MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Don't Take Too Much Comfort From Surveys Showing Widespread Opposition to "Political Correctness"

Many who oppose "political correctness" also support a variety of specific types of censorship.

Commentators such as Harvard political scientist Yascha Mounk and Reason's Robby Soave have hailed a recent study indicating that 80% of Americans oppose "political correctness." I'm a fan of the work of both Mounk and Soave. In this case, however, I fear they are overly optimistic. Unfortunately, other evidence suggests that for many, distaste for political correctness is entirely compatible with support for extensive censorship. Here is Mounk's summary of what he sees as a key positive finding of the survey's analysis of attitudes towards political correctness:

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.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.

It's a good thing that large majorities of Americans of different racial and ethnic groups believe that political correctnes is "a problem." But it does not mean that all of these people are principled, consistent opponents of censorship. Far from it, in fact.

Other surveys also show that large numbers of peple on both right and left are happy to suppress many specific types of speech they find offensive. Here are some examples from the Cato Institute's Emily Ekins' valuable work on on these issues. She too finds that a large majority (71%) decry "political correctness." But that does not prevent results like these:

53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.

51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.

58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.

47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

And that's just a sampling of a much broader problem. For example, despite evidence that large majorities of young people decry "political correctness," she also finds that large numbers support banning a wide range of speech on college campuses. More generally, the 2017 Cato Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, conducted by Ekins, finds that many on both right and left advocate censorship of views that offend their respective political sensibilities. For many people (particularly conservatives denouncing the left), "political correctness" is just a pejorative term they use to denounce the types of censorship they dislike.They use more positive terms to describe their own preferred forms of repression.

And, sadly, censorious left-wing political correctness is matched by what Alex Nowrasteh calls the "patriotic correctness" of the right. Would-be censors on the right and left differ in the objects of their repressive impulses. But they are united in believing that some types of offensive or dangerous expression need to be banned, even if they disagree on which ones.

Such inconsistency between abstract opposition to "political correctness" and support for specific forms of censorship should not be surprising. Many people don't reason carefully about their political beliefs, or make much effort to root out contradictions in their thinking. This is just one of many ways in which perverse incentives lead much of the public - and even government officials - to be ignorant and biased in their approach to political issues.

Not everyone who supports censorship is strongly committed to such views, or eager to aggressively implement them. Nonetheless, it is clear that many who are happy to denounce "political correctness" also want to suppress what they see as offensive or harmful speech.

UPDATE: I have made a few minor modifications to the wording of this post.

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.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    It's the same old story. The more government intrudes into our personal life, the more inclined we are to lash out at those who we perceive are behind that intrusion, and that means inveigling that same government to lash back on our behalf.

    When government mostly butted out of our daily lives, it was easier to mind our own business. But now? Endangered species, EPA, occupational licensing, car safety for the most trivial of dangers, Prop 65 stickers in California, can't smoke, can't drink, mandated baby seats, appliance energy efficiency ratings, on and on goes the list. It doesn't matter how well intentioned or effective any of these are, it only matters that almost everything we do every day is affected by government regulations of one sort or another.

  • Martinned||

    You should go to the Olympics, because that's quite a jump you made there...

  • NToJ||

    So you're saying that the reason some people think we should strip citizenship from flag-burners is because of the wildly and bipartisanly popular Endangered Species Act? Seems unlikely.

  • captcrisis||

    The term "political correctness" is used only in a pejorative sense. This has been true ever since the term was invented as an in-joke among progressives around 1970. Few people proudly say they're "politically correct". So I'm not surprised that most people say they oppose "P.C".

  • Microaggressor||

    Few people proudly say they're "politically correct"
    Instead they put preferred pronouns in their twitter bio.

  • eyesay||

    If someone has a name like "Sasha" that is both a male name and a female name, they might want to indicate that they are a "he" or a "she" to remove any doubt. And, whether _you _ like it or not, some individuals do not identify with either pole of the gender binary and prefer the pronoun "they" to one of the gendered pronouns. My advice: if someone informs you of a preferred pronoun, use it.

  • David Nieporent||

    My advice: if someone informs you of a preferred pronoun, never interact with this person ever again, because this person is a frivolous person.

