One of the points I made in the OP is that political correctness degrades people's character. They cannot tell their honest opinions, so they become insincere. — Ilya B Shambat

I think you are referring to the false definition that characterises 'PC' as something negative, so that it may be attacked, and thereby dismissed. Politeness has a strongly positive purpose; trying to force others into doing it 'your way' is strongly negative and unconstructive. If you are arguing against the coercive behaviour, I agree with you completely. If, on the other hand, you seek to maintain freedom of speech as the freedom to insult, then I disagree. Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile.

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults. And that's its point and purpose. Address the message, not the messenger, and politeness will get you wherever you want to go, with complete honesty, but without conflict. Politeness avoids conflict. — Pattern-chaser

I find it more problematic to assume that people are "ideal(ly rational) agents," so that we don't address why they might believe what they believe. People believe all sorts of things due to psychological quirks, due to a lack of knowledge, due to reasoning problems, etc. Their life histories, backgrounds, circumstances, etc. are all relevant. It's a big mistake to assume that personal facts and beliefs aren't entwined.

Agreed. ... But does your post offer a reply to mine, or just a continuation of the discussion? I see only the latter. Maybe that's because I'm reading it wrong? :chin:

Well, so we need to address the messenger, too, not just the message, and many things we might need to say to the messenger could be seen as an insult.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. “PC” are rules about what you can and cannot say. It is the attempt to force people to talk in a certain way.
If you have a dfferent way of defining “PC”, then you are free to commit to your idiosyncratic definition but I dont have to use it that way, I didnt mean it that way and I dont think anyone else does either. “Politically correct” is exactly about controlling language, which words can be used and in what places.

“Politically correct” is exactly about controlling language, which words can be used and in what places. — DingoJones

If that is true, then I wholeheartedly support your opposition to it.

Wikipedia says "The term political correctness is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race." I think this describes reasonable consideration for others, and I see no reason to do anything but support it.

Wikipedia carries on to say "In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted." If such attention is actually excessive and unwarranted, it is not justified or justifiable, in my view. If such behaviour is coercive, it's probably wrong. It makes no worthwhile contribution to anything.

But there's one thing we should consider (and maybe after considering it, we will reject it): is it OK to force people to treat others decently? If these people are currently not treating people decently, there appears to be a problem, a wrong-doing. But if we try to force such people away from their bullying practices, are we justified, or are we showing that we are no better than they are? Perhaps the core question here is this:

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? :chin:

I dont think your quite getting it. If the point at which you are on the issue is figuring out what “PC” means, you need to do more research. Take a look at the things that actually get done in the name of “PC”. It is in theory and in practice about some people forcing other people to talk in certain ways. Even if this is to enforce “polite” engagement, it is still forcing people...and its forcing one persons views upon another since not everyone agrees about the importance of being polite, the value of being polite, what is considered polite and what kinds of things are not polite by necessity.
I understand where your coming from, but I think you are perhaps missing the bigger picture. Its not just about people not being nice when talking to each other, and its not just about suggesting people do things in a nicer way.
I would politely invite you to look closer at this issue, and hopefully my previous posts will make more sense.

Yet political correctness exists — ssu

There are various things labeled political correctness, all of them were called something else in the past.

For example Stephen Pinker argues that freedom of speech is important and universities and science shouldn't make censor findings that seem politically incorrect — ssu

There has always been censorship and various reasons why something is censored. Censorship in the name of political correctness is only one form. It is not as if those who are anti-PC don't practice their own forms of censorship.

Pinkers arguments do show that this isn't just an invention of the American right. — ssu

People have always had standards of acceptable speech and behavior. It is not just those who are labeled PC who censor. The problem is that the condemnation of censorship spills over into a condemnation of PC. This is a more subtle and sophisticated form of censorship. Whatever someone who is labeled 'PC' is dismissed because they are, well, PC.

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? — Pattern-chaser

It depends on if you are talking about intolerant speech, or intolerant actions. Intolerant speech is an unfortunate by-product of free speech, and free speech is very, very important and very much worth the cost. Intolerant actions on the other hand have no such parallel. There is no good reason I can see to allow intolerant actions, such as not giving people jobs based on race or refusing them service at a restaurant based on political views.

I dont think your quite getting it. If the point at which you are on the issue is figuring out what “PC” means, you need to do more research. Take a look at the things that actually get done in the name of “PC”. It is in theory and in practice about some people forcing other people to talk in certain ways. Even if this is to enforce “polite” engagement, it is still forcing people...and its forcing one persons views upon another since not everyone agrees about the importance of being polite, the value of being polite, what is considered polite and what kinds of things are not polite by necessity. — DingoJones

You don't think I get it, but you are posing a specific example relating to my question:

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

In this example, you ask whether it is appropriate to force people to be polite? The first thing to note is that all human societies impose certain restrictions on their members. Murder (not being allowed) is a common example. There are many others. There is no point bewailing the 'wrongness' of this, if that is what we feel. Humans, acting collectively, do things like this. This is; what ought to be is a different matter. So the only real issue in this example is: is politeness an important enough thing that society would add it to the list (murder, child abuse, etc)?

