ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, May 01, 2014

The moving goalposts of PC morality

A basic concept of economics explains why the various evils of the equalitarians can never be conquered and serves as the logical basis for demonstrating that there is nothing moral about political correctness.
A positional good is a good that people acquire to signalise where they stand in a social hierarchy; it is acquired in order to set oneself apart from others. Positional goods therefore have a peculiar property: the utility their consumers derive from them is inversely related to the number of people who can access them.

Positionality is not a property of the good itself, it is a matter of the consumer’s motivations. I may buy an exquisite variety of wine because I genuinely enjoy the taste, or acquire a degree from a reputable university because I genuinely appreciate what that university has to offer. But my motivation could also be to set myself apart from others, to present myself as more sophisticated or smarter. From merely observing that I consume the product, you could not tell my motivation. But you could tell it by observing how I respond once other people start drinking the same wine, or attending the same university....

PC-brigadiers behave exactly like owners of a positional good who panic because wider availability of that good threatens their social status. The PC brigade has been highly successful in creating new social taboos, but their success is their very problem. Moral superiority is a prime example of a positional good, because we cannot all be morally superior to each other. Once you have successfully exorcised a word or an opinion, how do you differentiate yourself from others now? You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority.

You can do that by insisting that the no real progress has been made, that your issue is as real as ever, and just manifests itself in more subtle ways. Many people may imitate your rhetoric, but they do not really mean it, they are faking it, they are poseurs. You can also hugely inflate the definition of an existing offense. Or you can move on to discover new things to label ‘offensive’, new victim groups, new patterns of dominance and oppression.
This is why SFWA overreacted so conspicuously and dramatically to my factual statements about a token writer whose main role in the organization was totemic. Their fainting fits and outrage were conspicuous consumption, designed to elevate their status within the group.

The main reason that this crowd was so deeply offended by my nomination was because it cheapens their painstakingly acquired status. Here they are, brandishing their expensive, designer outrage purses, when suddenly the Hugo voters hand them the equivalent of a notice that they've bought nothing but a cheap knockoff that anyone can pick up for nothing.

And this is why my usual critics, such as Jim Hines and John Scalzi, were wise to support my right to be on the ballot despite the fact that we know they could not care less about the rules are. They have already learned, (even if they haven't publicly admitted it yet), that they simply can't keep up with the conspicuous consumption of the more extreme elements of the PC brigade. Eventually, they will be shaken off by their putative allies, because without shaking them off, the extremists cannot maintain their conspicuous pose of moral superiority.

Which further goes to prove that their professed moral superiority is only a pose and there is nothing moral about PC morality at all. To be meaningful and coherent, to be a moral standard, morality must be universal and objective. And obviously, a dynamic morality defined by the most conspicuous consumers for the purposes of their own distinction can never be either.

Labels: ,

91 Comments:

Anonymous Speaker-To-SFWAs May 01, 2014 6:18 AM  

To be meaningful and coherent, to be a moral standard, morality must be universal and objective.

... and, in their mulish insistence upon one lax set of behavioral "rules" for their own hypocritical benefit, and an entirely separate, iron-clad set for everyone else: the residents of the warren routinely end up surrendering whatever miniscule patch of moral high ground (if any) they might otherwise attempt to claim. Even so.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 01, 2014 6:27 AM  

I immediately thought of college degrees before he even mentioned it.

I find the "racism is still alive and well despite Obongo" argument the funniest. If ou told the MLK brigade back then that racism would be gone only if there is a black president, they would say that you have high expectations.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 01, 2014 6:32 AM  

From the linked article:

"Once you have successfully exorcised a word or an opinion, how do you differentiate yourself from others now? You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority."

Nowhere have I seen this more in evidence than in the threads at Pharyngula. The PC Police intensely scrutinize most every post, just waiting to pounce on the innocent commenter who happens to use something on the Unapproved Word List.

Reticence there has even extended to the use of the term 'girlfriend', since it purportedly infantilizes women.

Humor abounds.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer May 01, 2014 6:54 AM  

They have to destroy the village in order to save the village.

What is taking place has nothing to do with morality, reason or logic. Take for example UCLA's decision to reject a 3 million dollar donation from Sterling for kidney research. Unless UCLA has a vetting system from each donor that allows them private access to their conversations with anyone in order to qualify their racist beliefs, such an action is theatrical, not moral. How do you think the parents of a black child with terminal kidney failure would decide that one? It's like a senior officer at a prisoner of war camp allowing his subordinates to die rather than to accept the food and medical supplies provided by their captors. Doing a greater damage to an increasingly larger number of people in order to appear superior to those whose ideology you reject is more like a form of insanity than anything else.
The system is feeding on itself at this point because it no longer is predicated upon logic, reason or even a stable set of rules. All we see at this point is preening- my hat is bigger than your hat, my anti racism is more majestic than your anti-racism. Its like the game Twister. No matter how badly you contort yourself in order to follow the directions, sooner or later there will come a new order that will make compliance an impossibility and you will be the next man out.