    (And for those of you who say, "Well, politeness dictates that you should address people as they prefer," note that the 'preferred pronouns' are all third-person pronouns, which means that you're not using them when talking to the person; you're using them when talking about the person to someone else. It's one thing for someone to say, "I don't go by Jonathan; call me Jack, please." It's another for someone to say, "I demand that when you're talking about me and I'm not around, refer to me as 'they' instead of 'she.'")

  • Martinned||

    I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but here is several centuries worth of LanguageLog blog posts about the singular "they", virtually all of them showing that the singular they has a long pedigree in English and is perfectly fine from a grammatical point of view.

  • eyesay||

    How tolerant of you, David. I have at least two young friends for whom the gender binary does not work and ask to be called "they". This is not frivolous; these individuals and their families have struggled with identity issues. I expect these individual to go to college, have careers, pay taxes, and contribute positively to society. If you call someone you have never met "frivolous", that tells us something about you, but it tells us nothing about them.

  • David Nieporent||

    If you call someone you have never met "frivolous", that tells us something about you, but it tells us nothing about them.

    Right, it's them saying that "the gender binary does not work" for them that tells us something about them.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Perhaps the real problem is that people have such narrow constructs of gender.

    If you feel constrained by the label "he" or "she", perhaps the problem is your own rigidity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    There is only 'he' or 'she'. Except for the rare hermaphrodite. There is no ze, zhe, or whatever progressive tranny fantasy fiction the left is inflicting on us.

  • captcrisis||

    There goes David on another of her hissy fits. She must be getting her period.

  • David Nieporent||

    My preferred pronoun is arglespluzh.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Arglespluzh

    Which is faux libertarian for . . . what, precisely?

  • Jerry B.||

    "Political Correctness" has about as fluid a definition as "Socialism".

  • LiborCon||

    "Political Correctness" is the other side telling me what I can say or do. I'm fine with those assholes being compelled to comply with my views.

  • William Woody||

    The report about political correctness suggests to me the problem with it is not that it leads to censorship--but that it creates a virtual and ever-shifting minefield about speaking out one's minds whose rules are nearly impossible to decipher from day to day. Meaning it's not the limiting of speech that is the problem, but the near impossibility to figure out the rules for day to day interactions that is the problem.

    This is not incompatible with censorship.

    And it suggests that the majority of Americans have not thought very deeply about such things--which should not come to anyone's surprise, since most people tend to think emotionally rather than logically or philosophically. And few Americans really think through the consequences of their belief systems.

    It's why we have things like representative democracies and lawyers and philosophers.

  • Ben_||

    Whataboutism.

    Bullying people to censor them is wrong. The left does it all the time. It's a human thing, so every other culture or subculture has also done it at least once.

    The difference is that the left is aggressive, unrepentant, and completely without shame or humility or conscience or empathy or veracity.

  • Martinned||

    Yup.. It's all the other guys. My side only makes some reasonable requests of civility.

  • Ben_||

    I actually said exactly the opposite of "it's all the other guys".

  • Martinned||

    I guess that's my fault for inferring from your earlier comment that you were not part of "the left". Do tell, Bernie or Warren?

  • Perseus`||

    Yes, do post your comments freely in America because that free speech craphole of Europe loves to censor in the name of civility.

  • Martinned||

    Euh, OK, I guess not everyone is in favour of civility.

  • Perseus`||

    Not when European government officials are in charge of defining and enforcing their notions of "civility."

  • Martinned||

    From the looks of things, you're not a big fan of any kind...

  • DjDiverDan||

    What was that old Stealers Wheel song? "Authoritarians to the left of you, authoritarians to the right of you, here you are, stuck in the middle again." It's lonely being a libertarian.

  • Leo Marvin||

    I had to discard three snarky comments to get here, so tell me seriously, do you really think you're "middle?"

  • DjDiverDan||

    No, I'm not middle. I'm way, way, way above the left and the right.

  • LiborCon||

    Wherever you are, the edge of the observable Universe is about 13.8 light years away. So, from your frame of reference, you are at the center of the Universe.

    The same is true of politics. The farther away a political ideology is from your own, the crazier and less rational it is. So, from your frame of reference, you are at the center of the Political Universe.

