4 ms·
Another word for heresy is political correctness. The problem with it is you can attack anybody you dislike with very little cost to you because you stand with
by galaxyLogic 5y ago
Another word for heresy is political correctness.
The problem with it is you can attack anybody you dislike with very little cost to you because you stand with a large crowd agreeing with you. And you don't even have to understand the issues since the opinion you put out is commonly accepted. It in fact might not be your opinion but you can still use it to attack opponents.
Political correctness is a quite naturally occurring phenomenon. People oppose other people. There's not much we can do about it except try to point it out. But that's not what Paul Graham is doing, he's talking about it in the abstract, only.
That is not a bad thing but I see an issue with it: It gets you far away from actual issues that harm us greatly.
It is not the biggest problem that political correctness occurs. The problem is some of the things it is used for.
For instance in Russia it is the ultimate heresy to say that Russia is fighting a war on Ukraine. The war is a real big problem. It is not caused by political correctness, supporters of the war are simply using political correctness to support the war. And state-sanctioned official heresies, yes that's what we need to fight and expose in general.
The real problem is not political correctness but using it for bad purposes. Like using it to support an unprovoked military attack on your neighboring country and putting the "heretics" into prison.
- tootie 5y agoPolitical correctness was an epithet invented by conservatives who opposed things like women's rights, gay rights etc. The fact that advocates can be mistaken doesn't overshadow how wrong the other side is to be unwilling to acknowledge injustice.
- galaxyLogic 5y agoExactly, it is most likely an attempt to shift the conversation to something else. Ad Hominem.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lukifer 5y agoIt does not follow that every reaction to injustice is inherently justice. As an exaggerated example, if the punishment for shoplifting was death, I can oppose that punishment without being in favor of shoplifting. Obviously, those who criticize overreach of responses to injustice, will inevitably find themselves in common cause with reactionaries who do genuinely oppose progress, whether they want to or not. But that's all the more reason to be tolerant of good-faith dissent: the alternative is no one trusts anyone, and good-faith dissent itself becomes coded as a reactionary trick.
- rendang 5y agoWe live in a pluralistic society where there is a great deal of disagreement over the fundamental principles of ethics, justice and rights. This is not an easily soluble situation, it boils down to the is-ought problem. However it seems that today many want to pretend that these differences don't exist, e.g. a progressive talks to a conservative as if the latter agrees on fundamental presuppositions but only misapplies them. In other words, we treat our opponents like they are heretics from our religion instead of infidels who belong to a different one.
- galaxyLogic 5y agoGreat point. Heretics vs. infidels
- tootie 5y agoI disagree. Conservative values that marginalize some groups are simply unacceptable. It's not a matter of faith or perspective, it's just rational observation. When conservatives draw up explicitly racist congressional districts or pass laws banning talk about gender identity, I see those as indefensible. Doubly so because so much of the justification is based on abject lies. No one has ever been cancelled over support for, say, charter schools or wanting lower taxes. I disagree with those but they're not morally reprehensible.