From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: PC
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:16:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.144322.16250@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>I've no problem with trying to find non-judgementl alternatives for
>judgement-loaden phrases; I think it is one way (of course, not the only
>way) to fight oppression. My problem is with the term PC because I most
>often hear it being used as a way to dismiss people's complaints about
>"obnoxious" behaviour. Of course, if some people want to reclaim the
>term PC then I wish them luck.

Well, as someone who used it for that purpose, I guess I can't help but
comment.

Elf was being obnoxious when he flamed "New Age Androgynous Bisexuals."
I agreed *and* disagreed with him, but found his characterization funny,
and tried to be funny back.  Probably I was also being obnoxious.

Taken in the right spirit, being obnoxious is one of those fun things
you can do with other people you like.  I'm sure most of us have been
in some bar or other, oblivious to the stabbing glances of others who
couldn't hear themselves think, while we laughed uproariously with
our friends over the (presumed) idiocy of somebody.  Well, guess what:
by somebody's definition, we were being obnoxious.

Raucous laughter is music to your ears if it's your laughter or your
good friends' (even, and sometimes especially, when the joke's on you.)

Laughter, for better or worse, is almost always at someone else's expense.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't matter much.  Everybody could laugh at
everybody else at one time or another, and for the simple reason that
we are all buffoons now and again: pretentious or overly solemn or
ridiculously set in our ways or beliefs.  It could be a wonderful
corrective, saving us and absolving us from the need to be perfect all
the time.

Unfortunately, some people are going to laugh at others, and be obnoxious
to them, and about them, almost all the time.  They are insecure.  Call
this Group #1.

Also unfortunately, some people are going to be pretentious, overly solemn,
and ridiculously set in their ways, almost all the time.  Guess what?
They are also insecure.  Call this Group #2.

Not much love lost between #1 and #2, I'd say.

Selecting a set of expressions so as to avoid raising the hackles of
Group #2 is to simply define with maddening precision yet another
bull's eye for the target practice of our good friends in Group #1.

Not so long ago, I eavesdropped on a meeting where a good friend of
mine worked, one of our local New Age eco-feminist bookstores.  The
employees were earnestly discussing the question of racial balance at
the store, except they couldn't quite find the right words.

"We need a . . .  a . . ." stuttered one, "a Woman of Color!"
supplied another.  "Yes, yes!" everyone agreed.

While I'd heard this term many times before, I had almost doubled up
trying to suppress my giggles over some stupid remarks I almost made.
("And a Woman of Flavor!  And maybe a few Women of Odor!!")  And I didn't
say anything, finally.  And you know why?  Not because they wouldn't have
laughed, though they wouldn't have.  Not because they would have objected,
though they would have.  It's because they would have orchestrated a stunned
pause, and then perhaps conferred, and politely suggested something about
how I should be more sensitive, instead of responding in the spirit that
this kind of remark really calls for.

Something like, "Oh, shut up, Mike."
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com
Newsgroups: soc.bi