[nkurz]

OK, let's accept that. What's a better phrase that Hanson could use instead, and while still making the same general argument? I agree that "political correctness" is pejorative, but I also think there is some real underlying phenomenon that Hanson is pointing at. What's a less charged term that he can use to better convey his point without creating unnecessary offense?

[tomlock]

Perhaps the author could just describe the underlying "real" phenomena. Do you really feel like the author is incapable of doing that? Why?

[nkurz]

I think the author describes it well, and makes quite clear that he is using Yascha Mounck's definition from a recent article in the Atlantic: "What people mean by “political correctness.” … [is] their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. (quotes, ellipses and brackets in original)

He then links to the full piece that contains this definition: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majo....

To write an article about this concept, he needs some short phrase. My guess was that the issue you had with the article was not a lack of clarity, rather a lack of charity. Like "Social Justice Warrior", or "cultural Marxism", or other terms that people use predominately to refer to ideologies they disagree with, calling it "political correctness" makes it hard to to have a productive discussion with anyone who doesn't already agree. As someone who seems to take offense to the current phrase, I was hoping you might be able to suggest a less offensive alternative that would be equally clear.

[tomlock]

> To write an article about this concept, he needs some short phrase.

Really? Perhaps the author could have dispensed with the use of the term altogether and just talked about...

> their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them.

...and then referred to that as "their concern". But I think the author deliberately reached for the vague, inflammatory and loaded, but convenient name. I think it is simpler to ascribe this to a lack of desire to have a genuine conversation, than a lack of reader charity. Perhaps if the author was attempting to provoke genuine discussion, that attempt would be clear in their choice of words. I'm not particularly keen to write this article for the author in a clearer manner than the one they managed.

[nkurz]

than a lack of reader charity

I'm sorry if that came across as accusing. I meant to imply that the author would benefit from more charitable language, not that the reader had failed to supply it. I now see that it could also be read the other way.

[tomlock]

Yeah sorry, my interpretation probably comes from philosophy where people are often told to take a "charitable" interpretation of the text they're reading.

I think we agree.