Hacker News Reader

Comment by komali2 | Hacker News Reader

I first saw this as potentially a great possibility. Like, awesome, someone is actually sitting down and researching how to undivided the red/blue divided America?

But then...

> The fledgling academy now occupies a position within America’s tumultuous culture wars as advocates for free speech and the values of the “open society” and against political correctness and the millennial fervor of social justice activism.

"Political correctness" is so thoroughly abused as an alt-right general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does here is make me question the institution as just another alt-right organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "rationality" and "free speech."

> Of course, the researchers will be labeled white supremacists by those who fear that more knowledge might interfere with their ideologically pure claim that American racism is the root cause of every social problem.

Sure, it's annoying to be called a white supremacist by verified Twitter trolls, but we've got equally, if not more so, absurd accusations of anti-Semitism flying all over the fucking place right now, and the correct solution is to leave Twitter to the Twitter trolls.

View on HN

So it turns out that being in favor of allowing multiple points of view to coexist puts you in conflict with people who only want to allow one point of view to be heard. That's... rather unsurprising.

It is my perception that the left is doing better at shutting down opposing speech than the right, and has been since the 90s. If you're going to address the problem that it's happening at all, you have to address the side that's doing it more and better.

So how do you personally test that perception?

With statistical validity? To p = 0.05? I don't.

But picking one form of "silencing" (people whose invitations to speak on university campuses were withdrawn, blocked, or cancelled due to threats of violence), and measuring it by how much I read about it in the press, it appears that the right is blocked more than the left. And the press is not currently disposed present things in a way that makes the right look more sympathetic.

Honest question, do you think liberal speakers are getting invited to places like Liberty University in the first place?

Probably not. Honest question back: Why do you think Liberty University is the yardstick, rather than public universities?

Because the dis-invitations that get press happen at very liberal universities, either private or well known public liberal universities like Berkely. Academia as a whole leans left, so this is unsurprising. I'm unaware of any right leaning public universities to name check but I assume they exist in some areas.

I also am unaware of any right leaning public universities to check. But that kind of makes my point. The left controls the public universities in a way that the right doesn't, and uses them (in at least some cases) to block speech by the right. The right may be just as willing to block speech as the left, but they don't have the opportunity to do so right now. Ergo, if you want to address the problem, right now you need to address the left.

I hold public universities to a higher standard than private ones in this regard. It's more acceptable in my view for a private university to have a bias (either left or right), and to enforce it, than it is for a public university.

> The left controls the public universities

But, this is prejudice - there is no authority structure in "the left," it's a totally amorphous set of political / ethical ideals that's honestly terribly defined.

So there's two issues I take with this statement:

1. What is "the left?" Can we actually draw a border around it in a way that lets us make the statement, "the left controls the public universities?" I'll hazard that you'll find, within public university administrations, people pro- and anti-choice, people pro- and anti- gun control, supporters of total Israeli sovereignty alongside protesters of Israeli's government, fiscal conservatives alongside socialists... I'm not trying to dispute that public university staff "lean left," but I just don't agree that there's some secret cabal of "leftists" who all agree with eachother.

2. Left-leaning staff are not card-carrying members of an organization (I mean, outside the Democrat party or something) that directs their actions. The definition "the left" arises from a shared set of political beliefs, not the other way around, like a political party. I.e., the democrat party (kinda) represents a certain set of ethics, and you join it if your ethics are aligned. But "the left" is not something you join, it is a description of the majority amalgamation of your beliefs.

Your disagreement seems to be with the word "control". I will agree that it is perhaps too strong a word. Yet we both agree that public university staff lean left; this means that the left has more... shall we say influence? "Control" is too strong, and yet, the situation is not neutral.

[Edit: By the way, let me just say how much I have appreciated the tone of this discussion with you, neaden, and BryantD. I have felt that thoughtful people who disagreed with me were reasoning with me. I have not felt slammed or yelled at. It's been what an HN discussion ought to be.]

So... the linked article doesn't really limit itself to public universities when offering examples of free speech issues. Haidt talks about Oberlin (favorably); they're a private college. Brown University is cited as an example of chilling free speech later on; Brown is, of course, private.

The FIRE database cited -- https://www.thefire.org/research/disinvitation-database/ -- also doesn't make the distinction between public and private. They do leave out religious institutions. I'm sincerely not trying to play gotcha games here; I'm suggesting that your perceptions may have been shaped by a very convincing publicity campaign over the course of decades.

I spent some time with this dataset today (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eeTHZQOh9faZ2P3C_O3s...) just for the sake of resetting my perceptions and validating how I felt. It was a pretty useful exercise.

And, finally, the Princeton Review list of the most conservative student populations in the US: https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=mo... That's a survey, doesn't touch on faculty attitudes, and is no doubt flawed in other ways. But man, I went to college at a state school in a rural state. It's fascinating how quickly people assume that UC Berkeley is the typical public university.

> I'm suggesting that your perceptions may have been shaped by a very convincing publicity campaign over the course of decades.

In my argument, I assumed that wasn't possible, because the press leans left, and therefore would not be amenable to selling a "very convincing publicity campaign over the course of decades" if that campaign favored the right. I recognize that that's an argument, not data.

Looking at the FIRE data, there was a large predominance of "from the left" challenges (whether successful or not, whether at a public school or not) in 2016 and 2017. It moved back toward (not all the way to) even in 2018 and 2019. So maybe it was just a temporary thing? Or maybe the right learned how to play the game better?

Also worth noting that the FIRE data and the other source I found aren't measuring the same thing -- one is speaking engagements, one is professors getting fired/not promoted. (Thanks, btw, this is a cordial exchange of views and info even though we disagree.)

You got kind of dog-piled for this which I think was unfair. I would broadly agree with you that "the left" controls public universities in the USA. I think that is just a natural result of a couple things though. First, liberals support public goods, so government workers are going to tend to be more liberal than the general population. Secondly, the Republican party by taking such a strong stance on Global Warming has really alienated a lot of scientists and educated people. Thirdly conservative education in the US tends to be religious related education, which makes it private.

I will say though that while most professors tend to be liberal we should remember that most people who go to college go to either Community College (which doesn't really have a lot of political speakers) or large state universities which tend to have institutional inertia to not get swept up in politics. Liberal public universities like UC Berkley are the exception, not the rule.

Do you think all view points should be heard? Should Jewish and gay students have to debate Nazi's about whether or not they should be murdered? Should black and women students have to debate if they should count as property?

That insinuates Nazis or Slavers are in a position of power. The hierarchy is switched though: Nazis have to debate students how hard they can be punched.

This doesn't make any sense.

Where do students hold a position of real power, especially a position where they are inflicting violence on Nazis?

Where is this debate happening?

If we look at all the college administrations that quickly crumble after students protest that they might have to pass past a building in which, had they gone inside, they could have heard something they would not like, this dismissal rings quite hollow.

And once we look at riots in Berkeley, the guy who went a-shooting congressmen, or fine folks who had beaten up a gay POC journalist (a Quillette journalist, but still), well, not all of them are students, but they are doing just fine inflicting violence on whoever they designate as "Nazis", or "Fascists" or whatever the scare word is today.

OK, one instance of students (who were clashing with far-right protesters who were armed) and the rest which aren't students, so a complete non-sequitor.

In that case I bring out all the right wing terrorists of the past decade.

Christchurch shooter, Charleston church shooter, Charlottesville car attacker, Bundy ranch hostages, pro-Trump agitators in the Berkley protest you list, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Colorado planned parenthood shooting, Layfayette trainwreck shooting, Norwegian Brevik mass shooting, Comet Pizza and many Q-Anon related murders, it goes on and on.

It appears the right wing is increasingly violent and radical, which has many people worried.

