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

Underneath, It's All The Same

 As a general rule, I hate "pox on both your houses" takes on politics. Most of the time, I'm inclined to think that a particular person chooses this take because someone else has made them uncomfortable with a certain aspect of their own philosophy. If they adopt a posture of cynicism, maybe they can escape the moral force of that criticism. That could be bulverism in any one case, but I have seen it before, and I can't paint a picture without generalizing. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk about that. I came here to say that both major parties in the United States--and the people themselves--have embraced the absolute individualism at the heart of classical liberalism. Rightists want freedom from constraint in economics, environment, religious liberty, and a few other things. Leftists don't believe in this absolute individualism with respect to economics or the environment (not to mention religious liberty), but they do embrace it with respect to human sexu

You're Not Going To Die If The Democrats Win The Elections

I guess I'll tell you my gripes with Crisis magazine: the whole thing sounds like a Rod Dreher fever dream. You would think that armies of drag queens were kidnapping children to take them to the infamous Story Hour, in some kind of right-wing dystopian novel that is the reverse of The Handmaid's Tale. Come on, man. In other news, I would like to congratulate the Democrats, on seemingly finding some semblance of an economic message. You know, I'm old enough to remember when they actually were the party of the working class; it seemed like there for a while, they were the party of debt-ridden upper-class English majors, complaining because their slice of the pie lacks cherry sauce. [Wait, aren't they still those people?--ed.] Too soon. Anyway, I am what they used to call a "social conservative". And to be clear, I am not a social conservative for the sake of winning an election; I really believe and try to do the things that I say in this regard. Someone, howev

Final Election Analysis

 We might even say we're mere hours away from beginning to know who will assume the office of president on January 20 of next year. I'll cut right to the chase: I think this is going to be a really big win for Joe Biden. Real Clear Politics has shown a very heavy right bias, in the including of sketchy online polls, and in delaying the release of live voter polls more favorable to Joe Biden. Even so, their national polling average shows the lead for Biden at 7.8%. Keep in mind that if that were to hold, it would be a bigger percentage margin than Barack Obama achieved in 2008. The state polls are tight nearly everywhere, but they show clear leads for Joe Biden. The upper Midwest probably will not make any presidential calls on the night of the election, but Biden's lead in states that Trump should absolutely easily hold in a reelection campaign indicates to me that the president is in real trouble. He achieved a popular vote percentage in 2016 of 46%. He's going to be n