In an Overcoming Bias post on Gary Taubes’ diet heresy Stuart Buck refers to a “politically incorrect result from a clinical trial in Minnesota (in which 269 mental patients assigned to a cholesterol-lowering diet died, compared to 206 in the control group)”. So is cholestorol-bad an axiom of political correctness? It doesn’t seem that political to me, but most people do believe that cholestorol is bad. Are you considered a bad person if you disagree? What is necessary for a belief to be politically incorrect? It might be offensive to some sort of designated victim group. Smokers seem to be a designated hate-deserving group, and not necessarily because they harm others through second-hand smoke, but simply because we (even Ilkka Kokkarinen) consider them disgusting. The intersection of P.C and religion is especially confusing because some of the most uninfluential, pathetic and disliked minority religions are also the most egregious violators of other P.C (especially with regard to gender or sexuality) tenets. The disjunction between the various axioms makes me believe that those Mencius Moldbug considers Stasi will not be reliable in enforcing orthodoxy on, say, global warming.

On a somewhat related note, Al Roth gets into a discussion of repugnance in this talk about market design.

UPDATE: Via Marginal Revolution, a ranking of academic disciplines by political correctness.

Advertisements