The psychology of political correctness

I guessed correctly that one of the authors was Jonathan Haidt. Does that count for anything? Probably not, this is precisely what he studies and talks publicly about all the time.

quote:

---

The six foundations

​

Values and their opposites

​

Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

---

wikiFor reassessment this is a good talk:
https://youtu.be/ONUM4akzLGEThere are others, he's quite a prolific speaker so enjoy.

Also, I think the mistake is to thinking that all self-identifying Conservatives as extreme examples of Conservatism, such as Faith. It might be availability bias if liberals actively seek out people to argue with, its likely they'll speak with the argumentative more than the reasonable or quiet. Also liberals in forums do like to skip over reasonable sounding Conservative arguments if there is an insane one to eviscerate in their own personal style

While I expect the thread to devolve into some sub argument liberal vs conservative at some point as potshots turn to bickering, it might be nice to discuss the reasons the paper proposes. The study was intended to some extent as a test of The Moral Foundations Theory as well as just data collection and analysis.The Theory predicts that since liberals focus on three area of moral concern whereas the conservatives focus on six the liberals were more likely to misunderstand a conservatives morals stance as they would consider 'ingroup loyalty' and 'purity' concerns as they manifest in notorious cases, suggests to them that deep down conservatives don't care about fairness, liberty or harm.

quote:

---

Finally, we found some support for the hypothesis that conservatives would be the most accurate, which they were in the case of the individualizing foundations. In line with Moral Foundations Theory, liberals dramatically underestimated the Harm and Fairness concerns of conservatives. These findings add to the literature on moral foundations by demonstrating a novel form of pragmatic validity [16] for the theory: conceptualizing and measuring the moral stereotypes people have of different social groups.

---

They do also spend some time discussing their sample, which they acknowledge could not be considered a representative sample and reasons why this might not be as bad as it sounds. This is worth noting, but while there are many interpretations of the results, Haidt has a Theory that at least makes sense of the data.Have fun

Not so much here, I feel. And maybe it happens the other way just as much, but I have seen points ignored in favour of pursuing proof that the Conservative is a villain or foolish in some way on sites of a more political slant.

I hope you never experience a trauma which gives you PTSD. If you do, I hope you don't suffer with obsessive and compulsively reliving the trauma when presented with material other people think is innocuous. I hope this does not dissuade you from any ambition to improve your education.

Well, thank you for adding 'insulting my intelligence' to the list of social offense. I am aware of this, but it doesn't change that your joke relies on misunderstanding its own subject matter in order to be funny. Which it isn't anyway.Furthermore the joke punches down. You haven't identified someone stood a pedestal and thrown rotten fruit at them. You've found someone lying in the gutter and pissed on them.There can be humour here, but it's usually mean-spirited. Please note, I was not offended. I am now upset with you because despite me in quite a kind fashion telling you that trigger warnings are used to help people avoid experiencing profound and debilitating mental health crises NOT about protecting sensitivities or avoid offending people - you carried on with the core misunderstanding that your 'joke' relied on to try and defend your posting it.Would the joke be funny if it was about providing 'Allergy Warnings'? Like is it funny that someone with a potentially lethal chronic condition surrounding coming into contact with nuts? Is it funny if a school or college campus sends a message to all pupils asking them to avoid as much as possible, bringing nuts onto site.This is funny? Would it be funny to suggest that people with chronic hypersensitivity just eat a bag of nuts and get over it?Or is it only funny when the person's mind is hypothetically swelling up and killing them - safely out of sight? Trigger warnings do not replace content. They are appended to it so that people with chronic mental health problems can CHOOSE whether they want to confront those issues, rather than being surprised by them and having to have a highly personal mental health crisis in front of their peers.That you would bring up the word censorship in this context is worrying.Am I censoring you? No. I am criticising you. If this is why you brought up censorship then I say that if you want to speak in a free society, you are the one that should take Prof. Chris Rock's class - because it's going to happen An American saying this to a British person? Now that's punching up.