I hate to keep making dated references, but the only way to win the game is not to play.

Anonymous MarkP May 01, 2014 7:05 AM  

"To be meaningful and coherent, to be a moral standard, morality must be universal and objective. And obviously, a dynamic morality defined by the most conspicuous consumers for the purposes of their own distinction can never be either."

Exactly. Which is why I purposely call neo-liberals "progressives." The root being "progress," it raises the question of what they are progressing toward. When asked, the answer I usually receive envisages a sordid mixture of lawlessness and immorality with a gigantic state ready to punish anyone who holds a moral standard. Basically, if you say 'no' or 'stop' or 'wrong' to anything a "progressive" decides is good or acceptable then the only rational explanation for the disagreement is hatred and bigotry on your part and you are therefore an enemy of "progressive" society, deserving of punishment by the state.

The greatest enemy of "progressia" is an immutable standard. Hence the war on Christianity.

Anonymous RP-in-TX May 01, 2014 7:32 AM  

The concept of outrage poseurs explains so much. It's like career girls and their expensive shoes. They have to keep one-upping each other.

Blogger Iowahine May 01, 2014 7:34 AM  

Reticence there has even extended to the use of the term 'girlfriend', since it purportedly infantilizes women.

Spent some time in Washington state recently. When referring to "significant others," I noticed the absence of the words "wife" and "girlfriend" by what turned out to be heterosexual white men (my assumption once I learned the sex of the "other"). I assumed it had to do with PC bullying, a concession to gays who (at least used to) refer to their significant others as "partners." (I'm probably several iterations behind on PC gay words.) Had forgotten the PC Brigade is offended by the word "girl."

Anonymous Ridip May 01, 2014 7:44 AM  

Thank you for this.

It may seem unrelated, but we just had to walk away from a church last night because we saw the first signs of progressivism slipping in. A woman being asked to speak, nay preach, for Mother's Day. I suppose my first clue should have been a couple weeks ago, when the pastor referred to his wife as his better half. I'd hoped it was just a slip.

The Pastor still claims to adhere to male headship, but had to be asked directly before responding that way. Then he said he just didn't think "this old boy" could speak as well to women on Mother's Day as another woman could. He wasn't comfortable doing it anymore.

So, it is dusting off the feet and the painful search for a new church begins.

P.S. This post succinctly explains hipsterism.

Blogger Lud VanB May 01, 2014 7:50 AM  

so your problem with your church began with the recognition by its pastor that a woman is by virtue of her very biology better qualified to speak about what it is like to be a mother than a man, whom is again by virtue of his biology, incapable of knowing this first hand?

Anonymous Salt May 01, 2014 7:58 AM  

The PC moralists are a continually reducing number. Eventually they will be closeted, the pendulum will swing back and they'll have room to again raise their heads in indignation. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The only way to keep them at bay is to shoot the first bastard who raises his voice of moral superiority and hang his body in the town square till it rots away.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie May 01, 2014 8:01 AM  

Poor Lud is either a shit stirrer or truly ignorant. Either way he has my sympathy.

HKC

Anonymous Stephen J. May 01, 2014 8:08 AM  

"...a token writer whose main role in the organization was totemic."

The sad thing is that going by her books alone Jemisin is actually a pretty good storyteller and prosecrafter, by all the evidence I have available. If she hadn't decided to make her personal political presence more important than her books, or if the PC crowd hadn't cast reading her books as some kind of moral obligation to her because of her race (and to be fair here it must be acknowledged that she has never explicitly said anything like that latter herself personally, that I know of), I'd have probably read much more of her than I have. But I, like a lot of people I think, profoundly resent being browbeaten into my entertainment choices by cheap moral posturing.

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 8:09 AM  

so your problem with your church began with the recognition by its pastor that a woman is by virtue of her very biology better qualified to speak about what it is like to be a mother than a man

Your statement illustrates the very problem Ridip had with the pastor's action. The woman was certainly more qualified to speak about what it is like to be a mother than a man. But, (and here is the relevant point), the objective of a CHRISTIAN SERMON in a CHURCH GATHERING is absolutely NOT to talk about "what it is like to be a mother".

Lud, you are in so far over your head here it isn't even amusing. After all the time you have been here, it's not farce, it is simply tragic that you are so fundamentally blind to the obvious facts at hand.

Do you truly never get tired of reacting instead of thinking?

Anonymous fish May 01, 2014 8:12 AM  

so your problem with your church began with the recognition by its pastor that a woman is by virtue of her very biology better qualified to speak about what it is like to be a mother than a man, whom is again by virtue of his biology, incapable of knowing this first hand?

...and if she happens to be childless?

Anonymous indpndnt May 01, 2014 8:21 AM  

The moral signalling theory also applies well to AGW. This is evidenced by how most people make no significant changes to their carbon footprint, but they'll sure talk a big game about needing too.

Also, is this why hipsters are all liberal? "I have this moral principle, you've probably never heard of it."

