Skip to main content

Some Of What You Call "Political Correctness" Is Actually Necessary

One of the grave things about the state of our discourse is a high amount of reactivity and emotivism. By the two terms I mean a high likelihood of emotional decisions. Very few people are deciding issues or voting choices via a reasoning process. Another description could be used: tribalism.

In my opinion, most of what is described as being "un-PC" or "telling it like it is" is really just confirming already-held beliefs, and the fallacy of "poisoning the well." If you can convince yourself that the other side isn't worth hearing out--say for example, posting the sarcastic hashtag "#tolerance" alongside articles of progressives being unreasonable--you don't have to make an argument that holds any water. The cycle continues.

Something big is lost, in the rush to win the argument that is not an argument: the space to hear each other. If you have an argument for the minimum wage, or nuclear disarmament, I definitely want to hear it, even if you haven't arrived at the truth that a fetus is a person, for whatever reason. That's just one example. And it's not only because I don't want to live in hostility any more. It's also because, if my experience and my reasoning are incomplete or faulty, then you can help me.

We can't really come together, as we often say we want, until we make a personal decision to accept the fact that we do not possess at this moment the totality of true reality. Some people confront this recognition by changing everything into an opinion; they fancy themselves high-minded relativists, but in so doing, they cheapen and deny the value of the whole effort.

Which, again, is not to say that the totality of reality is a fiction; it's just that, I am a feeble vessel for describing it. Alongside my passionate commitment to the truth is hopefully the recognition that I may not understand what I am trying to find, or even to defend. My arguments to those ends may be bad indeed. My apprehension of relevant supporting information could be in error.

I meant this to be about politics, but it could be about much more. So much the better. Most of all, I have failed to embody these ideals. But if we name them, we have a goal for which to keep striving.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...