
The economics of political correctness - ahamilton
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-economics-of-political-correctness
======
robd003
Being politically correct doesn't signify that you're sophisticated or
smarter, it signifies that you're a complete idiot who can't (or won't)
comprehend a different view point. The best way to combat it is to call
attention to acts of feigned outrage with humor.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Offending people without being aware of it certainly isn't "sophisticated"
either.

~~~
robd003
If you don't like what you hear you're allowed to change the channel... There
is no reason to complain with an "I'm outraged" speech and silence a different
point of view.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Yeah, there is. Postmodernism doesn't believe that real truth exists. For
them, truth is just a sociological construct. Because they don't believe it's
even possible to determine actual truth, they say that speech is about power,
_and only that_.

So for them, winning the power game is the whole point. Saying nothing and
changing the channel makes them the loser. Making you shut up makes them the
winner (in their view).

~~~
bayesianhorse
Truth? Well most of the time people use the word "truth", I'd call it
"subjective judgement".

Power? No.

Society enforces its rules. Get over it. And PC is about rules which generally
enhance peace and cooperation. Being at the receiving end of a racial slur
rarely puts someone in a peaceful and cooperative mood...

~~~
hga
The "racial slur" issue was getting resolved in the '70s and was pretty much
there by the end of it (this viewpoint from the hyper-Red State, culturally
Southern part of SW Missouri); for some evidence, look at the dialog in 1971's
_Dirty Harry_ where a Hispanic is about to become his next doomed partner:

" _Gonzales: There is one question, Inspector Callahan: Why do they call you
"Dirty Harry"?

De Georgio: Ah that's one thing about our Harry, doesn't play any favorites!
Harry hates everybody: Limeys, Micks, Hebes, Fat Dagos, Niggers, Honkies,
Chinks, you name it.

Gonzales: How does he feel about Mexicans?

De Georgio: Ask him.

Harry Callahan:_ Especially _Spics._ "

This wouldn't be funny without the taboo that was strengthening at the time.

No, today's PC has nothing to do with anything "peaceful and cooperative", not
when it consigns to perdition all of us white heteronormatives in fly-over
country, probably more than half the country. It has no limiting principle, is
frankly totalitarian, and the end game is going to be arbitrarily ugly.

~~~
bayesianhorse
So you are reserving your right to hate certain people without being called
someone who hates ceartain people, and if these certain people objects and
hates you back, it's because you country is totalitarian?

Sounds downright smart.

~~~
hga
You've got it rather turned around.

It's objectively clear a large fraction of this nation hates me and mine.
They're quite clear about that, and have no shyness in expressing it, and a
bit too frequently express where they want us to end up (see below, hate is
unwise).

I, at least, don't hate them in return, that's unproductive, clouds the mind,
etc. Which gets in the way of many things; the more dire being effective self-
defense if the current trends, e.g. social, moral, and financial, continue.
Which it's hard to see how they're not going to, their being baked in the cake
by now.

------
caseydurfee
This article reads like it was written by a sociopath. Unless you are a
sociopath, there are many reasons to treat other people with dignity and
respect that aren't about gaining some sort of power.

I'm respectful of other people out of a desire to be a decent human being
rather than because I have "a loathing for common people" or wish to gain some
sort of social currency.

I'm having a hard time formulating reasons why people would get so
psychotically upset about what used to be considered just good manners unless
they're both entirely devoid of empathy themselves, and threatened by people
who do experience empathy.

~~~
theorique
Part of the problem is that the article doesn't really define "political
correctness".

If PC means not using racial slurs to people's faces, then I definitely agree
with you.

If PC means that academic freedom and scientific research needs to be
subordinated to 'social justice' goals, or that some research areas are 'off
limits', then I don't agree.

It really depends on the definition.

------
bayesianhorse
The article has the bias that political correctness is inherently bad, and the
assumption that it is a violation of free speech.

Both is wrong, and demonstrably so. Political correctness is mostly not about
avoiding to stir up racial hatred, but rather to avoid offending people.
Political correctness is not about avoiding topics, that would be called a
"tabu".

Anyway, political correctness does not infringe on free speech. Generally it
is not enforced by the state, and it requires a sort of consensus in some
small or large fragment of society.

The consequences of breaking political correctness are entirely within free
speech also. If you use a racial slur, it's not infringing on your free spech
for others to call you a racist or stupid or worse. People might also infer
other attributes or opinions if you frequently use the word "nigger", for
example, and they may be wrong about your support for Ku klux clan, but they
are not infringing on your free speech.

If privately or publicly owned publications don't want to publish texts that
offend minorities, they don't need to publish it. Again, not infringing free
speech. You are free to find a publication or medium that shares your world
view.

Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences.

~~~
MorningInfidel
The thrust of the article had nothing to do with PC as a violation of free
speech, but rather a discussion of the social currency that can be cheaply
bought by holding the right opinions (at least outwardly).

The point about how not everyone can hold the high moral ground relative to
everyone else is well made though, and the Nirvana analogy is perfect.

~~~
bayesianhorse
I wasn't talking about the thrust of the article but the bias and assumptions
at the beginning..

