Why do people attempt to reinterpret Nietzsche as a politically correct thinker?
Look to human nature and Nietzsche for your answer - the VAST majority of us are not the ubermensch, rather we are the sheep. And so we don't want to look like fools, we want to seem as though we know what's going on, and we don't have the nerve to stand up to public or academic "ridicule" or shame for believing what we believe. Better to make Nietzsche attractive to other feminists or whomever than be the only one standing there defending your beliefs in a man who was, clearly, a misogynist. But why they all can't just say, hey yeah, Nietzsche was kind of a prick, but that doesn't mean ALL of his thinking was poor, or wrong etc... - I don't know, its bothered me for years.
Why do most people on Quora overuse political correctness even to defend someone/something they know to be wrong?
Since the majority of people on the internet are young they see social liberalism as a way to be "OPEN MINDED AND RATIONAL" and if you disagree you're a (Insert ad hominem here)Basically kids want to ability to do everything they want, but don't want to hear the consequences in doing so, and so they adopted a political philosophy that accommodates allowing them to justify anything they want.Therefore they end up defending things like high taxes, watered down education, and No profit laws(Yes they tried before) all in the name of being "open minded" of things
Do people who are always saying the political correct thing being genuine about their beliefs on topics, or are they afraid of being shamed and rejected for their true beliefs?
Some are simply apologists, meaning that they feel sorry for who they are and feel like they must carry the obligation to defend who they personally see as victims (this is a biased action).You’re correct in assuming that some are afraid of social alienation. Or like most people, they’re merely kind folks and some with bleeding hearts who are afraid to learn and speak the truth.This is the catch about being politically correct. If you’re always concerned about how an idea sounds, feels right and “inclusive”, you’re not even vested in whether the idea is effective or helpful to the people it claims to be helping.For example, a politically correct mayor might think workers should be compensated better and so motions for a significant increase in hourly wage. This will make getting a job (part-time or full-time depending on the policy) proportionately difficult, not to mention business owners laying off workers because they can’t afford to pay workers anymore. Was the intent good? Of course! Was the result effective? Not a chance.An example from a more recent political context would be a statement like this: “I don’t support Trump because he represents hate, sexism, racism, fascism, and US imperialism.”From a third-party perspective, sure it’s politically correct not to support him because of those ideals, but those ideals are actually coming from the person designating those ideals to Trump. It’s a straw-man rhetoric. That person is concerned with portraying Trump as an ideological adversary that must be fought against, than who Trump actually is.If we truly care for one another, we should discuss with maturity. Forget about people feeling offended or feel that they’re not being “included” in the discussion (when they themselves are segregating themselves from the discussion) - there are fellow human beings facing all kinds of ordeals in life whose fates rest on our discussions and our votes.
Is the LGBT community too politically correct?
Good evening, what made me ponder this question is my past relationship with a woman who is transgender. We would often have discussions about our opinions on LGBT activism and such. She would always tell me that words were nothing to her, and that she did not take offense to vulgar words such as tranny, etc. Her reasoning for this, in her opinion, was that elevating a word to a normalized status would give it less power. She felt that many in the western world who are a part in the scene are oversensitive and that is one of the reasons behind the general public's misunderstandings LGBT issues. Her view on transgender rights is that culturally, she cannot expect everyone in every region, country, or state in the world to accept her choice to switch genders. I believe that many of her opinions were shaped due to the fact that she was born and has lived all of her life outside of Europe and the United States. How do you feel about this? Thanks.
Why is it politically correct to support homosexuality?
It really boils down to whatever is considered socially acceptable at the moment. In the 1940s it wouldn’t have been politically correct to defend homosexuality; It would’ve been political suicide.Remember the most important word in the term ‘Political Correctness’. That is, Political. It is currently in the best interests of politicians and opinion changers to be in support of homosexuality, so it’s politically correct. It has nothing to do with what is and is not intrinsically right, or moral, or ethical. It has everything to do with what most people consider right, moral or ethical.Homosexuality is widely accepted now, so it’s politically correct to defend it. It’s that simple. Like saying knifing babies is bad, or burning down orphanages is bad, or kicking helpless dogs is bad.It’s politically correct to support homosexuality.Is it morally and ethically correct? I personally believe so. Is that why it’s a special term, defended by ‘PC’? Not in the least.
How can religion be used to criticise political correctness?
Religion is personal belief. You can only use religion to criticise anything among people to believe or subscribe to your religious beliefs.Religion has no objective truth. The world is full of different religions with different mutually contradictory views.So ultimately you can only use your religion to criticise political correctness ifa) Your religion has tenets that aren’t politically correct.b) The other person subscribes to the politically incorrect tenets of your religion.Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your particular religion is (of course) entitled to dismiss your religion as vile/bigotry if it doesn’t agree with political correctness.Liberal minded people tend to appeal to more ‘universal goods’ such as respect and fairness and ideas of freedom and liberty that people should be able to live their own lives as they wish without the unnecessary interference of others in defending political correctness.That is the converse point is also true. You can only use liberal ideas to defend political correctness among people who believe in notions like respect, fairness, freedom and liberty.The turn here is in modern society it’s usually easier to defend respect, fairness, freedom and liberty as common values than it is to defend some particular view of some particular religion when most people accept there are many views of many religions and no one has a claim to ‘the answer’.To criticise political correctness outside followers of your religion you need to re-cast your views in terms others will get behind. By the time that happens you haven’t really used religion to criticise political correctness. You’ve used whatever common values you invoked.Of course some religious people do try and make claim to universal truth and impose their ideas on others from that base. I would say in the modern world that scam is generally busted and while people still try and push it, more and more it’s seen for what it is - at based unfounded folly at worst a sham.