What's your point, tom? Do I have to explain yet again to a conservative that I'm not here to defend the Clintons?

Do you for some odd reason think I would be surprised by this?



Of course the media are biased in lots of different ways. They are businesses selling products. Particularly in the U.S. I'm all for greater control and oversight but you won't find many conservatives supporting that call.

The latest revelations about Hillary training homeless, mentally ill, and assorted thugs, to start riots at Trump rallies (they claim Chicago as a major success), renders "Crooked Hillary" quite appropriate.

By the way, have you read about this in the media? — tom

If you have a reliable source for this, do share. But I'm not claiming the media is not biased towards Hillary anyway. I'm claiming it doesn't matter to me for the reasons outlined above. I judge Trump (as I do Hillary) on his own words and actions not what talking heads say about him.

I'm just having a good laugh. — Agustino

You're doing a lot of things, but philosophy isn't one of them.



I haven't done an analysis, but it would be hardly surprising if Trump got treated worse by the media than Hillary. He has railed against them from the beginning as being corrupt, disgusting, the lowest of the low etc. And he's been using that line deliberately to set himself up as the anti-media candidate because he knows this appeals to his anti-establishment base. He's got a lot of mileage out of it so far (it helped propel him to the Republican nomination because ironically the media lapped it all up and gave him way more coverage than the other candidates) but you can't have it both ways. You can't be against the media and then expect them to be on your side. So, I don't see anything unfair about it. He runs on being the enemy of the media, and some (though not all) of them happily accept their role. Also, naturally enough, large media companies (excepting for obvious reasons Fox News) will tend to prefer the stability of the known (Clinton) to the unknown (Trump) and this may filter through to their coverage. But really it's not the media that condemns Trump but his own words and actions.

We're not doing politics here, we're doing philosophy. — Agustino

The fact that you think you are doing philosophy illustrates my point. Just to take a minor example, can you explain what is philosophical either in style or substance about your continued references to "CROOKED HILLARY"?

I appreciate your thoughts on this. There are conservatives on the forums too that I respect despite disagreements, and I'm willing to engage constructively with them. I've said before that thoughtful progressives have more in common with thoughful conservatives than either do with thoughtless people of whatever political persuasion (and not every position I hold would be considered progressive, or at least exclusively so, anyway - it's just for me one of the less objectionable labels out there.). I find it impossible to understand Agustino's approach to this discussion though. It seems utterly self-defeating.

Exactly, what Agustino has been presenting and then railing against is an infantile caricature of progressivism, which focuses on issues such as rampant consumerism, and sexual licentiousness with phrases like "political correctness" and "Hollywood values" thrown in randomly to the mix. As if these were the progressive priorities, to make everyone buy stuff and bang each other while watching movies about adultery and how to destroy free speech. As if progressives weren't more interested in equal access to education, eliminating discrimination, affordable healthcare, and creating economic opportunities for all regardless of their social class. Exactly the sort of priorities that help countries move up the HDI. And, of course, being against sexual licentiousness and consumerism is not incompatible with being a progressive anyhow. A progressive is no more likely to put an adulterer on a pedestal than a social conservative is, and many progressives, including myself, think consumerism is out of control.

(Last point is that extremists like Agustino, being himself a caricature of social conservatism, make it harder for sensible social conservatives to be understood.)

We're still considered progressive abroad? Why thank you!

The Dutch field of grass looks different when you're standing in it. — Benkei

Field of tulips, surely. :D

Interesting. There are some great articles on his blog too such as this one.

Agustino is like a sick quack who on encountering the healthiest people on the planet immediately resolves to make them as ill as he is. I can only hope that he never ends up in progressive hell holes like Norway, Sweden, or Holland, as the cognitive dissonance alone may finish him off. Socially conservative nirvanas like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Uganda instead beckon. Off you go to the promised lands, Agustino...And take Trump with you.