---

If you have the urge to complain about the contents of this post - please bare in mind that initially I pointed out that your comments may not have been awesome and why in the kindest possible fashion. This post right here is a response to your defensiveness on this.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And you also came close to landing the dismount. We judges will judge Then you haven't been paying attention. Message 1 - 'Umour The Eighth
Message 20 - The abdominal snowman
Message 23 - six pack sasquatch
Message 25 - 's no man
Message 29 - Liars and horses and bears (oh my!)
Message 290 - he calls me tk421 when no-one is aroundI litter my posts with jokes, the odd pun, alliteration, cultural reference etc., quite regularly. I was awarded the Fray Grant for being such a pun gent. I have the world record for blending custard creams with jelly - and that's no trifling achievement! It's just Timur. You are anglagard the mobility privileged.Besides Timur was Irony in Khanate: He was powerful and is dead, so that's fair, right?That last question contained a pun.That's just gold. Come on?^* Not quite, but close. Jimmy Carr does do this, but he also intertwines analysis of comedy into his routines and his punching down is typically only to add tension to the wordplay to comic effect. Frankie Boyle relies on delivery more heavily, and it gets him into a lot of trouble...delivery doesn't come across in quotes for one thing.I didn't say it was impossible. But it is difficult and in most people's hands it simply comes across as mean spirited. I don't think that's their typical style. They are usually referred to as being irreverent and anti-establishment. Take the Twit Olympics. They could have made the routine almost identically and called the 'Retard Olympics'. Somebody probably has. But they chose to take the mickey out of a stereotype of the upper class. Not watched much but I think most of the humour comes out of the pretensions of the staff and innuendo. You mean Flowery Twats? The exact opposite. Basil is almost always the one that comes out looking bad (and Cybil to a lesser extent). The major and the ladies may be punching the old, with stereotypes....so to speak, but they are portrayed as basically lovely people who Basil is sometimes mean to.Ultimately Basil Fawlty is the owner of a cheap hotel that is just about in site of the English Riviera. He hires foreign and part time staff, and has pretensions for running the kind of hotel that attracts 'a bit of class, not the normal riff-raff'. He's the archetypal British snob acting above his station...a pedestal we the audience like to see him knocked off as his lies and misdirections all fall apart around him. It's also fun because we feel for him because he tries and the absurd ironies of the farcical environment interact with his own poor character to prevent him. Did I say Basil was the ultimate Archetype? Hyacinth Bucket may be a competitor. It's just I don't find it that much fun. Richard is the only character played by someone who can act well, which doesn't help. And change the rest of the joke too. But yes! There is some humour in the absurdity that comes out of lawyers telling people its better to put a warning on. Like a bag of peanuts with 'may contain nuts' on it.Maybe a gun with a trigger warning? Well we both agree, so decided to avoid quoting and saying 'indeed' or something. I was drawing attention to the fact that mental health problems are just another body health problem. Making these people the targets of the joke, rather than your real target, excessive use of trigger warnings, is comparable to making jokes at the expense of people with somatic conditions such as peanut allergies. I feel cracking jokes while in the middle of explaining to you that it wasn't funny and why your response was upsetting to me might have undermined my point a little. If I came across as 'hysterical' might I point out that I initially simply hoped you wouldn't get PTSD and have it affect your life - the message could have left there, a polite rebuke if ever there could be one. You got all whingy about me getting offended and how it was a joke, suddenly express distaste for censorship and rail about not preserving the sensitivities of the few and then called me a stuck up prig.I did warn you to keep this in mind before you complained, so I gave you fair warning on that. When you include 'intentionally' I know with a huge degree of confidence this is false. Brownie points? Who the hell is here that I care about their brownie points?I was hoping to persuade you to target your humour away from people with psychological conditions. Indeed, humourlessness and hysteria don't earn brownie points around here. In this, social...political at times...climate perhaps there is a correct way for me to have gone about doing this that would have not caused you to call me names, elicit a number of PMs from others and perhaps damage my reputation here at EvC?Perhaps you can tell me what the Politically Correct way for me to have done that was. Bam! Back completely on topic after a divergence into British comedy. I am good

---

^* Timur, in old Turkic means 'Iron'

quote:

---

The problem is you are using the appropriate narrow definition of trigger warnings that is likely used in your nation and I am condemning its overuse to avoid the truth and censor content in this nation.