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 01, 2014 8:24 AM  

Liberal class consciousness is the nub. It's their first function and primary motivator, when you really look at it. The Markers of their status is always what's at stake here. let me quote someone much more articulate than myself.

George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier

I was born into what you might describe as the lower-upper-middle class. The upper-middle class, which had its heyday in the eighties and nineties, with Kipling as its poet laureate, was a sort of mound of wreckage left behind when the tide of Victorian prosperity receded. Or perhaps it would be better to change the metaphor and describe it not as a mound but as a layer—the layer of society lying between £2000 and £300 a year:..., the essential point about the English class-system is that it is not entirely explicable in terms of money. Roughly speaking it is a money-stratification, but it is also interpenetrated by a sort of shadowy caste-system... Hence the fact that the upper-middle class extends or extended to incomes as low as £300 a year—to incomes, that is, much lower than those of merely middle-class people with no social pretensions...

People in this class owned no land, but they felt that they were landowners in the sight of God and kept up a semi-aristocratic outlook by going into the professions and the fighting services rather than into trade.... To belong to this class when you were at the £400 a year level was a queer business, for it meant that your gentility was almost purely theoretical. You lived, so to speak, at two levels simultaneously. Theoretically you knew all about servants and how to tip them, although in practice you had one, at most, two resident servants. Theoretically you knew how to wear your clothes and how to order a dinner, although in practice you could never afford to go to a decent tailor or a decent restaurant. Theoretically you knew how to shoot and ride, although in practice you had no horses to ride and not an inch of ground to shoot over...

In the kind of shabby-genteel family that I am talking about there is far more consciousness of poverty than in any working-class family above the level of the dole. Rent and clothes and school-bills are an unending nightmare, and every luxury, even a glass of beer, is an unwarrantable extravagance. Practically the whole family income goes in keeping up appearances


It was a kind of perverse genius for American liberals to come up with a class system that was purely dependant on owning the right kind of opinions. These opinions are treasured and violently defended.

Today's Typical Conservative: I think racism is a bad thing.

Today's Typical Liberal: You don't! You can't! Because you're a racist! YOU HAVE TO BEEEEE!!!

Anonymous Michael May 01, 2014 8:28 AM  

Salt, "The only way to keep them at bay is to shoot the first bastard who raises his voice of moral superiority and hang his body in the town square till it rots away."

They'd spare no expense to utilize such an incident to claim oppression and suffrage, which is exactly what they want. No, since they know that they cannot force moral people to adhere to their "modern" heathenism, we have to wait for them to attempt to institutionalize their oppression, which you can count on happening since they cannot tolerate morals nor withstand truth.

“Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it.” - Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput

Blogger tz May 01, 2014 8:30 AM  

The Pharisees were the sons of the devil. What did they do? Added rule after rule. About the Sabbath, but lots of other things that Moses never said.

Equality and Diversity are small goods, the first should be simple justice, but it mens treating unequal things unequally. Truth, Beauty, and Goodness are the goals, and SF/F is a very good medium. But look at what the contest is about. Neither the greater or lesser goods, but who will sprinkle some incense at the PC altar and say the right words. They care nothing if the authors write good works, or themselves are diverse.

Liberalism is a secular pagan cult. Complete with blood sacrifice. Molech is satisfied - blood is sincere.

Anonymous thought criminal May 01, 2014 8:31 AM  

The purpose of Newspeak and Doublethink is simply control.

Of course, by saying this, I am exposing myself as racistsexisthomophobic doubleplusungood.

Anonymous A Visitor May 01, 2014 8:33 AM  

You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority. What she says reminds me of the end of State of Fear by the late Michael Chricton. In it, one of the protagonists explains to the others that much of the establishment groups have become so focused on profits and keeping the gravy train running that they have ceased to affect change as it may threaten their viability.

Though this argument can be made across all the political spectrum, it is especially relevant to PC. That was a great article, Vox. Thanks for, as always, linking to it.

Anonymous rho May 01, 2014 8:39 AM  

Also, is this why hipsters are all liberal? "I have this moral principle, you've probably never heard of it."

A+++, would read again.

It's an interesting theory, this crab bucket of moral posturing philosophy. It has the advantage of a good theory in that it explains quite a lot of the shenanigans that go on; and it displays the hallmark of a good theory in that it's testable. We've already moved past embracing gay culture as a undeniable good thing, so the next logical step would be to embrace transgender culture. (Which is currently underway.)

So what next will be the most likely taboo to be exalted and promoted? My bet would be on polygamy or polyamory.

Blogger Iowahine May 01, 2014 8:47 AM  

Didn't realize Mother's Day was recognized in scripture . . .

Anonymous Speaker-To-SFWAs May 01, 2014 8:48 AM  

or if the PC crowd hadn't cast reading her books as some kind of moral obligation to her because of her race

Octavia Butler 2.0

Anonymous Harsh May 01, 2014 8:50 AM  

Also, is this why hipsters are all liberal? "I have this moral principle, you've probably never heard of it."

It's a fundamentally lazy philosophy which requires only reaction and cheer leading and the occasional bit of righteous indignation, but no deep thought or logical analysis. Therefore it's the perfect hipster religion.

Anonymous Harsh May 01, 2014 8:52 AM  

Lud VanB, please kick yourself in the pants because that the basic reaction everyone here has to yet another of your inane comments.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 01, 2014 8:59 AM  

It may seem unrelated, but we just had to walk away from a church last night because we saw the first signs of progressivism slipping in. A woman being asked to speak, nay preach, for Mother's Day. I suppose my first clue should have been a couple weeks ago, when the pastor referred to his wife as his better half. I'd hoped it was just a slip.

This alone shouldn't have meant anything. It's an old expression. A true gentleman married to a true lady shouldn't have any qualms about praising her in public and lauding her virtues.

Anonymous Salt May 01, 2014 9:00 AM  

They'd spare no expense to utilize such an incident to claim oppression and suffrage, which is exactly what they want.

Your mistake is in thinking they'd be able to claim some moral high ground where in actuality trying to make such claim would result in their rotting corpses. You do not wait.

I've often thought the same for judges. One a year, selected at random, as a warning to their brethren. Leftism shall not be tolerated.

Anonymous Harsh May 01, 2014 9:01 AM  

OT: Women Ruin Everything, Star Wars Edition

Blogger tz May 01, 2014 9:07 AM  

Pride is the great sin. And this is why it is blinding. Moral superiority? There is no one who is good except God. Humility is the virtue and the cure.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 01, 2014 9:09 AM  

Vox,

Something I've noticed but which I don't believe you've mentioned in the past:

Working closely with a lot of young left-leaning millennial men, I've noticed while they are incredibly PC and throw a fit over some of the most innocent conversation, they also say the most racist, sexist things I've ever heard. They even try to out do each other. It's all a joke of course, or that's what they tell me. I don't have of a weak stomach and I'm fairly traditionalist, but we're talking some serious crudeness. All jokes.

But there is a level of spite in their words that feels genuine. Maybe this is generational or regional. Either way, it's interesting and makes me very distrustful of them.

I can't say my wife likes fixing me most of my meals and does, but they can "joke" about women or blacks in the most violent of terms.

Blogger tz May 01, 2014 9:19 AM  

Pride is the great sin. And this is why it is blinding. Moral superiority? There is no one who is good except God. Humility is the virtue and the cure.

Anonymous Ridip May 01, 2014 9:33 AM  

Joshua,

This is The South and that is why I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I could never put my finger on why that phrase, "my better half" rubbed me the wrong way until someone here pointed out that it is basically the man diminishing himself before the woman, which goes so hand-in-hand with the spirit of our age.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 9:42 AM  

positionality is a human problem, not just a pc problem. because it's a behavior marker for narcissism.

we have problems with that in the Christian church.

muslims have problems within Islam.

the difference being that, exalting violence and murder as it does ( both historically and within the text ), Islam is a peculiarly pernicious system once the narcissists get going.

and you CAN'T keep the narcissists out of Islam. because Islam demands that all convert or die.

Anonymous Truth or Consequences May 01, 2014 9:42 AM  

There is no one who is good except God

There are good people out there. Clearly nobody is capable of living up to the example of JC, but there are certainly good people.

OpenID cailcorishev May 01, 2014 9:52 AM  

This alone shouldn't have meant anything. ["My better half" is] an old expression.

That's what sucks. My grandfather could call my grandmother his better half and mean it as a harmless compliment, because he was clearly the head of the household. Their marital roles were defined and they were comfortable in them, so he could afford to say things like that.

The typical husband today is operating from such a position of non-power that he can't afford to say things like that unless he's extremely dominant. Also, there's the context to consider. While that may have been the statement that got Ridip's attention, it probably came in the context of many other statements and actions that show this pastor is in the grip of the female imperative. It's not that hard to tell if a man calling his wife his "better half" is complementing her from a position of strength or bowing to her in fear and worship.

As usual, leftism (in this case, the branch office of feminism) ruins everything.

Anonymous Peter Garstig May 01, 2014 9:54 AM  

Moralizing is the last refuge of the immoral...or something.

Anonymous Stingray May 01, 2014 9:56 AM  

I've noticed while they are incredibly PC and throw a fit over some of the most innocent conversation, they also say the most racist, sexist things I've ever heard.

For thee and not for me. It's their sign of control over those they believe beneath them. They are morally superior so the rules do not apply to them. You will see the same from the progressives who are appalled that "those people" dare shop in the upscale mall. They have their own mall that they should still to. But, no, they are not racist.

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings May 01, 2014 10:40 AM  

This condition is due to the fact that leftist / liberal / progressive / whatever morality is based upon feelings, not actual behavior. Thus words that generate the good feelings are more important than any actions. Of course, feelings are ephemeral, they do not last, they evaporate. To keep the good feelings coming back, an endless series of new variations on the same old stimulus-response pair is needed, and therefore as the OP cite notes an endless supply of new thoughtcrimes that a prog can do the "point and splutter" routine over is similarly needed.

