
Self-Censorship in Public Discourse: A Theory of 'Political Correctness' (1994) [pdf] - gwern
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/papers/Loury_Political_Correctness.pdf
======
tunesmith
"Political correctness" is one of those high-signal low-content phrases.
People on opposite sides of the debate can't even agree on what it means.

I wrestled with it by trying to come up with a 2x2 matrix
([https://medium.com/@tunesmith/the-competing-definitions-
of-p...](https://medium.com/@tunesmith/the-competing-definitions-of-political-
correctness-bcac2764100e)) - I generally believe it's possible to exchange
ideas completely, honestly, and respectfully without compromising meaning or
passion.

I still get stuck on the subject of trolling, though. It's distributed and
weaponized in a way that wasn't possible in Aristotle's days. Difficult to
find a principled way to shut it down that is consistent with the principles
of free exchange of ideas.

~~~
narrator
The biggest problem with political correctness is the friction between
politically correct ideas and actual empirical reality. If there weren't that
friction, political correctness wouldn't even be necessary. It would just be
called telling the truth. That friction is always there though and constantly
generating painful cognitive dissonance that require constant positive
pressure in the form of censorship and downvotes to maintain the fiction that
reality is being accurately described.

For example, try posting FBI murder rate statistics by race of perpetrator and
victim to any forum where political correctness is highly active. Instant
downvotes and censorship to maintain ideological hygiene. This is the constant
positive pressure that is needed to alleviate the friction between reality and
political correctness.

There is a belief that pretending that reality is a way that it is not will
make it the way that it is pretended to be. We all experience a very small
segment of actual reality, so this actually works for people who are insulated
from certain realities that might be ideologically unhygienic.

~~~
kevinh
> For example, try posting FBI murder rate statistics by race of perpetrator
> and victim to any forum where political correctness is highly active.
> Instant downvotes and censorship to maintain ideological hygiene. This is
> the constant positive pressure that is needed to alleviate the friction
> between reality and political correctness.

I find it hard to believe that no one has mentioned the factors that make
murder rate statistics misleading to you. At the very least, that it's being
put out there with the implication that correlation is causation, and ignores
other factors that have much more basis for a differing murder rate, like
socioeconomic status.

It's probably the set of information that's put out there the most often in
order to muddy the waters, often by people have racist motivations.

~~~
rndgermandude
And you instantly went to assume the intentions of the author and their lack
of knowledge, etc?

The author said "posting the data" is enough for backlash, they didn't say
anything about judging the data, let alone that they'd judge the data like you
say they would.

And even if they would draw "misleading" conclusions from the data, it is not
helpful to rant at them and punish them, but rather assume their good faith
(until proven otherwise) and explain to them why they were mislead by the
data. Even if it's a bad white supremacist who'd never change their mind, you
might still positively influence other people reading the same exchange
instead of making other people root for the "underdog" (in that conversation)
who was viciously and personally attacked just for posting data.

~~~
chickenfries
Yes, because that would be a reasonable explanation for the downvotes.

Most of the time people talk about “black on black crime” they’re not trying
to make a sound statistical argument, they’re using it in service of some
larger racist point. So yeah, when you start talking about “what about
Chicago” or the shape of people’s heads, people tend to put you in the same
bucket at everyone else who seems to be really interested in certain facts...

------
hprotagonist
Importantly, also [1994].

This is not the first time the PC wars have raged.

I like David Foster Wallace's essay, "Authority and American Usage" (2005) as
another take on things -- he was around for the PC wars in the early 90s too.

~~~
nugi
Its been going so long, the talk show named after it has flipped script and is
uncomfortably PC now. Oddly, back then, 'PC' was associated mostly with the
conservative crowd.

------
lolc
Interesting, and written at the same time as the book "Private Truth, Public
Lies" by Timur Kuran. I found the book to be highly useful in understanding
how preference falsification shapes "absurd" societies. Looks like this
article analyzes the mechanisms that lead to "public lies" in more detail.

Without having read the article I'd like to point out that societies can be
organized along many different and mutually exclusive beliefs. Neither of the
beliefs is wrong in the absolute, but a society depends on its members to
accept one belief for people to work together as a group. The development of
pluralism is a rather new form of organization that is alien to most cultures.

It is a triumph of humanism to have reached this point. We're in constant
negotiation over which beliefs are acceptable, and which ones would destroy
our society. It is a good thing that the field is wide, but it must be
understood that the field of public discourse will have off-sides. If the
enemies of humanism find themselves shunned this is in accordance with my
beliefs of how a society should be organized.

------
ggm
There is PC, and there is the accusation of PC. One is held to be self-
censorship. The other is a tool to disarm your opposition by accusing them of
behaviours which disfavour their intellectual honesty, or claim your own views
are being excluded.

Speaking in code is normal. "we dont like your sort" is a phrase which can
crop up in a western, bad guys talking to good guys, or in a realtors office
"white realtor to black purchasor" or in a cake shop "christian cake maker, to
gay couple" -There is no visible pejorative quality to _your_ or _your sort_
but contextually its understood.

The PC moment, is denying the existence of the power relationships in the
topic. I have an intense dislike of a six letter word used in the times of
Mark Twain and others to discuss african-americans. I cannot abide the word, I
walk out of conversations where it comes up, and I avoid its use. I am
appalled by the ?ironic? re-adoption of this word by the rap community, it is
a huge thorn in the side of millions of people worldwide. Is this being PC?
its what I feel. If somebody cannot rationally discuss race relations in the
USA without use of this word, what have we come to? is english as a language
so bancrupt, we have no alternatives?

The odd thing for me, is that the five letter alternative also starting with
N, Negro, is now also a pejorative, when for so many years it wasn't. Truly,
this is a minefield to negotiate. Then African-American, now people of colour.
I like "people of colour" a lot. But I also know, in some time to come, it too
will fall from grace. Yet, my residual hate for the six letter word remains.
Nothing said here about PC will rid me of a sense the word is wrong, its use
is wrong, and the intentionality using it, strongly disposes me to
characterise somebody as belligerent in a power relationship.

Even used ironically.

