4 ms·

Political correctness begins with notion that you can set a policy that adjudicates what is "right" i.e. "moral". What follows is a struggle for who has the aut

Political correctness begins with notion that you can set a policy that adjudicates what is "right" i.e. "moral". What follows is a struggle for who has the authority to set moral policy. That's where you get these purity spirals from. Being against political correctness is being against the idea that another fallible individual has the authority to say what it is moral for you to speak or write. This stance rails against the notion that anyone should have any power over your speech save arguing against it with speech or writing. Political correctness, better termed "moral policing" always ends with the attempt to silence those judged to be "wrong". This is incompatible with the principles of liberty. Me personally? I'm against political correctness because of what it really is, not because I wish to be rude with impunity.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. Admittedly there is some overlap where people lose their jobs. Of course there has to a collective standard for morality. The problem with purity spirals and witch hunts is that they stop looking at specific criminal acts - slavery, theft, murder, and rape aren't morally justifiable, however you slice it - and become more about group conformity and public professions of ideology. Dissent, debate, and non-conformity become immoral acts in themselves - and that is not a valid moral position.
- Tomte 7y ago
  > The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. That's the classic left—right apology. I find both wrong. Just as I don't think you get to burn down cars, just because other people are bashing other peoples' skulls in. For some reason, a large part of the extreme left pays lip-service to non-violence, but is always quick to deflect criticism about left violence by pointing to (more extreme) right violence. I don't find that convincing and believe both sides need to be locked up. Sure, the murderers longer than the car burners.
  - jeegsy 7y ago
    > For some reason, a large part of the extreme left pays lip-service to non-violence, but is always quick to deflect criticism about left violence by pointing to (more extreme) right violence. THIS! I'm not on the right but I've always felt that one of the right's biggest tactical errors was to allow their movement to be be seen as the violent side. Nothing in history that I've seen would suggest that the right, even the extreme right, is inherently prone to violence and yet this point is made frequently, casually by even fair minded people.
geden 7y ago
I'm down with Stewart Lee's take on political correctness https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM (warning, contains British Humour) I think the error in your argument here is to always reduce the application of political correctness down to flawed individuals. If there is consensus at a societal level that certain hateful speech should be prevented for the general good of society, (and there is) then enforcing that makes sense. We've evolved past bear baiting and public flogging (in most parts of the world), we can evolve past racism, sexism and other limiting behaviours.
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  There is not a consensus on prevention of speech, hateful or otherwise. There is the attempt to claim a consensus, but only so as to move on to creation of enforcing bodies. I think we should enforce laws against behavior, not speech or thought. Political Correctness attempts to police speech and thought. This is dangerous, especially when armored with the force of government. You get tribunals in Canada charging people with hate crimes for writing books. Government is people with power. It always, always comes down to flawed individuals. It is flawed individuals applying it to flawed individuals. Should there be outcries against racism and sexism? Yes. Should there be laws that say if you act based on bias (denying jobs, housing... etc.) that you face consequences of punishment under the law? Yes. Should there be someone allowed to decide that your facial expression requires that you be subjected to 2 hours (or 2 weeks) of "education"? No. We can come to an agreement on what we as a society consider to be "nice" and "polite". That's part of how societies work. We must never enforce being "nice" (to Stewart Lee's take) because it is an ever-changing, subjective thing. How will we come to value the next societal advancement if we aren't allowed to hold and discuss opinions that differ? This freedom is too important to a civilization dedicated to freedom to allow it to be sacrificed on the altar of propriety, anyone's propriety.
- jeegsy 7y ago
  > If there is consensus at a societal level that certain hateful speech should be prevented for the general good of society I would be interested to know (1) How you have determined such a consensus exists and (2) How you have determined that preventing hate speech is in fact generally good for society.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. Admittedly there is some overlap where people lose their jobs. Of course there has to a collective standard for morality. The problem with purity spirals and witch hunts is that they stop looking at specific criminal acts - slavery, theft, murder, and rape aren't morally justifiable, however you slice it - and become more about group conformity and public professions of ideology. Dissent, debate, and non-conformity become immoral acts in themselves - and that is not a valid moral position.

Tomte 7y ago
> The difference is that soft-left progressive purity spirals tend to end with online bullying, while authoritarian purity spirals tend to end with people getting killed. That's the classic left—right apology. I find both wrong. Just as I don't think you get to burn down cars, just because other people are bashing other peoples' skulls in. For some reason, a large part of the extreme left pays lip-service to non-violence, but is always quick to deflect criticism about left violence by pointing to (more extreme) right violence. I don't find that convincing and believe both sides need to be locked up. Sure, the murderers longer than the car burners.
- jeegsy 7y ago
  > For some reason, a large part of the extreme left pays lip-service to non-violence, but is always quick to deflect criticism about left violence by pointing to (more extreme) right violence. THIS! I'm not on the right but I've always felt that one of the right's biggest tactical errors was to allow their movement to be be seen as the violent side. Nothing in history that I've seen would suggest that the right, even the extreme right, is inherently prone to violence and yet this point is made frequently, casually by even fair minded people.

geden 7y ago

I'm down with Stewart Lee's take on political correctness https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM (warning, contains British Humour) I think the error in your argument here is to always reduce the application of political correctness down to flawed individuals. If there is consensus at a societal level that certain hateful speech should be prevented for the general good of society, (and there is) then enforcing that makes sense. We've evolved past bear baiting and public flogging (in most parts of the world), we can evolve past racism, sexism and other limiting behaviours.

slowmovintarget 7y ago
There is not a consensus on prevention of speech, hateful or otherwise. There is the attempt to claim a consensus, but only so as to move on to creation of enforcing bodies. I think we should enforce laws against behavior, not speech or thought. Political Correctness attempts to police speech and thought. This is dangerous, especially when armored with the force of government. You get tribunals in Canada charging people with hate crimes for writing books. Government is people with power. It always, always comes down to flawed individuals. It is flawed individuals applying it to flawed individuals. Should there be outcries against racism and sexism? Yes. Should there be laws that say if you act based on bias (denying jobs, housing... etc.) that you face consequences of punishment under the law? Yes. Should there be someone allowed to decide that your facial expression requires that you be subjected to 2 hours (or 2 weeks) of "education"? No. We can come to an agreement on what we as a society consider to be "nice" and "polite". That's part of how societies work. We must never enforce being "nice" (to Stewart Lee's take) because it is an ever-changing, subjective thing. How will we come to value the next societal advancement if we aren't allowed to hold and discuss opinions that differ? This freedom is too important to a civilization dedicated to freedom to allow it to be sacrificed on the altar of propriety, anyone's propriety.
jeegsy 7y ago
> If there is consensus at a societal level that certain hateful speech should be prevented for the general good of society I would be interested to know (1) How you have determined such a consensus exists and (2) How you have determined that preventing hate speech is in fact generally good for society.