So I think I do get it. Whether politeness should be enforced depends upon the perceived benefits it delivers. And this is not a logical/factual decision. Societies 'think' and act according to (human) social principles. In philosophical terms, we should apply the label 'subjective' to such decisions.

And yet the intolerant speech, and the thinking/opinions that lie behind it, enable and permit the intolerant actions you decry. :chin: I think this is why many civilised nations identify hate speech as something unacceptable, and use it to limit freedom of speech where it is spreading or supporting hate.

Here in the UK, during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland and Eire, the key to stopping the violence was in defusing the enabling behaviour of those who would never plant a bomb, but would speak out in favour of the cause(s) of those who do. The silent majority (if we can call them that) where the ones who had to be won over before the killing could be stopped.

If you permit "intolerant speech" in the name of 'freedom of speech', you permit the passive, enabling, support of "intolerant behaviour". You might decide freedom of speech is important enough that we should do this. I disagree. Happily, my country does too. Mostly. In theory. And sometimes, in fairness, in practice.

You don't think I get it, but you are posing a specific example relating to my question: — Pattern-chaser

Yes, I was taking you up on your new question/discussion after making my points about the other part of the discussion. I thought you were posing a related query. Hence the seperate posts.
You go on to ignore the distinction between speech and actions that I made which addresses what you said. This sort of ignoring and conflating makes it difficult to communicate. I mean...all you did was repeat what you previously asserted and declare that you do in fact get it. Yes, I concede you know what YOU mean, YOUR view in the matter. What Im suggesting you dont fully understand is what IM saying, the point I am making. Further, you dont fully understand the issue with “PC”, as demonstrated by your doubling down of your position which Ive pointed out is in too narrow a scope.

From the Cambridge English dictionary:

politically correct
adjective
uk ​ /pəˌlɪt.ɪ.kəl.i kəˈrekt/ us ​ /pəˌlɪt̬.ə.kəl.i kəˈrekt/ abbreviation PC
​
Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.
​
A politically correct word or expression is used instead of another one to avoid being offensive:
Some people think that "fireman" is a sexist term, and prefer the politically correct term "firefighter".

Thesaurus: synonyms and related words

Polite and respectful

chivalrous chivalry civility civilized civilly couth deferential deferentially euphemism gallant gallantly gracefulness graciously graciousness keep a civil tongue in your head idiom polite tactfully urbane urbanely well mannered

[All highlighting mine.] I'm not trying to cite a dictionary as an authority, but simply as a good description of political correctness as a positive thing. I don't insist that PC is always right, or that it is always correctly applied ( :wink: ). But I suggest that PC is a Good Thing overall, and that any problems it brings with it can be easily and politely dealt with. :smile: :up:

You go on to ignore the distinction between speech and actions that I made — DingoJones

Yes, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. Because (intolerant) speech enables, permits, supports and encourages (intolerant) actions, the two cannot be separated. The speech (sometimes) gives rise to the actions, so if you permit (intolerant) speech, you also permit the (intolerant) actions with which it is indivisibly associated. Drawing the distinction is unjustifiable and incorrect.

I do not agree. Its seems entirely possible to make that distinction, and dubious not to. They are different things and should be treated as such. Not doing so is a clear attempt to muscle in speech as something we already make heavy restrictions on, like murder or child abuse.
Id like to add that this is done by proponents of “PC” in order to abuse the authority that combating actions like murder or child abuse affords. Misapplying it imo, to force other people to talk the way they want just as ive already described.

So you don't accept that intolerant speech enables, permits, supports and encourages intolerant action(s)?

Not in any way that means it should be treated as indistinct from peoples actions, or in any way that is especially different than any other speech about anything else. We do not give people first place in a race for talking about getting first place in a race, nor a medical license for talking about saving people with medicine. You have to DO something to get those things, just like you actually have to DO something to be judged for your ACTIONS.

There can be a big difference between insulting someone and just saying something which they don't want to hear.
— S

Exactly. :up: Politeness disallows the former, while facilitating the latter. — Pattern-chaser

No, the latter clearly isn't consistent with politeness as normally understood, as my example shows. It doesn't facilitate saying things which people don't want to hear, it restrains it. Try going around and speaking your mind to people about their appearance or what you think of them. Try calling people ugly or badly dressed or unintelligent. See how they react. You think they'll agree that you're being polite?

Politeness isn't whatever you want it to be, and it doesn't do anything you want it to do.

You are lying to yourself, I suspect. You want to make politeness be a good thing to the extent that you're lying to yourself about where it can be not such a good thing, and you're dismissing the points I'm raising as a result. That's not reasonable.

Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. — Pattern-chaser

An obvious false dichotomy.

If you have a dfferent way of defining “PC”, then you are free to commit to your idiosyncratic definition but I dont have to use it that way, I didnt mean it that way and I dont think anyone else does either. “Politically correct” is exactly about controlling language, which words can be used and in what places. — DingoJones

I made a similar assessment of what he's doing. He's talking about cats in a discussion about horses.

