“You are trying to turn a discussion of facts and values into whining about being oppressed by your political opponents”
If this is so, it is somewhat ironic. From the inside objecting to political correctness feels like calling out intrusive political dreailment or discussions of should in a factual discussion about is.
There are arguments for this, being the sole up tight moral preacher of political correctness often gets you similar looks to being the one person objecting to it.
But this leads me to think both are just rationalizations. If this is fully explained by being a matter of tribal attrie and shibboleths what exactly would be different? Not that much.
It may be a rationalization, but it’s one that may be more likely to occur than “that’s an exploit”!
I agree there’s a similar sentiment going both ways, when a conversation goes like:
A: Eating the babies of the poor would solve famine and overpopulation!
B: How dare you even propose such an immoral thing!
A: You’re just being politically correct!
At each step, the discussion is getting more meta and less interesting—from fact to morality to politics. In effect, complaining about political correctness is complaining about the conversation being too meta, by making it even more meta. I don’t think that strategy is very likely to lead to useful discussion.
Viliam_Bur makes a similar point. But I stand by my response that the fact that one’s opponent is mindkilled is not strong evidence that one is not also mindkilled.
And being mindkilled does not necessarily mean one is wrong.
If your opponent is mindkilled that probably is evidence that you are mindkilled as well, since the mindkilling notion attaches to topics and discourses rather than to individuals.
If this is so, it is somewhat ironic. From the inside objecting to political correctness feels like calling out intrusive political dreailment or discussions of should in a factual discussion about is.
There are arguments for this, being the sole up tight moral preacher of political correctness often gets you similar looks to being the one person objecting to it.
But this leads me to think both are just rationalizations. If this is fully explained by being a matter of tribal attrie and shibboleths what exactly would be different? Not that much.
It may be a rationalization, but it’s one that may be more likely to occur than “that’s an exploit”!
I agree there’s a similar sentiment going both ways, when a conversation goes like:
At each step, the discussion is getting more meta and less interesting—from fact to morality to politics. In effect, complaining about political correctness is complaining about the conversation being too meta, by making it even more meta. I don’t think that strategy is very likely to lead to useful discussion.
Viliam_Bur makes a similar point. But I stand by my response that the fact that one’s opponent is mindkilled is not strong evidence that one is not also mindkilled.
And being mindkilled does not necessarily mean one is wrong.
If your opponent is mindkilled that probably is evidence that you are mindkilled as well, since the mindkilling notion attaches to topics and discourses rather than to individuals.
Evidence yes. But being mind-killed attaches to individual-topic pairs, not the topics themselves.