The psychology of political correctness

Finally getting around to replying to the opening post.I can believe that liberals are less accurate than conservatives in estimating the moral concerns of the other. The conservative press and airwaves are full of the most extreme conservative views, ones that probably aren't shared by many conservatives. The liberal press and airwaves consist of pretty mainstream liberal views that are shared by a great many liberals.For example, conservative support has been offered at EvC for Trump's proposal that we should follow Pershing's (supposed) example of executing 49 of 50 prisoners as an example to discourage further resistance, and it drew cheers from the crowd, and probably the conservative press and airwaves have been very supportive of Trump about this, but it doesn't seem likely to me that your average conservative feels the same way.But what are liberals to think conservatives think if their main source of information about what conservatives think is Trump and Fox News?--Percy

I think that when the main source of data is news reports that everyone, both liberals, conservatives and all stripes in between, must recognize that tendencies we think we notice about groups are not scientific and and should be held *highly* suspect until there is reliable data.Going back to your previous Message 27: Your characterization of liberalism seems for like it comes from Fox rather than MSNBC. If there's any general rule for determining general bigotry maybe it would be this: if you're judging people as groups instead of as individuals then you're probably bigoted.--Percy

Absolutely, and orthogonal to the point. Your characterization of liberalism still seems more like it comes from Fox rather than MSNBC. It isn't a characterization of liberalism but of some kind of weird hyper-paranoidism.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

No you weren't. Your next to last paragraph of Message 27 described liberalism as dominated ("so affected") by political correctness.And as I said, your characterization sounded like it came from Fox rather than MSNBC. If the impression of conservatism provided by some conservative news outlets shouldn't be taken seriously, then certainly their impression of liberalism should be taken even less seriously.My original comment was only that conservative news outlets seem to promote a rather extreme brand of conservatism, one that I think many conservatives probably don't endorse, while liberal news outlets seem to promote fairly mainstream liberalism. I hope we're all defending accuracy. By the way, if you were making any assumptions about political leanings, you might be assuming too much. Noting that outlets like Fox display a rather far-to-the-right vision of conservatism makes one a stater-of-the-obvious, not a liberal or even any particular political leaning at all. You didn't have a characterization of conservatives in Message 27 or in Message 29, the two messages I replied to. Imagine that.--Percy

These were your words in Message 27: There's no qualification in that paragraph limiting this criticism to some subset. We can tell now that you must have intended to do that, but as you can see, it isn't there, and I think you still haven't described which liberal subset you were talking about - maybe you can tell us now? Huh? Our knowledge of the entire universe is based upon observation, and we have to qualify and detail and condition nearly everything. I see you wrote this at 12:30 AM your time. Should we just ignore this? Okay, but from everything you've said you believe your opinions are based upon observations, and observation is how we gather facts and weave them into a fabric of understanding. So presumably you believe your observations provide facts upon which you base your opinions.--Percy

Comments about Trump and FOX news are not a "characterization of conservatives." What you claimed in your Message 33) is that your earlier messages (Message 27 and Message 29, you weren't specific so I don't know which one you meant) contained a "characterization of conservatives." Neither does. Read them yourself and see.If you'd like to give your "characterization of conservatives" now then that's fine, but please don't claim you already did and then leer, "I take it my characterization of conservatives was spot on then? Imagine that." My failure to comment on your "characterization of conservatives" was not oversight or tacit agreement or anything else. It was because you never made one.--Percy

First you aim criticism generally at liberalism, then you say it was meant to apply to a subset of liberalism, and now it seems you're casting the criticism at all liberalism again. I'm now very uncertain who among liberals you're criticizing, all of them or a subset.You replied to my original post saying about liberals having a false impression of conservatism because of the extreme views of their news outlets, and since then I've just been trying to maintain my side of the conservation by making sure I understand what you're saying. But the more I seek clarification the more difficult that is becoming. Of course subjective opinions can be "qualified empirically." There's science for one thing, but science wasn't my point. You said observations don't inform opinion, but that's just crazy. Opinions of any validity don't form in a vacuum. Valid opinions are supported by informed and careful observation. Observations of reality lie at the core of opinions. And opinions should be continually examined and recast in light of new observations and of all the weaknesses and missteps we know surround their formation. It would have been politically *inadvisable* (not incorrect) to alienate what should be an important segment of the electorate for him. I don't know what a "Progressive" is exactly, but are the Progressives the subset of liberalism you're criticizing? Or is this again about all of liberalism?The implementation isn't politically incorrect thinking. It's just rational thinking. If you're going to right wrongs, then it makes the most sense to right the biggest wrongs first.--Percy

I'll attempt to translate: NoNukes is saying that if the Communist Party's civil rights and unionism advocacy can be dismissed, then its association with the progressive movement evaporates. In other words, if the Communist Party had nothing to do with "the struggle against Jim Crow segregation, the organizing of the industrial unions, from the canneries of California, to the sweatshops of New York City," then they aren't really associated with the progressive movement.Speaking just for myself, if what that passage said about the issues the Communist Party furthered can be dismissed without evidence, then what it said about the Communist Party's association with the progressive movement can also be dismissed without evidence. The basic principle here is that understanding should be built upon evidence. According to Wikipedia, the Communist Party was active in integration issues and the labor movement.--Percy

The roots of progressivism in the US go back to the 1890's. The Communist Party USA wasn't founded until 1919.Perhaps they had a time machine. --Percy

You said, "The term 'Progressive'...was invented by the CP in the USA..."My post did just one thing: explain how this was not only wrong but impossible, since the term "progressive" predates the formation of the Communist Party USA in 1919.Do you never tire of having to recast your mistakes into a more favorable interpretation? Or of endlessly defending the indefensible, another of your frequent resorts?I'm just looking up simple facts, Faith, something you might try doing yourself sometimes, hopefully before you post.--Percy

When what you mean isn't what you said, how would we know it from when you do mean what you said? You're requesting an impossible courtesy. What choice do we have but to take you at your word, especially when it's unambiguous as in this case, and given your long history of making and defending ad infinitum incorrect statements. This is an obviously false post facto rationalization. Your more complete statement from Message 79 was this: This is plain English saying that the term "Progressive" was invented by the Communist Party USA's propaganda machine. Instead of all these strained rationalizations, why not just say the simple, "I misspoke. I should have said 'used' instead of invented." Then stop saying silly things.--Percy

Uh, didn't you just "do this?"--Percy

I think Nwr is saying that the criticism has to be specific to the evidence, in his words, that one shouldn't paint with too broad a brush. It is wrong for both conservatives *and* liberals to criticize entire groups, including each other, based upon the behavior of a few.--Percy

Uh, okay, more directly this time and in your own words, didn't you just cast the accusation of "pretty much SOP for Liberal PC behavior...'without addressing any of the content?'"--Percy

So when you apply the PC label to those whose thinking is "liberal/leftist," what group are you referring to if not liberals?--Percy