Study: Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

[esdoornblad]

A repeated theme in this thread, which I paraphrase as "those most against PC culture can often be the most sensitive" is not correct in my experience. I am thinking now of a large sample of people my generation and older. In my experience, the most sensitive are definitely the PC activists. Throughout history there has always been a spectrum of perspectives, from the arrogance of youth, to the inflexibility of the aged. But in my observation, which spans a few decades now (I'm 52), youth have self-appointed themselves as moral police and have no difficulty disregarding the opinions of their elders and rejecting any sort of "nuance". The irony is that it's extremely disrespectful.

 

[Captain Davis]

No shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

A repeated theme in this thread, which I paraphrase as "those most against PC culture can often be the most sensitive" is not correct in my experience.

It is in mine, keeping in mind that we're talking about people *most* against it, meaning like the people who don't watch Dr. Who but were outraged about a female doctor, people who complain about there not being enough white couples in commercials (real thread), people who were sending death threats to actors in the Ghostbusters remake and in various new Star Wars movies, etc.

 

[luckyshot]

I became a member of the exhausted majority about 2 weeks ago when I was told I was no longer a white Canadian, or even a European Canadian, rather I was a member of the Settler Population of Canada.

Well, it's nicer than having to call yourself a Genocidal-Bringer-of Small-Pox Canadian, I suppose.

 

[panamaican]

It's unfortunate that they didn't define political correctness for this study. The following quote is kind of the issue I have with this outcome:

Indeed, while 80 percent of Americans believe that political correctness has become a problem in the country, even more, 82 percent, believe that hate speech is also a problem.

I think the overall information is very interesting but it has limited value to me because I don't know how those 2 concepts, "political correctness" and "hate speech", are defined.

Added:

Similarly, 81 percent of Americans believe that there are serious problems of racism in the country today.

All 3 of things should not coexist without good definitions or those terms.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's unfortunate that they didn't define political correctness for this study. The following quote is kind of the issue I have with this outcome:

I think the overall information is very interesting but it has limited value to me because I don't know how those 2 concepts, "political correctness" and "hate speech", are defined.

Both of the terms have pejorative connotations, I think. So it's not surprising that majorities would think they're both problems. That does seem like a rather big flaw.

 

[SamSchmidt]

I absolutely abhor the new PC culture if you will. Where everything we say now is monitored for even any single whiff of insensitivity.

But I honestly believe we should be able to hold civil discussions with each other without fear of being yelled at, screamed at, shouted down and assaulted physically if we do not adhere to someone elses point of view. I mean it has to stop
It's just ridiculous how thoroughly the left has become unhinged and violent. Its absolutely unreal and what pisses me off is absolutely everyone on the left refuses to see it for what it is, and they are too cowardly to denounce it because they cannot afford to alienate their base.

If I see something I don't like the right doing I'm not afraid to point it out. Like villianizing weed. : /

 

[curryjunkie]

The Social Justice, Islam, Gay, transgender, anti-cop, BLM PC mess that Obama promoted is the reason that Trump got elected.

Obama went way too far left with the Cultural Marxism, and now the pendulum is trying to swing back the other way.

you throw outthe phrase "social justice" as a negative, think about the phrase , then ask yourself how christian you are by rejecting it, the other examples probably never affect your life, its just prejudice on your part, you are exactly what nac386 is talking about.

 

[Ripskater]

you throw outthe phrase "social justice" as a negative, think about the phrase , then ask yourself how christian you are by rejecting it, the other examples probably never affect your life, its just prejudice on your part, you are exactly what nac386 is talking about.

Yeah, I'm against Social Justice. It creates and reminds people that they might fit in victim groups where White Christian Males are oppressing them. It's destructive to our nation. We've had 10 years of Social Justice, and it's a mess. That does not fit with the Christian worldview.

 

[panamaican]

Both of the terms have pejorative connotations, I think. So it's not surprising that majorities would think they're both problems. That does seem like a rather big flaw.

I think it's huge. What most people term as PC speech arose primarily to minimize the use of speech by some to be hateful and hurtful of others. Both things cannot be a problem unless the definitions themselves are meaningless.

I think @Fawlty probably came the closest to accuracy. Most people dislike PC speech when it limits their ability to speak poorly of others. And most people dislike hate speech when it's directed at them and those like them. The problem is that everyone is broadly defining hate speech when it's directed at themselves and narrowly defining if their own speech rises to the same level.

I think an interesting question that might have been in the main stud is "Do you engage in hate speech?"

I'm going to edit my previous post to include this detail as well:

Similarly, 81 percent of Americans believe that there are serious problems of racism in the country today.

How does that align with the prior statements?

The whole thing, without definitions, just makes it seem like Americans don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's not sensitivity that makes PC culture PC, imo. Which is why the attacks that people are being snowflakes, somewhat miss the mark. PC activists may be overly sensitive, but that is secondary. The major problem is the extent to which they want to control how others talk and act; they are incredibly morally arrogant.

I think every human being desires to control others to some extent, but it is generally recognized as an internal flaw that must be corrected and balanced. So each one of us learns, sometimes slowly and painfully, not to lecture others, etc. But PC celebrates the desire to correct and ultimately to control others as a virtue. They are the new Puritans, but without the intellectual rigor or intense self examination of Puritanism. Also, the goal rarely seems persuasion of individuals but the promulgation of a set of rules to be followed. Speech codes, some written and some unwritten, but always strictly enforced, follow the success of PC in most cases.

edit: It is this strict enforcement of rules that is sometimes mistaken as sensitivity. You made a minor transgression in thought or speech and they complain, not because they are offended but to put you back in line.

As far as PC being a set of competing values, I agree. I think in many cases it is an inferior set of values, usually derived from critical race theory and radical feminism, which is another reason most people don't like it.

This intent to control isn't unique to PC left. Consider instances like the thread on the girl who was suspended for not standing for the flag, that was a clear attempt to control her behavior because it was deemed offensive. Patriotic symbols and anti-patriotic speech are often what trigger the PC right and nationalism has traditionally been one of the most powerful forces of social control.

 

[curryjunkie]

Yeah, I'm against Social Justice. It creates and reminds people that they might fit in victim groups where White Christian Males are oppressing them. It's destructive to our nation. We've had 10 years of Social Justice, and it's a mess. That does not fit with the Christian worldview.

 

[esdoornblad]

It is in mine, keeping in mind that we're talking about people *most* against it, meaning like the people who don't watch Dr. Who but were outraged about a female doctor, people who complain about there not being enough white couples in commercials (real thread), people who were sending death threats to actors in the Ghostbusters remake and in various new Star Wars movies, etc.

People you know, or people you read about on the interweb? I am thinking about the 60-80 crowd. None of the topics you mention (Dr. Who, commercials, Ghostbusters, Star Wars) are things that most people I know don't just laugh about and say "what were they thinking?". The deeper issue is that reasonable people from my generation and older are having their language and behaviour policed by kids.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think it's huge. What most people term as PC speech arose primarily to minimize the use of speech by some to be hateful and hurtful of others. Both things cannot be a problem unless the definitions themselves are meaningless.

I think @Fawlty probably came the closest to accuracy. Most people dislike PC speech when it limits their ability to speak poorly of others. And most people dislike hate speech when it's directed at them and those like them. The problem is that everyone is broadly defining hate speech when it's directed at themselves and narrowly defining if their own speech rises to the same level.

I think an interesting question that might have been in the main stud is "Do you engage in hate speech?"

I'm going to edit my previous post to include this detail as well:

How does that align with the prior statements?

The whole thing, without definitions, just makes it seem like Americans don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I think you're pretty much correct here but to play Devil's advocate a bit I think it can make sense to say that both political correctness and hate speech are a problem and luckyshot addressed this to an extent.

People on the "pro- PC" side sometimes label any speech that doesn't follow the strict rules they've laid down as "hatespeech" (obviously untrue), but some people on the "anti- PC" side seem to, therefore, think that all speech, no mater how blatantly insulting or offensive, should be fair game at any time or in any situation (also not true).

We need a national dialogue that conforms to norms of civility without being overly or artificially restricted by politically correct taboos.

Cliffs: Say whatever you believe, but don't be an asshole about it.

Both can be a problem if you feel that some people in society are too quick to appeal to PC to restrict speech while others are too quick to use inflammatory and discriminatory speech. But that said I think you and JVS are right in that the results speak more so to problems with the connotations of the terms and the lack of definition for them.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

This intent to control isn't unique to PC left. Consider instances like the thread on the girl who was suspended for not standing for the flag, that was a clear attempt to control her behavior because it was deemed offensive. Patriotic symbols and anti-patriotic speech are often what trigger the PC right and nationalism has traditionally been one of the most powerful forces of social control.

Yep, I specifically mentioned that the desire to control is inherently human, and any honest person will admit to the temptation. I agree that there are many examples of social control or attempted social control outside of what would be deemed PC. And of course, every political philosophy has to assert a modicum of control in order to be effective. However, most philosophies have a built in counterbalance to desiring too much control over individuals. Liberals can point to freedom of speech for all. Christians can point to the command to love their enemies. Etc. But the radical progressive movement seems to have no counterbalance to the desire to control the thoughts and speech of others.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yep, I specifically mentioned that the desire to control is inherently human, and any honest person will admit to the temptation. I agree that there are many examples of social control or attempted social control outside of what would be deemed PC. And of course, every political philosophy has to assert a modicum of control in order to be effective. However, most philosophies have a built in counterbalance to desiring too much control over individuals. Liberals can point to freedom of speech for all. Christians can point to the command to love their enemies. Etc. But the radical progressive movement seems to have no counterbalance to the desire to control the thoughts and speech of others.

Nationalism is very controlling and intolerant of dissent and disrespect though and in practice it has a worse track record in that regard than this new crop of intersectional PC activism.

 

[panamaican]

I think you're pretty much correct here but to play Devil's advocate a bit I think it can make sense to say that both political correctness and hate speech are a problem and luckyshot addressed this to an extent.

Both can be a problem if you feel that some people in society are too quick to appeal to PC to restrict speech while others are too quick to use inflammatory and discriminatory speech. But that said I think you and JVS are right in that the results speak more so to problems with the connotations of the terms and the lack of definition for them.

Yeah, I think Fawlty was also correct.

But to Lucky's point, the study at least does address that and is in agreement with him. The people on the fringes of both sides are using extremes that exhaust mainstream America. The extreme left seemingly restricts everything and the extreme right seemingly claims that nothing should bother anyone and, even if does, no one should do anything about it.

The end result is that the concepts themselves have no universal meaning and so you find most Americans disagreeing with the terms but no idea if they disagree on the deeper stuff. Lot of 80/20 breakdowns. The only one that's probably reliable is that 80% think racism is a serious problem.

My own takeaway starts there. Most Americans think racism is a problem. They know that something needs to be done and they generally seem to believe that whatever we're doing...it's not working.

 

[Jack V Savage]

People you know, or people you read about on the interweb? I am thinking about the 60-80 crowd. None of the topics you mention (Dr. Who, commercials, Ghostbusters, Star Wars) are things that most people I know don't just laugh about and say "what were they thinking?". The deeper issue is that reasonable people from my generation and older are having their language and behaviour policed by kids.

Fair on the first point. I don't personally know anyone who really fits either category (as far as I know). But I would say that people here and on Twitter are people I "experience." Like, I'm not just reading that there are people who are really upset about what they perceive as a lack of white couple representation in TV commercials or who are enraged that some TV/movie characters are not how they want them to be--I see people whose personas I am familiar with express those views with my own eyes. I don't see it going the other way.

I get not liking criticism from people in a younger generation. On the other hand, I've learned some things myself as I've gotten older. Casual homophobia was common when I was a kid, for example, and while I wouldn't say I was actively hateful, I would have used words and expressed ideas that were insensitive. I'm happy that I've learned better as it would never be my intention to be an asshole to anyone, especially for something that they can't help. And some of the things that people thought were funny in '80s teen movies seem kind of shocking now, which represents progress rather than olds being controlled by their kids' generation.

On the other hand, look at this:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/so-how-come-straight-people-arent-allowed-to-have-flags.3853405/

Seems to me that both sides of this "issue" are completely ridiculous.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Nationalism is very controlling and intolerant of dissent and disrespect though and in practice it has a worse track record in that regard than this new crop of intersectional PC activism.

I don't think nationalism as currently practiced in the US is anywhere near as controlling and intolerant of dissent as intersectional pc activism.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

People you know, or people you read about on the interweb? I am thinking about the 60-80 crowd. None of the topics you mention (Dr. Who, commercials, Ghostbusters, Star Wars) are things that most people I know don't just laugh about and say "what were they thinking?". The deeper issue is that reasonable people from my generation and older are having their language and behaviour policed by kids.

While some of the younger college student types can get too zealous with their complaints, many of the 60-80 year olds I'm familiar with have their own PC tendencies as well. You have to carefully skirt around the egg shells of religion, politics, military matters, patriotism, and general criticism that doesn't line up with their idea of America. They would usually rather drop the conversation right away rather than have an open evidenced-based discussion. They are also most prone to holding up their own specific life experience up as irrefutable proof in the face of evidence that points otherwise or even compared with the experiences of others.

As for the humor, while I don't advocate for censoring humor (although the "it was just a joke" defense gets tiresome), don't expect me to laugh at your Mexican janitor taking a Ciesta joke. I wouldn't make a catholic priest joke in front of a 65 year old Catholic and expect a laugh.

It's also worth noting that society changes and maybe it's worth at least trying to change with it instead of refusing. I am certainly willing to ignore some taboo old phrases used by the 60+ crowd if it seems like they made the mistake in good faith rather than outright hostility. Still, no matter what way you slice, calling a Native American an Indian makes no sense. They are not from India, and yeah, 50 years ago, there were no Indians from India here where I live, but now there are plenty, and it just makes good sense to call an Indian an Indian, and a Native American a Native American. I don't think that habit comes from a place of racism or anything usually, but I do encounter older people who just refuse to even try to change that.