Grammar is derived from syntax which is ultimately based upon metaphoric logic and merely concerns how different parts of speech and concepts are put together to make more sense out them. — wuliheron

An explicit syntax is derived from an implicit knowledge of how to put concepts together etc (if that's what you're referring to). People, of course, spoke before we learned to analyze and describe (not to mention prescribe and proscribe) how they spoke. There is no distinction to be made here between grammar and syntax in the way you are making it though. And the link you provided is just a basic definition of syntax and some of its uses, and bears no relation to the specifics of what you've written above.

The process is based on pattern matching and much of the neural networks responsible have already been mapped out in the brain. In the brain, grammar is actually physically as well as metaphorically derived from its proximity to syntax. In fact, for me, there is no distinction between the physical and metaphorical just as there is none in quantum mechanics — wuliheron

Syntax is a part of grammar so the parts of the brain responsible for it are by definition coterminous with some parts of the brain responsible for grammar. Grammar also includes, for example, rules governing morphology, which you seem to ignore in your analysis. How does the latter fit into your schema?

This is analog logic from which digital or dualistic classical logic can be derived and expresses how the human mind and brain are actually organized, while you are talking about them from the opposite point of view as if dualistic logic ruled the universe which is demonstrably false. — wuliheron

That could be, in which case we may be talking past each other, though I still don't accept that context dependency is a form of recursion. And when you talk about recursion in the context of linguistics, the specific meanings it has cannot be brushed aside. That fact in itself is a form of context dependency.

It should be clear now that nothing will prevent Agustino continuing in this forum his ideological mission to denigrate progressives and elevate any public figure who he thinks opposes them. The fact that his "arguments" are ludicrous, hypocritical, and self-contradictory, and have been shown to be so on many occasions hasn't even slowed him down. On the contrary, it seems to have only made him more convinced of his righteousness. The ideological fog in which he has shrouded himself is so thick it has obscured all consciousness of the existence of any world outside it. And from within its confines he will no doubt continue to stomp his way through every discussion of any relevance to progressivism in order to vomit up his prejudices on it. So, this post isn't aimed at him. It's just to state for the record that to understand progressivism and its impact on society, a quick internet search for the most progressive countries out there, a follow-up search for the term "Human Development Index", and a consideration of the latter's meaning and its correlations with the former could be useful in understanding why we are not dealing here with a cancer that needs the chemotherapy of a corrupt sexual predator with an insatiable narcissism to help excise it from the planet.

Hm, I thought you were referring to the notions of intertextuality and dialogism à la Kristeva and Bakhtin i.e. the meanings in texts being nested in the context of their meanings in other texts.

The more you grasp how recursive metaphors work the better you comprehend how grammar is related to the proximity of syntax. — wuliheron

I don't think you can sensibly refer to the process you described as involving "recursive metaphors"; an unfolding context that reveals the specificity of a metaphorical meaning doesn't involve recursion in terms of the metaphor itself. That would be something like the meaning of the metaphor being applied to itself and thereby performing the function of illiciting further layers of meaning. This isn't what's happening in the resolution of contextual vagueness; what's happening is simply the revelation of further information which narrows down the possible scope of meaning.

As for grammar and syntax, the latter is part of the former, so of course they are inextricably related. When you talk about syntax, you are by definition talking about grammar. So, I don't know what you mean by "grammar is related to the proximity of syntax" or how it relates to the rest of what you said. What is the "proximity of syntax"? The proximity of syntax to what? (i.e. What are you suggesting syntax (the rules concerning clause and sentence formation) is close to)? And how does that relate to grammar in any way other and above being a part of grammar?

To mods: is there a way to block posters, as there was in PF? — Arkady

The short answer is: Not yet. If we can get one, we'll make an announcement.

I have a serious problem with the word "grammar" for I do not understand about verbs and nouns but sentence structure helps me more — curious

You don't need any explicit knowledge of grammar to be a good writer. You may, however, need explicit knowledge of it to understand feedback on your writing.

Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts and even the neurological evidence supports that grammar is acquired by pattern matching and is merely the proximity of syntax or what you could call a shortcut. My own writing incorporates contextual vagueness where I frequently use the most vague of the more popular definitions, usually among the top three most popular definitions. — wuliheron

It's true that words have psychological resonances beyond their dictionary definitions; they carry with them the baggage of the context in which they have been used / misused over time, and certainly a good writer recognizes that fact and uses it in their writing. Beyond that I'm not sure what you mean by "contextual vagueness".

That way I can explore what I'm writing for any humble and elegant simplicity within the metaphors and produce a recursive logic that allows me to expand on what I'm writing. It takes longer, but it produces results and can reconcile grammar with what I'm writing. — wuliheron

Again, I don't follow this. By "recursive logic" are you referring to an awareness of the embeddedness of your choice of metaphors in changing sociocultural contexts over time? And how could this "reconcile" grammar with what you're writing?

The word "story" confounds me as well. Is there an order to just writing? — curious

Just writing is just writing; there is no other order other than the one you, yourself, put there. But there is an order to most texts, which can be divided into genres that have similar structural elements. Generally a "story" is a narrative, and narratives contain the elements of scene setting, followed by the introduction of a complication, followed by the search for a resolution, which leads to the climax of the story - the resolution itself, and then an optional coda (any wrapping up after the resolution). They don't have to follow this exact formula, of course, but if you sit down to write a story, you will probably find yourself naturally tending towards this order under the influence of the writing in this genre you've already experienced. And if you stray too far from it, you will no longer have a "story" but something else.

What if anger is expressed love, just in another way? — Question

they want to pass on what strengths they have found in themselves to their offspring and disguise their love in anger and frustration and indifference — Question

I don't think this is going to work (in so far as I understand it at least). Anger can be expressed, suppressed or repressed (using the passive voice or as an object) as in "Anger was expressed (or suppressed or repressed) by her", "She expressed (or suppressed or repressed) her anger". Or anger can express or oppress, or be an expression or an oppression (using the active voice, or as a subject / object, or in an attributive / identifying relation) as in "His anger expresses who he is", "His anger oppressed his opponents (or expressed his beliefs) / He used his anger to oppress his opponents (or to express his beliefs)", "His anger is oppressive (or expressive) / his anger is a form of oppression (or expression)".

Or anger can both express and / or oppress and simultaneously suppress / repress in the sense described by un:

"Rather, anger itself must have an immediate psychological benefit that is expressed in retribution. And I think this is the reduction or masking of pain, specifically the psychological pain of damage to the self-image." — un

The expression is the anger; what is suppressed / repressed is the pain. The primary identity of the anger is found in the expression (to the degree it is expressed*) though its underlying function (and secondary identity or type) is revealed in the suppression / repression.

So, it may be that anger as expression is sometimes caused by a feeling of love or empathy as outlined by un previously in his point about "righteous anger", but it cannot be itself an identity with love (as the two emotions are antithetical) in either a primary or a secondary sense. So, you my get an expressive or oppressive or suppressive or repressive anger, or some combination thereof but not a "loving" anger. Or even love "disguised in anger" as you suggest.

*(Of course anger when suppressed (to whatever degree) finds its identity (in the corresponding degree) in the unexpressed feeling rather than the expressed feeling / associated action (and when repressed seems to find identity only in its potential for expression) but here too it would seem to odd to propose an identify, to call one feeling a disguised form of another (though its precursor may have been another, making it a transformed form of another)).

Just some quick thoughts anyhow, which I may very well back-track on and revise too. It's an interesting subject worth exploring and I've also listened to some of Nussbaum's PEL talks on this

I read Scruton's "Modern Philosophy" (Penguin) and found it very irritating the way he inserted his conservative and anti-continental bias into the book. If you're going to write an introductory book to philosophy, you ought at least be fair-minded about it. On the positive side, he gives a good exposition of Kant in "German Philosophers" (OUP).

