MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Study: 80% of Americans Believe Political Correctness Is a Problem

"Most members of the ‘exhausted majority,’ and then some, dislike political correctness."

DTMartin H. Simon - CNP / MEGA / NewscomExcept among a tiny minority of far-left Americans, political correctness (P.C.) is deeply unpopular. Some 80 percent of people said they viewed P.C. excess as a problem.

That's according to a fascinating survey conducted by More in Common, an international research initiative. The researchers asked respondents dozens of questions about race, immigration, sexism, free speech, and other hot button issues, and then sorted them into seven different categories: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the apathetic, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives. The two conservative categories constituted 25 percent of the total; the progressives, just 8 percent.

Everyone else, according to the researchers, form an "exhausted majority" whose views are not so different from one another, even across racial and gender lines.

"Most members of the 'exhausted majority,' and then some, dislike political correctness," wrote The Atlantic's Yascha Mounk in a terrific write-up of the survey. "Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that 'political correctness is a problem in our country.' Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages."

"Youth isn't a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn't, either," Mounk observes.

The best proxies are education level and income: the most highly educated Americans are more likely to think hate speech is a big problem, but political correctness is not.

I've written several articles for Reason about political correctness and the extent to which a backlash against it may have helped Donald Trump win the presidency. Voters who cited political correctness as a top issue were particularly smitten with the tell-it-like-it-is candidate, and being angry about PC-run-amok was a top indicator of whether a person voted Republican in 2016. Tons of people who wrote to me about political correctness said they voted for Trump specifically because they feel the language is moving away from them too quickly—that everyone is always offended all of the time, and the humble Trump voter simply doesn't know what to say in order to survive in our newly woke culture.

It's always tempting to make too much of this, because many of the people who were most upset about political correctness were probably going to vote for the Republican candidate regardless. But More in Common's findings add credence to my sense that downplaying the concerns of the anti-PC supermajority is a bad campaign strategy for any would-be Trump challenger. "Progressive activists" have a lot of cultural cachet, but there just aren't very many of them. As Mounk put it:

The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election.

In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real, when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

Take a look at the full survey here.

Photo Credit: Martin H. Simon - CNP / MEGA / Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I have a difficult time believing these results. The President of the United States is an Islamophobic racist misogynist, and most of the country believes the real problem is people like me who demand to be spoken of in third person with they / them pronouns? It just doesn't add up.

  • Rossami||

    Oh, it adds up. And it fundamentally reinforces the point of the article - that you have no understanding of your own neighbors.

  • Red Tony||

    This is a pretty good post; understated, but exactly how an (optimistic) progressive would respond. Good job.

    (If you want to know how an angry prog would respond, read a Kirkland post. Any Kirkland post. They're pretty much interchangeable.)

  • NashTiger||

    OBL always makes much better points for Progs than Kirkland or Tony do. It's quite sad

  • buybuydandavis||

    A little rationality sneaks into his parodies
    It's hard to feign crazy

  • newshutz||

    OBL has picked up "liberal/libertarian" from RAK.

    I hope that RAK is a parody.

  • Nardz||

    Well said, OBL!
    I too am skeptical of this poll result. If it were true, it'd mean most of the country is composed of terrible people - as I've been assured by folks such as chemjeff status quo collectivist that PC just means being polite.
    Is the country really so full of omnibigots and multicists?

  • Nardz||

    Lol!
    I swear, hadn't read past OBL's post and my own reply until now.
    How did I know exactly what cj was going to say?
    It's standard progressive self-righteous schtick, used to deflect and simultaneously virtue signal in the most pretentious way possible. That's how.
    The hive mind is strong in some.
    Keep reading.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    is people like me who demand to be spoken of in third person with they

    I like to be referred to as "your highness", but sometimes comes out as "you're heinous".

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    I ... me

    contrasted with

    who demand to be spoken of in third person with they / them pronouns

    Sorry bro. F-. Try to be more consistent.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    And it really sucks that scum like you that makes up the other 20% wields such disproportionate power.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Robby would say he is in the 80 percent, and rightfully so. But within that 80 percent there's probably 30 percent that say they don't like PC, but will #believeallwomen, not understanding that that bullshit is also PC.

    Most are anti PC when it suits them

  • Cyto||

    The loudest PC police may be that slice of the 80% who are deathly afraid that they will be next on the pyre if they don't signal their subservience. They are definitely the most dangerous group, since they are the ones who march PC over the line into something that must be enforced in all aspects of life.

  • Here for the outrage||

    The enablers

    Put Reason in that category

  • vek||

    Yup. The crazy prog minority, through their control of 95% of the media either convinces people like Robbie to actually believe their madness, or gets them to be too afraid to speak their mind. In a world with balanced media alone most of the Reason writers would probably be more sane and nuanced on all these prog issues.

    People need to get the courage up to just say No to crazy demands. I do. Including when I'm talking with trannies I know and everything. A chunk of them are a lot more open to a sane discussion than one would imagine, even on things they personally are effected by.

  • Ryan Frank||

    Same people: I don't understand how Trump won!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is an interesting survey, Robby. Thanks!

    I do think this survey lends credence to the idea that the idiots running around saying things like "free speech is violence" really are just a small vocal minority, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, they should be taken seriously because scores of progressive politicians are, and have been, articulating that they should dictate the parameters of free speech.

  • mmmjv||

    You mean like with Florida dictating what Doctors can and can't ask their patients? Or Donald Trump forcing department stores to put up "Merry Christmas" signs?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How did Donald Trump force shopping malls to put up Christmas signs?

  • Here for the outrage||

    That small vocal minority = every mainstream liberal media outlet

  • Dace Highlander||

    So a small vocal minority shouldn't be taken seriously, but Bob from Wooley swamp with his Sunday Bib overhauls on represents the entire Republican voting bloc. Gotcha.

  • JesseAz||

    Some random conservatives on Twitter talking about a pizza parlor is equal to the senate and media demonizing kavanaugh to Jeff. He isn't that smart.

  • Number 2||

    What it lends credence to is the notion that those who base their perceptions of public opinion on what they see on Twitter are likely to be 100% wrong.

  • GILMORE™||

    "the idiots running around saying things like "free speech is violence" really are just a small vocal minority"

    If that small, vocal minority happens to be heavily concentrated in areas like academia and media, their influence can be wildly disproportionate to their numbers

    coincidentally, this is also exactly the case in this instance

  • JesseAz||

    20% is 70 million people dumbfuck. 20% is also about the same percentage of global Muslims that support terrorist states. No problem there either, right?

  • Ordinary Person||

    If it's good politics being politically incorrect then how is it being politically incorrect when say Trump does it. He's not taking a risk. He's giving people what they want. He's conforming to social pressure.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Did someone at least pollsplain to respondents what we mean by political correctness? Has everyone agreed on a definition?

  • Hank Phillips||

    PC is usually mistranslated. The actual acronym expands to Politically Communistic. This is easily verified by going down any list of such expressions and searching for live examples with a search engine. All of the straight-faced examples turn up in the efforts of intellectuals of the looter persuasion. Only communists can torture English in that manner without giggling or tossing their cookies.

  • Cathy L||

    Sure, almost everyone is against political correctness when the survey doesn't define it and you can assume it's all the stuff you don't like, not the stuff you do.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, that too.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, that's true of most surveys though. Like when people are asked, "Do you think the country is going in the right direction?" You have a billion directions people can believe in.

  • Just Say'n||

    Pretty sure people become aggravated with political correctness when they are forced to mouth made-up pronouns that don't even make any sense.

    There's a difference between people not liking things that are offensive and people getting offended over innocuous language.

    I know a lot of people want to play the game of "well, you're also PC because you don't like commonly offensive terms, which is a form of PC". When in reality, people don't like normal language, that is not indicative of any malice, being reclassified as offensive in order to please the Woke Religious adherents.

    Sorry that your faith isn't popular, but that doesn't make other blasphemers.