It occurs to one at this point that there surely are some endorphins involved in the prog "point and splutter", because the good feelings must of necessity involve endorphins. Hmm.

GIven that the endorphins and thus the feelings in question are tied to the limbic system, we find ourselves in a jungle thicket, approaching the liberal heart of darkness - the Amygdala.

Paging The Anonymous Conservative. Anonymous Conservative, please pick up a house phone.

Anonymous FP May 01, 2014 10:49 AM  

"...and if she happens to be childless?"

Well she has a dog and cats... so you know she is more in tune with parenting. I mean, well... children just need their mothers, gosh darn it!

Anonymous Righter May 01, 2014 10:53 AM  

The problem with Vox Day's analysis of "PC Morality" and motivation is a pretty simple one: He can't and doesn't define PC Morality and, more important, he himself does not possess any particular moral code that he can explain. It's the tell tale sign of a poser.

Anonymous Alexander May 01, 2014 11:02 AM  

Scalzi's still holding out hope. He's doubling down on the I CAN HAZ B FEMINIST, as the SS Hugo is in seriously danger of listing ever-so-slightly less to portside.

Anonymous the bandit May 01, 2014 11:03 AM  

In the last couple of weeks, I have been re-thinking the phrase "make themselves out to be their own God" in light of the way people like Righter here apparently believe they can speak a reality into existence.

Anonymous Alexander May 01, 2014 11:05 AM  

Well as we learned yesterday, enough people believing something makes it true, regardless of fact, history, reason, or dictionaries.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 11:05 AM  

Righter May 01, 2014 10:53 AM
He can't and doesn't define PC Morality and




okay.

so why don't YOU define 'PC Morality' for us?

completely ignoring the obvious point that Vox never attempted to define 'PC Morality' ... as he's quite clearly aware that any current state of progressive morality is transient. any definition that he applies, if 'correct' at this very moment will be 'wrong' within the year.

"a dynamic morality defined by the most conspicuous consumers for the purposes of their own distinction"

Blogger Desiderius May 01, 2014 11:10 AM  

"Many people may imitate your rhetoric, but they do not really mean it, they are faking it, they are poseurs."

And so the good, loyal rabbits come running back to master with a VoxDay in their teeth. See, master, I am too a good doggie!

Anonymous Righter May 01, 2014 11:12 AM  

"so why don't YOU define 'PC Morality' for us?"

It's a throw away phrase people use when they really have no understanding or insight into the topic they want people to think they understand, but dont: Poser!

"completely ignoring the obvious point that Vox never attempted to define 'PC Morality' ... as he's quite clearly aware that any current state of progressive morality is transient."

Maybe that's what he means, but we don't know because he doesn't know. He can't and does not define what this morality is or means because he's not interested at all in thinking things through before he posts his hollow thoughts. This is how you identify a poser.

Anonymous Harsh May 01, 2014 11:15 AM  

The problem with Vox Day's analysis of "PC Morality" and motivation is a pretty simple one: He can't and doesn't define PC Morality and, more important, he himself does not possess any particular moral code that he can explain. It's the tell tale sign of a poser.

Anyone who thinks Vox does not have a moral code is either a) not paying attention b) a liar, or c) a dumbass.

Anonymous Righter May 01, 2014 11:22 AM  

"Anyone who thinks Vox does not have a moral code is either a) not paying attention b) a liar, or c) a dumbass."

He neither has one he can explain, nor does he have any clue about what he means when he says "PC Morality". He's a simple Poser....And he might likely also be a liar. The "Dumbass" is a given based only on this post of his.

Anonymous JS123 May 01, 2014 11:28 AM  

When the US became the dominant military power, all it left for Europe to do for status was to be morally superior.

Blogger Magson May 01, 2014 11:30 AM  

Is it bad that whenever anyone mentions a positional good anymore that I'm reminded of this scene from The Big Bang Theory?

http://youtu.be/vNUXtkbZIvM?t=21s

Just the 1st 15 seconds or so.

OpenID The Unreal Woman May 01, 2014 11:42 AM  

Octavia Butler sold a lot more copies than the current SJWs in SFF-land (well north of half a million, and that was over a decade ago) because she was an interesting read. She got tokenized because she was so popular, not the other way around.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 12:00 PM  

Righter May 01, 2014 11:22 AM
He neither has one he can explain, nor does he have any clue about what he means when he says "PC Morality". He's a simple Poser



project, project, project.

you notice how Righter explicitly refused to attempt to define pc or progressive morality?

he knows exactly what he's doing and in which ways he's lying and misrepresenting.

he's not confused.

he's not ignorant.

he has a moral code that he won't "explain, nor does he have any clue about what he means when he says Vox has no moral code. He's a simple Poser".

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 12:01 PM  

He can't and doesn't define PC Morality and, more important, he himself does not possess any particular moral code that he can explain. It's the tell tale sign of a poser.

You're lying. I have explained the moral standard that applies to me and everyone else here on many occasions. God's Game, God's Rules is the abbreviated version.

