The tight link between political correctness and leftism

So there you have a baker’s dozen of politically incorrect statements…

Now what do they have in common in virtue of which they are all instances of political incorrectness? The most important common feature is that each opposes the contemporary liberal or leftist or ‘progressive’ worldview.

To be politically correct, then, is to support the leftist worldview and the leftist agenda. It follows that a conservative cannot be politically correct. P.C. comes from the C.P. The P.C. mentality is a successor form of the Communist mentality. To be politically correct is to toe the party line. It is to support leftist positions and tactics, including the suppression of the free speech rights of opponents.

Essential to leftism is the double standard. So while the politically correct insist on their own free speech rights, they deny them to their opponents, which is why they routinely shout them down.

Quote source

Vallicella, B. (2016). A Mistaken Definition of ‘Political Correctness’ and a ‘Correct’ Definition. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 1st Jan 2017.


Liberals and their manipulative name calling

Liberals smear their opponents and then issue hypocritical calls for ‘civility.’  What passes for argument among liberals is the hurling of SIXHRB epithets: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, bigoted (acronym via Dennis Prager).

For example, if you oppose illegal immigration then you are a xenophobe; if you carefully argue against Obamacare then you a racist; if you give reasons why marriage is between a man a woman you are dismissed as a bigot.  If you oppose the slaughter of innocent human beings which is abortion you are waging war against women and interfering with their ‘health’ and ‘reproductive rights.’   If you point out the very real threat of radical Islam, then you are dismissed as an  ‘Islamaphobe’ with a mental illness.

Quote source

Vallicella, B (2012). Ten Reasons Not to Vote Democrat. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 19th Dec 2015.

Forgetting to remember the state’s militancy

Michael Walzer disclosed his fears of religion in this way:

For myself, I live with a generalized fear of every form of religious militancy. I am afraid of Hindutva zealots in India, of messianic Zionists in Israel, and of rampaging Buddhist monks in Myanmar. But I admit that I am most afraid of Islamist zealots because the Islamic world at this moment in time (not always, not forever) is especially feverish and fervent.

To which Bill Vallicella responded:

Walzer needs to be reminded that we conservatives also harbor a rational fear, a fear of leftists who have no problem with using the awesome power of the state to destroy the liberties of individuals.

Quote source

Vallicella, B. (2015). Michael Walzer, “Islamism and the Left”. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 30th Nov 2015.

Liberals promote ‘diversity’—or do they?

The only kind of diversity liberals care about is politically correct diversity, diversity in respect of skin color and reproductive plumbing, not a diversity of ideas.

Quote source

Vallicella, B. (2015). College Encourages Lively Exchange of One Idea. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 31st Aug 2015

Liberals love licentiousness, yet loathe liberty

Are you willing to sell your birthright, liberty, for a mess of pottage? That’s the issue. Liberals are a strange breed of cat. They’ll puke their guts out in defense of their ‘right’ to abortion and their ‘right’ to violate every norm of decency in pursuit of the ‘artistic’ expression of their precious and vacuous selves, but when it comes to the right to be in control of the sorts of care their bodies receive they reverse course and surrender their liberties.

Quote source

Vallicella, B. (2009). Health Care: A Liberty Issue. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 15th Aug 2015.

Moral relativism pushed to its logical conclusion

Too many liberals cannot see the incoherence of maintaining that we must respect other cultures because judgments as to right and wrong are culturally relative. They fail to see that if such judgments are indeed relative, then there cannot be any objective moral requirement that members of a given culture respect other cultures.

If all such moral judgments are culturally relative, then the members of a culture who believe that the strong have the right to enslave the weak are perfectly justified in enslaving the weak. For if right and wrong are culturally relative, then they have all the justification they could possibly have for enslaving them.

Quote source

Valliecella, B. (2015) Facts, Opinions, and Common Core. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 8th Aug 2015.

Scientism is weak on the origin of consciousness

This loaded statement came from RationalWiki:

We do not know why or even when consciousness evolved.

But that statement assumes that scientism and naturalism should be taken literally!

Now compare that with the following:

If we make a really conscious robot, if we ‘synthesize’ consciousness and the unity of consciousness from non-conscious materials, what we have done is to assemble components that form a unified physical thing at which consciousness is manifested.  But this neutral description of what we have done leaves open two possibilities:

  1. The one is that consciousness simply comes into existence without cause at that complex configuration of physical components but is in no way caused by or emergent from that complex configuration.  In this case we have not synthesized consciousness from nonconscious materials; we have simply brought together certain material components at which consciousness appears.
  2. The other possibility is that consciousness comes into manifestation at the complex configuration of physical components ab extra, from outside the natural sphere.  A crude theological way of thinking of this would be that a purely spiritual being, God, ‘implants’ consciousness in sufficiently complex physical systems.

On both (1) and (2), consciousness arises at a certain level of material complexity, but not from matter. On (1) it just arises as a matter of brute fact. On (2), consciousness comes from consciousness.  On neither does consciousness have a natural origin. On (1) consciousness does not originate from anything. On (2) it has a non-natural origin.

Quote sources

  1. RationalWiki (2014). Consciousness. Available Last accessed 1st Aug 2015.
  2. Vallicella, B. (2013). The Relevance of Conscious Robots for the Philosophy of Mind. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 1st Aug 2015.