The psychology of political correctness

There was an earlier topic here entitled, "The lack of diversity [in] Sociology Research" that covered some of the same ground you refer to here. I take those articles very seriously.On the other hands, people whining about accusations that Trump's speech was xenophobic... not so much. It seems to me that those accusations are just the two sides each complaining about the other sides language.

I can easily link the first and the second third issues. Being anti-capital punishment and pro universal health care are completely consistent views of the expected relationship between individuals and the state.But on the issue of secular education, I would suggest is only a liberal issue because conservatives have made it so by opposing it. There is nothing particularly liberal or conservative following the provisions in the constitution.In short maybe the only politics involved with separation of church and state is that politics introduced by the right. One might equally well ask why opposing AGW is a conservative concern.

quote:

---

There was an earlier topic here entitled, "The lack of diversity [in] Sociology Research" that covered some of the same ground you refer to here. I take those articles very seriously.
  —NoNukes

---

Yes, and it didn't get a single response. I wondered at the time whether that what evidence in itself......EvC Forum: The lack of diversity is Sociology Research

I think it is of course. I know I wasn't going to touch it until it got underway.

The topic is fine. I don't think anyone believes political correctness is "just the paranoid delusion of right-wing loonies." But one definition being promoted in this thread *is* "just the paranoid delusion of right-wing loonies." Wikipedia defines political correctness like this:

quote:

---

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term primarily used as a pejorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society; in pejorative usage, those who use the term are generally implying that these policies are excessive.

---

It also echoes things said here:

quote:

---

Commentators on the left have said that conservatives and right-wing libertarians pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism. They also argue that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which are generally ignored.

---

Unfortunately the Google Books excerpts of the book you referenced, Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm, don't include its definition of political correctness, but it is clear they define it more broadly, and a broader definition seems appropriate.I define political correctness as just normal, everyday social coercion. The natural human predisposition to conformity allows the opinion of any sufficiently large group to become the norm and thereby dictate proper opinion and behavior.--Percy

My lack of familiarity with the topic made it difficult to respond. I thought the article you cited raised interesting questions, but I have no familiarity with the environment conservatives in the field face.

Please see the following, starting around 9:00 in and almost to the bitter end: video1 video2Sorry, too soon for youtube. I just want to say I believe trigger warnings have the potential of being overused, and when that happens, it diminishes appropriate circumstances. This is an example of overuse.Perhaps a cultural thing?Edited by anglagard, : question mark at endEdited by anglagard, : avoid argument by website.

Snopes calls Emory University story mostly false.

quote:

---

WHAT'S TRUE: Students at Emory University gathered in protest after pro-Trump graffiti appeared overnight; administrators investigated the graffiti as it appeared outside designated areas for chalk markings.

​

WHAT'S FALSE: "Emergency counseling" was offered to or demanded by students; Emory students complained that their "safe spaces" had been violated; students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.

---

sourceDiscovered via PZ Myers at PharyngulaI would be remiss in my duty if I failed to report The Nightly Show and, by extension, myself, were had.Just shows how this discussion is indeed fraught with difficulty when trying to distinguish fact from fiction when so many have some hidden agenda.Like a pleasant stroll through Mos Eisley Spaceport, "one must be careful."

Yes. Exactly my point from earlier. People who mock Trigger Warnings don't understand what they are or how they are used so they get hysterical and start swooning to the point of not actually verifying stories that vilify the thing they are sure its meant to be cool to hate.I don't even think the original Trump 2016 chalk story/Fox News lie had Trigger Warning stuff in there. I think that mean-spirited addition to the mythology was the Nightly Show.That somebody would think a comedy show was a source of good information astounds me. Also - I'm surprised somebody thought the Nightly Show was a source of good information.

I first joined EVC after I discovered it while researching a claim by my 7th Day employee concerning the flying ability of pterosaurs (yes, their bones are hollow like birds). Since then I have used it as a discovery tool, have been schooled, and am the better for it. For example, while wavering over the death penalty and free speech rights concerning the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church, jar set me straight and now my ideas on both subjects align perfectly with his. To jars credit he did not chastise me further or gloat but rather welcomed me to the fold.Likewise after an ill-considered joke and much research, I have come to the conclusion that nearly all instances of - not just trigger warnings but also of any example of political correctness - overblown by the mass media. For that I largely have Modulous and Snopes to thank for a necessary realignment.While jar is gracious in victory, Modulous so far is not as the following suggests:

quote:

---

That somebody would think a comedy show was a source of good information astounds me. Also - I'm surprised somebody thought the Nightly Show was a source of good information.

---

Contrary to Modulous' assertion that I find comedy shows a reliable source of information, I was simply pointing out the debate had even hit the Nightly Show. Clearly my own subsequent post citing Snopes providing a mostly false verdict on the entire Emory University phenomena shows what I consider a reliable source.OK Modulous here it comes:Thank you for schooling me on this important topic. I deeply apologize for any vitriol I displayed toward you in previous posts. You were right and I was 'mostly wrong' in the vernacular of Snopes.While I still believe such political correctness nonsense can exist and be abused as such, my research indicates any such claim on the part of the mass media should be met with the severest skepticism.Once again, thank you Modulous.

