SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Melanie Tannenbaum has written several interesting blog posts about ambiguity intolerance and its connection to the early popular support Donald Trump is currently enjoying. Roughly speaking, people who are not comfortable without a plan of action or a path forward are said to have more ambiguity intolerance.
What may be surprising, however, is the research showing that people high in ambiguity intolerance feel so profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, they will often prefer a slightly negative yet certain outcome to a potentially-more-positive, uncertain one. In other words, people may find Donald Trump to be disagreeable, abrasive, or downright unlikeable. But because of his reputation for "telling it like it is" and "being honest to a fault," they also feel certain that they can believe Trump when he says he's telling the truth.
Tannenbaum points out that despite a record of Trump making contradictory comments in the past, people tend to believe his convictions on what he says because nobody would say those "non-normative" things if they really didn't believe it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:43AM
Going by that definition, what I find especially hilarious is that the people who bitch about "PC" the most do the exact same thing and worse than what they're bitching about.
The people who bitch about "PC" aren't a hivemind. Most conservatives have their own brand of censorship (such as FCC censorship of Bad Things). It's illogical to believe that certain words are inherently bad because they are subjectively offensive to you, and yet that is what I see from many people ("conservatives" included).
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:24PM
Here's the difference that I see. As a generality, those that approve of the FCC style of censorship (Bad Things) frown upon making "a priest, a rabbi, a dumb blonde, a dirty Mexican, a Jew-loving gay nigger, a Nazi, a liberal, and a terrorist walked into a bar" joke to a complete stranger or in inappropriate situation. However, such a joke is acceptable when being told to a close friend, business partner, bar, or comedy club. What they don't like is when the joke is made in a private conversion and it is overheard by someone not a party to the conversation and they tattle to HR and consequently get fired or sent to court, or when the joke isn't well received and they go to HR/court.
Whatever happened to saying "what you said offends me," followed by, "I'm sorry for my inappropriate behavior. I will make sure it will not happen again."? Mistakes happen. Repeated mistakes deserve recourse but a first time offence should not deserve inhuman bureaucratic intolerance and life ruining consequences. What is wrong with politely saying don't ever say something like that to me or in my presence again?
That is what I see as the difference between the FCC style censorship and the political correctness movement. It is wrong to call somebody a nigger or use such words during daytime television, but telling nigger jokes to your friends at a bar shouldn't be a crime. Though if you get punched in the face by a giant, angry black guy for being an obnoxious drunk yelling nigger jokes at the bar, well you probably deserved that.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by naubol on Thursday August 20 2015, @02:43AM
I feel that labelling the "not anti-PC" crowd as "pro bureaucratic intolerance" is a straw man.