  • Leo Marvin||

    IMO the same is not true of politics. Quick aside: a lot of useful information is lost in the single axis Left-Right assessmant, e.g., ideology vs party vs.other tribal identity, but I'm not inclined to fight that battle, so I guess we'll live with the cramped terminology. I agree there's a tendency to perceive the reasonableness of an ideology in inverse proportion to its distance from one's own beliefs. But it doesn't follow that people automatically believe they're at the center of the ideological universe.

    Do you think most people call themselves "centrist" without qualification? That's not my impression. Most centerish people I know candidly admit marginal leanings, e.g., center-left, center-right. And the more people deviate from the center, the likelier they seem to wear that distance with pride. In fact the only person I know who insists on self-identifying as a straight-down-the-middle centrist is a Trumpophilic Dittohead, and he's an aberration I'm pretty sure does it just to annoy me. (As his brother, that's a pleasure I wouldn't deny him.)

    As for DjDD, I don't doubt he holds positions, taken out of context, that could be called centrist. But considering how much of his commentary is devoted to attacking one side and one side only, I find the implication that there's any doubt whether he's on a side, and which side it is, silly. But it's always possible he had something in mind that I didn't consider, so I asked.

  • DjDiverDan||

    "But considering how much of his commentary is devoted to attacking one side and one side only, I find the implication that there's any doubt whether he's on a side, and which side it is, silly."

    You only say that because you never read my Facebook Posts in which I call Trump a complete fricking idiot for his trade wars, or his idiotic quest to build an expensive and ineffective wall along the U.S.-Mexico Border, or when I call out the GOP for campaigning on fiscal sanity all the while passing their own idiotic spending bills (including bloated Defense Bills without a thought to just how much is wasted). Trust me, I am an equal opportunity curmudgeon — I don't like or trust politicians of EITHER the left or the right, and I don't like most of what Trump is doing (except when he's cutting taxes, deregulating, and loading up the judiciary with Federalist Society picks - those things I do like, and never would have gotten from any Democrat).

  • Jmaie||

    Could just be me, but I have always conflated PC with speech. Whilst some conservatives have called for punishment of those burning the flag, I have not heard many, at least not mainstream, calling for punishment for criticizing the country or saying, "I hate America." Whereas the things that the polled Democrats are in favor of punishing are pure speech.

    I am not in favor of preventing/punishing in any of the four things cited. Could be why I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Too bad for me that big L libertarians tend to be unelectable...

  • Martinned||

    You mean other than the President of the United States calling for sundry football players to be fired/suspended/etc?

  • Jmaie||

    Do you consider DJT to be a mainstream conservative?

  • Martinned||

    I think the President is by definition part of the mainstream of whatever party got him elected. In this specific case, I struggle to name a Republican running for office next month who isn't kissing Trump's ass. So yes, he's as mainstream a conservative as it gets at the moment. He literally defines what's mainstream conservatism in today's USA.

  • DjDiverDan||

    If by "whatever party got him elected" you include the Democratic Party, which did Trump a huge favor by nominating perhaps the only candidate even worse than Trump, then you are probably right — Trump is BOTH a mainstream Republican AND a mainstream Democrat. But Trump does not really define "mainstream conservatism." What he defines is mainstream populist anger at the idiocy of BOTH major political parties.

  • David Nieporent||

    I think the President is by definition part of the mainstream of whatever party got him elected. In this specific case, I struggle to name a Republican running for office next month who isn't kissing Trump's ass. So yes, he's as mainstream a conservative as it gets at the moment. He literally defines what's mainstream conservatism in today's USA.

    You are conflating Republican and conservative.

  • Martinned||

    Yes, and I will continue to do so unless you can name me a conservative who is not a Republican or a Republican who is not a conservative.

  • David Nieporent||

    a Republican who is not a conservative.

    Donald Trump. What do I win?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Trump has become King of the Conservatives. Any ostensible conservative who challenges Trump is promptly excommunicated by the conservative powers that be.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Whether he is a "mainstream conservative" it not, he is the chosen champion of the Republican party per their own rules and procedures during the 2016 Republican primary.

