6 ms·
From my experience at one of the elite public universities: Something I noticed as a student who spent time around activists (I wouldn't say I am one--I fundam
by electronvolt 12y ago
From my experience at one of the elite public universities:
Something I noticed as a student who spent time around activists (I wouldn't say I am one--I fundamentally agree with many pretty far-left social and economic ideas but I didn't participate in marches/action and was only occasionally involved in their official groups) was that there were sometimes people who used left wing politics and the language of intersectional feminism as a bludgeon to silence any critics and generally prove their superiority. Some groups were kind of dominated by this type of person, and others weren't--it certainly wasn't universal.
The thing is, I saw similar things during my short time in a pretty right leaning debate club, just over different issues. Instead of not speaking the language of intersectional feminism, it was not speaking the language of right leaning economics, but the mechanisms seemed to be the same--an in-group who knew the language and biwords used it to enforce the group's shared values on those outside of that in-group who were interested in joining.
The realization that I had was really that there are people at every point of the political spectrum and in every philosophical movement who police orthodoxy and use it as an excuse to be disrespectful. It happens in the center as well: the people who see the far left and right as crazy demagogues and ignore/berate anyone who uses their language, regardless of their point.
The solution (for the left and the right groups) is probably to demand a certain basic amount of respect from and for other people in your movement. That doesn't mean "let them trample all over you," but instead "When someone seems genuinely interested in your movement, direct them to educational materials." In the cases given, the appropriate thing to do would probably have been to interrupt and explain either why something might be offensive or 'wrong', but defend the person being attacked not on the basis of what they said but on their personhood. And, of course, to not tolerate rabid orthodoxy at the expense of basic compassion for others.
As a side note I wouldn't conclude from this post or the occurrences that I saw that "political correctness" (of either the left or right variety) is totally out of hand or wrongheaded or invalid. As other commentators on the internet have pointed out, a lot of what gets labeled as "abusive leftist social-justice-warrior political correctness" is actually "treating people who are different from you with respect." If someone regularly says things like "Gays are terrible aberrations in the eyes of God" or "All Muslims aren't civilized", then it's fair to conclude that they probably do not respect Gays or Muslims as groups of people, no matter how much they claim otherwise.
- meej 12y agoYes. Both sides of the political spectrum police language, and neither DeBoer or Chait seem to recognize this. Chait also says some things that seem to indicate that he wants to police language as well, just in a different way. At one of the political blogs I read that have discussed Chait's piece, the commenters made the astute observation that Chait and now DeBoer are complaining about the wrong thing. The problem isn't "political correctness", it's tribalism.
- Balgair 12y agoI'm in grad school and this is also true of the sciences. I'll make a comment about how X is metaphor for Y, mostly as a way to solidify and arrange my brain to learn. For example: The Circle of Willis is a arterial structure in your brain that keeps blood moving even if there is a clot, I likened this to a set of resistors in parallel. Oh man, the looks... I felt like I had grown 10 heads. It's natural to me to want to tie things together, but for others, no way, you either have the language or you don't, the in words and shibboleths or nothing at all.