From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Gotcha (Re: Summary)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:44:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug10.154936.6449@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
 
>The point I'm trying to make is simple:  Who's freedom of speech are you 
>looking at at when you strike down PC oppressiveness:  Yours or mine?  If
>you think that I should have not made the blanket statements that I did make,
>then you're a follower of a different branch of political correctness.  Yes 
>you too are PC.  Maybe you're not a radical activist fighting for the rights
>of women and minorities, but you're fighting for your own rights and freedom
>from being insulted.  Objectivity is relative, which makes it subjective.

You miss some important points here.  P.C. oppressiveness is generally not a
free speech issue, mainly because perpetrators of P.C. are trying to deny the
rights of someone else, especially the rights to free speech (and also trying
to remove them from a job, etc.)  Also, P.C. almost never addresses blanket
statements; instead it attacks individual sentiments as "insensitivity." P.C.
is the blanket here, covering all forms of expression without distinguishing
between them.  So in ridiculing your statements, we were saying that you
should not make such racist comments.  P.C. rarely does the same to others.
We were railing against your generalizations about all white men and all
conservatives, but P.C. does not fight slander, it fights perceived slights
of insensitivity and these are two entirely different things.  Finally, your
"objectivity is subjectivity" is nonsense.  I know objectively that racism
is wrong; it is pig-ignorant, detrimental to progress of all types, and never
accurate or useful.  I also know that communism is an evil; I see objectively
what it did to the citizens it governed, to the land it raped, and to the
economy it was supposed to help.

>So is ganging up on  someone like myself (who was making some pretty
>absurd generalizations, I admit, but they still classify as 
>an opinions, don't they?) okey?  Then why is PC propoganda not okey?  It stands
>for no better nor worse (better for some and worse for some)
>than what the above views stand for (your collective views
>stand for white men and the system versus the PC views which support
>women and minorities). 

P.C. tries to silence those with whom it disagrees, either by expulsion or
termination or whatever.  We never tried to silence you, as that would be
impossible for us to do, and counterproductive besides as the stupidity of
your comments was a refreshing change from the workaday idiocy of normal 
liberals.  P.C. views support women, minorities and gays (can you tell which
group is a *majority* in this country?), whereas notions of individual
responsibility and rights (what you would probably call evil male patriarchy
or Eurocentrism or some other nonsense) that are a gift of Western civiliza-
tion favor no one group.  Western standards instead favor success and therefore
raise the overall quality of life for everyone.


+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct