From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 20:49:50 GMT

In <Brxz2L.4y4@world.std.com>, Jamal A Hannah asserts:

>>Unlike what some others may say, PC is far more broadbased than being
>>a "Liberal" doctrine.

In the "classical" sense of liberalism, you're right.  Classical liberalism
is about as far away from PC as is possible.  However, in the sense of
contemporary liberalism, PC is a way of life.

>>I've found that PC basicly (sic) means...there are certain things you cannot
>>say around certain people. If the majority of "things" that it seems you cant
>>say take on a spacific (sic) trend, then they are associated with that trend.
>>As it is right now, the "taboo" things to say are associated with
>>talking about minorities or downtrodden folks, or famous people that these
>>groups respect in a bad mannor (sic).

"Certain people."  Who are these "certain people?"  They are based on race,
gender and sexual orientation.  Someone who really hates bigotry would say
that's evil.  But we're talking about PC, not consistency...

>>As far as I can tell its just a reactionary counter-attack by people who find
>>change and acceptence (sic) of alternative ideas and concepts to be
>>frusterating (sic), if not outright outragous.

So we have to accept Sister Souljah without being allowed to criticize her,
because she has hit the exacta--she's black and she's female.

PC forces the acceptance of alternative ideas without allowing for the accept-
ance of traditional or established ideas.  A "classical liberal" will encourage
the exchange of *all* ideas, as do I.

>>It was very much "politically incorrect" for the longest time to put down
>>the symbols of the status quo in the USA.. the President, White People,
>>the Upper Class, Private Property Owners, Bosses, whatever.  It's been
>>a new phenomenon that is used extensively by the "New Right": so called
>>"Libertarians", darwinists (social Darwinists), Objectivists, what-
>>have you.

Maybe so.  And it was as wrong as PC is today.  By reversing the scenario, we
don't erase the past, do we?  Does it suddenly reverse the Dred Scott decision?

>>It represents a behavior pattern that is very much understandable... there is
>>a lot of resentment out there, and for the minority groups and artists who
>>have pushed to get public recognition, the heckling from the crowds generaly
>>manifests itself in this form of attack.

Yes.  And riots too.  Hey, those Korean merchants had it coming, didn't they?

>>I cant deny the genius of the term.   "Politically Correct" sounds like
>>something some planning comitte (sic) would come up with behind closed doors,
>>in a joke.   ("But that wouldnt be politically correct! We need a new plan!")

That's pretty much how the modern PC movement works.

>>PC is a label that was made up by opositional (sic) forces, but its a differ-
>>ent type of phrase than "nigger" or "nazi". It's a tough label to shake once
>>it's there.

Yeah.  The label "fascist" is pretty hard to shake too.  Yet that word is used
regularly by the PC police who have *no idea* what the word means.  If they
did, then they would be targeting themselves.

>>In other words, if political corectness (sic) is bad, then whatever can be
>>efectively (sic) defined as "poltically correct" is bad and anyone associated
>>with such things must be bad too.

No, most PC people aren't bad, just misguided.  They seem to think that
reverse discrimination will rectify past discrimination by white males--that
our past will somehow magically vanish.

>>"Politically Correct" cant be directly associated with any spacific (sic)
>>group, because the definition beyond being "A Euphamism (sic)" is pretty damn
>>arbitrary.

You're right, and that's why contemporary liberals hate the term.  They love
to pigeonhole people and ideas into groups and pit them against each other.
There is no one pigeonhole for a "Politically Correct Person."

>>If you want to get nasty, start characterising PC as a RIGHT wing phenomenon,
>>and cite that your "Freedom and inaliable Right" to make fun of Jefferson,
>>Ayn Rand, William F. Buckley, Edward Teller, Robert Heinlein/Lazarus Long,
>>or anything Cyberpunk (on the level of technology-worship anyway)
>>in the presence of Libertarians is consistently violated
>>by "Politicaly (sic) Correct" intentions.. even in their own homes!

Yes, the Right may have coined the term, but the phenomenon isn't imaginary.
It's very real.  Just because a few of them may cry wolf from time to time
doesn't mean that the wolf isn't real sometimes.

>>PC is part of all that Noble Bantering about man's greatness and immortality
>>being pulled down into the muck by moralists, "scientism", and "intellectual
>>prostitutes who do anything for a cause".  But it's replacing one morality
>>with another.. one 'religion' is replaced by another with it's own icons
>>and fanatics.  Those who define themselves as "anti-PC" seem to be more
>>'PC' and judgemental (sic) of others than the origional (sic) group being
>>attacked.

There is nothing "fanatical" about opposing PC.  Maybe some of the people are
fanatical about eliminating a social cancer like PC, but the fanaticism is in
their method, not their message.

>>Well, thats all for now.

Good.  I was starting to think that you wanted the Constitution ripped up.

>>  "By golly I should have the right to call those people niggers or spicks to
>>their faces, anything less would be denying me my basic rights of human
>>individualism...and even if it does make them feel misirable and frusterated,
>>they'll thank me later for sharing the truth."

Let me guess.  You probably think Sister Souljah has the right to talk about
killing whites, don't you?  I rest my case.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional sutdy.  Use it.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination