
take long to go through a page, it's not Mochizuki's proof of the abc
conjecture or something.

It only took ~15 minutes to get that far? What's the difference between
spending 15 minutes reading hn and 15 minutes reading a report? It's still 15
minutes.

Open it up, I bet you'll find it interesting and get further than you think in
a short amount of time.

------
bdz
>But since the survey question did not define political correctness for
respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who
regard it as a problem have in mind.

~~~
rntz
I agree it would be nice to have a clearer picture of what anti-PC folks think
of themselves as being against (and what pro-PC folk think of themselves as
being for).

However, it's also useful to know people's feelings towards a phrase _without_
defining it, to understand what they feel about the term as _they_ interpret
it. This gives a sense of the political atmosphere surrounding a term, which
can be just as important as what the term actually means.

This isn't how things would work in some "ideal", perfectly rational world;
but that's politics for you.

------
tiniuclx
This article makes me think about the disdain some people might have against
the 'liberal elite', and according to the article political correctness does
seem to be a trait of that particular class.

I think the key is to understand the reason why many Americans reject PC
language and culture. Is such language overused due to a fear of being accused
of *ism?

Or is it because people believe that communication should be empathetic by
default, and doesn't need sanctimonious words to show it off? I generally
assume there is no malice in someone else's words, which is especially helpful
on the (mostly text-based) internet, where there aren't any para-verbal cues.

~~~
emsy
I found charitable interpretation a good indicator of whether someone is
virtue/tribal signaling or interested in intellectual exchange, finding truth
and acting moral.

~~~
YorkshireSeason
I've repeatedly found that the ability to paraphrase and summarise the
opposing positions in a way that the opposition can agree with, is a good
indicator of whether someone is interested in, and able to have a meaningful
discussion in a controversial subject.

It might be illuminating to compare this heuristic to the requirement of a
decent scientific paper to summarise _related work_ properly.

------
whack
> _One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the
> extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were
> concerned 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_

The problem is that _everyone_ is hyper sensitive to specific things, even
where they claim to oppose political correctness. For instance, most "devoted
conservatives" dislike political correctness, but made a big issue out of
Obama's passing remarks about "you didn't build that" and "cling to guns and
religion". They took great exception to Clinton's comments about "basket of
deplorables", but didn't have a problem with Trump's "rapists and drug
dealers".

Ie, when the other side says something that offends you, it deserves to be
made into a big issue. When the other side is offended by something you say,
political correctness has gone too far.

~~~
cannonedhamster
The difference between Republicans and conservatives used to be minimal. I'd
say that conservatism swung so far right that most long term Republicans
didn't even realize it. The vast majority of people who vote Republican or
Democrat do so nearly without any understanding of a particular candidate's
positions apart from the general party platforms and only votes on one or two
issues that are personally important to themselves. With how gerrymandered the
country is, especially in many Republican controlled states, the middle ground
for centrists Republican and Democratic candidates is gone.

This was started by a concerted effort in the 1980s to turn the country more
conservative, which was very successful and backlash to the liberal culture
expansion of the 1960s through the 1970s. I don't however believe that the
architects of that plan foresaw the damage that would come from polarization.

America has a large reckoning coming as we must learn and define what we want
our national image to be. It's certainly no longer the shining city on the
rock. We're far closer to the loud, obnoxious uncle at the dinner table
talking about what we did in the past. Unless we can find common ground as a
country, we're destined to fade in global power far quicker than we should
have.

Edit: Typo

------
a_humean
"Political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative. So saying that
surveyed Americans dislike it its about as surprising as saying that Americans
think racism is bad in principle in surveys - it does not mean that Americans
don't on-mass practice it even if in principle they violently oppose it. The
only "political correctness" people identify is the language of their
political opponents.

Political correctness is most often used as a criticism of the politically
sensitive language used by different groups. As a very American example, you
just need to look at the terms "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". From the
perspective of the opposing groups "Pro Life" amounts to "Pro subjugation of
women at the cost of their individual health and political power", and "Pro
Choice" amounts to "Pro infanticide sinful hedonists". Both groups have
significant political power in American, and wielding that power they demand
respect behind these "PC" labels.

Political correctness isn't new or some kind of distinct ideology, its an
exercise or attempted exercise in political power to shape the language and
outcomes of our politics. Its our basic civility and the structure of power.
What is new maybe is the pace of social and political change of the past 100
years that has made people notice the exercise in new political power more
often.

~~~
crispyambulance
The term "politically correct" started its life in the 60's and 70's when
leftist groups used it IRONICALLY to criticize other leftists who were
excessively dogmatic.

Somehow in the early 90's the term got lifted by the hard right to describe
_anyone_ who they believe promoted progressive ideas. I remember when Rush
Limbaugh was in his peak, he used the term "PC" constantly. Since that time it
has come to be used exactly as you describe by the hard right and
increasingly, the mainstream, which happens to also be shifting to the hard
right.

Whatever the history, "politically correct" has always been an insult. While
there certainly are people who think they're 100% correct in politics, no
reasonable person wants to labeled by others as "PC".

Unfortunately, there's been some developments which make me wonder whether
some are actually embracing the term without irony. That's disturbing and it
is a sign that really, really bad stuff may be coming.