  • Cathy L||

    Remind me how popular Colin Kaepernick is around here.

  • Just Say'n||

    Is his kneeling during the anthem meant to express derision?

    I really could care less about that fiasco, but it's a stretch to suggest that that is PC when his protest is meant to express derision. People get offended by derision, even when they foolishly defend a piece of fabric.

  • TuIpa||

    You mean thd guy who knelt because he was salty about getting benched?

  • CLM1227||

    No... he sat because he was salty about being benched. He knelt after getting caught being salty and said he sat because of BLM.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    CK knelt because he needed something salty. He then opened his mouth.

  • JesseAz||

    Political correctness is based in general beliefs and statements. Kaepernick is just an individual asshole. What don't you get here Cathy?

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    How often have you been forced to use a pronoun that was different from what you thought you should use? Is this really a big problem?

  • EscherEnigma||

    If Trump voters were really as anti-PC as they claim, they wouldn't have cared about Clinton's "deplorable" comment.

    Truth is, there are few folks that genuinely like getting insulted and slurred. Most folks talk offense when that stuff is directed at themselves. They just don't think of it as "PC" when they get offended and tell folks to stop saying that. It's only "PC" when someone else gets offended and tell them to stop saying it.

    That said, this whole thing is ridiculous. The only way you "stop PC" is by policing people's language and stopping them from voicing their offense and disassociating from people they find offensive. Which is, of course, just a different kind of "PC". All you've done is flip who you're telling to curb their tongue.

  • Cathy L||

    This.

  • JesseAz||

    Is stupid. Probably why you agree.

  • Bubba Jones||

    In your head, PC just means not aggressively insulting someone?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In my head, PC means avoiding insulting someone, whether the insult is intentional or not.

    I do think that there are some people who are way too sensitive about some slights that really aren't slights at all.

    But the broad idea I think is reasonable. I.e., it's impolite to tell the religious/ethnic/sexist jokes in mixed company.

  • Microaggressor||

    Well that's just common sense.

    But the reason the survey wound up with this 80% figure is because of how frequently PC has been overstepping its bounds and used as a tool to silence reasonable people. Turns out, people aren't too happy living in a Stalinist-lite environment where anything they say can get them in trouble for the stupidest reasons.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But the reason the survey wound up with this 80% figure is because of how frequently PC has been overstepping its bounds and used as a tool to silence reasonable people.

    Or it could be that the survey wound up with this 80% figure is that unreasonable people saying offensive things don't like being called unreasonable.

  • Libertymike||

    How about the head football coach at the University of Massachusetts being suspended, without pay, for 1 game because he opined that his team "had been raped" by several bad calls made by the officials in UMASS's loss to Ohio University?

    Anybody who took offense to the coach's words is manifestly impolite, offensive, and utterly unfit to live in a free society.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You're really proving my point about the people who are "against PC" are just "PC" in a different direction.

  • Libertymike||

    No, you are misfiring.

    If an analphabet negro takes offense to any person, particularly a honky, using the term niggardly to describe another's level of generosity, and then demands that the person should be fired, it is not "PC in a different direction" to regard such a negro as manifestly dopey and retarded and stupid and uncivilized.

    Note, I am not advocating that anybody should be fired or suspended or shut down because they manifest profligate progressive PC.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Like I said, proving my point. You want to police people's speech and pressure them to stop talking in ways you don't like. You just don't want to call it "PC".

  • Libertymike||

    How am I policing people's speech and pressuring them to stop talking in ways I don't like.

    Misfire. A field goal attempt that is 20 yards wide left.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It means progtards need more beatings so they understand their place. Amd their place is as loser hippies who get a beating when they open their fucking mouths.

  • Just Say'n||

    Remember when you were a boof truther?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Remember when you were a boof truther?


    Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you seriously misunderstood my statements that Kavanaugh had repeatedly lied to the senate before Ford's name hit the media.

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    Do you think that maybe you're exaggerating a few instances of people overreacting into something much larger than it is?

  • Cathy L||

    No, PC means "things other people think are insults that I don't think are insults."

  • Just Say'n||

    Not really. I know that you can't even right now, but "deplorables" has always been associated with a negative connotation. PC language is recasting a word that has no association with malice as somehow now being unacceptable for illogical reasons that are rooted in sola fides.

  • Cathy L||

    That's your definition of PC. That's great. You have no reason to think it's the definition of any of the other people who took the survey, let alone all of them or even a majority of them.

    I bet a bunch of people thought political correctness was discouragement from saying things they think are innocuous, regardless of whether it represents a change from past practice.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe. I generally discount sociological studies as a rule, but I feel pretty confident that PC is not popular.

    What it does is take language that isn't rooted in malice and reinterprets them as offensive. It is more akin to a religious sensibility than anything else. A person who is offended by phrases like Hispanic or someone assuming a pronoun are really no different from a Muslim being offended by the drawing of the Prophet Muhammad or a Christian being offended by the cross being turned upside down.

    No one would think that turning a cross upside down or drawing a picture would be considered offensive without the religious connotation background. Much like no one would find it offensive to assume someone's pronoun based upon their physical appearance is offensive without the religious connotation background.

    PC is the taboos expressed by a very insular, very wealthy, very white collegiate faith.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Yes, liberalism is the new religion, and it brings with it all the annoying taboos and prudishness of religion.

    You're better off debating the existence of god with a Jehova's witness than debating politics with a liberal.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Best we cleanse ourself of our progressives.

  • EscherEnigma||

    PC language is recasting a word that has no association with malice as somehow now being unacceptable for illogical reasons that are rooted in sola fides.


    So when I tell my nephews to not use "gay" or "fag" to mean stupid, I'm not being PC?

    That's the weirdest thing I've heard so far.

  • vek||

    There are multiple correct meanings IMO. I think his idea covers some, whereas your meaning is true too.

    By any meaning I fight PC wherever I find it. I use gay/fag as an insult all the time. I'm always stoked when I hear college boys using it too, because it means the progs haven't got to all of them!

  • EscherEnigma||

    If I had to reduce it to a one-liner, I'd probably say "politeness and respect", but yours isn't terrible.

    That said, please look at my third paragraph. Regardless of what you think PC is or isn't, that remains the real issue. You can't stop being from being "PC" without policing their speech even more.

  • Dillinger||

    can I leave their bizarre re-definitions uncorrected and at the same time continue to call their kids retards?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sure. It's a free country.

    What you can't do is publicly call their kids retards and expect no one to chastise you.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    sadly your version of politeness and respect amounts to kowtowing to the whiniest, most oversensitive interpretation your average prog can imagine (generally on behalf of others) regardless of actual offense taken.

  • dan'o en barrel||

    I'd say you're conflating 2 things. Politeness standards have always existed and tend to evolve slowly. PC is a movement to immediately broaden those standards and punish non-adherents. Attempting to hijack a cultural value to turn it into a club with which to beat political opponents has been an exclusive boon for those wanting to promote their victim-hood and others who want to publicly broadcast their moral virtue.

  • vek||

    This. What they miss too with most of their banned words, is it isn't the word itself, it's the fact that whatever thing being discussed itself is inherently offensive. Retard, mentally handicapped, and special all started out being proper words. They all became an insult, because to a person of regular + intelligence being a retard IS insulting! So they can never win, without literally eliminating ANY word to describe being gay/retarded/tranny/fat/etc.

  • VOTE MILES||

    This.

    If people don't like or respect something, it doesn't matter how many words you ban. A new word will be employed to convey the idea. Slurs are easy to coin. All you have to do is look at people's efforts to avoid the censoring tools in online discussion boards to see this.

    Of course, the point of the effort is to control thought. And that's why PC is resisted and why it will fail.

  • Robert||

    I thought PC meant failure to consider large swathes of political opinion as worthy of discussion.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Suddenly, polls are not accurate.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If that's what you got from my comment, then you don't understand my criticism.

  • TuIpa||

    I don't think you have a coherent one.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Wait, what's going on here? I've been assured that I'm Tulpa! How can this be!