​

I think we are actually speaking past each other because we are actually debating two different subjects.

---

That makes sense of this.Those aren't called trigger warnings. They're just warnings and dumb disclaimers and the like.They're stupid, but they're something utterly and entirely different. And that's not a cultural thing. I don't think anybody calls the things you seem to referencing 'trigger warnings'.

OK, let's try that: Depressed/Suicidal edit *TRIGGER WARNING*
Seems to be a video about suicide and suicidality. Trigger warning very much correctly used. Trigger WARNING
Seems to be a video where two smug gits mock other people going through traumatic mental health crises. The kind of attitude I was arguing against in this thread. Social Justice Warrior Gets Rekt [Trigger Warning]
Is used ironically, again. Trigger warnings demean feminism. Here's why.
The quick look I took indicates they think that experimenting with ways to reduce anxiety for some people in large crowds, suggests that all women are wilting flowers. Or something What's The Deal With Classroom Trigger Warnings? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
Seems to characterize trigger warnings as I do. TEACHER TOUCHED ME | TRIGGER WARNING
Seems to be a personal tale of sexual assault. Appropriate use. I FORGOT TO TRIGGER WARNING! ( I'LL TRY TO TRIGGER WARNING FROM NOW ON! I'M SORRY )
It's seems to be an annoying dudebro mocking Trigger Warnings by misunderstanding them the same way previous mockers have. *TRIGGER WARNING** ~Self harm~ Suicide~anorexia~Depression~
Self explanatory and correctly used. "Trigger Warning" by Karina Stow (CUPSI 2015)
A poem. Seems to understand the concept as I do. Trigger Warning: Your Ideas Don't Have Rights
A discussion/interview. It's half an hour so I didn't watch enough to get a sense of things, but Peter Boghossian has publicly denounced trigger warnings previously so I suspect that the theme of the discussion. My cutting story *trigger warning*

Seems appropriately used. suicide / depression edit (trigger warning)
Seems to be consistent with my usage. Knife Party - 'Trigger Warning' OUT NOW
Marketing for a music album Trigger warning self harmSuicidal/ depression edit TRIGGER WARNING
Appropriately used. Star Wars Trigger Warning
Humour about a world of excessive and evenly applied Trigger Warnings Trigger Warnings in College Classes?
Seems to be using the textbook definition - literally - they flash it up on screen and everything. Dave Rubin on Free Speech, Safe Spaces, and Trigger Warnings
Doesn't apparently talk about Trigger Warnings. TRIGGER WARNINGS -- We the Internet Sketch 1
'Comedy.' Seems to be mocking trigger warnings. It makes the same confused mistakes I have argued against here. The teacher tells a Jew she should avoid Merchant of Venice. This isn't a Trigger Warning its the right wing fear that people are being mollycoddled (which doesn't generally apply when the subject matter is religion, for some reason) London Thinks — Trigger Warning!
Seems to be an academic discussion on Trigger Warnings at University. Its 90 minutes so haven't even seen a representative enough of a sample to give more than this.I may be wrong on some of these, maybe a few appear to be one way but are actually the other as a 'twist' that gets revealed at the end, or the creator may be a famous parodist or something.Nevertheless, it seems to be a series of videos about depression and self harm labelled up as self harm, a few comedy videos mocking a disfigured understanding of trigger warnings, Some discussions that appear to be discussing actual Trigger Warnings (some pro some con), a poem and an album promotion.I don't see anything to the degree of warning about evolution being real or just a theory, hard maths in hydrology, trigger warnings in climatology discussions...stuff that anglagard referenced.Maybe you could provision me with your first page of results on youtube so that I can see what you mean?

