The more subtle one: politically correct people sometimes also describe humans from other culture as aliens, just to signal how tolerant they are; because tolerance to an alien is more difficult, and therefore more noble, than tolerance to a mere human.
The red car effect/availability heuristic at work—I instantly thought of a Zizek quote. Or were you quoting this bit too?
“Liberal attitudes towards the other are characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment. In short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite. My duty to be tolerant towards the other effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be ‘harassed’, that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others.”
I’m more on the “good fences make good neighbors” side, which I guess is the opposite from Zizek (judging by this quote; I don’t know more about his opinions). He criticizes the fear of harassment (and labels it “obsessive”, just to remind the reader that it is a boo light); I would like to talk also about those specific situations where the threat is real.
To me it seems that the “politically correct” description of people from other cultures is that they are a) completely different, but also b) completely harmless.
On the other hand, my opinion is that people from other cultures are often very similar, but even the small differences can be dangerous.
A “political correct” picture of a different people is something like this: They have green skin and worship ants… but if we will tolerate their green skins and ant worship, they will certainly be pleasant neighbors and our lives will be made more rich by their presence.
My picture of a different people is something like this: They are mostly like me: they value truth, and they want to punish people who harm others. Unfortunately, their idea of truth is whatever their holy prophet said; their idea of harm is opposing the prophet’s words; and their idea of proper punishment is to murder everyone who disagrees with their prophet. This is why they wouldn’t make pleasant neighbors.
Yep, that picture is a lot like mine, but Zizek would add pages upon pages about religion to it, to show how the words of the prophet—if the prophet said anything interesting at all—can be twisted and turned until the resulting ideology is refined enough, and more viable in a civilized world. That’s the massively oversimplifying cynical take on it, anyway.
The red car effect/availability heuristic at work—I instantly thought of a Zizek quote. Or were you quoting this bit too?
Zizek on the “decaffeinated Other”
I’m more on the “good fences make good neighbors” side, which I guess is the opposite from Zizek (judging by this quote; I don’t know more about his opinions). He criticizes the fear of harassment (and labels it “obsessive”, just to remind the reader that it is a boo light); I would like to talk also about those specific situations where the threat is real.
To me it seems that the “politically correct” description of people from other cultures is that they are a) completely different, but also b) completely harmless.
On the other hand, my opinion is that people from other cultures are often very similar, but even the small differences can be dangerous.
A “political correct” picture of a different people is something like this: They have green skin and worship ants… but if we will tolerate their green skins and ant worship, they will certainly be pleasant neighbors and our lives will be made more rich by their presence.
My picture of a different people is something like this: They are mostly like me: they value truth, and they want to punish people who harm others. Unfortunately, their idea of truth is whatever their holy prophet said; their idea of harm is opposing the prophet’s words; and their idea of proper punishment is to murder everyone who disagrees with their prophet. This is why they wouldn’t make pleasant neighbors.
Yep, that picture is a lot like mine, but Zizek would add pages upon pages about religion to it, to show how the words of the prophet—if the prophet said anything interesting at all—can be twisted and turned until the resulting ideology is refined enough, and more viable in a civilized world. That’s the massively oversimplifying cynical take on it, anyway.