I understand where your coming from, but I think you are perhaps missing the bigger picture. Its not just about people not being nice when talking to each other, and its not just about suggesting people do things in a nicer way.
I would politely invite you to look closer at this issue, and hopefully my previous posts will make more sense. — DingoJones

Yep. He's not thinking outside of the box. He actually just seems to be kind of unthinkingly cheering the box from the inside.

No, DingoJones, politeness good. You not know this? Be nice to people, DingoJones. You no be violent. Violence bad.

It's a bit like speaking to a child or someone with special needs.

I'm guessing he would struggle with Nietzsche.

No, Nietzsche, morality good. You no go beyond it. Christianity good. You not know Christ died for our sins? No, Nietzsche, you no reevaluate values. Values good.

Lol, you just cant help yourself can you? I am surprised that more discussion about humour hasnt been brought up. Comedy is one clear area where PC is focused on. What people are and are not allowed to be entertained by.

Lol, you just cant help yourself can you? I am surprised that more discussion about humour hasn't been brought up. Comedy is one clear area where PC is focused on. What people are and are not allowed to be entertained by. — DingoJones

I couldn't resist. :lol:

And yeah, I thought about honesty, freedom and comedy almost as soon as I saw the term "political correctness". These are three very important things which can clash with political correctness. Political correctness can mean being dishonest, repressive and dull.

If only we were all more dishonest, repressive and dull, the world would be a much better place?

But I suggest that PC is a Good Thing overall, and that any problems it brings with it can be easily and politely dealt with. :smile: :up: — Pattern-chaser

The irony is that this can be very jarring. I don't want a stupid smile and a thumbs up. I would rather you let loose and gave it to me straight. I'm not a delicate little bone china teacup, so don't treat me like one.

So the only real issue in this example is: is politeness an important enough thing that society would add it to the list (murder, child abuse, etc)? — Pattern-chaser

I would think the answer to this is "of course not"?

Who gets to judge politeness? @S is offended by your use of a smiley face emoji. Should that be a jail worthy offense?

You keep referring to "intolerant speech" but aren't there just a couple of very specific types of "intolerant speech" that you think should be banned? I am no free speech absolutist. I can't see any significant way that Germany has suffered due to limited speech related to Nazism. I have no problem removing confederate statues (I don't even count that as a free speech issue, but some do). But you seem to be taking it MUCH farther.

Who gets to judge politeness? S is offended by your use of a smiley face emoji. Should that be a jail worthy offense? — ZhouBoTong

Lock him up and throw away the key. :smile:

If it is still not clear, here is what is at issue. In the words of Trump, from a tweet in response to the suspension of Fox News host Jeanine Pirro.

Bring back @JudgeJeanine Pirro. The Radical Left Democrats, working closely with their beloved partner, the Fake News Media, is using every trick in the book to SILENCE a majority of our Country. They have all out campaigns against @FoxNews hosts who are doing too well. Fox .....

Fox must stay strong and fight back with vigor. Stop working soooo hard on being politically correct, which will only bring you down, and continue to fight for our Country. The losers all want what you have, don’t give it to them.

According to Trump, under the sway of political correctness, Fox News has somehow aligned itself with the "Radical Left Democrats" and "their beloved partner, the Fake News Media" to "SILENCE a majority of our Country".

The "fake media" aka "enemy of the people" and Democrats have joined forces to silence the majority through political correctness. The irony, which I am sure is lost on the majority of Trump supporters, who wrongly believe they represent the majority of the country, is that Fox has become Trump's propaganda machine. He is bothered that one of their biggest Trump supporters has been suspended and wants to set them straight. He wants to control the discourse through the media and resorts to one is his favorite tricks - accuse others of what you are guilty of.

Fox News is not caving in to political correctness, they are simply concerned that they will loose viewers and sponsors. Trump uses it as an opportunity to discredit legitimate news outlets, Democrats, and those who do not picture all Muslims as the enemy by making it about "political correctness". His concern is not with free and open discussion, but with silencing all those he sees as his enemies; convincing his followers that his enemies are the enemies of the people.

Fox News is not caving in to political correctness, they are simply concerned that they will loose viewers and sponsors. — Fooloso4

Not that I agree with Trump overall on this, but "concerned that they will lose viewers and sponsors" is what is meant by "caving in to political correctness" isn't it?

Not that I agree with Trump overall on this, but "concerned that they will lose viewers and sponsors" is what is meant by "caving in to political correctness" isn't it? — Terrapin Station

If it were something Trump and his supporters did not like they too would, and have, threatened to boycott. Except they would not call it political correctness when the media outlet caved.

If it were something Trump and his supporters did not like they too would, and have, threatened to boycott. — Fooloso4

Just curious if there are any examples of this.

Ah I just thought of one possibility. The Kathy Griffin thing, although I don't know how we could make that fit the concept of political correctness really.