Your rhetoric on virtue ethics and the importance of sexual morality is undermined by your consequentialism. — Sapientia

Exactly, although I think the latest revelations about Trump molesting women and sexualizing children may be enough to make even @Agustino rediscover his moral principles. They won't be for many, of course, such as the Texas Senator who said he would consider sticking by Trump even if he said he liked raping women.

Let me try to put that in an analogy. You have a house and you're looking to reconstruct it because it has wood rot and peeling paint. You get to choose a pet and the one option is an old mean cat and the other is a faeces flinging chimpanzee with the temperament of a horny dog.

The cat will occasionally drag in a dead rat and rake you if you don't look out but most days not much of a nuisance and life goes on.

The chimp though flings his shit around everyday, screams incessantly, (sexually) assaults visitors and the few words he knows are "pussygrabber" and "Mexican rapist". Pretty soon your friends stop visiting.

Neither will fix your house but you'll have a shit load more work cut out for you after the chimp is gone. — Benkei

8-)

Good stuff John :)



Love those cartoons. I too was incensed by the Iraq war, but don't have something so bitingly creative to show for it. 8-) (I have done some written satire, but directed against other targets).

As I'm not convinced that even the above will be enough to penetrate the solid wood that is the Trump supporter's brain, here is a quote from me about Hillary from a previous discussion:

Hillary doesn't get a pass on being a liar, corporate shill and lover of war criminals because she's a woman. Arguably, her husband is worse (in my view at least) but he's not running for office this time. — Baden

Now, back to Trump.

Yet you use the same selective outrage that most liberals are known for. You attack Trump and his supporters over something Trump said as opposed to what Hillary did. Last I checked, everyone had the right to free speech, and Trump exercised his rights. Hillary, on the other hand, engaged in criminal behavior. Which is worse? Obviously what Clinton did yet you aren't consistent in holding both accountable. You are only interested in holding one accountable - the one that didn't do the worse thing - a criminal act. Your bias is obvious. — Harry Hindu

This is the last time I am going to explain that I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, that I don't like her in the slightest, and I would never vote for her. Am I expressing myself in simple enough terms? But this discussion is about Trump. It's called "Latest Trump Is No Worse Than Earlier Trump". Hillary Clinton is not the topic here. If you want to start a new discussion about her, go ahead. I've criticized her very heavily in other discussions and I'm likely to do so again..

Hillary, on the other hand, engaged in criminal behavior. — Harry Hindu

Trump, as a disgusting old lech, boasted about sexually assaulting younger women. Sexual assault is criminal behaviour. It was not just talk. It was talk about his actions. And to dismiss it as just talk is an egregious insult to every victim of this crime. So, this insipid parroting of the idea that it's just words, which are not as bad as actions, is not going to fly anywhere outside moronic media environments like Breitbart and Fox News. And nothing Hillary Clinton has done mitigates its seriousness.

But this is the whole conservative argument: "They said my friend is naughty but their friend is naughtier!" It's almost beyond belief that we have to listen to this childish rubbish on a philosophy forum.

Well, if that's the best the Daily Mail can do these days in their crusade against all things non-Anglo-Saxon, they really must have scraped the bottom out of the barrel.

But Trump was saying the truth — Agustino

What's true is that he boasted about sexually assaulting women. He boasted about doing it himself. You can continue to try to blame that on Hollywood, the media, and progressives etc. but no one here is going to take you seriously; and the fact that you continue to try to excuse him while complaining about how the media excuses the Clintons highlights again the hypocrisy that you are so steeped in.

Baden, are you of the mindset that words spoken are equal to actions taken? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It depends on the words, and the actions, and the actions the words describe.

Mr. Clinton not only disrespected the highest office of my country but he allowed his wife Hillary, to go on national media and say that the women accusing Bill Clinton are a part of some right wing conspiracy. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He's done far far worse things than that (in terms of foreign policy in particular).

