♻️
I oppose treating people as expendable in everyday life, but in the grand scheme of things, the truth is that we are mayflies buzzing about how much “our lives matter”.
We only matter to the others that know us, and then, perhaps not even that much.
Time humbles all.
No lives matter and that’s a fact.
it’s a pretty garbage political philosophy and pretty regressive.
In my opinion, Wilhoit boiled away the justification of authoritarians of any ilk and refined their ethos in the following 3 sentences:
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been.
“I’m/We’re in charge. Forever. I/We don’t need a reason. You also have to like it too, or else I’ll/We’ll kill you.”
From Stalin, to Mao, to Hitler, to Putin, to Xi Jingping, to Trump, to <insertDouchebagBulliesHere>, it’s the same rule. “We run shit because fuck you.”
I won’t pretend to know the proper response to that, but the most satisfying one to me is, “Go fuck yourself forever!”.
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
I see your point. I should’ve limited my citation to the phrase’s authoritarian origins from the early 20th century.
To clarify, the slippery slope towards “political correctness” I wanted to describe is a sort of corporate techno-feudalist language bereft of any real political philosophy or moral epistemology. It is the language of LinkedIn, the “angel investor class”, financiers, cavalier buzzwords, sweeping overgeneralizations, and hyperbole. Yet, fundamentally, it will aim to erase any class awareness, empiricism, or contempt for arbitrary authority. The idea is to impose an avaricious financial-might-makes-right for whatever-we-believe-right-now way of thinking in every human being.
What I want to convey is that there is an unspoken effort by authoritarians of the so-called “left” and “right” who unapologetically yearn for the hybridization of both Huxley’s A Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 dystopian models, sometimes loudly proclaimed and other times subconsciously suggested.
These are my opinions and not meant as gospel.
The legal precedent for gaining the ability to ban content under the guise of preventing the dissemination of “obscenity” allows the future banning of “obscene” political opinions and “obscene” dissent.
Once the “obscene” political content is banned, the language will change to “offensive”.
After “offensive” content is banned, then the language will change to “inappropriate”.
After “inappropriate”, the language will change to “oppositional”.
If you believe this is a “slippery slope” fallacy, then as a counterpoint, I would refer to the actual history of the term “politically correct”:
In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase politically correct was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies within politics. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits “only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct”.[5]
The term political correctness first appeared in Marxist–Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time, it was used to describe strict adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that is, the party line.[24] Later in the United States, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatism in debates between communists and socialists. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.
— “Uncommon Differences”, The Lion and the Unicorn[4]
Not trying to promote my own posts, but this one is very relevant to the topic at hand.