  • Azathoth!!||

    If Trump voters were really as anti-PC as they claim, they wouldn't have cared about Clinton's "deplorable" comment

    They embraced it.

    It's's 'PC' when someone's wanting it enforced at the end of a government or authority held gun.

  • Sevo||

    "If Trump voters were really as anti-PC as they claim, they wouldn't have cared about Clinton's "deplorable" comment."

    Non sequitur

  • Here for the outrage||

    PC people think hate speech is violence. That's how they get the government involved.

    Nice straw man of the deplorables. Most of them embraced the usage. That's the difference between the two sides

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If only there were some other thing going on in society that might help guide is in identifying the dangers of PC culture beyond people saying something mean and someone else getting offended by it. Maybe there's an action at the end of the chain of events that might make people wary of PC culture.

  • JesseAz||

    Calling you an ignorant dumbass is a matter of politeness,not political correctness. Deplorable is the former, not the latter.

    Making me deny basic biology and call you zhe and other newly made up terms is political correctness. Making me claim there is zero difference between males and females is political correctness. Making me believe various groups can make different choices leading to different outcomes, but this being racist is political correctness.

    Everything you said was based in ignorance of what political correctness is.

  • vek||

    Preach it brother, preach it!

    I won't even back down to be polite on most of these topics anymore. People doing so out of politeness is what got us in this situation in the first place. I straight up explain (mansplain?) to chicks faces that men and women are not equal or the same in the majority of ways. Many of them don't take it as badly as one might think.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Progressive activists" have a lot of cultural cachet, but there just aren't very many of them.

    They don't need numbers to influence the broader social narrative. Trump's ascendancy is really just a reaction to the outsized influence these people have, because they're far more vocal and utterly relentless in using their allies in the mass media, entertainment, education, and increasingly, corporate industries to push their agenda into a legalized framework.

    People on the whole may not like political correctness, but like all institutions, anything that doesn't explicitly and continually reject the pressures of the left will eventually be co-opted by it, because it's easier to just go along and hope the Jacobins will leave you alone.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's interesting to think about where different people here would fall in the seven categories that the study created to analyze people.

    – Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
    – Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
    – Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
    – Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic,conspiratorial.
    – Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
    – Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
    – Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising, patriotic.

  • Echospinner||

    Where are libertarians in there?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Statistical outlier.

  • Hank Phillips||

    = )

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I figured we would be classed as "traditional liberals," but I could be mistaken.

    From the look of the determining questions, they are too either/or for a proper libertarian. (The police one, for example.)

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah I think libertarian is more or less "traditional liberal" as defined by this survey.

  • Dillinger||

    fighting being grouped?

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Where are libertarians in there?""

    the survey isn't trying to segment people by political ideology other than in the broadest, bi-polar terms.

    the distinction between 'engaged/devoted/activist' and 'passive/moderate' is a far more important qualifier than whether a person happens to be a 'small govt conservative' or 'big govt conservative' (neither of which was split out either)

    the approach they take is super-common in consumer-marketing segmentations, and i think it makes sense for the analysis they're conducting. the fact is that the vast, vast bunk of people are not organized by political philosophy, but by vague 'cultural tribes' of affiliation, and then subsegmented by 'degree of political engagement'.

    shit like whether they care about the NAP is irrelevant in that sort of categorization.

  • GILMORE™||

    "bunk" = 'bulk'

  • Cathy L||

    Looking at the questions they used to determine people's tribes, there are a number where I would equally agree with both sides of the "dilemma" as well as a number where I would disagree with both. An example of the former: "Sexual harassment is commonplace nowadays" vs. "Nowadays, too many ordinary behaviors are labelled as sexual harassment." An example of the latter: "The police are often more violent towards African Americans than others" vs. "The police are mostly fair towards people of every race."

  • Eddy||

    "The police are often more violent towards African Americans than others" vs. "The police are mostly fair towards people of every race."

    Oh, for crying out loud, those pollsters are basically pushing the narrative of either you're a race-monger or a pro-cop flag-waver.

    What about if you don't like the way cops abuse "civilians" of *all* races?

  • EscherEnigma||

    What about if you don't like the way cops abuse "civilians" of *all* races?
    Then you're a hippy and they're gonna go all Kent State on you.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Guess I'm a weirdo, I don't fall into any of those pigeon holes.

  • Eddy||

    Oh, come on, just pick one of the following TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC categories for you to belong to:

    "Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
    – Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
    – Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
    – Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic,
    conspiratorial.
    – Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
    – Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
    – Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,
    patriotic."

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    I'm making my own small category:

    -Classic Liberal: secular, educated, globalist, anti-tribe, anti-conservative religion Islam/Xtianity

  • Inigo Montoya||

    For once, I 100% agree with you.

  • JesseAz||

    Except Palin doesn't realize he is a zealot in his religion of a benevolent state.

  • Cyto||

    No classical liberal would join that category.

  • Griffin3||

    largely self-educated, whether in-school or a non-school environment.

    It's amazing to me, how some people can spend several decades in the real world, and learn nothing from the experience.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Watching teevee is not the real world.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    " anti-tribe, anti-conservative religion Islam/Xtianity"

    Sorry, you can't be both of those things. Anti-conservative religion Islam/Xtianity is itself a form of tribalism,

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    I'm in the category that thinks pollsters can go fuck themselves.

  • Dillinger||

    totes.

  • vek||

    Definitely my own personal mix of those things. Labels are never perfect, but I'm fine with right libertarian, or conservative leaning libertarian. They're close enough to getting my general leanings across.

  • SIV||

    Pol Pot was on to something when he had anyone who wore glasses shot.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Yet another way that guy may have been the biggest asshole of the past several decades.

    Maybe it's just my inner nerd coming out, but I've come to realize that damn near everyone looks better with glasses. It's like a person instantly gains both IQ and style points. And as long as the frames match the face, glasses make men and women handsomer/prettier.

  • JesseAz||

    You've never watched girls w glasses porn.

  • vek||

    Lol

    Makes a fella wonder what happened to the number of people requiring glasses statistic in the next generation. I bet Cambodians have better eye sight now!

    And glasses don't make people better looking, but they don't necessarily make them worse looking either.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    I like to use the word "retard" (especially to describe people like LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789) and don't care that it became politically incorrect sometime in the last few decades. There was a time it was used very casually.

  • Don't look at me!||

    People used to use a lot of offensive terms very casually " back in the day". Great time to be alive if you were a straight white male. Others, not so much.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah but when society requires that one replace "retard" with "differently abled" or some other PC term it has gone too far.

    "Retard" has a specific meaning that became toxic.

  • Griffin3||

    "differently abled" has a specific meaning that is not true or correct. It makes discourse confusing, it creates irrational hopes, and makes everyone dumber for having listened to it. And yet, here we are.

  • vek||

    That's because being retarded is itself insulting. Calling somebody a retard offends because nobody wants to actually be a retard. Calling somebody a stud does not offend because being a stud is fine.

    The left misses the fact that ANY word they invent will become offensive. Just like calling them special did.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "People used to use a lot of offensive terms very casually " back in the day". Great time to be alive if you were a straight white male. Others, not so much."

    Right, because back in the day, straight white males loved being called things like uptight and outta sight, square, honky, cracker, wop, kike, mick, kraut, limey, and pollack.

  • Don't look at me!||

    See how awful it was?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yeah, but they could have nudie calendars, cigars and whiskey in their offices and no one cared. And no one questioned it if you pinched a secretary's bottom (assuming it was a woman, anyway. Having a male secretary would just be weird, and pinching his bottom might get you fired).

  • ||

    Right, because back in the day, straight white males loved being called things like uptight and outta sight, square, honky, cracker, wop, kike, mick, kraut, limey, and pollack.

    Personally, I've always loved that people are socially/emotionally damaged by the word 'faggot' but 'motherfucker' just means that someone is mad.