Gosh, golly gee, I wonder if Hillary would feel the same, if it was Chelsea that was being portrayed not as a victim but rather as a master manipulator. :s — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't defend any of the reprehensible things the Clintons have done, Tiff. But none of them redeems Trump in any way.

You can highlight Clinton's faults all you want and you won't get any arguments from me. I'm not one of her supporters.

I have no bias in this. — Agustino

It wouldn't matter anyway; neither your opinion nor mine alone doth a debate win make, and the general public by a large margin gave it to Clinton. The consensus among the media as a whole seems to be that Trump did better than last time (he had more energy and a few good lines) but still lost. I was working, so I can't give much of an informed opinion except to say that she seemed rather robotic and lifeless and he overly aggressive and uninformed. Neither of them have much charisma or are very likeable but she has a better grasp on the issues and seems better at obscuring the less pleasant aspects of her persona, while he's better at firing people up with off-the-cuff one-liners.

This debate was a clear Trump victory — Agustino

That's just factually incorrect. The only scientific poll (i.e. based on a random sampling etc) that I've seen gave the debate to Clinton.

"CNN's poll found that by 57-34%, a majority of voters watching them thought she got the best of him."

Simply attacking someone doesn't win a debate. You have to come across as at least somewhat likeable. Trump played to his base, who love everything he does anyway, but made no inroads with any other demographics. Not a winning strategy.

And by the way Baden - did you see Bill's face during the debate? Priceless — Agustino

No, but I have no more pity for him than I will have for Trump when he loses.

Baden - there's a very low bar for homophobia, which you immediately classify with racism. It illustrates the point - agreement or ostracism, there is no space for dissent. — Wayfarer

I don't set the bar, society sets it. Anyway, I think I've said before on this forum that I don't believe that simply being against gay marriage makes you a homophobe. Being averse to gay people simply because they are gay on the other hand does. And yes, why wouldn't I classify that with racism, which is almost exactly analagous?

That's certainly what I took from the latest debate. :D

Earlier in this thread, you said the President should set...

The highest moral standards, since they set the tone for everyone else. If the President cheats on his wife/husband, it will encourage little Joe and Jenny to do the same - that's terrible - regardless of how discrete it is - in fact the more discrete, the worse. It's preferable that he be not discrete if he does it at all, so that the public can take attitude against it. — Agustino

Now you say...

I don't really care if Trump himself will be immoral — Agustino

If your goal is to prove my point, then by contradicting yourself so openly you are doing it more effectively than I alone could . But then as I said before in regards to most social conservatives' "morality":

There is nothing of substance to contradict. — Baden

Why isn't being defined as a "minority" offensive? I would be offended at being defined as a minority which then implies that I need this redistribution of resources. It belittles me and makes me feel more inferior. — Harry Hindu

Social capital is either distributed equally or it's not. If it's not then your personal offense at it being redistributed in your favour is outweighed by the lack of offense other members of minority groups feel at it being redistributed in theirs. It's generally easier to get over being advantaged than being disadvantaged.

The fact is everyone has been turned down by a job, has been called a name and has been on the receiving end of racism and sexism — Harry Hindu

No, that is not a fact.

There is also the fact that not all "minorities" are offended by this kind of speech. Only some are - and this difference needs to be accounted for - not discredited - if you actually want to get at the truth of why people are offended. — Harry Hindu

What kind of speech, exactly? It would be a mistake to lump all non-PC speech together as if it has a singular effect. People are offended by different things at different levels. Very few people are not offended by any kind of racist or sexist speech, for example. If you aren't, good for you. But that doesn't mean you should get to decide that other people shouldn't be offended by it.

Yes, Trump boasted about sexually assaulting woman. And most Trump supporters apparently think that's normal behaviour, which speaks volumes about their values or lack thereof. In this sense, Trump is actually a boon - not only is he destroying one of America's political hegemonies, he's very effectively highlighting the hypocrisy of so-called social conservatives*. That moral values have never been the driving force for the majority of this group is not something that surprises me. The in-group cohesion of ideology (of which "morality" and "religion" are just incidental parts) generally exists to serve only power and control. But the Trump situation exposes this more obviously by opening up a huge chasm between moral principle and political power that to one side or the other social conservatives are forced to jump. Note the ensuing mass abandonment of principle. Moral charlatans like Ben Carson and his ilk will happily vote for Trump no matter how much he apparently contradicts their moral values for a very simple reason. There is nothing of substance to contradict. Power trumps morality.

(*And at no substantive cost as - as I've said before - he is not in any real danger of winning.)

It's not so much the job that you do but how you approach life in general that's important. My experience suggests to me that what most makes people happy or unhappy, strong or weak, is the cultivation of habit. Your job can be a part of that but never the whole. So, cleaning and listening to audio-books could very well be more fulfilling for an intellectually-minded person than most jobs out there if it forms part of a coherent approach to life. Following a career in academia could also work. Note though that generally the further up you go on the career ladder, the more compromises you need to make in terms of your values and your free time. It can end up being a fool's errand. I would figure out a big picture of what you want to spend your time on and then work a career into that rather than let your career dictate the overall pattern of your life.

Right. So my view is that Eich's sacking was an egregious example of the ostracism of a competent businessman, for holding a politically incorrect view regarding a sensitive topic. You might not agree, but at least I am being clear about it. — Wayfarer

I'm not going to argue with you about who's being more clear about what we're arguing about. I hadn't got on to my personal view of Eich's case yet. I think it's a complicated. Firstly, I don't think that there is anything wrong in principle in sacking a CEO who is homophobic (or racist or etc.) And I think most people would agree with that. I also don't think there is necessarily something wrong with sacking someone who has created the image of themselves as being homophobic (or etc) even if it's not clear that they actually are (a CEO of a business has a responsibility to protect the image of his business, and part of that responsibility is to protect his own image). Eich's case is difficult because his opposition to proposition 8 along with other actions he had taken in the past could be seen to have created the perception that he was homophobic. On the other hand, that perception was based on a quickly changing Zeitgeist with regard to homosexual rights; and an environment where talented people are barred from being CEOs because of something they did in the past, which was less objectionable then but has become more so now, could be deemed more regressive than progressive.

Also, Eich wasn't actually sacked, he resigned in the end because he had lost the battle to clear himself of the charge of homophobia. So, there is an argument to be made that the attacks on him were fair game- that gay activists and their supporters have a right to look out for their interests, and that it was up to him to look out for his interests by presenting a strong enough defense against them, which in the end he didn't. Unfortunately in public ideological battles the truth tends to get lost on both sides, so I think the question of whether Eich is actually homophobic or not is beyond anyone's knowledge here. If he is, he deserved his fate; if he isn't, he didn't.

Good so then you think it's good that we institute a mechanism which will only aid the power hungry? — Agustino

I think it would be good if we instituted a mechanism where loaded questions were automatically deleted by the software here.

So, does it follow from that, that what is 'good for business' is, therefore, morally sound? — Wayfarer

Absolutely not*, in my view, but that's precisely the sort of argument that tends to get proffered by those on the right -if not always directly- which was the point of difficulty for them I was getting at. The market is very often presented by conservatives as a kind of a moral arbiter that will come up with the right answer if given the chance, until and unless it's an answer they don't like.

*Though of course the obverse doesn't follow either, that what is good for business, including Eich's firing, is morally unsound.

What do you mean? That supporing Proposition 8 was bad for business, so he had to be fired? — Wayfarer

I mean what I said. That's why he was fired. If supporting proposition 8 had been good for business, he wouldn't have been.

Oh, I get it. So when I shop, I should know the position of the company I'm buying from on gay marriage. Maybe we could have a sticker, like they do for kilojoules, or heart safety? You know, a little rainbow flag with a thumbs up. 'Gay friendly', like dolphin-safe tuna. — Wayfarer

I made a factual observation. You attack a (rather absurd) proposition. Is there anything I actually said that you disagree with?

I'm simply commenting on the dynamics and the politics of the debate. I haven't said anything about God or evil-doers, this is a thread about 'political correctness', and you can't deny that in this matter, 'political correctness' is a huge factor.

Read the link about Brendan Eich - he was fired as the head of Mozilla Corporation, which he had helped found, because it was discovered that he donated to Proposition 8 some years previously. That is an example of what I mean by 'ostracism'. Under anti-discrimination laws, many people will be required and obliged to support same-sex marriage, whether they want to or not; if they try not to support it, by, for example, not providing services to same-sex weddings, they will be subjected to legal action and even vilification — Wayfarer

Brendan Eich is an interesting case, and it's probably a good one to debate to see where people stand on this issue. It seems to me he was fired directly for ruthless business reasons and only indirectly for supporting proposition 8, which I think poses a problem for those on the right. Being against homosexual rights is a loser in the marketplace of ideas and is therefore a loser in the marketplace proper. For those enamored of markets the question should be asked: "Why should we prop up a losing idea any more than we should prop up a losing product?"

There is a sense we're going to end up talking past each other during this debate anyway as conservatives* tend to use the term PC exclusively as a pejorative i.e. they allow for no distinction between PC and excessive PC; PC itself just is an excessive form of social control. Of course, they present that view through the lens of a social reality that has already been constructed at least partly from progressive political forces. PC could only seem unnecessary in a society which has already been ameliorated by it (or its precursors).

*And some on the left. Slavoj Zizek is a notable opponent of PC.

If Trump's only crime was to be stupid enough to be himself that alone should disqualify him from any public office. Anyway, of course there is a necessary hypocrisy here. The dignity of office is upheld in so far as the individual who holds it is perceived to be dignified.

I'm from an ex-Communist country, these "increased social capital" memes are bullshit. It is virtually impossible to change the inner attitudes people have towards one another on a mass scale. Even with a very limited group it's very difficult. All that will happen is that you get people to be educated to no longer display an inner attitude outwards - but you can never regulate that fully. If for example you're someone who hates black people - then I can take you and enforce all the regulations I want on you. You will not be able to curse black people, you will have to talk politely and respectfully to them, etc. but in your mind, you'd still think the same way about them. Nothing will have changed, except that you will have learned that success in your society depends on wearing a mask - just like your avatar in fact. That's really what political correctness is all about. A useless meme, there just for the show. — Agustino

Societies differ not only across nations but over time in terms of people's attitudes. Not only is that self-evident, it has been empirically demonstrated. What you seem to be doing here is taking the obvious truth that some people cannot be made to change their attitudes over short periods of time, and trying to derive the obvious falsity that there is no possibility of development in social attitudes.

But on the contrary - you will create a new class of power hungry totalitarians who will use the new rules to dominate the world around them, the very same way it had been dominated before. It really doesn't matter - those who seek to be powerful, will use whatever tools exist to make that possible. They will not care what it takes to be powerful - they will not care if they have to curse the "white man" or the "black man" to be powerful - they will do whatever it takes. — Agustino

I'm not claiming political correctness will rid us of the power hungry.

That is a pretty selfish commodity to have. Another function of the egotism the rots our minds in the present day and age. The need to have the feeling of "I am superior", "I am worth something" or even "I am above him, her, that". Yet some of the people on here talk as if it is something desirable in modern society lol, god help them. — intrapersona

Indeed, God help them! Thank goodness you are so above all that! Oops...

Anyway, you've confused self-esteem with arrogance, which, yes, is egotistical. The last sentence in your post is a good example of the latter undesirable trait. Self-esteem is more a matter of having the desirable ones of self-respect and self-confidence.