Blogger Michael May 01, 2014 12:09 PM  

Vox, thanks for this explanation. Very insightful.

Anonymous sawtooth May 01, 2014 12:13 PM  

Political correctness is the satanic counterfeit of the real God bestowed morality. Too the greater degree that sin is embraced, such as abortion, same sex marriage, sex out of wedlock, the more shrill, tyrannical and vicious the replacement morality becomes.

The counterfeit morality deems it acceptable, even laudable to kill the unborn by the millions yet if you happen to take your family (wife, three kids, and a dog) out on an after-church drive in your SUV. The PCers look upon the wholesomeness of it and hatred oozes from the pores of their skin.

Blogger Michael May 01, 2014 12:29 PM  

I have a close relative that lives in so Cal. She had to search far and wide to find a vet that would spay her dog knowing the dog is pregnant. Most won't do it citing how immoral and inhumane it is to kill unborn puppies.

The above is an IQ test for any progressives reading here.

Anonymous bk May 01, 2014 12:49 PM  

Righter = that same troll... The final nugget in the toilet that you just couldn't flush and be rid of. You know the one. The floatie.

Anonymous jk May 01, 2014 12:52 PM  

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

FROM: http://www.two--four.net/comments.php?id=1912_0_1CachedYou_0_C

Anonymous Jonathan May 01, 2014 12:58 PM  

PC morality is just the most recent incarnation of the gnostic heresy. Rightist is correct that it's identity is not often explicated. The reason this occurs is that almost all adherents of the Bible mistakenly think that the Bible is a moral code when it isn't. Morality is purely a human thing.

The solution to differing human moralities is for each different one to have political sovereignty in its own sphere of influence. Problem solved.

Telling everyone that your morality is the really objective morality just ends up with everyone shouting at each other and getting in fights. Doesn't solve anything.

Anonymous Jonathan May 01, 2014 12:59 PM  

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.

My analysis, almost word for word.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 1:10 PM  

Jim Hines and John Scalzi...

They also have a modicum of actual success as authors to fall back on (Scalzi's lawn didn't buy itself, you know). I suspect if you plotted Venom Spewed vs Books Sold, you'd see a correlation. Negative correlation to be specific.

Moral Outrage is for people who failed to distinguish themselves in some productive activity. Or, for people who used to be distinguished by success somewhere else but have since hit the skids. Al Gore didn't go full-bore eco-scold until he lost to Dubya.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 01, 2014 1:13 PM  

That's what sucks. My grandfather could call my grandmother his better half and mean it as a harmless compliment, because he was clearly the head of the household. Their marital roles were defined and they were comfortable in them, so he could afford to say things like that.

It has to have been from much more context than we saw here, but I don't think that calling your wife your "better half" and then deferring to her on an area that you don't feel you have the expertise to speak but she does is necessarily the sign of a whipped femboy dominated by a progressive harridan.

Knowing your roles, respecting each other within those roles, encouraging and supporting each other within those roles... that's the hallmark of a successful marriage. I not only allow and wish for my wife to be a woman (and yes, that includes in many cases a need for more compliments and affirmation than I would ever need or expect) is exactly what any man should want from his wife, and vice versa.

And allowing each other to play to their strengths goes right along with that too. My wife is extremely organized to the point of borderline OCD about some things, so when it came down to planning our family vacation, I let her do the details. She wanted to do it, and she's good at it, and I supported and encouraged and complimented her on the job she did.

Of course, I expect the same regard. For instance, on the drive home when our lift-gate latch failed on Sunday morning, no one was open to fix it, and I couldn't get the tongue to move without proper tools even with the door panel off, my wife was still nervous about my plan to just bungee cord the heck out of the door and lash it down tight and move on. I had to politely tell her to pipe down, quit wasting time and let me be the husband already. Which she did.

I guess my point is, all I'm seeing so far is a husband who loves and honors his wife. I don't see anything about how she treats him. I don't see anything else about the dynamic of their marriage other than that he complimented her publicly--a good thing for almost any husband to do--and he thought it would be a good idea to have a woman speak on Mother's Day. That may be a sign of progressivism infecting the church, but hardly necessarily.

OpenID cailcorishev May 01, 2014 1:26 PM  

Joshua, that's why I said context counts, and obviously the commenter who's been attending this church has more context than we do. But the pastor didn't just ask a woman to preach on Mother's Day; he said as a man he wasn't "comfortable" doing it. That implication that a man shouldn't preach to women about motherhood is a pretty bad sign in itself.

We're not judging these things in a vacuum; we've seen similar scenarios played out many times. No, we can't be 100% sure that this pastor is a whipped mangina, but we can make a pretty educated guess.

Anonymous kh123 May 01, 2014 1:37 PM  

Ah, well, figured Lud was going to show up and divine wisdom at some point.

Here's a pearl of a question/accusation Lud; feel free to run with it. I'll even get into character for this one:

well what about christianity then. isent it simply another form of finding witches to persecute and pagans to shun? crusades, inqueisitions, and what happens when all deserving believers go to heaven, i mean what all is there for them to do when beatified and theres no one left for the mroal majority to hypocriticaly judge?