  • vek||

    Sorry, as a straight, white, male, I'm keeping the flame alive on all the old insults. The racial ones included. When progs went overboard it forces a backlash that will make people go "too far" back the other direction. I'm fine with being part of that backlash. A nice example might be

    That beaner faggot Jewed me at the Mexican restaurant, he forgot my sour cream! What a retard!

  • Eddy||

    The insults were the least of it - don't forget stuff like Jim Crow and the like - on that we've made progress (except for the ethnically exclusive dorms some colleges are experimenting with).

    Language is still coarse, it's just that you fired over different stuff nowadays - stuff that might raise an eyebrow or two at one time is now a firing offense and stuff that once was shocking and beyond the pale in respectable circles is now a badge of authenticity.

  • ||

    There was a time it was used very casually.

    It actually is, or was, the PC term. A person's mental facilities were hindered from their expected or normal progression. Thus slow or retarded. Dunce, imbecile, lunatic, dullard, half-wit, man-child, etc. were equally applicable but were low(er) brow.

  • ||

    Lots of former PC terms are now expired and no longer PC. "Negro" used to be the PC term, for example, which was replaced by "Black," and then by "African-American." "Hispanic" used to be the PC term before "Latino." It's almost as if, as Carlin once said, it's not the words that are the problem - it's the racists.

  • ||

    It's almost as if, as Carlin once said, it's not the words that are the problem - it's the racists.

    I don't recall the quote from Carlin, I hope/expect he went on to explain that it was the 'bad racists' or the 'mean racists' rather than people who just regard people of a different race as being different.

  • ||

    The literal quote was something more like "you don't have a problem with the word 'nigger' when Richard Prior says it, you only have a problem with it when a white guy says it. That's because it's not the word that's the problem - it's the racist motherfucker saying it who's the problem."

    I think it's clear he meant "people who hate other people just because they're a different race" rather than "people who perceive cultural differences between different groups of people."

    And that the racist can put just as much racist venom into "African-American" as he/she puts into "nigger" (I actually said that to my Freshman Comp class almost 20 years ago - many were shocked and clearly didn't know what to think. It would probably kill a few these days.).

  • Nardz||

    Wait:
    Hispanic is bad now?

  • vek||

    Yeah, we're looping back around to "wetback" as the PC term. Try it next time you see some guys on a construction site, it'll go over well! LOL

    But seriously, I saw that too and was like WTF. I don't think Hispanic is officially "bad" just yet. Perhaps there are some uppity beaners pushing to make it bad though? Latino has definitely been in favor in recent years. I really don't care though honestly. I'm just gonna use WTF ever word I damn well please.

    *DISLAIMER: I'm part beaner on my moms side, so if I ever piss off a wetback I can bust that out and possibly save myself from being shanked. Those that are paler than myself should use such terms with caution.*

  • Eddy||

    More broadly - in the Atlantic is pushing this, they're probably trying to steer Democrats away from the extremes of PC - maybe hold a Sister Souljah moment or two - then the voters will be more willing to listen to mainstream Democrats' perfectly rational and productive policy ideas.

  • Eddy||

    *if* the Atlantic is pushing this

  • Microaggressor||

    Small anecdote.

    The second season of Big Mouth on Netflix, a very... sexually progressive animation, took several jabs at the expense of social justice, which came as quite a surprise. Might be the canary in the coal mine for the pendulum swinging back. Or maybe Democrats just like not losing elections.

  • Eddy||

    The next step is to say the PC movement is, and has always been, conservative.

  • Eric||

    There's plenty of conservative PC. It's just not called PC. And it's practiced in the suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas throughout the country:

    - Anyone who's ever worn a military or police uniform is nothing short of a hero.
    - Anyone who questions U.S. military actions is a traitor (Unless the questioner has served).
    - Revisionist historians are traitors
    - Jesus was a white male northern European.
    - Whites and Christians are an oppressed minority.

    Just try saying something contrary to one of the above in "Real Murica".

  • Just Say'n||

    'Jesus was a white male northern European.'

    I'm guessing you haven't ventured too far outside of Seattle.

  • Eric||

    "I'm guessing you haven't ventured too far outside of Seattle."

    Call me when the Episcopalians start putting up crucifixes with a five foot tall dusky Palestinian nailed to them.

  • Just Say'n||

    Or ever ventured inside of a church

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    This. *Everybody* has sacred cows.

  • Sam Haysom||

    But that's not what PC means. PC is a constantly shifting notion of sacred cows that grows in complexity with each newly discovered victim group. Go to a small town in Ohio and the sacred cows are exactly they same they were 50 years ago now try that at Oberlin. Even if we say 5 years ago oberlins sacred cows aren't the same. This is a level of false equivalence that is really mind boggling.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It becomes PC when you want it enforced from the barrel of a gun in authority's hand.

    And, Eric, damn. That was impressively stupid.

  • Eric||

    "It becomes PC when you want it enforced from the barrel of a gun in authority's hand."

    Nope. Try again.

  • Here for the outrage||

    That's their goal whether you like it or not

    They equate speech to violence in order to control.

    You don't care because you think your team is going to get to define the terms.

  • Eric||

    "You don't care because you think your team is going to get to define the terms."

    My team? Nope. Try again. This isn't about authoritarianism or which side's jack-boots are bigger. Although, I'm happy to debate that. This is about whether there is conservative PC. My stated position (with examples) is that there is.

  • sparkstable||

    When people give you dirty looks for what you say, that's not a political act. Sure... there are some examples of conservatives trying to force things backed with law like doing the pledge in schools... but that is rare. They also dont seek to get you fired if you dont clap hard enough for a "hero." Again... they just give you an evil eye.

    A PC person, however, will seek to do one of two things. 1- Gather the mob to destroy you socially (such as getting you fired) or 2- seek to impose a norm or standard of their convoluted choosing by law (like how disabled people are somehow "equal" yet they are granted favored seating, access, etc that the normies dont get by law).

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    What does it matter if Oberlin has a bunch of college kids who take things to ridiculous extremes? How does that affect your life, and why do you care?

  • sparkstable||

    It matters quite a bit if you are not a retard and are going to Oberlin. Title IX crap is PC in action (believe all accusers). That can ruin you fast.

  • Sam Haysom||

    This is fucking stupid. The whole both sides have sacred cows is a fucking false equivalency of unheard of levels but the examples these are some extremely bad examples. Everyone agrees that Jesus was likely an olive skinned Semitic dude except for the Jezis wuz Black crowd. And who the hell is arguing that whites are a minority- no one. It's true that official racial policy definitely tends toward favoritism towards non-whites but no one is saying whites are currently a minority.

    And even better the dumbest fucking douche bag on this site other than tony looked at this list and thought "this."

  • Eric||

    You probably still wear an American Flag pin on your lapel and eat Freedom Fries old-timer.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Says the 50 year old to the twenty five year old.

  • Eddy||

    As far as conservative PC, I'll look to those instances where they try and enforce it in the public sphere, either via government or through denouncing the non-PC.

    So I'll give you flag-burning, which the right wants punished far more than the left.

    I'll give you the special consideration some righties insist on for cops (there is a bit of a split on the right over this)

    Yes, there are some who want to invoke the benefits of victim culture for whites and Christians - with similar retarded results (in most cases, assuming we're limiting ourselves to U. S. examples and not the kind of persecution we see in the Middle East and Zimbabwe).

    Support for the military is a card both sides have learned how to play - see what happens when the progs support a veteran for political office.

    I'm not sure which *revisionist historians* you're referencing, but I suppose some of them gore the sacred cows of the right (I'm also assuming you don't count Howard Zinn among the revisionists since he's being rapidly mainstreamed).

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm also assuming you don't count Howard Zinn among the revisionists since he's being rapidly mainstreamed

    LOL, seriously? Zinn's "Everything bad that ever happened in human history is the fault of white people" historiographical approach has practically been holy writ in academia since the Boomer radicals of the 60s started settling into the departments.

