Good point.
The way I read the article is that yes in every society some speech is deemed acceptable and some is not. But 80% of respondents think the pendulum has swung a but too far.
The way I read the article is that yes in every society some speech is deemed acceptable and some is not. But 80% of respondents think the pendulum has swung a but too far.
"Nowadays, too many ordinary behaviors are labelled as sexual harassment"? 51/49 in favor, not 80/20.
"Many white people today don't recognize the real advantages they have"? 52/48 in favor.
"Many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated"? 49/51 against.
"Today's feminists fight for important issues"? 54/46 in favor.
Yes, a clear majority agree with "Political correctness is a problem in our country". But a similarly clear majority, plotted on the same graph, also agree with "Hate speech is problem is our country". And, again, "political correctness" isn't defined and is a fuzzy concept.
It sounds to me like yes, the problems like racism and sexism do exist, but the way they are used to bully and shame one's political opponents is unacceptable.
Or may be I simply have fallen into this exact trap: put my own meaning into a fuzzy article and then hastly proceeded to passionately agree with myself.
My objection is to the article's (really, two separate layers of articles!) claim to have clear empirical support for that premise, when the data is anything but clear.
E.g. 30% think PC has gone too far for topic A, 30% think the same about topic B and 20% think both topic A and B are negatively impacted.