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 01, 2014 2:05 PM  

I agree; that particular line is... even giving him the benefit of the doubt, pretty odd.

I'm not often willing to give folks the benefit of the doubt very long anymore.

Anonymous Harsh May 01, 2014 2:18 PM  

"Anyone who thinks Vox does not have a moral code is either a) not paying attention b) a liar, or c) a dumbass."

He neither has one he can explain, nor does he have any clue about what he means when he says "PC Morality". He's a simple Poser....And he might likely also be a liar. The "Dumbass" is a given based only on this post of his.


So your complete inability to parse what I was saying leads me to believe that all three apply to you simultaneously. Congratulations, that's quite the accomplishment, little man.

Anonymous Ridip May 01, 2014 2:31 PM  

Cail would be right. There is more than what I've posted here. But even if there wasn't these things in isolation would be cause for concern. Patterns tend to play out the same way.

He's not a complete Nancy boy yet. Matter of fact we've only been here a few months and we're getting ready to join. But I sensed something is wrong and my wife sensed it too. Both a couple weeks ago and again last night. "My better half" caught my attention. Something else in the same sermon caught hers.

I will pray for the man to turn it around, as he has a considerable and apparently effective ministry. But, we cannot in good faith move forward and join the church.

After getting home last night I did a bit of digging around the whole woman preacher thing and turned up that they are quietly "associated" with a self-proclaimed progressive denomination, whose missions direction, etc. Is set by a woman pastor. So in effect he is already under her headship.

Words have meaning. They serve as clues to things that are going on off stage.

Anonymous Ridip May 01, 2014 2:31 PM  

Cail would be right. There is more than what I've posted here. But even if there wasn't these things in isolation would be cause for concern. Patterns tend to play out the same way.

He's not a complete Nancy boy yet. Matter of fact we've only been here a few months and we're getting ready to join. But I sensed something is wrong and my wife sensed it too. Both a couple weeks ago and again last night. "My better half" caught my attention. Something else in the same sermon caught hers.

I will pray for the man to turn it around, as he has a considerable and apparently effective ministry. But, we cannot in good faith move forward and join the church.

After getting home last night I did a bit of digging around the whole woman preacher thing and turned up that they are quietly "associated" with a self-proclaimed progressive denomination, whose missions direction, etc. Is set by a woman pastor. So in effect he is already under her headship.

Words have meaning. They serve as clues to things that are going on off stage.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 01, 2014 3:08 PM  

" Alexander May 01, 2014 11:05 AM
Well as we learned yesterday, enough people believing something makes it true, regardless of fact, history, reason, or dictionaries."

You are a fool you know that?

"X is Y because everyone says so" =/= "X means Y because everyone uses the word X to mean Y"

Anonymous Righter May 01, 2014 3:11 PM  

"So your complete inability to parse what I was saying..."

It's not a matter of an inability to parse what you were saying. It was a matter of what you said being incorrect.

Anonymous Speaker-To-SFWAs May 01, 2014 3:34 PM  

you notice how Righter explicitly refused to attempt to define pc or progressive morality?

I notice how he is incapable of correctly spelling poseur.

Anonymous Righter May 01, 2014 3:36 PM  

"you notice how Righter explicitly refused to attempt to define pc or progressive morality?

No, I defined it in another comment:

"It's a throw away phrase people use when they really have no understanding or insight into the topic they want people to think they understand"

Additionally, "PC Morality" is something that Vox Day can't define.

Anonymous Don May 01, 2014 3:40 PM  

Righter - So there is no PC or progressive morality? It's just a throwaway phrase for progressives to use when they want to make people think there's morality behind what they say and do?

Thanks for the clarification. Either you don't know what pc or progressive morality is or you believe that it is just smoke and mirrors to keep people from knowing what you're up to.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 01, 2014 4:00 PM  

"Righter May 01, 2014 3:36 PM
...
Additionally, "PC Morality" is something that Vox Day can't define."




You didn't get any college scholarship offers did you?

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 01, 2014 4:12 PM  

I have a close relative that lives in so Cal. She had to search far and wide to find a vet that would spay her dog knowing the dog is pregnant. Most won't do it citing how immoral and inhumane it is to kill unborn puppies.

Depending on the breed it is also an unholy pain in the ass. What is the breed? If it's a Chihuahua, it is like trying to spay a slightly oversized pregnant rat. I wouldn't do it myself.

Anonymous Righter May 01, 2014 6:02 PM  

"Righter - So there is no PC or progressive morality? It's just a throwaway phrase"

I don't know if there is.No one has defined PC Morality. I do know that Vox Day can't define it and he uses the phrases as a placeholder for "eewwww....I don't like them".

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 6:07 PM  

I don't know if there is.No one has defined PC Morality.

Is it right to kill homosexuals? Is it right to deny employment to women?

Anonymous Righter May 01, 2014 6:23 PM  

"Is it right to kill homosexuals? Is it right to deny employment to women?"