  • sparkstable||

    I can't stand Zinn. He is so predictable and NOT a good historian. Example: founders were all racist whites trying to secure their power and previlage. Yet we have zero documents from these guys expressing these ideas. Not in letters to each other, not in personal diaries. Instead we have a treasure trove ov Enlightenment philosophy based on ideas of rights. Their inability to implement them perfectly does not undermine them as their motivation for action.

  • vek||

    I could give you perhaps that there are a handful of conservative PC things. As mentioned, every side has their sacred cows.

    But just as I say for the "Republicans are in favor of XYZ big government policies too!" argument... It's a matter of degree. And frankly it also matters who is on the offensive in a certain time and place too.

    Right now the Left are the ones that are completely fucking insane, ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more nutty PC shit than anybody on the right. Orders. Of. FUCKING. Magnitude.

    And the left are also the ones doing the driving right now. If the Christian Conservatives were victoriously trying to get every one of their insane pet peeves put into law right now, I would be bitching about that. But they're not.

    In the here and now, the leftists are far and away the ones that are out of control. So while both sides do do it, just as they both of their dumb spending issues, the left are vastly worse. End of story.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Democrats need to double down on banning ALL electrical generating plants and enacting a 40% Carbon Tax on everyone except Red China. And Republicans, to be as consistent, need to bring back the George Holy War Bush death sentence for pot pushers and enact the Comstock Coathanger Amendment by Executive Order. Honesty and integrity of this sort would propel the LP into 25% of the popular vote with no effort on our part.

  • ||

    The best proxies are education level and income: the most highly educated Americans are more likely to think hate speech is a big problem, but political correctness is not.

    As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing. Karl Rove

    He who is only an athlete is too crude, too vulgar, too much a savage. He who is a scholar only is too soft, to effeminate. The ideal citizen is the scholar athlete, the man of thought and the man of action. Plato

    Personally, the whole debate about PC just reeks of the lower class.

  • Eddy||

    "He who is only an athlete is too crude, too vulgar, too much a savage. He who is a scholar only is too soft, to effeminate. The ideal citizen is the scholar athlete, the man of thought and the man of action. Plato"

    Wasn't Plato a wrestler as well as a philosopher? At least according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Plato

    So I guess Plato was an early Jesse Ventura?

  • Dillinger||

    could have been in Brain Busters tag-team

  • vek||

    A big part of the education thing making you left wing has nothing to do with being educated... And everything to do with being indoctrinated. Lots of people never look into things on their own, so you have some douche bag professor with a goatee telling you that the white man is responsible for ever evil in the history of mankind... Forgetting to mention the millions slaughtered by Genghis Khan, or the fact that the Arabs enslaved not only more blacks than whites ever did, but in fact enslaved more whites than whites enslaved blacks... And all of a sudden somebodies world view is simply warped for eternity.

    I suspect those that went to Ivy League schools in 1875 did not come out rabid leftists compared to the general population.

  • Untermensch den 2||

    Being "woke" is the secular equivalent of being "saved." Just because secular progressives may not actively believe in deity doesn't mean that they aren't deeply religious: It just means that they have faith in a different set of values. And, as religions are wont to do, they rigorously police their boundaries (called "boundary maintenance" in anthropology) by setting up fences of language and behavior that set them apart as members of the elect/chose/woke few.

    At the same time, many of them have inherited the apocalyptic worldview of the evangelicals they deride as stupid rubes. They believe in an immanent eschaton brought about by global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, GMOs, etc. As a result, if you oppose them, you are not just disagreeing with them: You are evil and irrational.

    I live in a university town and got a PhD in a field (cultural anthropology) that is absolutely full of the wokest of the woke. My cadre see themselves as saviors of the downtrodden and liberators from the clutches of greedy capitalists. Most of them have no concept that anyone can disagree with them without being motivated purely by "hate". On a good day, they might admit that their opponents are mere dupes guilty of false consciousness who are being manipulated by evil puppet masters.

  • Microaggressor||

    It fits the characteristics of a cult almost perfectly.

    And this stuff is being taught in public schools across the country, even though religious indoctrination is legally prohibited. Funny how that works.

  • Carl Lumberg||

    I don't think its a cult; most cults operate on their own terms, in their own space and usually want to be left alone, sans converting a view.

    but Untermensch den 2, what a great post an encapsulates how a majority on US campuses operate. Just spot on.

    I will say this about universities - my experience is that the "woke" are part of the liberal arts almost 100%. Not the hard sciences or business schools.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Ithaca? Madison? There are just so many....

  • Hank Phillips||

    Woke movement symbology was in today's Sinfest. Tatsuya Ishida, the world's most talented webcomic animé artist, was converted from a dekassegui-to-dudebro convert into a non-liberal male feminazi after someone made fun of one of his Politically Chauvinistic toons. Counsel us, Untermencsh, on what can be done to deprogram our heroic cartoonist and get him back to sanity, pullleeease!

  • vek||

    All true, unfortunately. The funny thing is that a vast number of these "woke" geniuses that got a degree in XYZ thing, are actually total idiots. They don't REALLY know shit about history, economics, philosophy, science... Really anything. I actually never went to uni, despite having a high IQ. I went into business for myself, and have done just dandy. Apparently I make more money than your average Harvard grad, so I guess my decision worked out all right!

    But whenever I end up getting into a conversation with snobby douches, I eat their lunch... Because I ACTUALLY know about things. It's like all these people just get the slanted Readers Digest version of all these subjects from The Atlantic or whatever, and think they know everything. But they don't know shit. I am usually semi tactful in informing them of their ignorance in conversation, but sometimes I do get a little mean with it. Whatevs. Sometimes you're trying to actually convince people of things, other times you're just in a bad mood and out to bring people to tears. LOL

  • Tony||

    How about we all stop policing each other's speech, as no matter which side PC is coming from, and it exists just as much on the right as it does on the left, it's a distraction from real-world problems.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Cool.

    Stop policing my speech when I say "that's racist".

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're a shithead, Tony.

  • Tony||

    And you're a pickle-brained cunt bubble.

  • Just Say'n||

    This was my favorite part about this study, Tony:

    "Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country."

  • Just Say'n||

    To be fair, I don't trust sociological studies as a rule, but this finding is just too funny (and reaffirms my own biases) that I couldn't pass it up

  • Tony||

    I thought you people considered wealth a virtue.

    I remain silent on whether you seem to consider being white a virtue.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>being white

    still with that? it's 2018 let the colors thing go man

  • NashTiger||

    Earned wealth, not Trust Fund shitheads full of prog guilt like you and the Kennedys

  • Here for the outrage||

    I think that eventually that guilt weighs on you so much you have to either freak out and join the mob, or be like Tony and just say "cmon guys, both sides"

    Never would he admit rich white progressives are the loudest, most pampered, worthless members of society.

  • Tony||

    Oh, so the Kochs, Trumps, Waltons, and dozens of other conservative billionaires I could name are bad, but the Clintons, Buffett, Bill Gates, and dozens of other liberal wealthy people who made their own money are good? You sticking with this line?

  • ||

    I remain silent on whether you seem to consider being white a virtue.

    That's funny, because recently you went on a tear about how if not enough black people agree with you then you're wrong. What does it say that progressive activists are more homogeneously white and upper class than libertarians?

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You seem to consider being a knuckle-dragging retarded Okie dipshit a virtue.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You'd last five seconds walking through North Philadelphia, you fucking retarded inbred tool.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tha Lawerd, in his Infinite Wisdom, created the Caucasus right next to the Black Sea, then leaned back to watch the fireworks.

  • ||

    Can I get an example of PC coming from the right?

  • Eric||

    "Pro-Life" vs. Anti-Abortion
    "Religious Liberty" vs. Closed-minded Bigot
    "Traditional Marriage" vs Homophobe
    "Intelligent Design" vs Creationism

    Just watch Fox News. Their pundits often reword unpopular positions to sound more politically correct.