~~~
goliatone
What I find troubling is the recent trend of people feeling they have to be
“ideologically correct”. I started to notice that attitude as the right united
under a common party discourse against Obama, even when some of that discourse
was obvious bs. I guess media could have played a big role, bubbling up a
single “voice” (What a weird world this is today, where I find myself missing
John McCain)

------
07d046
Two thoughts:

1) "Political correctness" has always meant "excessive language policing from
the left" rather than anything more concrete—it was a pejorative term even
before it was introduced to the general public in 1990 on the pages of the New
York Times—so it's no surprise that it has a bad reputation.

2) It's kind of ironic to use a research paper by a group called More In
Common, who seek to counteract polarisation, to slam a particular political
group.

~~~
hyperdunc
I don't think it's ironic. If that political group is not receptive to this
reasonable attempt to show them how they're going wrong, that's on them and
rather reinforces the article's gist.

~~~
Brakenshire
The point is who will not say they dislike something defined to be a
pejorative?

------
PunchTornado
> Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political
> correctness is a problem in our country.”

From experience that's more or less correct. I'm on the left and the majority
of my friends are also on the left and we make fun of PC.

Why are so many people easily offended by language? I remember when Larry
David did a funny bit about holocaust and people gone mad, "you can't joke
about the holocaust". I think this is the PC that most people hate.

------
RickJWagner
This article gives me hope. I like the idea that we're more alike than it may
seem at times.

------
batrat
PC = political correctness. What is wrong with people that invent a new
abbreviation every second? Good CB (click bait)

~~~
RandomInteger4
Huh? PC isn't new. That abbreviation has been around since the 80s or 90s.

~~~
gsich
Personal Computer is probably what most people think, especially here.

~~~
mlazos
Indeed, the main reason I clicked on this was genuine curiousity as to why
Americans hate PCs!? What kind of underground PC culture exists to hate?
Suffice to say I was a disappointed.

~~~
aswanson
I got a chuckle out of that. Thanks.

------
d2j
Thankfully, Google exists. Let me help you:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness&ie=utf...](https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b)

~~~
izacus
Your answer is condescending and you failed to even attempt to understand what
the study said.

Just because you managed to Google ONE definition of PC culture, it does not
mean the people answering the study poll had the same thing in mind. Which is
a bit of problem for methodology and the result itself. Especially in such a
wide social topic like political correctness.

~~~
d2j
That's like saying "this study of people saying they like the red colour is
worthless because they haven't defined what the red colour is"

PC has one definition, but of course you can make up others

~~~
andybak
> PC has one definition

And definitions are never complex, multifaceted or problematic, eh? Thank
goodness language is so simple and clear.

------
JohnStrangeII
Since "PC Culture" is primarily intended to protect minorities, that shouldn't
be surprising at all.

Bear in mind that any working democracy _has_ to actively protect minorities,
because otherwise it would decline into a tyranny of the majority.

 _Edit: There was a bit of a misunderstanding here, I 'm afraid. Please see me
other post about it. In a nutshell, you need to take the actual victims of
discrimination seriously or have a lot of empathy, otherwise it will be
difficult to judge the many arguments for and against some particular form of
PC._

~~~
gaius
_Since "PC Culture" is primarily intended to protect minorities_

I am a minority. No it isn't. It is simply one faction of the dominant caste
using us as pawns in its war on another faction.

~~~
pasabagi
I don't know what this is being downvoted for. I'm not a minority __, but it
's also obvious that a lot of PC stuff is virtue-signalling, combined with a
implicit reproach towards minorities for being sensitive. I mean,
realistically, nobody gives a damn if you use the wrong word for a disability.
Disabled people care that they're not accounted for in political decision-
making that whole areas of wealthy countries are basically impossible to live
in, whole careers that would be perfectly viable are closed, and so on. I'm
not black, but I'm pretty sure nobody black is angry about people using the
wrong words. I'm pretty sure they're angry about the fact that police
basically have carte-blanche to imprison and murder their children over
bullshit.

 __PS: I am actually mildly disabled. But then, that 's the thing, isn't it?
Everybody is going to be a minority at some point in their life, if you're
old, if you have kids, if you have an injury - then you get the hard side of a
society that caters for white able-bodied men.

~~~
gaius
_virtue-signalling, combined with a implicit reproach towards minorities for
being sensitive_

Indeed. Here's a concrete example of PC culture banning a word _and_ shaming
people who actually have the condition
[https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/press/facts/brainstorming-
offens...](https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/press/facts/brainstorming-offensive)

 _93 per cent of people with epilepsy did not find the term derogatory or
offensive in any way and many felt that this sort of political correctness
singled out people with epilepsy as being easily offended._