dbl pstEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Lind defined it as Cultural Marxism. Whether you agree with him, given the links he proposes it would be absurd to call someone a Marxist on these grounds. The Frankfurt School criticized Marxism as much as well as using ideas from it. That's not Marxism and 'Marxist' is a term that means something specific. By calling people Marxists when what you mean is multiculturalists or whatever, then what you are doing is not speaking English. Ultimately though the Frankfurt School were philosophers. They had ideas about ideas and analysis about analysis. They synergized seemingly disparate ideas to see what happened. Sometimes interesting things came out of their work, and others that followed them. Some ideas grew in popularity and perhaps they influenced policy from time to time. This is free speech and democracy. Not a conspiracy to ruin America. Karl Marx was basically silent on the issue.
Engel was against homosexual rights, but thought they would inevitably come anyway.
Stalin criminalised homosexuality.
East Germany was actually better than West, but it was still illegal there. Same sex was "alternatively viewed as a remnant of bourgeois decadence, a sign of moral weakness, and a threat to the social and political health of the nation" {Hrm, that sounds like what the Right Wing are saying. Holy cow, are the right wing of America actually the communists???} A book which is both critical of Marx and Freud can hardly be called Marxist.
I know you would prefer to live in 1955 western civilization, but I can't think many people would. We're certainly wealthier now. 1955 was the year Eros And Civilization was published and Marcuse argued that repression, particularly sexual repression, was holding civilization backThe idea that Carson, Cruz and Rubio would be contending to replace Obama along with a woman and a socialist would have been a laughable possibility in 1955.The 1957 Civil Rights act hadn't been passed yet, and although racial segregation in schools ought to have been killed dead just last year, the Massive resistance of '56-'58 where racist local governments essentially shutdown the schools depriving thousands of people education rather than allow racial mixture.Whether Marcuse' experiment in fusing a dramatically rethinking of Marx's work (which Marx would have hated) and a rethinking of Freud was right, I think things have improved both from a sexual freedom point of view (not just homosexuals, but allowing women to feel in control of their sex lives and their bodies) as well as many others. Kind of. The term was first used against the field of psychoanalytics for liking homosexuals only when they were believed to be really heterosexuals with an illness, but despising them openly if they believed them to be really homosexual. The term was first used by Weinberg in the above context in the 1960s.Schreber was not a patient of Freud. They never met. And as you say, it was about latent homosexuality causing Schreber's psychosis. Homophobia didn't come up. Huh? Well, let's not forget that the right wing appropriated the term 'Politically Correct' from communism as a means to further smear their opponents as communists.Then the left started using the term ironically in the 70s, as they are wont to do.Then in 1991, George Bush I said:

quote:

---

The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits

---

From that point on really, if anybody suggested showing compassion to others in a way the right wing didn't like they were branded as 'politically correct somethings' You are seemingly still free and not under legal threat for talking. Islamaphobia is using the real problems that exist within Islam as a pretext to treat Muslims poorly, or to misrepresent Islam so as to denigrate all its adherents in some way. Yes we do. But the right wing are bloodthirsty in their opposition, and right wing nationalistic fascists have got a bit of a history when it comes to this so we try and provide a calming environment.Most Muslims want peace, but there are disagreements over what that should look like. Ironing out these disagreements will take time, but we shouldn't spit at Mohammed who works in the local shop just because he has the same religion as some of the crazies, and maybe even agrees with them here and there a little bit.Unfortunately the right typically tells us that the Quran tells Muslims to kill the infidel and that they are allowed to lie with impunity - so we shouldn't trust any Muslims. Which is not an environment in which peace can be agreed.We hate the religion, not its adherents.
The right wing blurs this a little, sometimes to the great anxiety of people. Big money manipulating education is bad. I mean it makes sense. Communism is just Capitalism with one company with a monopoly. I can imagine the guys at the top of the pile might like to accelerate that. But if that was their plan, I hope it was a multigenerational plan. America looks closer to Fascism than Communism right now. Its neither. But the right wing seems overwhelmingly nationalist and authoritarian and rabidly anti liberal and anti-communist. It looks pretty fascist. But its not. I hope.True, very slowly with an acceleration, the people are crying out for more left wingedness in social policies and the pressure is meaning ever increasing left wing social policles are getting through, but it's hardly a rout at the moment. Compare with much of Europe. Most people I speak to, including socialists (who are more common round my parts) laugh at communism as doomed failure. Many even concur that in practice it is simply Capitalism at its logical extreme.I can see how communism as an idea might be coherent in an industrial revolution, but so much of our industry now is service based, with manufacturing done by...the communists and Muslims. This is necessarily true. You are in a campaign cycle, you've inadvertantly defended an adulterer who doesn't know the first thing about Christ and wants to torture people, kick out Muslims, build walls and hunker down. I expect everybody is being carefully manipulated. It's no longer an artform, its a science.

