Any apologists for political correctness?

[Cornfed]

I don't mean people who believe the tenets of political correctness are literally true. Such people are too stupid to be worth talking to. But is there anyone who thinks there is method to the madness that will somehow lead to a better world? For example, is there anyone who thinks that the destruction of society is good because it will reduce overpopulation, bring about catastrophic collapse of humanity leading to a flourishing of non-human life, or that reducing the average intelligence and decency of the population is somehow desirable because we are too smart for our own good? I would really like to hear intelligent arguments from those who support the system.

[Moretorque]

Cornfed I love you man, we had 2 choices and our rulers choose the easiest and most selfish which was the herd and dupe. We should be and should have been long ago creating jobs to repair the eco system and learn to live as a family and be truthful with one another and live within those confines. The world is abundant and resilient at providing but cannot take this much abuse by the bull in the china shop.

The ruling class is trying to create a drone class world wide to serve them and the drones are to lease everything from them as tenants. It really is childish but the easiest way to try and tame humanity. It's to late and we are cooked gooses, the best thing would be a reset as quick as possible then try and educate the dumb herd from there. Each day the 6th mass extinction saws more and more cuts into the fabric of life on this world making the coming die off of humanity more horrific when it comes into full swing which is for sure ramping into overdrive this century.

Nothing can justify our behavior and how we treat this world with no regard for the other inhabitants who live here and especially our children who have to live here when we die. They told us in the bible, Adam I have given you everything you need for perpetual generation. They new man was a bust a long time ago!

[Winston]

Keep in mind everyone, that you can be honest yet tactful at the same time. For instance, when talking about pursuing foreign women, do you see the difference between these two statements below?

1. American women suck. They are bitches with bad attitude. Better to date foreign women abroad.

2. Love has no borders. One can find their soulmate anywhere. No need to be limited by one's borders.

Do you see the difference? Which is more tactful and less antagonistic and less negative? That's why romance tour sites like AFA and Mark Davis' site use #2 in their wording, not #1. If we started being more like #2 too, we would attract more mainstream people. Do you see what I mean? Our language is too abrasive and antagonistic, under the guise of truth. Wise people know better than to be too truthful and honest all the time. There are ways of being truthful without being so offensive. Do you see what I mean? Where do you draw the line between tactfulness and political correctness? That's the question.

[Gali]

It is a process


https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... tic_to_me/

I know the basic idea of thesis + antithesis= synthesis

That's not Hegel's dialectic. If you want to formalize Hegel's dialectic into three abstract moments, they would be positive, negative, sublative, or abstract, dialectical, speculative.

The negative/dialectical moment isn't an "antithesis" in the sense of a "conflicting idea", but rather is the critique of, the tension within, the internal contradiction of, the breakdown of the positive/abstract moment. The sublative/speculative moment isn't a "synthesis" in the sense of "a mixture of both", but rather is the insight into how the negative/dialectical moment does not simply refute the positive/abstract moment, but rather has positive/abstract implications of its own, which push our thought into recognizing how the initial positive/abstract claim leads us to make a further positive/abstract claim.

So for example, this is not Hegelian dialectic: capitalists want to generate wealth, but socialists want to generate equality, so a resolution would be a system that both generates wealth and equality. Whereas this, proceeding of course in a ridiculously simplified way, is: capitalists want to generate wealth, but capitalism generates poverty, so those left impoverished in capitalism will pursue alternate means of organizing our productive powers so as to pursue wealth.

In addition to /u/wokeupabug’s answer, it might be worth considering Theodor Adorno’s concise definition of dialectics:

“objects do not vanish into their concept [...] Cognition holds none of its objects completely.” (Negative Dialectics, Prologue)

In the Hegelian tradition, any object holds its negation as part of its essence; or, in other words, things are defined by what they are not just as much as they’re defined by what they are. Consequently, as Adorno says, any thought (“concept” or “cognition”) of an object can not grasp the object in its entirety; it cannot capture the internally contradictory nature of the object.

The dialectical method has us analyse objects as closely as possible, thereby allowing their internal contradictions to show; following that, these negative contradictions are themselves negated (this is the Hegelian “negation of a negation”), and as a consequence, our thought of the object becomes more comprehensive.

[Outcast9428]

@Winston

Political correctness is not really what you described. Political correctness is when you intentionally say things that aren't true just to be line with mainstream political thought. So political correctness is when you pretend that blacks and whites commit the same amount of crimes or when you act like it is racist to point out the disparity. Political correctness is also things like acting like the Redskins football team has a racist name because it alludes to race, or that wearing a sombrero is offensive because its a white person wearing Mexican clothing.

There really is no justification for political correctness because its all lies told in order to prevent the majority of the population from understanding the truth of the world around us.

[Gali]

@Winston

Political correctness is not really what you described. Political correctness is when you intentionally say things that aren't true just to be line with mainstream political thought. So political correctness is when you pretend that blacks and whites commit the same amount of crimes or when you act like it is racist to point out the disparity. Political correctness is also things like acting like the Redskins football team has a racist name because it alludes to race, or that wearing a sombrero is offensive because its a white person wearing Mexican clothing.

There really is no justification for political correctness because its all lies told in order to prevent the majority of the population from understanding the truth of the world around us.

Yes but political correctness is also to be conscious of the outcomes of what you say for the society.
Actually the basis of pc is in a person's selftalk. You can be insulting to yourself in your talk or nice and loving. Depending on the situation you will prefere different approaches. It is our inner politics. We start always with cognitive dissonance.

Bottom line there was no society without pc. Otherwise you will be punished very harshly. Every society has it's red line.

[Winston]

But isn't political correctness about being polite too, to maintain social harmony? In Asia, social harmony is the main part of Asian culture, so they will endorse political correctness to some degree. That's what many people would argue, that political correctness is necessary for social harmony. It's a form of politeness too I guess.

However, political correctness isn't the same everywhere. In China you can talk about racial differences and gender differences, as long as you don't say that Chinese are inferior to other races of course. But you are free to bash whites or other races. lol