Political correctness is a good thing

R2: PRO 0. Summary of R2: PRO: In this round, I admit that there are many unpleasant outcomes with political correctness, such as the ones Con stated in R1. However, I state that I believe that these unpleasant outcomes are necessary outcomes of the principles I put forth in R1, which I don't think either should be or probably could be undone. (For ease of access, here they are copy-and-pasted below): 1. When you want to buy something, 3 things should factor in to whether you buy it: 1. How much you want it 2. How much it costs 3. How much you want the person you're buying it from to have your money. 2. The person-you're-buying-it-from's beliefs should factor in to how much you want them to have your money. 3. This should inevitably lead to a PC culture, because: 1. People who have non-PC beliefs and are honest about them will suffer economically, and so their influence will be marginalized 2. People who lie about their non-PC beliefs may succeed economically, but whatever influence they attain will not spread their non-PC beliefs. It will spread their lies. 1. The main argument Firstly, I completely agree with both of Con's points from R1. 1. . .. That is, I completely agree that both: 1. trust and 2. intellectual diversity . .. are stifled in a PC culture. 2. In addition to that, I believe that there are further problems with a PC culture, such as: 1. It creates a climate of fear 2. It makes speech more artificial 3. It allows less qualified people to advance and less qualified people to fall behind. 4. It creates a market for a thought police 5. It helps enforce an intellectual orthodoxy which deters any moral or scientific progress friom challenging it 6. It makes people have to waste time learning what is PC and what isn't, rather than spending their time trying to figure out what they think is right or true. 7. There will be fewer funny jokes in a PC culture . .. plus I imagine a lot of other problems that I'm not thinking of. 3. However, despite all of these problems (including any I can't think of right now), I believe that they are a necessary consequence of the first 2 parts of my R1 argument, namely: 1. That whether you decide to buy something should include the consideration of who you're buying it from, and 2. A person's beliefs should factor in to whether you want to buy something from them. . .. and that these 2 things are more important and more difficult to get rid of than any of the other problems alluded to above. 2. So, consider the 1st part, that: Who you buy something from should weigh in to your decision of whether you should buy something from them. 1. This seems to me like the biggest obstacle that someone who wants a non-PC culture has to overcome. 2. As I said in my R1: 1. When you want to buy something, 3 things should factor in to whether you buy it: 1. How much you want it 2. How much it costs 3. How much you want the person you're buying it from to have your money. 3. No one disagrees with the first 2 I think, and I don't think anybody would disagree with the 3rd if they really sat down and thought about it. For instance, 1. Most people imagine that they "lose money" when they "don't get their money's worth. " For example, 1. If they "lose money" at a casino 2. If they get a defective product that they can't return 3. If they buy something that they thought they would like but it turns out they don't. 2. In all of these cases, however, I would argue that the money isn't really "lost," it's just "given" to somebody else. For example, suppose: 1. The casino that you lose money at is owned by Native Americans 2. The defective product that is bought but can't be returned is made by an impoverished tribe in Africa 3. The thing that you buy and think you will like but end up not liking is lemonade from a lemonade stand run by little kids 3. Now in all of these cases, someone might still be annoyed that they've given their money to someone and received little in return. That notwithstanding however, I don't think that in these circumstances they would say that their money had truly been "lost," just as they wouldn't say that it had been lost if they had given these people their money purely out of charity. Additionally, I don't think that they would say that it would have been an irrelevant consideration to factor in who would be getting their "lost" money in the event that things did not work out as they had intended, which is further confirmation that they agree with the principle in question, even if they aren't aware of it. 4. On top of this, I think that most people, myself included, wish that people in society paid more attention to who it is that they buy their products from, and that information about these people was more easily available. For example, I think most people (myself included on some of them) wish that people in society would give more consideration to: 1. Buying things made in America as opposed to made in China or elsewhere 2. Not buying things made from sweatshops or child labor. 