Institute for Social Research, they became known as the Frankfurt School when they had to flee Germany. Well, yes. People are more free now than in 1955. I like freedom. I like that men who want to wear a skirt are more free to do so today than then. I like it that a white woman can marry a black man. I like it that teenagers are educated about their bodies in a non-shaming way (in some states). I like that women have more support when they are sexually harassed, but that they can also show their knees if that's what they would like to do. Yeah, any theory which tries to take credit on its own for the entirety of the sexual revolution is probably bullshit. Their ideas were influential, of course. And yes Marxist ideas influenced them.But I'm confused. In Message 72 you called this:

quote:

---

The Communist Party has an unparalleled history in the progressive movement of the United States, from the struggle against Jim Crow segregation, the organizing of the industrial unions, from the canneries of California, to the sweatshops of New York City.

---

'Propaganda'. Now you want us to believe that the Communist Party was single-handedly responsible for these things through a series of devilishly clever conspiriacies? Yes. I like wearing the occasional skirt when its hot. And I like flirting with boys. Since I don't like getting the crap kicked out of me by the Christian Sharia purity police I'm quite happy I can do these things.Of course, the best thing is: You are free to abide by whatever Judeo-Christo-Islamo rules and regulations you want. That hasn't changed. It's just other people aren't forced to. And apparently if you give people freedom - they use it. Freedom really annoys Conservatives, I find.

No more than I have the freedom avoiding seeing you wearing a cross while you are here. No more than I have the freedom to stop you saying 'Wearing skirts is sinful'. I doubt your grandsons will be thinking of grandma when someone is flirting with them. You know there are ways to settle conflicts like this.So what's your freedom? The freedom to not see people wearing clothes you disapprove of as you walk through their neighbourhood.Mine is the freedom to wear basically whatever you like.So let's see, in your world every single human's personal sensibilities would have to be taken into account. We'd have to be always politically correct in your fashion so as not to take anybody's freedom to not see clothes they disapprove of. Even if you travel to another country. The only way to do this is for us all agree to wear the most blandest unisex clothes in grey or brown or something. In this world, if I wore a pink tunic instead of the grey one, that might be construed as denying another citizen comrade of their freedom and be penalized accordingly.Courting might be tricky. We'd need rules as to which members of family (or close friends) need to be consulted before interactions can occur. These close family members will all list all of the things that would offend them and this is passed back to the potential suitor. Until then all interactions between the two parties must be staid and inoffensive small talk no more than a few minutes in length. Once the instructions have arrived and the suitor knows how to court in a familiarly correct fashion it can go ahead. Although maybe there is a Patriarch of some kind? A religious head that needs to be involved in the decision, to make sure everything follows the party line, I mean is in accordance with God.Sounds pretty much like a parody of Communism.In my version, you can wear a T-shirt that says 'Transvestites are Marxists' and I can wear a skirt. You can wear a cross and I can wear a crimson 'A'. You can stick your tongue out at me and I can bite my thumb. W00t. We disagree with one another but neither of us entered into a power struggle to force the other to conform.You really prefer your freedom to take priority? It doesn't seem to lead us anywhere good.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed"That's my definition. I'm pretty sure that this predates Marx as a principle. Sane rules. Like a man can wear a short piece of material that wraps around both legs, or he can wear material that wraps around each leg separately as he prefers. And women are afforded that same right.The fact that I find white socks and sandles distasteful is no basis for forbidding it. It's your stupid constitution's fault. Article 3 gives me my right to wear a skirt in the USA. In short it says my right to pursue happiness outweighs your right to not be offended by how I pursue my happiness.It cuts both ways. So I can be upset about it, but if I was there's not a damn thing I can do if you teach your grandsons that homosexuality is evil. Your actions would offend me, but your family and your right to pursue happiness and your liberties outweigh anything I've got.Win-win.
Apparently you'd prefer win-lose.

Are you saying that Article 3 doesn't set up the Supreme Court to make decisions on the constitutionality of things? Well, unless we're talking sexual assault and rape we're all good then.