~~~
hippich
USA was country of immigrants, and still is. Should newcomers carry same
baggage of language? Should they be shamed for using these words?

~~~
ggm
How do newcomers acquire the use of these words? If we shift to one side
slightly, how do lebanese arrivals learn to laugh at Polack jokes? What moment
says its ok to laugh at those crazy poles, call them polacks, and have to sit
by while the other guy tells jokes about rag-heads from the middle east?

its a perpetuating hell. the only path out (I feel, but possibly wrongly) is
to break the cycle.

~~~
hippich
In ex-USSR at least, and, I bet, in many spanish speaking countries, word
"negr" or "negros" refers to any dark-skinned person without any baggage of
slavery, diminishing mental capabilities or anything like that. (Word "nigger"
is not really used in ex-USSR except may be some teen groups who listen too
much to rap music, and still does not carry same baggage)

Why these immigrants should be shamed for use of these words, why some should
be offended by words?

Intent should matter. And if bad intent is not there - there should be no
judgement. That how empathy works both ways.

~~~
mirimir
I get strange looks sometimes, when I say that I like the Norwegian deathpunk
group Turbonegro. And then there are those Texan punk groups with names that I
self-censor.

------
ralusek
Strange coming out of Brown, although this is from 1994, because it is now
consistently ranked in the top 10 furthest left among universities...which is
saying something considering that American universities have an average
distribution of 12:1 in left:right representation among educators.

~~~
hprotagonist
When he wrote it, he was at BU, for what it's worth.

~~~
grzm
He (Glenn Loury) is at Brown now. As for his political views, he hosts a
podcast for Bloggingheads TV where he delves into a range of topics.

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

------
truculation
I see PC as a means by which some members of a ruling group try to secure
their status within that group by self-righteously condemning other members of
the group and the group itself. The PC beliefs themselves are adapted to
cowing the spirits of the ruling group and to controlling thought. Only the
most virtuous and the most wicked of the group are unaffected by the
onslaught.

'Controlling thought' because in order to win the PC contest it isn't enough
to memorise what to say, you have to give up control at a deeper level which
includes the self-censoring of forbidden thoughts.

------
gallblubber
Another aspect of political correctness is that each speech act is seen to
either 'perpetuate' or not this or that negative dynamic, and is incorrect or
correct accordingly. So a weight is given, even to exchanges between private
individuals, based on a simplistic and unverifiable model of how
communications interact to shape society.

------
s73v3r_
Every time this comes up, I always have to wonder, why is it so hard to not be
a jerk to other people? That's really the essence of "being PC". Treat others
with respect.

~~~
atlantic
Or, to rephrase that slightly: why is it so hard for other people not to agree
with my view of the world? That's the essence of being PC. Recognise that I
know best.

~~~
thebokehwokeh2
OP said simply this:

> Treat others with respect.

I guess you're implying that you disagree and that you should be a dick to
everyone else?

~~~
Slansitartop
> OP said simply this:

>> Treat others with respect.

No, the OP's comment was much longer than four words, and part of it implied
that if you're not PC then you're a jerk.

It's a lot easier to see the problem with the OPs comment if you think about
what it means to be good, and how the definition of "being good" can vary so
much between people.

If you want to talk with people about what being PC really is, you have to use
fewer vague, high-level abstractions like "jerk" and "respect" and more
concrete examples.

~~~
s73v3r_
Wrong. I simply said that a large part of "being PC" is not being a jerk to
others.

