From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: More Persons Stuff
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:12:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct12.181009.22615@mr.med.ge.com> larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr) writes:
>
>Dear Larry,
>
>I am the supervisor of a Hungarian political discussion group where
>I posted your article published on alt.politics.correct.
>The following reply has been arrived to the group (see below).
>If you wish to answer, please send your letter to me (there is an
>automated way to post, but all is in Hungarian language).
>I will forward the future follow-ups to you as well.
>_____________________________________
>
>Hi Jozsef. Ok, here goes...
>
>
>>Dear Larry Landwehr,
>>
>>I found your letter extremely interesting and stimulating. Still, I would
>>like to point out that I cannot fully agree with your evaluation of
>>political correctness.
>>
>>> Now many people use the words "sensitivity", "empowerment", and
>>> "disadvantaged" without bothering to explain what they mean.
>>
>>No doubt. Even more people use the words "democracy", "rights", "freedom
>>of expression" or "civil disobedience" without explanations. These words
>>do not seem to be less problematic than the ones quoted by you.
>
>My point was that the words "sensitivity" etc now have meanings that they
>did not have just a few years ago. The words "democracy" etc are far older
>and their meanings are still mostly the traditional ones. What people should
>be aware of is that the English language is changing. Old words have new
>meanings, new words are invented, and some words can no longer be freely
>used in public discourse. Many people are not fully aware of this.
>
>
>>> At the same time many words that used to be perfectly acceptable
>>> have fallen into disfavor or have been banned from public speech.
>>> Such words and phrases as "divorcee", "indian", "unwed mother",
>>> "lesbian", "Negro", "stewardess", "meter maid", and "waitress" are
>>> no longer used in public speech.
>>
>>Well, we have a factual disagreement here. I think the words "lesbian",
>>"stewardess" and "waitress" are used very frequently even in liberal
>>environments like Cambridge. It is also interesting that the word
>>"nigger" is missing from your list. That word has virtually disappeared
>>from public speech too. Do you consider this a great loss?
>
>The words "lesbian" etc are still used in colloquial speech (slang) by
>many people, but not by the national media. These words all have
>politically correct equivalents. Neutered words such as "server" and
>"flight attendant" were not widely used in the past.
>
>The word "nigger" is a very negative word. So are the words "wop",
>"spade", and "wetback". The word "Negro" is not negative, but it has
>fallen out of public use. My article dealt with how English is being
>shaped to be politically correct, not about prejudice and prejudicial
>words.
>
>
>>> Many of the old words had negative connotations.  The new words do
>>> not.  The reason many of the old words had negative connotations
>>> was because the behavior associated with them was behavior that the
>>> majority of the public did not like.  People did not like divorce,
>>> homosexuality, unwed mothers, and people who would not work.  These
>>> activities and conditions were not looked upon favorably.
>>> ...
>>> Now days, we have to keep such opinions to ourselves.  We cannot
>>> utter such opinions because the words used to express them have
>>> been banned.
>>
>>If I am not mistaken you have succeeded to express such views right now.
>>I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh in the other day expressing very similar
>>views too. I vaguely remember a political speech of vice-president Dan
>>Quayle who was also able to phrase such thoughts. I think if his intellectual
>>capacity was sufficient for this, there is no real problem for Americans to
>>formulate the same ideas.
>
>I succeeded in expressing my views, but the net is just about the only
>place where I can do so. Other media are overwhelmingly liberally biased.
>I have written letters to newspapers, but they have accepted nothing.
>
>When someone does manage to express a conservative viewpoint in other
>media, they experience far more attackers than defenders. When this
>happens people are silenced.  What is striking about these attacks is
>that they are often targeted personally at the other speaker and not at
>the ideas expressed. The above attack on Dan Quayle is such an attack.
>
>The other way people are silenced is by passing laws making certain kinds
>of speech illegal. The University of Wisconsin has just repealed such a
>law that they passed about a year ago. For the past year, a student
>could be booted out of school if someone took offense to a joke!
>
>We also have "hate crimes" where the penalty is increased if the victim
>belongs to certain groups. Ten years ago the term "hate crime" hadn't
>even been invented.
>
>
>>> We call people "the homeless" instead of "bums" and "hobos" even if it is a
>>> voluntary "lifestyle".
>>
>>I thought homeless people had no place to live. I do not want to exclude the
>>possibility that there might be people who would, even if they had the money,
>>choose to sleep in shelters or on the streets. OK, let us call them hobos.
>>But please, try to keep the distinction between them and the people who
>>sleep on Central square. They told me (strangely enough) that they would be
>>quite happy if they had a home.
>
>You should have asked them if they would be quite happy to *work* to have
>a home. Some people just plain do not want to work for a living. They
>find it too boring. They'd like to have a home, but they are not willing
>to pay the price and I don't want to pay it for them.
>
>
>>> This vocabulary revolution has had far ranging effects on people's
>>> lives.  It has placed limits what we can say in public.  It affects
>>> how we think about things.  We no longer think about ourselves as
>>> a "people".
>>
>>There was a time in American history when people thought about themselves
>>as citizens of a democratic country, but slavery was accepted. Then there was
>>a time when they still thought about themselves as citizens of a democratic
>>country, slavery was banned, but blacks could not sit on the front seats in
>>buses. And there was a time in American history when the people thought
>>about themselves as citizens of a democratic country, slavery was banned,
>>blacks could sit on the front seats in buses, but it was yet a considerable
>>disadvantage to be born black in America. It is not that all these thoughts
>>are mistaken, it is just that the ideal of democracy changes. I do not
>>think that it is advisable to silence opinions that do not correspond to
>>the current (or desired) standard of democracy, hence I oppose the views
>>of some radical liberals in America. I am happy that you have the
>>opportunity to say what you have said, but I am sad that you have these
>>views.
>
>It's funny how you and many others only speak about the bad in the past.
>And it's funny how you only use blacks for your examples. What about Asians
>and Mexicans? Someone has wrapped the liberal philosophy up with a pretty
>ribbon and you have bought it all.
>
>I started out as a completely liberal person when I was young and have
>seen what some of the logical consequences of that philosophy are for
>this country. I don't like what I see.
>
>I see minority criminals get special treatment because they are minorities.
>Here in Milwaukee, we had a case where four or five blacks beat up a
>white guy and chased him into Lake Michigan where he drowned. There was
>almost a total blackout on this crime. I heard about it on the radio.
>The local TV stations carried virtually nothing on it. A year later the
>defendants were sentenced. They got one year of probation. The local
>newspaper reported the sentences on page 27 in the sporting section.
>
>I see "affirmative action" where the local paper runs ads for the police
>department. The ads clearly state that white males cannot apply (including
>the men who fought in the war against Iraq).
>
>I see "minority owned businesses" favored over other companies. Just recently,
>a car towing company that existed only on paper (the company actually was in
>the laundry business) ripped off the city of Milwaukee for $500,000 in
>fraudulent claims. They then filed bankruptcy.
>
>I see where women who shoot their husbands while he is asleep get out of jail
>because they claim abuse.
>
>I see fathers who can't see their kids on visitation day, but who had
>better send in the child support check or the state will put them in jail.
>
>I have seen what liberalism is doing to this country and I am sick to death
>of it.
>
>This country had problems in the past, but it had a lot of goodness too.
>People have forgotten that goodness. They mock it. They invent new words
>and meanings so that meanings inherent in the old vocabulary are no
>longer expressible. To use those words immediately marks you as old
>fashioned and intolerant. Liberals have managed to convince many people
>that:
>
>    liberal             = good  |  conservative    = bad
>    women               = good  |  men             = bad
>    minority            = good  |  white           = bad
>    homeless            = good  |  government      = bad
>    environmentalist    = good  |  business        = bad
>    non western culture = good  |  western culture = bad
>
>It is surprising that more people aren't half liberal and half conservative.
>Few people take whatever is good from each side and fashion their own
>philosophy. They either buy into one or the other. The result is total
>polarization.
>
>Liberalism is much less tolerant of conservative viewpoints than
>conservativism is of liberal views - this from a philosophy that prides
>itself on its tolerance. Actually liberalism is very intolerant of
>competing philosophies. That alone probably explains its present
>dominance.
>
>Liberalism is also very hateful and devisive. It discriminates against
>certain groups of people. It labels them as bad. It pits people against
>each other. It turns a people into a collection of persons. I wish
>people would just think for themselves instead of buying whatever
>package the media favors.
>
>Christianity has been called a slave religion. I think Liberalism is a
>have-nots philosophy and conservatism is a haves philosophy. A tyranny
>of the have-nots is just as odious as a tyranny of the haves. It is
>especially bad when people are so caught up in their environment that
>they don't even realize that a tyranny exists.
>
>Have you read the book "Animal Farm"? Remember how the word "equal"
>got bent - All animals are "equal", but some animals are more "equal"
>than others? Welcome to "affirmative action" folks.
This is a perfect desription of the farce that is Liberalism.  Keep on
posting, don't let the PC people scare you off.