Notes and Thoughts

An experiment to spark conversation


Temporally inconsistent ethical values govern PC Culture

Listening to all the discourses online that have been happening in recent times, I am starting to feel that there is more to it than just the misunderstanding that is caused due to the improper usage of the words i.e. Political Correctness. This is to say that languages might have a temporal element to them that gets discounted when a person is tired of the nuance that is expected of them all the time or is unable/unwilling to keep the chain unbroken. The idea here is to talk in a meta-dialogical manner that conceals the effort put by the participant in the dialogue in the first place.

What does this have to do with how we are or what we say is perceived?

To be honest, I seriously do not think it has anything to do with how one is perceived, in fact, I feel it does not even concern the perceiver in the first place. The real problem here, in my opinion, is with the anachronistic and inconsistent manner in which the perception is evaluated.

For example, if you traveled back in time before the word is coined and convinced someone of its inappropriate nature in your real present(i.e. their future), but it turned out that when you returned to your present(ie., their future), the ethical values had changed in ways beyond you, but in ways that it could accommodate that word without any hint of inappropriate connotations that you thought it implied, in fact, in positive ways. In that case, would it be right of you to have done so viz. to have re-oriented someone's point of view without catering to the temporally emergent aspects of language, thoughts, and society.

It is this inconsistency that I am talking about(i.e., the ethical and temporal inconsistency) that is not addressed while thinking about things. And I believe that no matter how hard you try, you can't be conscious of this bias as it keeps changing its face every time you encounter it by putting on a different mask, but what I think can be done is that you can handle the general case by avoiding setting a period as a baseline i.e., never invoking the parallel between the past and present in terms of ideas that are temporally not equatable.