Well thank you for asserting that this is only suggestive. Although a mild rebuke was intended (and I think we'd all agree that Faith would get rebuked for poor information source choice to a greater degree), and part of that barb was intended because of my earlier presentation of the proliferation of 'comedy' shows on youtube mocking a strawman, real trigger warnings and not much else, but after all that is said - I should note the primary barb was aimed at a target other than you:

quote:

---

That somebody would think a comedy show was a source of good information astounds me. Also - I'm surprised somebody thought the Nightly Show was a source of good information.

---

The first sentence was meant to lull you into thinking I was talking about the Nightly Show when I said 'comedy show'. The second sentence implies I was not talking about the Nightly show in my first sentence. Therefore I was calling Fox News a comedy show. Har har, right? *Gracious tip of the hat*It is few that seriously reconsider their position, and fewer that publicly admit to so doing. You are commended and applauded, sir.

quote:

---

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?

---

I think Donald Trump is simply a (closet) 9/11 Truther who really really hates the CIA. He came super close, in February 13 South Carolina debate, to mentioning the fact that the CIA's Inspector General said that 60 CIA agents (and the FBI) knew about Khalid Muhammad Abdallah al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Muhammed Salim al-Hazmi being in the USA for over a year (and their plans). The media choose to only make an issue of his fight with Jeb over Bush's failures, but Trump sis seem to express disgust at the "failure of the CIA to talk to the FBI" standard excuse.Trump knows that ISIS is CIA funded (he is good friends with Jesse Venture as he has been since WrestleMania 4 on March 27 1988) and he is surely aware of Scott Bennett tracing the ISIS funding to over 1000 CIA Swiss bank accounts.Trump might be sincere in his anti-free trade views, but he isn't sincerely anti-immigration. Obama has deported millions (more than every previous president combined) and Trump is just using rhetoric and language that will be meaningless if elected. He has already admitted that he will allow amnesty once the wall is built (truthfully the wall is almost there already and there is no practical difference).Trump is just using anti-pc tough guy rhetoric and it worked. He won the SEC primaries (that started on March 5). He won every southern state except Cruz' Texas. I can't believe he pulled it off!Trump is against this phony "China threat" b.s. (where the USA is supposed to need to "defend" Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, and the Philippines against "big, bad China" ; thankfully India won't play this "we fear China", "we need an alliance" game), against this crappy alliance with an ever aggressive (Libya invading) NATO, against the (ever so exploitative)CIA and (corrupt, bigoted, tyranical Sunni)Gulf states going after the Druze and Alawite minorities in Syria, and against going after Iran (he supports the Iran deal!).Trump will tear up the warmonger Hillary Clinton if he can manage to fight off the GOP. He can't take her on now because he could offend (too many)GOP primary voters he needs to get to 1237.Trump made a big mistake for going after the anti-union (and other) policies of Scott Walker (who is loved by a legion of powerful right-wing talk radio hosts in Wisconsin), and he got eaten alive. He needs to be careful.Trump is simply a Pro-Life liberal (with libertarian anti-war views) IMO.I'll admit that I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but he is really awesome in my estimation.

Yikes.

LamarkNewAge writes:

quote:

---

Obama has deported millions (more than every previous president combined)

---

Incorrect. On multiple levels.First, the term "deportation" isn't used anymore. Prior to 1996, there were two measures: "Excluded" and "Deported." "Excluded" meant those trying to enter but were stopped. "Deported" was the expelling of those who had made it in.After 1996, those two were combined in a single measure called "Removal." This is part of the reason that some say Obama has more than all other Presidents combined...previous Presidents are having the "Excluded" numbers not included while Obama is having his included, artificially increasing his numbers. More importantly, "Deported" doesn't have a meaning anymore except in a colloquial sense.But, that's 1996. Clinton and Bush were after that date. But even then, the terms changed. Prior to 2006, if you were caught before entry were categorized as "Voluntary Departure." That is now known as "Return" which also includes a category of "Reinstatement." Then there are also the "Expedited Removals" that don't appear before the federal court system.In addition, Bush and Obama report their numbers differently. Bush combined Removals and Returns while Obama only dealt with Removals. Here are the numbers from 2001 to 2012 (from DHS):

Year	Removals	Returns	Total
2001	189,026	1,349,371	1,538,397
2002	165,168	1,012,116	1,177,284
2003	211,098	945,294	1,156,392
2004	240,665	1,166,576	1,407,241
2005	246,431	1,096,920	1,343,351
2006	280,974	1,043,381	1,324,355
2007	319,382	891,390	1,210,772
2008	359,795	811,263	1,171,058
2009	391,932	582,648	974,580
2010	383,031	474,275	857,306
2011	388,409	322,164	710,573
2012	419,384	229,968	649,352

While Removals are up, Returns are down and the combined numbers are down in total. And in recent years, Removals are at major low (from ICE):OK...the picture isn't loading correctly, so here's the link: [ Image fixed. --Admin ]The claim that there have been more "deportations" under Obama than all other administrations combined is simply false.Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix image.

All that tells me is that, on top of being a monumental piece of shit, he's also a lying piece of shit who panders for votes.... but he wants us to believe that he's not a "politician?" Nobody can believe it. Trump comes across as mentally unstable and the kind of guy who would absolutely use the military as his personal mercenaries to settle scores with anyone that crosses him. He's a megalomaniac and an attention whore who will take part in anything that gets his name put up in lights.