  • Just Say'n||

    Your examples are profoundly dumb. And represent more of the Left's version of PC than anything else. If "pro-life" should instead be understood as "anti-abortion" then "pro-choice" should really be understood as "pro-abortion". "Religious liberty" is literally what that right has been called since the beginning of the country.

    Your example highlight more how PC views the world versus how society has always interpreted and used those words without any malicious background associated with them.

  • Eric||

    Your arguments sound just that those of a progressive. Everyone thinks that the other side is malicious and that their own side's motives "pure as an angels tears".

  • Just Say'n||

    No. Because there is PC on the conservative side, but it's more honest because it admits that it's a religion.

    Conservative PC centers around not offending Christian religious sentiments, not specific words exactly. Progressive PC centers around a religion that they deny is a religion.

  • Just Say'n||

    More broadly, the conservative religion is more about respect for what they deem as legitimate authority. Their PC operates along the lines of blasphemy and therefore no one may blaspheme against God, police, Christian faiths, families, etc.

  • Eric||

    I'll give you that Conservative PC is less focused on words. But I will also say that the Nationalism practiced by the right is also a religion to them. Try to get them to admit that their flag worship isn't religious.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Ask whether there is any chance that flag might be a graven image. Awkward questions are the best smirk-wipers.

  • Dillinger||

    lol

  • Just Say'n||

    "the Nationalism practiced by the right is also a religion to them"

    Very true. It fits in with their religion of legitimate authority, which is an abstract worship rather than being associated with an actual person or entity.

  • vek||

    IMO, nationalism isn't a religion at all... It's a practical form of real world politics. If your politicians aren't looking out for the best interests of the citizens of their country, then WTF are they doing?

    I don't believe in violent, expansionist nationalism... But I do believe in the concept of nations, and that some of them are worth defending. I wouldn't likely be a North Korean nationalist, because North Korea is a piece of shit. But going to bat for Team USA, or a lot of other less awesome (IMO), but still decent countries is not a sin.

  • vek||

    IMO, nationalism isn't a religion at all... It's a practical form of real world politics. If your politicians aren't looking out for the best interests of the citizens of their country, then WTF are they doing?

    I don't believe in violent, expansionist nationalism... But I do believe in the concept of nations, and that some of them are worth defending. I wouldn't likely be a North Korean nationalist, because North Korea is a piece of shit. But going to bat for Team USA, or a lot of other less awesome (IMO), but still decent countries is not a sin.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Wow.

    Impressively stupid is your thing.

    Okay then.

    Each of your examples highlights left wing PC, Eriv, because the left wants all those terms--the ones the left prefers--enforced by authority.

  • Eric||

    I'm not arguing anything more than that there is right wing PC. You are somehow taking that to be that I'm defending progressives or PC in general. You're such a binary thinker Azathoth, that you've lost perspective and the ability to think critically. I've seen it in your posts. They scream: "TEAM".

  • Hank Phillips||

    Good point. It never occurred to me. But if the Rooshians write National Socialism as Национал-социализм, then Politically Communistic would still be PC if equal to Politically социалистический. The Soviets used Communism, Socialism and mixed economy interchangeably in both their newspapers, just as their impressionable brainwashees use Liberal, Anarchist and Democracy to mean those same things.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The annual "War on Christmas" over Starbuck's coffee cups.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Would there be an annual "War on Christmas" over Starbucks coffee cups if merry christmas wasn't being forcibly expelled from public utterance?

    seems to me this is a reaction to more leftist PC demands.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Seeing as "Merry Christmas" is not, and never has been, "forcibly expelled from public utterance", the answer is obviously "yes".

  • sparkstable||

    You try saying "bless you" when someone sneezes to the wrong person. Or worse... "Merry Christmas."

    Try putting a manger scene in the town square of a historically religious and traditional small town where ONE outsider moved in and complained.

  • vek||

    Do you live in the same world I do?

    It hasn't been 100% or anything, but look and see how many companies, advertisers, etc have shit canned the world Christmas from anything and everything... Despite the fact that 90%+ of people who are buying shit in December are doing it for CHRISTMAS, and not anything else.

    This is, once again, the small minority imposing their views on the overwhelming majority. Almost nobody would be offended by Merry Christmas being everywhere, or a store having a Christmas Sale, instead of a Holiday Sale... It's been pushed top down by the proggie elite.

    People do in fact also discourage even saying it nowadays. I bet people that work at major chains are told NOT to say Merry Christmas, but rather Happy Holidays, as a for instance. If that's not fucking with things, I don't know what is.

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    The outrage at "happy holidays."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Except among a tiny minority of far-left Americans, political correctness (P.C.) is deeply unpopular. Some 80 percent of people said they viewed P.C. excess as a problem."

    It's almost as if the news media and the left are waking up to 2016 already.

  • Dillinger||

    >>... were probably going to vote for the Republican candidate regardless

    PC figuratively (literally?) takes away freedom of speech and you fucking make this about T?

  • Carl Lumberg||

    As a student in the early '90s, I saw PC become the "in" thing on campus. It was mildly annoying for a while. Then, about ten years ago, the local library, which has a Christmas tree lighting ceremony, bowed to pressure and changed it to a "holiday tree." I went public with my disagreement, asking "what is a holiday tree?" since it was just a made up term. And what "holiday" are you celebrating with a tree? The answers were about being inclusive and not pushing religion yada yada yada. It was then I realized PC is a real issue and not just an annoyance. If educated people just made up stuff to keep people off their backs, what is next, I thought. And it reminded me of the Ayn Rand quote "The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology." I think the election was, in some ways, the non-acceptance of these uncontested absurdities.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's one hell of a quote.

  • ||

    The answers were about being inclusive and not pushing religion

    To which the proper response is "I'm sorry - remind me what this fir tree has to do with Jesus?"

  • Hank Phillips||

    The late Dr Petr Beckmann noted in "On Your Enemy's Terms" that
    --Along with the words that the brainwashers force on the unwary, they also determine the "issues" that are to be "discussed" in a "debate" of their own making. The damage they have inflicted on science by wasting vast amounts of scientific effort on their meritless roadblocks is immeasurable. (Access to Energy, Nov 1984)

  • vek||

    Good old Ayn Rand. I really need to read more of her essays.

    As for the tree... That's all good Germanic Pagan stuff! The left WILL NOT take away the traditions of my people! If they keep at it, Wotan may have to take his vengeance!

  • MasterThief||

    Incrementalism and the dangers of a slippery slope. Rood Rand quote I hadn't heard. This is genuinely why it is stupid to ignore the specific threat that the left represents

  • Just Say'n||

    The same people saying that political correctness could mean anything and therefore this study is meaningless were just assuring us last week that they knew with certitude what "boofing" and "the Devil's Triangle" meant.

    You can't make this stuff up

  • CGN||

    Political correctness is not correct, it is the childish and wicked attempt to rule others' speech by pretending it is illegal or discriminatory. PC is a creation of stupid, wicked liberals and Dems who reason that since their ability to get elected or noticed is nil based upon their views, skills, and intelligence, they might as well "crook" their way to power. Hillary and Warren are two examples of this shit, and they deserve to be ignored, and, hopefully some day, thrown into jail or a den of hungry lions.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    others' speech by pretending it is illegal or discriminatory.

    You don't have to pretend it's illegal when you actually, you know, make it illegal.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's always tempting to make too much of this, because many of the people who were most upset about political correctness were probably going to vote for the Republican candidate regardless

    Were they?

    Trump won because he won states that Obama won handily. He won people who weren't actually 'going to vote for the Republican candidate regardless'.

    But you keep lying to yourself.

    The same way you mistake 'the most indoctrinated' for 'the most educated' because you're one of them.

  • Heraclitus||

    In a vacuum most people would be neutral about political correctness. Growing up we are taught that there are things you shouldn't say/do. Don't criticize the military, be careful with pronouns, don't tell rich people that they are privileged, and so on. The whole anti-political correctness is largely built on an intentional campaign to make "liberals" and hence, the Democratic party look bad. It's a highly successful campaign. It's based on bad faith and completely hypocritical, but very successful. Polls like this just show that propaganda works. Next thing we know polls will show that most people like Medicare and want pre-existing conditions covered. Why? Because Trump is telling them it is so. And they will probably believe the GOP is a champion of those two things even though it goes completely against reality. Propaganda works.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Propaganda works.