    So by dint of literally being chosen by Republicans to represent them, yes, he represents Republicans. The distance between his views and the stated views of Toucans Republicans is for them to reconcile, not me.

  • David Nieporent||

    By your logic, he is the chosen champion of the United States per its own rules and procedures during the 2016 general election. So by dint of literally being chosen by Americans to represent them, he represents Americans, and all Americans must therefore acknowledge him as theirs.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yes. That is literally what it means to be the President of the United States. He currently represents America, and represents America's views to the world.

    Glad you understand.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The president was offering his opinion. Then people freaked. He wasn't trying to codify it into law.

  • DjDiverDan||

    You are absolutely right that far too many Big-L Libertarians are unelectable. The Libertarian Party seems dominated at times by the fringe anarcho-libertarians. The label "libertarian" is at times just a foster home for thinkers who might otherwise call themselves "liberal" IF modern American "liberalism" bore even a remote resemblance to the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment - it hasn't in over 80 years. It's just too hard to say "I'm a CLASSICAL liberal, the liberalism of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, and our Founding Fathers, which, BTW, is the polar opposite of the obnoxious, intrusive, authoritarianism of the people who call themselves "liberal" today, the ones who only believe in individual rights concerning abortion, gay marriage, and gender self-identification, while opposing free speech if it offends them (or if it offends anyone in a group which has achieved victim status), opposing the free exercise of religion if it involves any believe that is contrary to their own, and opposing ALL individual liberty in the area which they have derisively labeled "property rights".

  • Incredulous||

    Yeah, "liberals" today are not really liberal. They are illiberal authoritarian pricks. If you look up the definitions of "liberal" or "liberalism," it includes "open to new behavior or opinions" and "based on liberty." That, in no way, describes so-called "liberals" today. They are close minded and intolerant of opposing views and opposed to liberty except for abortion and smoking weed.

  • ||

    And buggering another dude in the butt.

  • mad_kalak||

    Roughly 20 percent of women have had anal sex, and a lot of anal porn is made for straight men. It's common enough that, the left's love affair with homosexuality aside, comments about anal sex not the insult you think they are.

    Now, you could say that degeneracy is running rampant and now the new norm, and you wouldn't entirely be wrong.

  • ||

    I think anal sex is disgusting whether engaged in by heterosexuals or homosexuals. But given that 75% of HIV cases occur in men who have sex with men, you can't deny that anal sex is more prevalent among gay men than among straight couples.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Have you given up on finding a Mrs. ActualRightWingPatriot, or are you pursuing the mail-order bride method so popular among red-pilled conservative incels?

  • ||

    I've been married for years, unlike you incel liberal losers

  • NToJ||

    "...and our Founding Fathers..."

    Yeesh, I wouldn't call them liberal or libertarian.

  • DjDiverDan||

    "Yeesh, I wouldn't call them liberal or libertarian."

    And I wouldn't call you well educated.

  • NToJ||

    Nobody cares what you think.

  • DjDiverDan||

    No. Just you.

  • Lester224||

    The flag is a symbol. Burning the flag *is* a form of speech.

  • Eddy||

    It's possible to support some forms of censorship without attaching to oneself the much-derided term "political correctness."

    To expand on what someone noted above, after so many uses on the left of the term "correct" in a non-ironic sense, some leftists began using "political correctness" as a criticism of other leftists. Then rightists piled on, now leftists are trying to use it as a slogan to attack the right.

    So it's becoming a synonym for "ridiculous stuff those other guys believe, or claim to believe in order to avoid ostracism from their weirdo buddies."

  • Joe_dallas||

    Cato Institute's Emily Ekins' valuable work on on these issues. She too finds that a large majority (71%) decry "political correctness." But that does not prevent results like these:

    53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.

    51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.

    58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.


    Who conducted these surveys - The Onion?

    Its doubtful that such a high percent of either side is that extreme.

  • NToJ||

    Why do you think it's doubtful?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Doubtful, no. People believe all kinds of crazy but how many of those have actually had attempts to push them into law? I

  • NToJ||

    The Flag Protection Act passed Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. 48 of 50 states later passed flag protection laws. After the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, the Senate voted 66-34 on an amendment to reverse. That's one vote shy. It's always passed the House.

  • floridalegal||

    A problem with surveys like this is the lack of consistent or common definitions and use of terms. What's the difference between racism and identity politics? As we have seen in recent weeks, there is no common understanding or definition of the words "corroboration" and "substantiation". Evidence is a foreign concept. There are those who rail against closed-minded backwoods individuals and don't recognize their own prejudice.

    I still recall a current member of Congress (before he ran for office) telling me to shut up and accept that only white people can be racist.

  • floridalegal||

    A problem with surveys like this is the lack of consistent or common definitions and use of terms. What's the difference between racism and identity politics? As we have seen in recent weeks, there is no common understanding or definition of the words "corroboration" and "substantiation". Evidence is a foreign concept. There are those who rail against closed-minded backwoods individuals and don't recognize their own prejudice.

    I still recall a current member of Congress (before he ran for office) telling me to shut up and accept that only white people can be racist.

  • floridalegal||

    A problem with surveys like this is the lack of consistent or common definitions and use of terms. What's the difference between racism and identity politics? As we have seen in recent weeks, there is no common understanding or definition of the words "corroboration" and "substantiation". Evidence is a foreign concept. There are those who rail against closed-minded backwoods individuals and don't recognize their own prejudice.

    I still recall a current member of Congress (before he ran for office) telling me to shut up and accept that only white people can be racist.

  • zanctmao||

    Yeah. It comes down to who's ox is gored. Absent a coherent agreed upon definition of "PC" it's just a punching bag phrase that means what the punchers want it to.

  • eyesay||

    The most important fact about the Cato survey is right at the end, where it says, "The Cato Institute 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 15-23, 2017 from a national sample of 2,300 Americans 18 years of age and older." If I understand correctly, that means that the responders were self-selecting, which means that the results are almost worthless. However, if anyone knows better, please reply, because I may misunderstand how the 2,300 responders were selected.

  • bernard11||

    It's not quite as bad as that.

    As I understand it, they have a large group of people who have signed up to answer online surveys. They collect a lot of data about these individuals. Then they draw a random sample from the population at large, using various public survey data. I think, though it's not 100% clear, that they don't identify specific individuals, just sets of characteristics. That is, they know the sample has X number in an age group who have college degrees and incomes of Y and so on.

    Now they match those characteristics with their volunteers and try to pick a set of volunteers that closely matches the random sample. These volunteers are then surveyed.

    That seems far from ideal to me, not least because I don't think you completely avoid the self-selection bias. Among other things I'd guess that the volunteers are more likely to be strongly opinionated than average. Also, they have a point system for responding to surveys that lets respondents earn gift cards, so that may well introduce a distortion.

    How big the problems are I don't know.

  • NToJ||

    The pollers pick the sampled people, not the other way around. Here's a good explanation.

  • bernard11||

    I was relying on this, which describes a different method.

  • Ed Grinberg||

    - 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
    - 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.
    - 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
    - 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
    One of these is not like the others. Hint: it's the one that does not involve the government. Someone should explain to the supposedly libertarian Prof. Somin and the supposedly libertarian Cato Institute that an employer has an absolute moral right to discipline or fire his or her employees for any reason whatsoever.

  • santamonica811||

    Ed,
    I had the same general reaction as you did. (I'd disagree with you about the employer's moral right to fire someone for any reason, even if I'd agree with you re having the legal right. I'd find plenty morally wrong with firing someone just because she turned out to be a Jew, or a Dem/Republican, or a Bolivian.) But discrimination and/or censorship by a private employer is worlds apart from that same repugnant action by a government.

    The two listed Republican "proposals" are utterly abhorrent. Almost half support banning houses of worship? From the pro-religion party??? More than half support stripping citizenship for exercising speech that hurts no one directly??? Wow...remember when we Republicans used to care about the Bill of Rights? (I also find appalling the 60% of Dems that want a law to mandate use of certain pronouns. But I'm less cheesed off, since I suspect that this law's actual impact would be pretty limited. Maybe my thoughts about this would be different if I had come across this situation myself. But in 4 years of teaching, and 25 years of lawyering, I've never been asked to use any pronoun other than the usual ones.