3. Buying things made from their own community 4. Not buying things where animals are treated poorly (e. g. factory farms) 5. Not buying things from oppressive governments (e. g. the BDS movement for Israel) 6. Not buying things from people who don't engage in sustainable practices. 4. In summary of this section, I feel that this thing about: 1. Taking into consideration who it is you buy stuff from . .. is the biggest obstacle for someone opposed to a PC culture to overcome, and that if people really think about it, that they would prefer that people in general paid more not less attention to who it is that they were getting their products from. On top of that, I think that they would further prefer that more information about the business practices and lifestyles of people selling stuff was more widely available, so that they could take in to consideration who it is that's selling whatever even more than they are now able to. 3. Now, consider the 2nd part, that is: You should consider a person's beliefs if you're considering whether you're going to buy something from them. 1. I think this point is much less controversial than the 1st part, and that once you accept that: 1. You should take into account who it is you buy stuff from, . .. that the 2nd part, that: 2. A person's beliefs should be taken into account when you take into account who it is you're buying stuff from, . .. follows naturally. 2. However, to try to diminish any controversy that still remains, I think there are 3 and only 3 good reasons for factoring someone's beliefs into your decision to buy from them, namely, because giving them money will greater enable them to either: 1. Spread their beliefs 2. Act out their beliefs or 3. Act out their character, which their beliefs are somewhat reflective of. 3. Now, obviously, minor disagreements about things with very little: 1. real-world application or 2. evidence of character . .. should bear very little weight in determining whether you buy something from someone or not. 4. However, I think it's perfectly reasonable if someone disagrees with, for example: 1. Racists 2. Homophobes 3. Transphobes 4. Fundamentalists 5. Sociopaths 6. Sexists 7. Climate change deniers 8. Holocaust deniers . .. to be hesitant about doing business with them, and that that hesitancy is based on 1 of the 3 things listed above, namely, because either you think that by doing business with them, you will will help them either: 1. spread their beliefs 2. act out their beliefs 3. act out the character which their beliefs are partially reflective of. 5. Once again, in summary of this section, I feel that once you accept the 1st part, that: 1. We should base our decision of what to buy on who it is that is selling what, . .. that the second part of: 2. Factoring someone's beliefs into that . .. is a reasonable thing to do, because of the 1 or more of the 3 reasons I gave above, namely, because buying something from someone better enables them to either: 1. Spread their beliefs 2. Act out their beliefs 3. Act out the character that the person's beliefs are partially reflective of. 4. Finally, as I stated in my R1, I think these 2 things inevitably lead to a PC culture, because: 1. People who have non-PC beliefs and are honest about them will suffer economically, and so their influence will be marginalized 2. People who lie about their non-PC beliefs may succeed economically, but whatever influence they attain will not spread their non-PC beliefs. It will spread their lies. 1. Once again, I admit that a PC culture has many undesirable features. 2. However, I can't see how someone can get rid of these features without getting rid of: 1. People factoring in who it is they're buying stuff from into their decision of what to buy, or 2. People factoring in people's beliefs into their decision of who it is that is most worthy of their spending money. 3. These 2 things I think are: 1. More fundamental 2. More important 3. More desirable and 4. Harder to get rid of . .. than any list of negative consequences of a PC culture that can be put together. 4. For this reason and this reason alone, I think that a PC culture, despite all of its bad qualities, is the best we can hope for, given that I think that the more fundamental economic principles that I've put forth inevitably lead to those bad qualities. 5. Last last thing: It is on this point, namely, that: 1. You can't have a non-PC culture without violating the more fundamental principles of: 1. Being able to factor in to your decision of what to buy, who it is you're buying whatever from, and 2. Being able to use a person's beliefs in determining who you want to buy something from . .. that I think this whole debate rests, and I hope in the next round, Con will either try to show: 1. That you can have a non-PC culture without violating the more fundamental principles listed above, or 2. That this whole debate does not rest on the above-stated point.