The root of the problem here is that progressives exist inside epistemic echo chambers and spend their lives locked in a digital panopticon where they're constantly policed and monitored for even the smallest ideological violations (which can mean social and/or career death), thus they have no experience defending their beliefs and consider having to do so gauche and akin to dining with the KKK. (This would also open them up to charges of "normalizing" an opponent, which can also mark you as heretic.)
They take every political issue and event and immediately personalize and moralize them, thus all disagreement seems both like a personal attack (personalization) and also something that supposedly so deeply offends their "values" (moralization) that even discussing it feels like having to endure a hate crime.
I read this in Spinoza that I think pertains here: "For this is how human beings are constructed: whatever they conceive purely with their intellects, they also defend purely with intellect and reason while, on the other hand, whatever opinions they derive from their passions, they defend with their passions."
Progressivism didn't become the reigning ideology of our liberal classes through reason but through passion, emotion, esp social conditioning and pressure along with rigid taboo policing. Progressivism works off cult dynamics—purity codes, speech restrictions, moral pollution, Manichaean us-versus-them worldview, emotional manipulation via guilt and shame, the punishment of dissent, and fear of retribution. This also explains why our thinking classes no longer think, but just repeat dogma and re-enact various rituals of atonement and tribal loyalty, all designed foremost as social signalling.
They have basically rendered their tribal crowd-sourced ideology as entirely sacred (this despite it changing on the needs of the news cycle and the Dem Party) and people never debate sacred values, even the thought seems blasphemous. It's much easier to evade and denounce, psychologically, socially and professionally.
Thank you, Eric, for sharing this. Maria Skoutaridou's essay is one of the most insightful pieces I have read this year. I hope others will share it as well, as it deserves to be widely read and understood.
There is a huge difference between saying to someone "You should be ashamed of yourself" and the pile ons of cancellation, moral shunning, destroying people's lives. Huge. One is a relatively innocuous part of daily life, the other closer to the concentration camps. Beyond tolerating imo.
I think you’ve fallen into the same trap you are trying to educate people about. Your title and whole article is directed against political correctness irrespective of one’s views on that. Had you taken middle ground your artics would’ve been more objective, not to lessen its relevance to modern political and moral thinking. Thanks
Hard to see how the author isn't taking the middle ground. Unless you genuinely believe more political correctness is a good thing. In which case, it'd be you that's well outside the middle ground, not the author.
The root of the problem here is that progressives exist inside epistemic echo chambers and spend their lives locked in a digital panopticon where they're constantly policed and monitored for even the smallest ideological violations (which can mean social and/or career death), thus they have no experience defending their beliefs and consider having to do so gauche and akin to dining with the KKK. (This would also open them up to charges of "normalizing" an opponent, which can also mark you as heretic.)
They take every political issue and event and immediately personalize and moralize them, thus all disagreement seems both like a personal attack (personalization) and also something that supposedly so deeply offends their "values" (moralization) that even discussing it feels like having to endure a hate crime.
I read this in Spinoza that I think pertains here: "For this is how human beings are constructed: whatever they conceive purely with their intellects, they also defend purely with intellect and reason while, on the other hand, whatever opinions they derive from their passions, they defend with their passions."
Progressivism didn't become the reigning ideology of our liberal classes through reason but through passion, emotion, esp social conditioning and pressure along with rigid taboo policing. Progressivism works off cult dynamics—purity codes, speech restrictions, moral pollution, Manichaean us-versus-them worldview, emotional manipulation via guilt and shame, the punishment of dissent, and fear of retribution. This also explains why our thinking classes no longer think, but just repeat dogma and re-enact various rituals of atonement and tribal loyalty, all designed foremost as social signalling.
They have basically rendered their tribal crowd-sourced ideology as entirely sacred (this despite it changing on the needs of the news cycle and the Dem Party) and people never debate sacred values, even the thought seems blasphemous. It's much easier to evade and denounce, psychologically, socially and professionally.
Thank you, Eric, for sharing this. Maria Skoutaridou's essay is one of the most insightful pieces I have read this year. I hope others will share it as well, as it deserves to be widely read and understood.
Maria, good luck with your phd application.
Thank you for your feedback and wishes Maria.
Very rare time to be proud of being Greek, obviously you are better living away from here
Thank you for the kind words.
There is a huge difference between saying to someone "You should be ashamed of yourself" and the pile ons of cancellation, moral shunning, destroying people's lives. Huge. One is a relatively innocuous part of daily life, the other closer to the concentration camps. Beyond tolerating imo.
We don't want to live together. Does nobody understand that? There is always a right and wrong about every issue. That's what we need to work out.
I think you’ve fallen into the same trap you are trying to educate people about. Your title and whole article is directed against political correctness irrespective of one’s views on that. Had you taken middle ground your artics would’ve been more objective, not to lessen its relevance to modern political and moral thinking. Thanks
Hard to see how the author isn't taking the middle ground. Unless you genuinely believe more political correctness is a good thing. In which case, it'd be you that's well outside the middle ground, not the author.
The author wants ‘conversations that seek understanding before condemnation’. Political correctness seems to get in the way of that.