  • ||

    It's all about context and consistency. I think employers should be allowed to punish (or fire) employees for any reason. But you can't argue in good faith that an employee should be punished for offensive Facebook posts, but protected because he goes home to his "husband" and engages in disgusting, unhealthy acts in the bedroom.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You think about gay sex more than any of the gay guys I know.

  • Ridgeway||

    If I didn't know better, I'd say that ARWP is RAK's parody sock-puppet. My hesitation is that the last time RAK tried one (that Artie-Lee-Wayne-whetever), the parody wasn't nearly as good as this one.

    Maybe he got better at it?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland was exceptionally good . . . so good that Prof. Volokh banned him for being a threat to movement conservatism.

    Artie Ray also is the sole other pseudonym I have used, and one so clearly mine that even a homeschooled Republican could perceive it.

    I miss Artie Ray, but he died a martyr who revealed the Volokh Conspiracy's taste for low-grade censorship.

  • Ridgeway||

    I'd bet 100 innerweb bucks that each user is only supposed to have one "persona".

  • Eddy||

    Wait Art, you're saying that the reason you aren't banned is because you're *not* a threat to movement conservatism in his current persona?

    But your other persona posted so many effective, persuasive critiques of the conservative movement that you got banned and had to resort to your current, ineffective persona?

  • Eddy||

    It's like Sampson when he got his curly locks shorn, and thereafter could only post lame stuff on the Internet?

  • NashTiger||

    His shitposting caused the Rs to lose Congress in 2006

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Perhaps Prof. Volokh is being lenient with me because he wants to be welcome in the faculty lounge and knows that banning Artie Ray might have put him on thinner ice in mainstream academia.

    He also is smart enough to recognize that banning people for disagreeing with him and in particular for poking harmless fun at right-wingers is a bad look for a guy who incessantly complains about perceived expression-related outrages involving non-conservative campuses.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Maybe one of you guys should ask your hero why he censored, then banned, Artie Ray.

    He won't deny it. I have the emails, sent from the UCLA account.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're effective in helping to get the mainstream to realize that the only way to be free of progtardation is through attrition.

  • Sanctimonica||

    None of the results -- or the contradictory evidence concerning civil liberties -- surprises me because different persons/groups have different concepts of what makes for political correctness.

  • MonitorsMost||

    People are garbage, news at 11:00.

  • eyesay||

    I think this survey is unreliable. I know of individuals who believe that burning the flag is an evil act and should be punished, but not that the perpetrators should lose their citizenship. I don't know of anyone who thinks we should criminalize people who have problems with calling people by their preferred pronouns. etc.

  • JonFrum||

    No one ever lost money betting that everyone sucks.

  • Banake||

    True.

  • John I||

    "58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts."

    The cognitive dissonance caused by disliking corporate power while wanting corporations to police the private opinions of employees must be intense

  • Longtobefree||

    And yet, if Chick-fil-A started firing employees who posted offensive progressive/left wing/baby killing things, the Democrats would explode.
    Is a post that Hillary Clinton is a liar offensive, or merely truthful?
    Is a post that An abortion after 8 or 10 weeks stops a beating heart offensive, or merely truthful?
    etc

    An employer should only fire you for poor performance.

  • Lester224||

    No one would fire you for posting that an abortion after 8 or 10 weeks "stops a beating heart" as long as you don't call anyone a "baby killer" for getting an 9-week abortion. Perhaps saying that women who get abortions are murdering sluts might get you fired from some places.

    There are only a few legally defined reasons that an employer can't fire you (union contracts etc. excluded). If you believe you are fired for an illegal reason you can sue.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "An employer should only fire you for poor performance."

    True. It isn't enough that the 20 year old blonde chick i hired has huge juicy tits. She better give good head too.

  • Lester224||

    An employer can fire you for any reason not prohibited by local or national law (e.g. they can't fire you for being too old or too black or too female or too gay etc.).

    People who post on Facebook in a way that seems offensive to their employers are not a protected category. The employers can fire them.

  • Liberty Lover||

    So it seems things I deem politically correct are great, things others deem politically correct are just wrong?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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