Hacker News Reader

Comment by tunesmith | Hacker News Reader

"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...) - 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.

View on HN

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.

I think the question in that situation is, why did you post those stats in the first place? Are they relevant to a discussion? Or did you just want to rile people up?

This entire discussion is about political correctness and self-censorship. (Maybe reluctantly) Saying things you know are true, despite being against some current political climate, in some way.

But it sounds like you already made your own answer.

But again, what was the intent behind posting those stats? What relevance did they have to the discussion the person was referring to? Cause if, for instance, you're posting them in a discussion about police treatment and responses to black people, then you're just doing it to be an asshole.

To respond to the same question twice:

You clearly imagine he/she gave that example in an effort to "rile people up", or are at least alluding to that as a strong possibility that others should consider. How you can come to that conclusion (out of an infinitude of hypotheticals) from the given information, I do not know.

But to me, it may be a sign that you're looking for things that aren't there. I urge you to consider how in touch with reality you are.

Sigh. You didn't add anything to the conversation. And this is the internet. Of course people will post things to rile others up. If you don't think that's a possibility, then I'd have to suggest you're the one out of touch with reality.

> 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.

Well how about the friction that occurs when a crackdown on crime is viewed as racist because more people who commit murders are arrested which statistically includes more minorities? The flip side of this is fewer minorities, who are much more likely to be murdered by other minorities, are murdered by those minorities. So the people who benefit the most from these crackdowns are minorities who are victims of crime perpetrated by other minorities. Thus, this policy is actually beneficial to law abiding minorities, though it is viewed as against their interest by politically correct advocates who refuse to acknowledge the actual statistics of crime. They are ideologically obliged to ignore the FBI statistics and to state that a policy that arrests more minorities is thus racist because the arrest rate of all races are not equal. This exact thing actually happened in New York City with the Giuliani administration when they had the big crime crackdown in the 90s.

Giuliani's record is mixed. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/sep/01/...

That's the big problem with censorship. If op would post the true statistics that black crime rate is higher than other races then op would be downvoted. op would then go on to think that they are right, and that the political opponents are afraid of having their political bias exposed. If however op was not downvoted for making an innocent observation, but rather was told that the statistic could be used to show a higher correlation between poverty and crime, maybe op, and other readers, would change their mind about the situation.

The problem with this approach is that if op was trolling then they could spit out a huge list of seemingly correct correlations that nobody would have time to debunk all of them. That would allow some of op's bad correlation to be left not debunked and appear that it is right.

In online forms you have to figure out if someone is trolling and then behave in one of two opposite ways based on it they are out aren't.

>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.

Lower cognitive ability is related with racism[0]. So it might not be malice, but simple that they cannot grasp the social underpinnings of such statistics.

[0] http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/anarchism/hodson_busseri_2012...

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.

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...

This is a poor example for making that point, in the sense that it lacks a moment of realization or revelation. All this example carries is a technicality of yet-to-be-inidentified faith, but not even a hint of justification for considering the contrary. An open mind is something to test and critique but not merely punish or condemn, as this example attempts. A human should be expected to act on probability and defend against risk to the best of their ability and awareness, and it is the point’s failure to sympathize with that which makes it moot.

When the last hundred people you've seen post that data do so in order to apply a racist judgement, bayesian reasoning says that this person is likely doing the same and engaging seriously isn't going to go well.

> 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.

Absolutely socioeconomic and cultural factors affect the statistics. But they also affect statistics like representation in the tech industry.

If someone objects to bringing up one then the same person should object equally strenuously to bringing up the other. Which is not what happens in practice.

I do think there is a consistent split between the two populations when interactions like that occur.

But I don't think it is as simple as an individual advancing a "reality" that a community is not able to accept.

I think it is easy for the individual to look at it that way, though.

But this is because there's a hidden syllogism lurking about. I could better describe this with a graph, but...

Let's look at the example of mass shootings. Someone could very well bring up historical murder rates (even leaving race out of it), and show that things really are better than they have been in the past, in terms of general trend.

Brought up to people that are alarmed about the prevalence of mass shootings, they'll probably get down-voted or ostracized or whatever.

The individual feels frustrated, because they feel they have disproved some syllogism the community has. The assumed syllogism being, this mass shooting happened, mass shootings mean more death, therefore death rates are increasing. Individual has pointed out that death rates aren't increasing.

But the actual syllogism is the concern about the qualitative nature of the death. That it is saying something about us culturally that is qualitatively different than it used to be. Or simply that someone should be able to go to school without having to worry about that sort of thing culturally.

And the counterpoint that death rates are decreasing over time does nothing to disprove those implied syllogisms. At best the individual's point comes across as irrelevant, at worst it comes across as insensitive, disrespectful, or even pointing towards a worse implied syllogism of the individual's - like that the victims deserved to be killed for not being able to defend themselves with firearms or whatever.

So, next time you post FBI murder rate statistics by race of perpetrator and victim, it's probably best to ask yourself if those stats actually are relevant to the argument that your counterpart is actually stating. It might not be material at all. And it's also good to be explicit about what your point's conclusion is, and what conclusion it disproves.

Isn't it reasonably likely that the people citing, e.g., the FBI's murder statistics by race of perpetrator and victim, are asserting their own sort "ideological hygiene", and hence the down-modding?

That is: aren't some proportion, if not a preponderance of the people citing that operating from a narrative that people of that race are "bad" — ignoring the centuries of social and economic context around the statistic as if it has no bearing on why the statistic is what it is, little details like the disconnect between correlation and causation, &c — and that it's their operating from that narrative, and neither the citation nor the fact, itself, that's being down-modded?

Aren't those people just as — if not more — insulated from "actual reality" than the ones using the forum's moderation mechanisms to "punish" their holding that narrative?

Yes, it's still toxic to discourse, but do you really think discourse is very likely in the first place, when you're dealing with someone who's probably only citing the statistic because it confirms their biases?

EDIT: phrasing

> The biggest problem with political correctness is the friction between politically correct ideas and actual empirical reality.

Maybe. Nobody has enough grey matter to comprehend actual empirical reality even if they had it all laid out for them, and in practice most social maneuvering other people do is unobservable. There is a very strong layer of realpolitik in reality where actors must ensure that their in-group has power, facts be damned.

The real issue is when in-groups don't believe in the growing-the-pie mentality that benefits everyone. A belief that the resources we have are fixed and that only by taking from one group and giving it to another is the single biggest problem. We've seen that belief play out in horrific ways on the left, right, intellectual and populist spectrums and any other axis of thought you care to name. I see danger in the PC crowd, whoever they happen to be, if they believe that one persons wellbeing comes at the expense of another persons speech. That isn't tied to any particular issue; cultures have survived being wrong before.

It is productive to see political correctness as a religion.

It describes / prescribes some idealized, "correct" reality, and does not allow empirical reality contradict it. It also frowns upon any discussion of its postulates, unless the discussion is sure to confirm them, to the shame and chagrin of opponents. That is, it is dogmatic.

It also tries to extend itself wherever possible, without reservations about its applicability. It has largely captured universities (which were initially high clerical schools anyway). So, it is proselytic.

It promises a bright future where everybody is much happier, and nobody is hurt, because the pitiful nature of contemporary humans is overcome, and everyone is politically correct and can finally have safe, civilized, fruitful interactions.

But the most important is that the proponents are apparently not encouraged to think outside the box, but tend to use the creativity to apply templates that may not be discussed or doubted, else anger erupts.

I think "respect" is the wrong angle. It might more accurately be called "lack of justifiable offense."

Put frankly: You don't have to be respectful with negative claims about white males to be politically correct, but you do for other groups. The amount of respect is irrelevant. The relevant factor is whether or not someone might perceive what you say as offensive, even if it is entirely respectful.

> even if it is entirely respectful.

Or accurate. Or backed up by science.

The thing about trolling is, it’s like trying to have a conversation with a screaming baby in the room.

You’re going to have to deal with the baby first, and that issue has nothing to do with free speech.

It has to do with the real, sad, abused people who do this behavior. Their society and families have failed them and now we are paying the price.

Somewhow these people are going to need to be taken care of in the real world otherwise this problem will never go away.

The problem with that matrix is that it seemingly just conflates being PC? with being respectful.

Instead, PC language is a tool that can be used to show respect. However, just using PC language isn't enough if you ideas or not PC.

I don't really have a problem with PC language as I think asking for respectful language when communicating is entirely reasonable.

What bothers me is censoring non-PC ideas. When we prevent ourselves from asking certain questions or challenging certain ideas we risk missing important insights or solutions.

When certain progressives are scolded for being nasty and irrational toward people, they sometimes claim it is their “praxis” and you shouldn’t criticize it. I don’t see why the same wouldn’t apply to trolls. Do I really need to scrutinize whether they are a thoughtful satirist, a Russian operative, or a wayward teenager?

>Quadrant 4: Absence of Both: For purpose of discussion, we’ll disregard this quadrant.

When your grid is missing the "not A and not B" quadrant, it might be better drawn as a Venn diagram.

You're absolutely right. I don't know why that didn't occur to me. :-)

"Good faith" seems to be a decent minimum bar for participation in any such argument.

Judging good faith is very difficult, since it depends on assessing someone else's interior experience of the discussion.

In a proper discussion you assume good faith. End of story.

In such a discussion you would also have to enter with the willingness to acknowledge that you were incorrect.

Those things are basic requirements for any civilized discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com