Under any number of circumstances it is.

Anonymous kh123 May 01, 2014 6:37 PM  

Someone's been hitting that cellar sauce again.

Anonymous MendoScot May 01, 2014 9:48 PM  

Righter May 01, 2014 6:23 PM

"Is it right to kill homosexuals? Is it right to deny employment to women?"

Under any number of circumstances it is.


Welcome Righter.

Unless you are a liar.

Then by your own words, we will judge you.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter May 01, 2014 10:04 PM  

Does the slowly maturing male win the IQ race?

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2014/05/does-slowly-maturing-male-win-iq-race.html

That seems to be pretty much un-PC.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter May 01, 2014 10:07 PM  

"Is it right to kill homosexuals? Is it right to deny employment to women?"

Is it right to deny anyone's sexual urges? Is it right to deny children the opportunity to experience sex with adults? Is it right to to rank people by the uselessness?

Anonymous MendoScot May 01, 2014 11:10 PM  

"Is it right to kill homosexuals? Is it right to deny employment to women?"

Under any number of circumstances it is.


Welcome brother!

Fuck off troll.

If you can't distinguish the above, you are in above your head.

Anonymous Speaker-To-SFWAs May 02, 2014 3:29 AM  

"Is it right to kill homosexuals? Is it right to deny employment to women?"

Strict adherents to the American left's religious fetish du jour (i.e., Islam) would categorically state Yes.

Precisely why said leftists -- a goodly portion of them being, themselves, gay or female (if not both) -- so feverishly coddle and cuddle and clasp tight to their collective bosom those cultists most eagerly champing at the bit to annihilate them, one and all, is a question better suited to certified experts in abnormal psychology.

Anonymous Vogon May 02, 2014 7:09 AM  

It's an interesting theory... it explains quite a lot of the shenanigans that go on; it displays the hallmark of a good theory in that it's testable.

Indeed, it's an insightful article. Steven Pinker has written about the similar concept of the "euphemism treadmill".

It would be interesting to put together a collection of quotes from earlier decades that would have counted as PC posturing at the time but which would be considered reactionary by today's language police. Nearest I can think of off the top of my head is the recent British scandal in which it was discovered that Harriet Harman, senior Labour politician, had worked in the seventies for a civil liberties group that was associated with a paedophile rights group. A case of attempting to move the goal posts in one direction, when they in fact swung round and moved elsewhere.


So what next will be the most likely taboo to be exalted and promoted? My bet would be on polygamy or polyamory.


Those are good ones, but it's hard to predict, since some progressives were apparently betting on paedophilia back in the day.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 02, 2014 9:01 AM  

Words have meaning. They serve as clues to things that are going on off stage.

Could be personality issues as much as ideological issues too. After all, The Taming of the Shrew wasn't written as a specific rebuttal to progressive feminism (although it could have been)--it acknowledges that bossy, domineering women and hen-pecked or relatively docile men have always existed.

Not that that helps you any.

Anonymous Alexander May 02, 2014 9:03 AM  

Tommy Hass, please check your sarcasm filter...

Anonymous WaterBoy May 02, 2014 3:31 PM  

rho: "So what next will be the most likely taboo to be exalted and promoted? My bet would be on polygamy or polyamory."

Bingo! EDITORIAL: Lesbian ‘throuple’ proves Scalia right on slippery slopes:

"Well, that didn’t take long. Doll, Brynn and Kitten Young, a lesbian trio, have declared themselves the world’s first “throuple.” The Massachusetts women claim to be “married” and await their first child. Massachusetts doesn’t recognize “throuple marriage” yet, but the year is young. When the Supreme Court eviscerated authentic marriage last year, this was foretold. There’s already an organized movement, led by college professors, for what might be called “grouple” marriage."

OpenID cailcorishev May 02, 2014 4:09 PM  

Group marriage will happen so fast it probably doesn't even count. Homogamy prepared the way; if that's a right, there's absolutely no reason to deny any other assortment of consenting adults. They'll have to work out a few legal kinks (har!) to keep people from doing things like marrying in groups of hundreds for insurance purposes, but morally it's already a done-deal.

That "consenting adults" part is a sticking point, though. The real prize many deviants have their eye on is eliminating the age of consent, mainly to make teenage boys fair game. They'll get more of a fight on that one.

Anonymous daddynichol May 02, 2014 5:44 PM  

Let me see here. A common troll repeats an unsubstantiated assertion numerous times in the weak belief that he is winning the debate! Where have we seen this before?

Anonymous CorkyAgain May 02, 2014 9:13 PM  

So what next will be the most likely taboo to be exalted and promoted? My bet would be on polygamy or polyamory.

Not transgressive enough. My bet would be on something that is currently almost universally reviled, affording them an opportunity to practice their favorite tactic of volte face, which separates the true avant-guard from the mere sheeple who aren't quick enough to sense the change in the direction of the wind.

Ergo, pedophilia.

Mark my words, the day will come when they will deny having ever been opposed to it.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts