HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MrEd@GreenAcres
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Organization: McGill University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:39:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.033232.8891@uoft02.utoledo.edu>  
dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> >> [...]
> >> >   "-American."  Black is African-American.  Oriental is Asian-American. 
> >> >Latino is Latin-American.  Some people now say Woman-American.  Anyone  
not
> >> >using an "-American" term _must_ be racist, according to PC doctrine.  An
> >> >important note:  whites are not European-American.  
> >> 
> > Please!!!! That should be Womyn-American (or is it Wimmen-American ?)
> 
> 
>    i thought it was supposed to be Vagino-Americans
> 
or "penilely challenged" ? (or is that people with small...)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: charters@madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jim Charters)
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:41:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.142752.25949@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>Ironically enough (although to be expected) all the people that responded
>to the "What is PC?" posting earlier in a negative fashion were,
>assuming from their names, white 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
>male ( & probably straight)!  Political Correctness is meant for the benefit 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who said only white males are biased, racist and discriminatory....

Looks like a _prima facie_ case of discrimination on the basis of name
alone.

But then, I'm a straight white male (Anglo-Saxon and protestant, too!)


-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer>
Jim Charters
Geophysicist & Chief Computer Flunkey / University of Toronto Geology
Toronto / Ont. / CANADA / M5S 3B1 / charters@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:17:18 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

In article <f#nm#vc.mvp@netcom.com>
mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
 
>
>In article <Brxz2L.4y4@world.std.com> jah@world.std.com (Jamal A Hannah) writes:
>>PC is a label that was made up by opositional forces.
>
>This is not true.  It was made up by more reasonable Progressives
>to describe the rigid, intolerant, doctrinaire Progressive types.
>The Right picked up the term later.
>
Ah, still not quite right. Or correct. Whatever.
 
It had its genesis among the Communists way back in the 30s, in this country.
Back in the 60s we used to hear it a lot in the radical movements, noteably
SDS and the Weather offshoot. People took it quite seriously- was a person,
politically correct? Was his thought correct? Was it okay to talk to him or
her?
 
Read Kirpatrick Sales' excellent history, "SDS", for some insight here.
 
The term, or a local variant, is common throughout the communist world. It
is (was) used both by the ruling powers and in a satirical way as well.
 
Modern usage outside the left seem to have begun around the late 80s at some
of the Eastern universities- but again, it was adapted from the usage of the
left, albeit in a satirical manner. In that sense it refers to the kind of
limits the radical left put on free speech. Certain topics and opinions were
out of bounds. Only certain beliefs could be expressed. Some ideas became
canonical- hence the rise of the usage of the term "canon" as well- and were
not subject to debate.
 
This was both amusing and tragic to those of us who recall the Berkeley
Free Speech movement of the 60s.
 
          --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 15:18:56 GMT

In message <1992Jul28.215009.15128@midway.uchicago.edu>, Sheheryar Hasnain
rambles:

>I think Clarence Thomas did it!

Isn't it un-PC to say this about a black?  I forgot, Clarence Thomas is un-PC
himself (even worse, he "acts white" as the NAACP says)!  He's fair game...

>Di'nesh Desousa is an idiot

The name is "Dinesh D'Souza," not "Di'nesh Desousa."  Who's the idiot here?

>(I mean intellectually challenged!)

Ah, that's more like it.  Good and PC.  Keep it up.

>and anyone who can take him seriously is probably
>a bigger one!

All of those case studies on campuses never happened.  I also read about them
in the news, including many news sources with a left-wing bias.  Of course,
anyone who believes it a a bigger idiot...

>Peace

Isn't that cute.

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: ivanov@vadier.gr.osf.org (Eric Ivanov)
Subject: What is "politically correct" ?
Reply-To: ivanov@vadier.gr.osf.org (Eric Ivanov)
Organization: Open Software Foundation Research Institute, Grenoble, France
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:56:34 GMT


I am posting this for a friend who wants to know more about
"political correctness". We both live in France where we don't
hear much about this topic.

I hope you will enjoy answering a few questions among
the list below as much as we will reading them.
All types of answers are welcome (serious, cynical, etc.)


1. What does politically correct mean?

2. Who is politically correct? Who is not?

2.1 Are these people politically correct :
    Dan Rather? 
    Bart Simpson? 
    Mickey Mouse?
    Mike Tyson?
    Michael Jackson?
    God?
    the UNO?

3. Who cares for political correctness anyway?
Politicians? Voters? You?

4. Is political correctness originated in the USA?

5. How strong is the political correctness feeling in the US?
How strong do you think it should be?

6. What is the jargon of political correctness? (abbreviations,
other expressions related to the subject)

7. Are there jokes about political correctness? about politically
correct politicians? If so, please can you tell one?

8. Are YOU politically correct?



Thanks for your help!

Eric Ivanov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:50:09 GMT


> Mr Zener speaks out about how oppressed he really is in face of all those
aggressive PC-people:

  I am not allowed to say certain things, tell certain
> jokes, support certain politicians, or dislike certain music without facing
> social isolation at the very best, or scholastic expulsion and/or loss of my
> job at the worst.  These are very real concerns, very real insecurities, and
> very real problems.  This world should be safe for all opinions, all
> philosophies, and all viewpoints, even the ones that nobody likes.  This is not
> a feeling shared by anyone supporting the PC ideals.
> 
> 
Is caring about how the other party, especially one that
has historically been incredibly oppressed and trodden upon 
in the US and within other colonized  territories, feels too much to
ask?  C'mon.  The problem has really become a "rights vs responsibility" issue.
You are standing up for your rights, and the "system" is designed to support
your stand.  What all of us forget is that we also have "responsibilities"
towards each other.  These include taking into account how the other feels
when making particular remarks, supporting certain policies or cracking some
jokes.  Some people arn't laughing.  
I really dont think Pol. Correctness is oppressive.  

To some other replies I got:

I think Clarence Thomas did it!
Di'nesh Desousa is an idiot 
(I mean intellectually challenged!) 
and anyone who can take him seriously is probably
a bigger one!
Peace
>
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:49:07 GMT

When Sheheryar ended his statement with:

  Peace
>
Mark Gansle, frothing at the mouth, swung his knock out punch:

> Gee, my name is Sheheryar and I think I'll promote the politics of envy and then
> sign off with "peace."  How can you say "peace" when you want everyone to
> be one edge whenever they speak as part of their "responsibilities" to each
> other?  I mean, I know how very en vogue it is to say "peace" when signing off,
> regardless of what you think, but do you think you could leave that to the
> morally consistent?


  I duck and answered:
> 
> Unfortunately I'm usually not on edge when I act responsibly with the other
persons well being in mind.  Regardless of how en vogue the term "peace" is,
it is quite a wonderful term.  I use it because I know that I am involved in
a discussion and regardless of my differences with the other parties, I would
like to end it saying," Even if I disagree with you, its not personal."  Given,
 that all of these discussions are personal to a degree.  But I like to end
the day feeling that I had a discussion, not a war.  That is the reason I use
that term.  I has nothing to do with moral consistency.
Peace (whoops)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: exujeff@exu.ericsson.se (Jeff Thompson)
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:00:23 GMT

In article <1682E9F65.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
>Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:20:03 GMT

>In article <1992Jul24.033232.8891@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
>dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
>>>> [...]
>>>> >   "-American."  Black is African-American.  Oriental is Asian-American.
>>>> >Latino is Latin-American.  Some people now say Woman-American.  Anyone not
>>>> >using an "-American" term _must_ be racist, according to PC doctrine.  An
>>>> >important note:  whites are not European-American.
>>>>
>>> Please!!!! That should be Womyn-American (or is it Wimmen-American ?)
>>
>>
>>   i thought it was supposed to be Vagino-Americans
>>
>>
>No. Women are now people. Men, however, are to be referred to as either
>"Differentially Genitalled" or "Vaginally Challenged"

It would really be a miracle if people would get off the idea of the "SAME-O 
SAME-O" crap.  It's all over....WOMENS LIB, MINORITIES, WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Everybody, Every Culture is different thats what makes life so interesting 
isn't it?  Yet here we are, everybody wanting everybody to be the same and 
have the same things.  Lets get a little centralized in our thinking, both 
small scale and large scale.
jman	
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature file under construction...            Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
                                                              P.O. Box 833875
                                                    Richardson, TX 75083-3875
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: dude@okcorrall
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:29:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.002128.22557@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark  
Draughn) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.104856.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> writes:
> >ivanov@vadier.gr.osf.org (Eric Ivanov) writes:
> [...]
> >   "-American."  Black is African-American.  Oriental is Asian-American. 
> >Latino is Latin-American.  Some people now say Woman-American.  Anyone not
> >using an "-American" term _must_ be racist, according to PC doctrine.  An
> >important note:  whites are not European-American.  
> 
Please!!!! That should be Womyn-American (or is it Wimmen-American ?)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Word Choice vs. Conceptual Ligitimacy
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:34:43 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

   In one of my previous posts in the "PC Issue" thread, I mentioned that the
Declaration of Independence was not inherently sexist becuase of the phrase
"...all men are created equal..."  I pointed out that in English the male form
is also the neutered form, making the above quote synonymous with the phrase
"all people are created equal."  It is quite fashionable to disagree with me on
this point.

   I have found that this is one extremely troublesome aspect of the PC
movement.  Specific words and phrases have replaced ideas and concepts.  For
example, if I say "black" instead of "African-American" then a great many
people will use this as a justification for claiming that my idea is steeped in
racism.  The terms in vogue seem to be often changing, each one claiming the
prize of "most sensitive."  Once awarded that honor, then all other phrases are
dubbed insensitive, indicating one of the classic (or not-so classic) -isms.

   It has always struck me that this replacement of good logic by fashionable
terminology is one of the more frustrating aspects of living in a PC-dominated
environment such as a college campus.  No replies are neccessary, but all are
welcome -- I was just saying this because I thought it needed to be said.

Max Zener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:56:23 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

jah@world.std.com (Jamal A Hannah) writes:
> 
> Unlike what some others may say, PC is far more broadbased than being
> a "Liberal" doctrine.
	[an extraordinary amount of nonsense deleted]

   Classically, liberal means "open-minded and repectful of others;  a firm
believer in the indivdual's rights."  PC has nothing to do with classical
liberalism.

   Another thing, which some people on the net have yet to comprehend, is that
PC has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FAR RIGHT.  Nothing.  They share but one goal,
and that is the banning of pornography.  They approach it from entirely
different angles.
   There are ideas commonly associated with the far right that share the same
logical fallacies and misconceptions as many PC beliefs, the term PC refers to
positions that can be classified as "leftist extremism."  It was so dubbed
becuase the extreme right gets bashed by the media and their own political
party (David Duke, f'r instance), whereas leftist extremists get lauded by
editorial writers and can sway political platforms (like Jesse Jackson).

   Just becuase two people drive the same type of car, that doesn't mean
they're going to the same place.  
   I repeat -- PC doctrine does not include the doctrine of the far right; 
check out how the term originated and use your common sense.  For once.

Max Zener
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:59:57 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <168347B4B.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul29.221908.27365@midway.uchicago.edu>
> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>  
>  
> Ever notice that there are oh-so-many wealthy Marxists? And they all want
> to share *our* money, but not their own?
> Another wealthy elitist tells us to go into the ghetto. How would he know?
> I spent about 10 years living in Detroit's Cass Carridor. Damn few Marxists
> there, other than the displaced white suburbanites preaching revolution.
>  
Why would a Marxist want to live in a ghetto?  I never proposed that you go
"live" in one.  If you have I'm simpathetic.  All I was indicating was that
one be aware of how actually destitute ghetto life is and to blame it on
"laziness" or "not having pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps" is 


>  
> Backwards. The (unemployment) rate 
  went *up* as people have been *entering* the market,
> even though the total number of jobs is up.

Even though it has been a while since I did really serious economic analysis
I really don't know what you are going on about.  And since economics (as
I learned after fours y
>  
>  
> The rest is deleted as I'm suddenly very tired of hearing an wealthy foreigner
> from an unbelievably racist society lecture me about morality.  --mike
> 
> S:  So much for tolerance! 
Maybe the PCers are tired of hearing some traditionally powerful folk
(of which an overwhelming majority is white and male!  But I guess thats
because women and minorities are just too lazy to get a life, right?)
who make racist and sexist comments legitimize their right to do so!  
And who said "I" was wealthy?  My family maybe but thats a long way away.
And is Pakistan as "unbelivevably" racist as the US or England?  Classist
maybe but I wouldnt say racist. And do we want to get into the roots of
class?  Do we want to get into talking about the colonial "project"?  Oh
I forgot that you're tired of listening to a "foreigner"! Oops but thats
my PC police-side speaking since you really do have every right to call
me what ever you wish.  Didn't mean to oppress you!
From: lfreeman@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Leny Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: (try again)Re: Question of Category
Date: 31 Jul 1992 13:32:39 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phad.hsc.usc.edu

In article <1992Jul27.221845.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> maltese_r@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>oops, hit the wrong key.  Anyway.  About claiming membership in the
>most oppressed group of the moment.  What is the official hierarchy
>of oppressed groups?  I have 3 beautiful little nephews who have
>equal amounts of Mexican and Cherokee blood (1/4 of each) and the
>other half is European/Mediterranean potpourri.  When they get old
>enough, which descent should they highlight the most?  (i.e. which
>is more oppressed, Hispanic or Native American? [Obviously the Euro/
>Mediterraneans have never been oppressed by anybody (tongue planted
>firmly in cheek) and don't count.])

Claim Native American.  They have been oppressed more than any other
race IMHO.  BTW if I were a Native American I would be more than proud
to claim so.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:26:40 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:

> Is caring about how the other party, especially one that
> has historically been incredibly oppressed and trodden upon 
> in the US and within other colonized  territories, feels too much to
> ask?

   No.  But it is too much to _demand_.  And if speech codes and historical
revisionism isn't a demand, then nothing is.

>  ....  The problem has really become a "rights vs responsibility" issue.
> You are standing up for your rights, and the "system" is designed to support
> your stand.  What all of us forget is that we also have "responsibilities"
> towards each other.  These include taking into account how the other feels
> when making particular remarks, supporting certain policies or cracking some
> jokes.  Some people arn't laughing.  

   They don't have to laugh.  They don't have to agree to my policies.  It's
never nice to insult someone, even unintentionally.  Let us remember, however,
that there is no Constitutional right to be happy.  The system is designed to
supprt individual's rights -- even if the individuals are racist idiots, evenm
if the individuals are idiots trying NOT to be racist.  If my opinions offend
you, then you are welcome to disagree, you are welcome to debate and to argue. 
You are most wholly unwlecome to censor.  Mind you, people who _want_ to censor
are also welcome to express their opinions;  this is why very few people
arguing against PC feel that it's supporters should be _made_ to stop
supporting their ideals.  
   The First Ammendment to the Constitution is a wholly unsubtle document. 
There are no escpae clauses, no "ifs" and no "unlesses."  We are all allowed to
express our opinions, and a person's _true_ responsibility is to let other
people do so.

> I really dont think Pol. Correctness is oppressive.  

   If you AGREE with PC doctrine, you're safe.  Try saying "maybe Clarence
Thomas was a good choice," "Maybe the Rodney King jurors _were_ fair," or
"maybe radical feminism is going in the wrong direction" and see how open
minded your fellow PCers are with you.
 
> I think Clarence Thomas did it!
   Anyone who believed that it was relevant is a slave to sensationalism.
> Di'nesh Desousa is an idiot 
   You obviously haven't carefully examined his arguements, which are quite
impressive.
> and anyone who can take him seriously is probably a bigger one!
   Anyone who dismisses _any_ arguement out of hand is the true fool.

Max Zener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:20:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.033232.8891@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
 
>>> [...]
>>> >   "-American."  Black is African-American.  Oriental is Asian-American.
>>> >Latino is Latin-American.  Some people now say Woman-American.  Anyone not
>>> >using an "-American" term _must_ be racist, according to PC doctrine.  An
>>> >important note:  whites are not European-American.
>>>
>> Please!!!! That should be Womyn-American (or is it Wimmen-American ?)
>
>
>   i thought it was supposed to be Vagino-Americans
>
>
No. Women are now people. Men, however, are to be referred to as either
"Differentially Genitalled" or "Vaginally Challenged"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: jleduc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (JonPaul Leduc)
Subject: Re: One good reason to keep women out of combat
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:01:07 GMT

In article <76811@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>    ...are women even able to meet the demands of armed conflict?  Col. Ripley
>says no.  There is "a documented lack in strength and body physiology"
>among women that render them unfit to perform the tasks that combat requires.

	The only thing that I am noticing is that all the readings are of
proportional strenth, but I don't know many wars where hand to hand combat
is that important.  We are getting more and more reliant on machinery,
which test reaction times and dealing with stress and adverse conditions.
It is already proven that females can take more G-forces than men, and are
more alert under these body stress conditions (I'm in a library, so I'll
scan the reports for those who would like them).  But still they are not
allowed to be pilots.

	If women would slow down a male group, then have an all women
group. I am willing to bet that they could last longer.

	But those fitness standards are a joke.  Women should meet male
requirements, and if they can, given duty proportional to their ability
(ie, men should be phased out as pilots IF women are truely better).

Afterall, war is not a privaledge, so those best suited for the job should
be the only ones allowed regardless of ALL other consideration.  The
Firemen are chosen on those criteria, and soldiers should too.

--Jean-Paul Leduc

	Thats how it works with
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:28:18 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.104856.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> writes:
> [...]
>>   "-American."  Black is African-American.  Oriental is Asian-American. 
>>Latino is Latin-American.  Some people now say Woman-American.  Anyone not
>>using an "-American" term _must_ be racist, according to PC doctrine.  An
>>important note:  whites are not European-American.  
> 
> Not true.  It is improper to use terms such as "white" when refering
> to European-Americans.  If all other groups are referred to as
> "<something>-Americans," but European-Americans are called "whites,"
> it implies that European-Americans are the default against which all
> other groups are compared.
> 

   Yeah, that's more or less the way it is, though.....when was the last time  
you heard somebody say "down with European-American oppressors?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct