Hacker News Reader

Comment by lliamander | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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'".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com