By merely mentioning political correctness means that many readers will instantly see you or me as one of those people, sly norm violating lawyers and outgroup members who should just stop whining.
You really, really, aren’t coming across as sly. I suspect they would go with the somewhat opposite “convey that you are naive” tactic instead.
Oh I didn’t mean to imply I was! Its just that when someone talks about political correctness making arguments difficult people often get facial expressions like he is cheating in some way, so I got the feeling this was:
“You are violating a rule we can’t explicitly state you are violating! That’s an exploit, stop it!”
I’m less confident in this I am in someone talking about political correctness being an out group marker, but I do think its there. On LW we have different priors, we see people being naive and violating norms in ignorance, when often outsiders would see them as violating norms on purpose.
“You are violating a rule we can’t explicitly state you are violating! That’s an exploit, stop it!”
To me the reaction is more like “You are trying to turn a discussion of facts and values into whining about being oppressed by your political opponents”.
(actually, I’m not sure I’m actually disagreeing with you here, except maybe about some subtle nuances in connotation)
“You are trying to turn a discussion of facts and values into whining about being oppressed by your political opponents”
If this is so, it is somewhat ironic. From the inside objecting to political correctness feels like calling out intrusive political dreailment or discussions of should in a factual discussion about is.
There are arguments for this, being the sole up tight moral preacher of political correctness often gets you similar looks to being the one person objecting to it.
But this leads me to think both are just rationalizations. If this is fully explained by being a matter of tribal attrie and shibboleths what exactly would be different? Not that much.
It may be a rationalization, but it’s one that may be more likely to occur than “that’s an exploit”!
I agree there’s a similar sentiment going both ways, when a conversation goes like:
A: Eating the babies of the poor would solve famine and overpopulation!
B: How dare you even propose such an immoral thing!
A: You’re just being politically correct!
At each step, the discussion is getting more meta and less interesting—from fact to morality to politics. In effect, complaining about political correctness is complaining about the conversation being too meta, by making it even more meta. I don’t think that strategy is very likely to lead to useful discussion.
Viliam_Bur makes a similar point. But I stand by my response that the fact that one’s opponent is mindkilled is not strong evidence that one is not also mindkilled.
And being mindkilled does not necessarily mean one is wrong.
If your opponent is mindkilled that probably is evidence that you are mindkilled as well, since the mindkilling notion attaches to topics and discourses rather than to individuals.
You really, really, aren’t coming across as sly. I suspect they would go with the somewhat opposite “convey that you are naive” tactic instead.
Oh I didn’t mean to imply I was! Its just that when someone talks about political correctness making arguments difficult people often get facial expressions like he is cheating in some way, so I got the feeling this was:
“You are violating a rule we can’t explicitly state you are violating! That’s an exploit, stop it!”
I’m less confident in this I am in someone talking about political correctness being an out group marker, but I do think its there. On LW we have different priors, we see people being naive and violating norms in ignorance, when often outsiders would see them as violating norms on purpose.
To me the reaction is more like “You are trying to turn a discussion of facts and values into whining about being oppressed by your political opponents”.
(actually, I’m not sure I’m actually disagreeing with you here, except maybe about some subtle nuances in connotation)
If this is so, it is somewhat ironic. From the inside objecting to political correctness feels like calling out intrusive political dreailment or discussions of should in a factual discussion about is.
There are arguments for this, being the sole up tight moral preacher of political correctness often gets you similar looks to being the one person objecting to it.
But this leads me to think both are just rationalizations. If this is fully explained by being a matter of tribal attrie and shibboleths what exactly would be different? Not that much.
It may be a rationalization, but it’s one that may be more likely to occur than “that’s an exploit”!
I agree there’s a similar sentiment going both ways, when a conversation goes like:
At each step, the discussion is getting more meta and less interesting—from fact to morality to politics. In effect, complaining about political correctness is complaining about the conversation being too meta, by making it even more meta. I don’t think that strategy is very likely to lead to useful discussion.
Viliam_Bur makes a similar point. But I stand by my response that the fact that one’s opponent is mindkilled is not strong evidence that one is not also mindkilled.
And being mindkilled does not necessarily mean one is wrong.
If your opponent is mindkilled that probably is evidence that you are mindkilled as well, since the mindkilling notion attaches to topics and discourses rather than to individuals.
Evidence yes. But being mind-killed attaches to individual-topic pairs, not the topics themselves.