    But not on you or me.

  • EscherEnigma||

    No, just not on you. Libertarians tell me all the time that I'm just brainwashed.

  • vek||

    Wrong dude.

    There are plenty of common sense things people have always done. The problem here is that the left has gone on a PROACTIVE campaign of trying to make things unacceptable at random, and they've pushed it with a vengeance.

    Also, there's a difference between "Oh, that guy dropped the F-bomb in a situation where he shouldn't have, there were kids around!" and "Oh my, that guy used the word gay to imply something wasn't cool... He's an evil human being! Let's bombard his employer until he gets fired and can no longer provide for his family!"

    One is the old school type of societal self policing... The other is the insane radical left trying to force their views on everybody, including through laws. FUCK THAT GAY SHIT. I ain't havin' none of it. I call things gay all the time, just to keep it real nigga! I don't even have a problem with The Gays. But I'm just not going to kow tow out of spite.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    "The best proxies are education level and income: the most highly educated Americans are more likely to think hate speech is a big problem, but political correctness is not."

    Proof that Education != Intelligence, and that higher education may be more akin to brainwashing than gaining knowledge.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    College is to education what putting things in your mouth is to nutrition -- Iowahawk.

  • Echospinner||

    PC.

    The best I recall was written by someone who said "verbs and nouns have gender, people bless their hearts, have sex"

    And I still think that race is a myth and culture hardly exists as PJ O'Rourke said. If we were dogs we would all be the same breed.

    Or dolphins whatever.

  • NoVaNick||

    PC originated around 1968, along with most of the rest of Lefts' bad ideas. I was in college when it flared up again in the early 1990s-seems like it follows a 25-year cycle.

    I thought of trying to reclassify myself as a cis-gender non-fluid hetero Hellenic-Semitic-Celtic American who is partially follicularly, metabolically, and motivationally challenged. But I will wait until next time, when I can add chronologically advanced to that. Until then, I am simply a Greek-Jew-Irish American guy who prefers women, although I am, somewhat bald, fat, and lazy.

  • Uncle Jay||

    "Political correctness is fascism disguised as good manners." - George Carlin

  • EscherEnigma||

    Okay, this comment thread is kind of funny now.

    I have now been told that when I chastised my nephews for using "gay" as a stand-in for "stupid", I was not being "PC".

    Heh.

  • vek||

    You should be telling them to use it more often to imply stupid and/or lame, ESPECIALLY around uptight people. I don't have a problem with gay people, but we've got to put the crazy progs in their place somehow!

  • David Nolan||

    Except among a tiny minority of far-left Americans, political correctness (P.C.) is deeply unpopular.

    Denying political correctness on the far-right -- is being politically correct BY the right.
    Libertarians have always see irony here.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • NashTiger||

    Just saw the Kanye White House visit, or rather saw the breathless pearl-clutching coverage of the Kanye WH visit on CNN and MSNBC

    Not at all interested in Kanye or his beliefs, but:

    From 1955 -1993, Rock and Roll, and the movies, and pop culture in general were all about being anti-establishment, and rebellious. It glorified the young who thumbed their nose at conventional wisdom.

    Today there is now nowhere in the country that is more lockstep, authoritarian, and where rebelliousness is punished more than the Entertainment Industry. Much more so than any of their fever dreams about the Eisenhower era.

    Kanye seems to be the one of the very few to have figured out there is still cache in being a rebel, and how to get attention for going against the grain. It is amazing there aren't more like him. Morrissey is another, but he is past his prime and pretty much ignored.

  • vek||

    I can't remember who said it about a year or two ago... But being conservative is the new punk rock.

    It might have actually been Johnny Rotten, but I'm too lazy to google to verify.

    Anyway, it is true. If you have some uptight, proggie douche bag parents... What will freak them out more than saying "Fuck you mom and dad, you're a bunch of faggot pussy prog-tards. I don't believe in all that dirty hippie commie shit you're into. You're a bunch of retards for thinking socialism is better than capitalism. So you can go fuck off, I'm gonna rock my MAGA hat and go pull the lever for Trump because he said he's gonna build a wall to keep all the damn beaners out!"

    I don't agree with 100% of that mind you, BUT it is literally about the most counter-cultural thing you can possibly do today in a world where being a communist transvestite is the "coolest" thing you could possibly be in many circles...

  • MasterThief||

    The first place I heard it was either Gavin McInnes or Paul Watson

  • vek||

    Yeah, they've both rolled with it, but I don't think either of them said it first. Still too lazy to google it. LOL

  • SIV||

    Political correctness is just a way of being polite:

    "Racist Republicans just want to enjoy Taco Tuesday without having to go to a reeducation camp"

  • Rob Misek||

    Political correctness opposes free speech.

    People who want to censor speech are usually hiding something, like being in the wrong.

    Abortion is murder.
    Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder.
    Affirmative action violates equal opportunity.
    Meetoo violates due process.

    All of the above are true. They are also politically incorrect.

    Are their advocates defined as alt left or just stupid?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If a person has information about a murder, the sole legitimate, decent course is to alert relevant law enforcement authorities.

    If a person does not possess information about a murder, the sole legitimate course is to stop spouting superstition-laced gibberish while adults are attempting to engage in reasoned debate.

  • Rob Misek||

    Not when the authorities are complicit in the murder.

    Your comments demonstrate that the best way to discredit what an idiot says is to let him speak, and expose his irrational comments with the truth of logic and science.

    Keep speaking.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Let us know when you decide to become an adult, you retarded toddler.

  • Truthteller1||

    Amazing that the smart people, our thought leaders, just don't get it.

  • Truthteller1||

    The Atlantic article is enlightening.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I disdain political correctness.

    That is why I call a bigot a bigot; the depleted human residue in can't-keep-up backwaters ravaged by bright flight a depleted human residue in can't-keep-up backwaters ravaged by bright flight; and a half-educated, broadly intolerant, economically inadequate, superstitious, gullible, Republican, disaffected malcontent an ardent Trump supporter.

  • Milo||

    Depleted human residue? You really are monstrously awful. Ugh, I need a shower after reading some of your comments.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Every sentient being on this planet hopes for your well-deserved violent demise and the opportunity to dance on your corpse, you malignant turd.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "the most highly educated Americans are more likely to think hate speech is a big problem, but political correctness is not."

    The most indoctrinated Americans...

  • Barry Gold||

    The problem with polls like this is the definition used.

    Did the questioners define "political correctness"? Or did they just use the term and leave it to the person answering to decide where to draw the line.

    Let me give a few examples.

    1. Suppose you are working in a supermarket, helping a Black customer. Your employer wants you to address him as "Mr. (name)" rather than as "n---r". Is this political correctness, or just common politeness.

    2. You see a pair of men holding hands and looking into each other's eyes. Do you call them "fags" or "gentlemen" or "you guys"? I would use one of the last two, again as a matter of politeness. Do you see this as political correctness.

    3. You are talking to someone who prefers to be referred to as "they/them". Do you do that, or call them "him" or "her"? Is that common politeness (calling somebody what they want to be called) or political correctness.

    4. You are talking about a mixed group of Lakota, Apaches, Kiowas, and Navajo. Do you say "Indians", or "American Indians" or "Amerinds" or "Native Americans"?

    5. Do you #believeallwomen? Or do you try to apply the same standards of proof everywhere? Or do you think most accusations of sexual harassment and sexual assault are false. Or do you think most are true but think Professor Ford lied?

    I'll give you a moment to think about those alternatives, then tell you my opinion.

    (to be continued)

  • Barry Gold||

    (continued)
    #1: I would never use "n----r" in conversation except when quoting. Even then, I'd probably say "the N word". I think Black people should be treated the same as everybody else, and that includes addressing them by name (if you know it) or as "sir" or "buddy" or some such.