Fascism starts with violence, anyone who recognizes the threat posed by right-wing terrorism understandably would want to stop it before it goes further. The world has seen where that ideology has taken us before, unfortunately it seems to be fading from collective memory.

Fair enough. As long as you don't try to gloss over that the left capable of violence just fine by itself, and that self-appointed "antifascists" need to be stopped, too. And bring up all the left terrorists of past decades, too. Red Brigades (very much antifa and all) alone killed about as many people as everything you list here. Although I do not think I've heard of "many" Q-Anon related murders, and as far as I recall nobody got killed at the pizzas place.

I do find it interesting that any time antifa gangsters go on a rampage it's always because there are some "armed agitators", and basically they asked for it, and it's no big deal anyway, but one right-wing nutjob does something and it's always a part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy". These double standards are rather tiresome, especially if you manage to still remember that left-wing governments are way ahead of rightwingers in body count.

Those are some extreme examples. What about the not so extreme cases? Who would decide which topics are acceptable? A slippery slope.

I think extreme examples are useful. The Neo-Nazi's marching in Skokie is an extreme example of Free Speech, and the ACLU fought to allow it because the First Amendment is extreme. On the other hand, I believe that when you are dealing with a quasi-public space like a university we shouldn't be as absolutist with free speech claims. The question then becomes on where we draw the line. If on the other hand you believe that we should be extreme on free speech when it comes to universities and let the Nazi's march at University of Chicago as well as Skokie then clearly you would disagree.

You think Nazis shouldn't be allowed to march? What about communists? Why one and not the other? Communists killed far more people in the 20th century.

That is not what I said, I think you have to read a bit more carefully.

Not all speech is useful speech and some speech should be shut down depending on the context. On Discord I've had people complain about me trying to stop people calling other people "fags" or "retards" and I have been called a SJW for stopping people just saying lies about trans people (which they always try to defend as if it's some sort of legitimate political opinion).

Edit: It's generally kids saying these things and I get it that they often just don't know better but it's really night and day how much better things are if there are some boundaries.

This is a big part of the discussion, I think, based on conversations with my conservative friends. They often complain about how they "can't say" certain words anymore. They'll make comments about how people are "too soft" these days. "Who feels pain from a word?" In your discord, they'd be the ones throwing around such words with reckless abandon.

I can sympathize, because I've yet to find a word that causes me pain by any stretch of the word "pain." There's no phrase, sentence, or utterance that has bothered me. I've been called all manner of racial epithets, gender epithets, and even sexual orientation epithets. I just can't bring myself to give a shit - nobody trying to hurt me is worth my time and so I ignore them / move on / mock them / laugh in their face.

I genuinely cannot put myself in the shoes of people who, for example, would feel a form of pain/offense at hearing the "n" word, for example. From my perspective, that would be just a great indication that whoever is using that word is not worth a millisecond of my time.

HOWEVER, I'm a straight white male that makes 140,000$/year and have no diseases whatsoever. So when my black friends tell me that certain words cause them pain, I believe them, because everyone's different.

I feel fear on rollercoasters to the point where I simply will not ride them. Some friends love rollercoasters. Objectively, I should not feel fear on rollercoasters. They are safer than hopping on my motorcycle for my 10 minute, 2 mile commute home. But, I do. So, I can take that experience and say "situations exist where I feel different emotions than other people do, for said situation." While I can't imagine what it feels like to hear a word and feel pain / offense, I can believe people when they tell me that a certain word makes them feel those negative emotions.

I'm not sure how to convince other friends that it's worth the effort to apply this baseline level of mutual respect. I wish I knew why I'm willing to respect others' feelings around words so I could share this learning. I guess, to me, it's logical? If someone wants to be referred to as male despite "appearing" female, don't throw a fucking hissy fit, just do it, who gives a shit? If people are saying "it's not cool to call people retards anymore," just... don't... do it... what are you actually losing? The ability to be an asshole to people in a certain specific way?

> I'm not sure how to convince other friends that it's worth the effort to apply this baseline level of mutual respect.

I'd say "because whatever else those people are, they're human, and therefore deserve a certain amount of respect", but I'm not sure even that would convince some people.

If I was talking to someone on the right, I might even quote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [humans] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." and then argue that "those people", being created by God, are worth a certain amount of respect just for that reason, without needing any other. I mean, if you're dealing with a right-wing atheist, it won't fly, but it might work as a general thing.

Disclaimer: I just thought of this argument. I have never tried it out in real life, so I don't know what reaction it would get.

> They'll make comments about how people are "too soft" these days.

Part of Dr. Haidt's point is that yes, people's psyche's have been made fragile by overprotection. I think he even tries to put some science behind that claim.

Being a jerk isn't a good thing, and showing people respect is. But sometimes showing respect means expecting other people to demonstrate some resilience. It's how that resilience grows. Exposure therapy works for many things.

Having resilience is especially important when other things are at stake, things like the truth. If we sacrifice our willingness to speak the truth for fear of causing others emotional pain, we sacrifice too much.

Consider your fear for rollercoasters. I do not think it is right to mock you for it, nor to force you to ride one. Nor do I think you should be trapped by your fear, and I will laud you if you overcome it. I especially don't think that we should (hypothetically) remove all rollercoasters just because some people are afraid of them.

Resilience is fine but there needs to be a line somewhere. At a certain point you have to decide what's okay and what's not okay. A good example is prejudice against LGBT people or people of different races. A ton of people are prejudiced against those people and all of their beliefs are "true" to them (so trying to silence their message will be supressing truth to them) but I think it's okay as a society to decide that those views aren't okay.

You should always be willing to speak your truth but society is allowed to reject it. It'll be wrong a decent amount of the time but it corrects over time through things like the civil rights movement or the rise of feminism. Interestingly in my experience being unable to reject ideas as a society actually slows down that progress as you'll then just always be relitigating past issues.

Edit: I guess the question to me is "where do you draw the line" and the answer seems to be pretty obviously "you let people draw their own line" in like 98% of situations. Generally by paying attention or just asking people it's been a pretty easy rule to live by and people seem to appreciate it.

> You should always be willing to speak your truth

Pet peeve: there is no "your" truth or "my" truth. There is "the" truth. It has many facets, and can be difficult to grasp fully, but it either is true or it is not.

My point is that people need to have the legal and social freedom to be able to say controversial things that might be true. That, in order to explore and discover the truth, we must risk offense.

>I guess the question to me is "where do you draw the line" and the answer seems to be pretty obviously "you let people draw their own line" in like 98% of situations.

Unless I've misunderstood you, "letting people draw their own line" sounds a lot like freedom of speech. More precisely, our freedom to hear the ideas of other people and draw our own conclusions should not be abridged just because someone may be offended by that speech.

If you agree with that assessment, then you and I are fine.

I will agree that not every thought is appropriate to voice in every circumstance. There is a need for setting bounds on "polite" conversation. However, not every is (or should be) polite conversation.

One part of calming down the political situation is probably going to be becoming less sensitive to the possibility that evil alt-right/antifa sleeper agents are lurking everywhere.

There's a certain fear that behind every Twitter account or public persona is a revolutionary waiting to exterminate somebody or eat the rich, but in reality they are so rare that it's worth waiting for them to express their crazy views directly. Nobody will listen to them when they do, and there is nothing to gain by identifying a Twitter account as belonging to the evil side a month or two earlier than otherwise.

Calm, that's a good word to use.

On Twitter I see statements made that are offensively absurd and rhetorically dishonest. I suspect 80% of them are some sort of malactor fomenting division.

I honestly believe the world would be a better place if Twitter strictly enforces a HN style set of rules (argue in good faith) or just went away entirely.

How can you honestly claim that you want to support arguing in good faith, and yet sincerely speculate whether Jonathan Haidt is some sort of alt-right goon?

If you wanted good faith, you didn't start off the conversation well.

It's a fair accusation, though I bristle at the use of the phrase "alt-right goon." If that's the impression I gave in my writing, it's not what I meant, so I appreciate you giving me the space here to clarify.

Basically, I yearn for a rational approach to bringing together the ridiculously divided country, and at first glance Jonathan Haidt seemed to be the guy for it. But, experience has taught me that people that come to the table of this discussion and start using phrases like "political correctness" are just another conservative hiding behind a moderate, disaffected mask.

> It's a fair accusation, though I bristle at the use of the phrase "alt-right goon." If that's the impression I gave in my writing, it's not what I meant, so I appreciate you giving me the space here to clarify.

I'm impressed. I'll just note that, psychologically your comment has encouraged me to cool my heels a bit. I think this subject can make us all a bit salty.

> Basically, I yearn for a rational approach to bringing together the ridiculously divided country, and at first glance Jonathan Haidt seemed to be the guy for it. But, experience has taught me that people that come to the table of this discussion and start using phrases like "political correctness" are just another conservative hiding behind a moderate, disaffected mask.

Part of reconciliation requires recognizing when the other party has a legitimate complaint. Dr. Haidt and his compatriots are generally liberals who do believe that conservatives have a legitimate point with criticizing "political correctness". They believe conservatives have a point because they've often experienced it first hand.

Now, regarding your complaint of conservatives hiding behind a mask: is your complaint that they are conservative, or that they are hiding it?

> I'll just note that, psychologically your comment has encouraged me to cool my heels a bit.

Thank you, I try to do the same for myself in such discussions, and it's helpful to know when certain strategies work.

> Part of reconciliation requires recognizing when the other party has a legitimate complaint.

I do think about this a lot. I tend to go straight for the extreme example though, which may make it more tricky to develop effective strategies. Basically, when a bunch of self-identifying nazis/white supremacists turn up in your town, what is the "effective solution?" Basically, is reconciliation even appropriate? And if it is, how do you reconciliate when you don't believe they have a legitimate complaint, as in the case with nazis? How do you even have a dialogue without in some way legitimizing their belief system (a belief system one finds distasteful)? And further, how do you scale this to public discourse, which consists of bad actors strewn in with real people all mixed together on twitter/reddit/facebook in an indecipherable mess of shilling/fake news?

Which brings me to your question - I think, both. That they are hiding it because it annoys me when people co-opt legitimate complaints, i.e. when people accuse someone of anti-semitism for simple criticism of the government of Israel (which then devalues instances when we can criticize actual anti-semites). But, also, yes, because they are conservatives, and despite the fact that (or maybe because of the fact that) I grew up in the deep red south, I genuinely cannot separate modern alt-right ideology from the desire to bully and hurt people. I don't even know what non-alt-right conservatism is anymore - all I hear from my Texan and South Carolina friends is anger that minorities are getting represented, anger that transgender people can use whatever bathroom they want, anger at someone for being proud to work at planned parenthood...

I see angry liberals too, but maybe I just have an easier time ignoring them because they're just "the fringe crazies" to me? Perhaps because I can find a great deal of liberals to have conversations and disagree with, but I legitimately have not found someone who self-identifies as a conservative / altright / supportive of the current administration that didn't also think some people are worth less than other people, which to me removes all possibility of common ground / reconciliation.

Now that I think more about it, such people (friends in Texas for example), when shown the pain their actions or words can cause to a transgender person (as an example) start to completely move away from the entire altright ideology (and because there's no modern conservative that isn't altright, that means they become liberals). A transgender person passing without any of us knowing, suddenly revealing their transgender status (this is years ago), led to a total "crossing of the aisle" for several of my friends that had earlier in my life been big fans of "locker room talk" type behavior.

But that's not reconciliation, that's conversion. So, I need help figuring out reconciliation. Or, I need everyone to convert, and if that's the case lord help me if I'm wrong.

> and because there's no modern conservative that isn't altright

This is a rather amazing claim, I would be very interested in seeing some supporting evidence, since alt-right has far more in common with the left than with any proper and traditional conservatism. Unless, of course, you define "people I don't agree with" as alt-right with no regard for what they ideology might actually be.

I agree, it is amazing. This is my experience, though. I have even had the issue talking with my old-guard Republican representatives in Texas, who have transmogrified into hateful parodies of the conservatives they used to be. We used to merely disagree on fiscal policy, now they send me emails telling me that as a liberal, I am radical, insane, an anti Semite, and hate America.

If there are conservatives that don't engage with the world like this, I want to get a drink with them, on me, because I've lost hope.

I'm very curious what ties you see between the alt right and the left. I don't define the alt right as "people I disagree with." There's plenty on the left I disagree with - anybody engaged in violence, for starters.

I believe you could just as well conclude that these people are not conservatives by any reasonable stretch of the word, too. But then, "liberal" doesn't quite mean what it used to as well.

People at The American Conservative [0] might be religious nuts but I don't think anyone could in good conscience accuse them of being anywhere near alt-right.

And alt-right engages in identity politics, believes in primacy of the group over individual, see "enemies" behind every tree, and want to use the State against groups they dislike. Very much like the left. And while you would not want to meet either on a dark street, both, in US at least, are, generally, clowns who would be the first ones to be sent to the camps in the Reich, or USSR, or any other shining example of what happens when either come to power.

[0] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/

Well, why is it every elected official in my home state is exactly as you described? Where are the actual conservatives hiding?

Probably the same place real liberals are... not getting elected because two-party system and primaries make it so the more outrageous people make it to the elections.

> now they send me emails telling me that as a liberal, I am radical, insane, an anti Semite, and hate America

Political rhetoric has always been inflamed. I see it from my liberal west coast politicians. I see it from friends and family. You yourself have said that all conservatives are alt-right.

> If there are conservatives that don't engage with the world like this, I want to get a drink with them, on me, because I've lost hope.

The truth, I suspect, is that they are probably all around you. Most people are not particularly introspective or philosophical when it comes to politics, but if you dig in you'll generally find there are good reasons for them believing the way they do (even if, in the end, you find those reasons unconvincing).

Dr. Haidt has done reasonable job (as a liberal) of trying to understand the conservative mind. I also recommend Arnold Kling, an economist who wrote The Three Languages of Politics, and Thomas Sowell, who wrote A Conflict of Visions.

I should also add that there is an increased intensity with some of the rhetoric, but I think that has more to do with people (on both sides) sensing that we may be undergoing a shift in the political landscape, and that more is at stake than usual. If so, it's not the first time it's happened in U.S. history (they happen approximately every ~40 years, from what I've read). Hopefully it will pass in a few years, but we'll see.

> Basically, when a bunch of self-identifying nazis/white supremacists turn up in your town, what is the "effective solution?"

What do you do when your community faces large numbers of outsiders from a culture that holds antithetical values from your own? I don't rightly know. In general I'd say the best approach is to try and avoid that situation to begin with.

> I see angry liberals too, but maybe I just have an easier time ignoring them because they're just "the fringe crazies" to me?

Fair enough. As a long-time resident of the Left Coast I'd say that our situations are largely reversed.

> I legitimately have not found someone who self-identifies as a conservative / altright / supportive of the current administration that didn't also think some people are worth less than other people

I don't know what to tell you. I do consider myself a conservative in the Russell Kirk/Thomas Sowell sense: i.e. I believe there is such a thing as Human Nature and that it is subject to certain limitations. I don't think this entails that some people are worth less than others.

It's worth bearing in mind that when Haidt refers to problems of "political correctness", he's not talking about polite society, or political rhetoric, or what's allowed on television; he's talking about universities specifically, based on his own experiences (and Bret Weinstein, and Nicholas Christakis, etc).

In his latest book, Haidt clarifies that there are legitimate roles for activism, solidarity, and taboos; his argument is that the activist telos is at fundamental odds with the telos of universities as truth-finding institutions.

If you want a serious definition of political correctness:

The censure or suppression of speech which is deemed to offend the dignity of select classes of people, regardless of whether the speech is in fact true.

That is where political correctness differs from defamation, which is inherently deceitful.

Did you just make up that definition? The only result on Google is your comment.

Is the wording my own? Yes. However, I don't think I am by any means equivocating or redefining the term here.

When people criticize political correctness, their complaint is generally that they are prohibited or reprimanded for saying things that are true (or might be true) but may be offensive to particular classes of people.

The goal is generally not to actually offend people, but to preserve a society in which truth, even uncomfortable truth, can be discussed.

EDIT: If you look at Wikipedia[1] you'll find that my definition matches almost precisely in meaning to the definition listed there.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Okay, just clarifying.

You are in fact redefining the term. Which isn't an issue, it has been redefined many times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness (Which I see you've edited to be included in your response). My problem with your definition is that it obscures the fact that "political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative, whereas your definition gives it a more neutral, clinical meaning. If we were discussing religious dogmatism, it would be the difference between "devout" and "puritanical." Your definition obscures the normative usage of the phrase, and can lead to people talking past each other.

I am not redefining the term here. There is no bait-and-switch. I am entirely consistent both with the Wikipedia article and with Dr. Haidt. Yes, the term is often used in a negative sense (and, to be clear, I think political correctness is bad) but it's original connotation was positive. My definition was consistent with both.

The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided, or if I applied it in an inconsistent manner. Neither I nor Dr. Haidt do this.

EDIT: so there is the pejorative and non-pejorative sense that is worth addressing. As the wikipedia article says, it is used in a pejorative sense when used to refer to situations where the suppression of potentially offensive speech is deemed excessive or unwarranted.

I (and Dr. Haidt) do use it in that sense, with the clarification that by "excessive or unwarranted" we specifically mean "without regard to the truth or falsehood of the speech expressed". That is the best way to summarize how the term is actually used in modern parlance with a great deal of consistency, particularly by groups such as Heterodox Academy.

Anyone who has a negative visceral reaction to the use of the phrase "political correctness" needs to be sure that they can understand and address that meaning of the word. It's not just a general "boo" word, but one with specific content and describes a real phenomenon.

I should've expanded on my example more, since Anglo-American history is not universally taught around the globe.

The Puritans were a more radical branch of the Church of England, famous for their early role in the American colonies. "Puritanical," according to Wiktionary, has two meanings: one referring to things related to the aforementioned group, and the other to "Precise in observance of legal or religious requirements; strict; overscrupulous; rigid (often used by way of reproach or contempt)."[0]

Of course, one could argue that this is an adequate synonym for the word "devout." However, saying the Pope is devout is very different from saying the Pope is puritanical (and, given the word's history, somewhat ironic). It is technically correct, similar to your definition.

> The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided

Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad?

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puritanical

> should've expanded on my example more, since Anglo-American history is not universally taught around the globe.

No worries, I actually live in the States and I have Puritan ancestors. I just don't think your analogy is correct.

Let me see if I can reconstruct your analogy in a way to show why I think it fails.

We can think of two definitions for "puritanical":

A) Devout (neutral connotation)

B) Excessively dogmatic (negative connotation)

In this case, (B) is the more correct definition because it captures the connotation. You claim my definition is closer to (A), whereas I think mine is closer to (B). Namely, by highlighting the fact that the suppression of speech is done "without regard to it's truth or falsehood" I think that's a pretty clear red flag.

Of course, this is more or less consistent with how it was originally used by the people who originally coined the term and had positive associations with it.

> Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad?

Sorry, typo. I meant "pejoratively referred to policies as 'politically correct'".

I'm not sure how well that technically fits - even putting aside euphemismitic misappropriation of the "People don't like it when you hurl terms of abuse at them and think you are a jerk - how unfair!" there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance.

> even putting aside euphemismitic misappropriation of the "People don't like it when you hurl terms of abuse at them and think you are a jerk - how unfair!"

There is of course a vast gulf between expressing uncomfortable truths and active ridicule. If you would like some examples, I'm sure Dr. Haidt's speeches are replete with them. Many other well-spoken liberals academics (such as Dr. Steven Pinker) have also addressed this.

> there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance.

Simply being outside the Overton Window of whatever politics are at play in a given society is not sufficient to be politically incorrect. "Politically incorrect" wasn't even a term in the political lexicon in the way it is today, so anachronistically applying an incorrect definition is of course going to lead to aberrant results.

If you would like another source aside from myself, I present the first line from the Wikipedia entry on Political Correctness:

>The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.

That the term gets used often enough to complaim about people being upset at being referred to in outright slurs is the whole point. The term is connotationally polluted as said usage is associated with those who are either unself aware or disingenuous.

In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Histor...

Being totally outside the overton window may effectively the same thing - although it may receive the handwave "offensive all of proper society" or similiar. Especially back when obscenity laws were in force in naked defiance of the first ammendment.

> That the term gets used often enough to complaim about people being upset at being referred to in outright slurs is the whole point.

The whole point? You think that Dr. Haidt is just pining for the days when he could refer to ethnic minorities with whatever racial slur he pleases?

> In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point.

The Fine Article points out that the term was obscure until probably the late 80s/early 90s, so hardly part of the "political lexicon". But I'll grant you that if you want.

However, at no point in it's history has political correctness meant "the range of acceptable political ideas". Again, I point you to the definition of the term at the top of the page.

> "Political correctness" is so thoroughly abused as an alt-right general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does here is make me question the institution as just another alt-right organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "rationality" and "free speech."

"Racism", "bigotry", etc. are so thoroughly abused as left-wing general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does is make me question the institution as just another Marxist organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "compassion" and "fairness".

Btw, what makes someone alt-right? Just curious.

Alt right is broadly a split faction from traditional conservatives towards ethno-centric populism and anti-liberal values.

Thank you for answering the question. If I may probe further, what is the distinction between traditional conservatism and ethno-centric populism? Do traditional conservatives also hold anti-liberal values, or is there a substrate of liberal values shared by both traditional conservatives and progressives that does not include the alt-right?

Obviously these are fuzzy terms, with different definitions based on who you ask. I would say left and right are two different approaches to the project of small-l liberalism; left wants to move rapidly and make high-risk/high-reward changes, while right wants to move more cautiously and not risk eroding previous wins of stability and liberty. (That's setting aside personality and "moral matrix" differences somewhat, as described by Haidt and Lakoff, and focusing instead on the historical tension between the two political cultures in the context of 20th/21st-century American democracy.)

The actual alt-right (exemplified by Richard Spenser, Jared Taylor, etc) are those who stand in opposition to classical liberal principles, even if it's more measured and nuanced than historical ethno-nationalism ("race realism", etc).

(As an aside, I've always enjoyed Noam Chomsky's assertion that he's "one of the few real conservatives out there", in his staunch defense of Enlightenment principles, civil liberties, opposition to state violence, etc.)

That said, left and right have been drifting apart for the last 20-40 years, and having a harder and harder time finding common ground, as political party identity becomes more salient than American identity. On paper, we agree on certain shared values; yet when one tribe is asked what the other thinks, they're often convinced that the opposing tribe does not share those values whatsoever.

I would say the difference is between holding the status quo versus forcing it down a certain avenue, often subverting established norms and rules of the government.

But it’s all subjective so do what you do

Reply on news.ycombinator.com