    At the same time, I consider the fact that I won't use that word even when quoting or talking about the word itself to be "political correctness." I do it that way to avoid giving offense, but I sometimes think it's a bit silly. Even worse was one case where somebody used the (somewhat archaic) word "niggardly" and was accused of racism. [If you're not familiar with the word, look it up: oneword.com or wiktionary.org.]

    #2: "Hey guys, get a room". Assuming the circumstances are such that I would use the same phrase to an opposite-sex couple. If I would _not_ use that phrase to a hetero couple, then I would also not use it to a same-sex couple. Common politeness.

  • Barry Gold||

    (continuing)

    #3: I know somebody who prefers "they/them". I try to remember to do that. I consider it common courtesy. But if I forget and call them by the pronoun that most closely matches their appearance (clothing, body shape, presence or absence of facial hair, etc.), I won't berate myself and if they wanted to berate me I would absent myself because _they_ were no longer being courteous.

    I also know a few people who are the opposite sex from the one they were born with. I refer to the ones who present female as "she/her/her" and the ones who present male as "he/him/his". In direct conversation, I use their preferred name. "Hi, Alex." "Hello, Jim." "Good to see you again, Ariel". Again, common courtesy. (By my standards)

    (to be continued)

  • Barry Gold||

    (continuing, last part)
    #4. I consider the term "Native Americans" (a) too long, and (b) objectionable because I was born here which also makes me a native American. (lowercase n) So this one I would call "overdone political correctness" Or you can just call it "political correctness" to distinguish it from common courtesy. But I think that at much of that people like Breitbart or O'Reilly or Limbaugh consider "political correctness", I would call "common courtesy".

    Oh, and those "Native Americans". Happens I know somebody who goes to pow wows. The people he meets there with prominent cheekbones and slightly brownish skin tone mostly call themselves "Indians". Seems good enough to me. If I want to distinguish the ones in America from the ones in India, I'll use "Amerindian", even though I've been informed that it's _so_ 1970s that it dates me. Well, I'm over 70. Maybe I'm entitled to be a bit dated.

    #5: I think most women (and men who accuse people of either sex of sexual harrassment or even assault) are telling the truth. Nonetheless, I want to apply the same standard of proof here that I would anywhere else.

    YMMV. But where do _you_ draw the line between "common courtesy" and "political correctness"?

  • vek||

    That's the thing about it all, is there is overlap between common courtesy and political correctness.

    The thing that I dislike most about many of the PC issues is that they are completely trying to shut down any rational debate on a lot of issues, which also falls under the general PC banner. For instance, when you can't discuss black crime rates along with the issue of policing issues, it becomes impossible to have a coherent argument on the subject.

    Likewise with male/female disparities in various industries. Women tend to work fewer hours than men in the same jobs, but you're sexist if you say "women don't work as hard as men," but it must be said to discuss the pay gap.

    It's not all just the specific words being verboten thing. There's a lot more to PC nonsense than just that.

  • Geek Squad Tech Support||

    Nice tutorial. Keep giving such more knowledge. If you face any issue with Geek Squad Tech Support then you can take the help from
    https://geek-customer-care.com/

  • VinniUSMC||

    How can one take seriously a survey that defines the "exhausted majority" as "Less politically active and partisan
    than the wing segments" but then labels the more politically active and partisan "traditional liberals" as part of the "exhausted majority" and "traditional conservatives" who are less politically active and slightly less partisan as part of the "wings"?

    "Traditional liberals" are more likely, in every category shown, be more politically active than the "traditional conservatives" (pg 12). And page 8 shows them to be more ideologically consistent than the "traditional conservatives". Yet somehow on the chart they rank as closer to center? Someone screwed up their chart.

  • mmmjv||

    Why is it never called "political correctness" when the right does it? When some conservative demands to see the manager and than complains that the cashier wished them happy holidays instead of merry Christmas. I've seen them brag about doing that on Facebook.

    "Political correctness" is nothing more than anything the conservatives don't like. They don't like having a black woman on the $20 bill so they call it political correctness. The same with Target taking down some signs and Cheerios having a mixed race family in it's ad. Or Starbucks having red coffee cups that don't have the exact words "Merry Christmas" on them (can you say "word police")

    Haven't you ever wondered why it's PC to demand that people say happy holidays but not PC to demand that people say merry Christmas?

  • Rob Misek||

    What specific institution, including churches, censors anyone from wishing someone a happy holiday?

    Political correctness is censorship of opposing viewpoints that demonstrate the weakness of one of them. It's purpose is to violate free speech to avoid rational debate.

    That's why it is used in our degenerate society.

  • HANSENWT||

    PC had its place, when expected politeness, civility etc...but the liberals choice to weaponize and create fake victimization over the smallest inappropriate remarks that were never intended as hateful or derogatory or seen that way by a reasonable person...then people are losing their jobs as a result of that. The liberal success with that (note they do not have to be PC in any way shape or form) will continue to fuel the faux rage and attempts at whoever they want to wield it against. It won't end until a liberal boss stands up for a conservative under fire and lets people know that you are entitled to what you think, but just because you think it doesn't mean that's what happened. Otherwise we just continue down this double edged sword where conservatives are constantly fileted for any reason while liberals continue to be overtly racist and hateful (see Don Lemon recently on Kanye).

  • Rob Misek||

    "It won't end until a liberal boss..." Don't hold your breath.

    Why would anyone change what's working for them?

    The buck stops here. That's how things change.

    Fuck the Meetoo bitches
    Fuck the murdering abortionists
    Fuck the gender disordered
    Fuck the affirmative action bitches

    And everyone who supports them.

  • Rob Misek||

    Fuck blacks killing each other and blaming whites.
    Fuck propaganda

  • Lance L||

    This makes sense if political correctness is thought of as the most extreme version you can think of. If I thought of all conservatives as being just like Rush Limbaugh, I would have a pretty low opinion of conservatives.
    What is political correctness, really, than treating others the way they want to be treated? Not the extreme examples that you only see online somewhere else, but the actual lived experience?
    As a white man, I almost always get treated the way I want to be treated, whether I'm in North America or Japan or any place in between. I think it is fair that a black woman or a gay man and anyone else should expect the same treatment.

  • Rob Misek||

    Political correctness is telling, not asking, someone not to say what you don't want them to say in any situation anywhere.

    Those who refuse to participate in political correctness are routinely persecuted.

    You NEED to hear what you don't want to. Then we'll all KNOW the decisions you make are informed and you will be judged accordingly.

  • Mark P||

    PC is a societal attempt to suppress free speech through social intimidation. It is evil because it puts pressure on people to be dishonest. Honesty is a virtue because it allows us to know what everyone really believes and thus we can more effectively solve societal problems. During the Spanish Inquisition, the Jews were pressured to renounce their faith and publicly convert to Christianity. Maimonides even encouraged Jews to lie rather than die in this situation, as lying is not a sin if you are under coercion. So intimidation--even in the most extreme cases--does not really change people's inner thoughts: only the apparent acquiescence they must feign for social acceptance.

  • Rob Misek||

    You're right that lying under the threat of coercion is not always wrong. The threat is the initiator and the lie is self defence.

    Here's a little recognized fact that many would censor as true but politically incorrect.

    Jews took lying to a new level. Every Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish day, they chant the Kol Nidre in their synagogues. It goes, "between this Yom Kippur and the next all vows, oaths and pledges will not be considered vows oaths and pledges". It's basically a plan to lie to God and presumably everyone else.

  • Rob Misek||

    The question is, once you've told a lie, a great whopper of a lie, the worlds biggest lie and you know that you would face persecution should the truth come to light, would perpetuating the lie be self defence?

    If you're a fucked up liar you might think so, but you're initial lie was the initiation of coercion so you have no right to perpetuate it.

  • godije87||

  • vmuyur6||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online