From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:49:55 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.


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

> In article <1992Aug12.202250 Mike Brokowski writes:
>>
>> According to Sheheryar Hasnain:
>> MB: [...some crap elided...]
> 
> SH: I dont understand which part you found crappy. Tell me and 
> maybe we can discuss it.

The "crap" I referred to was your nit-picking remarks regarding 
DS's use of the word "his" to mean "his or hers" in his post. I 
honestly wasn't sure that you were even serious, but apparently 
you were. Anyway, this has been taken up in another post, so I'll 
try to avoid it.

>>> .....However, if a verbal-type KKK member works with me, I DO
>>> NOT have a "choice" of having to deal with him or not.  I need
>>> that "choice."
>>
>>MB: I think there is some confusion here about what having a choice
>> means. Are you forced to work there? No. You *do* have a choice.
>> Choice does not necessarily imply desired option (or even
>> desirable option). Much of the time, free individuals make
>> decisions among options that they like very little. Those
>> decisions are still choices, even if they aren't preferred. A
>> choice is still a choice even if you may "need" it.
>
> SH:  So I see that we're working for the system, eh? And not vice
> versa.  

BZZZT!! Wrong. Next contestant, please. I barely even want there 
to *be* a "system" and I'll be damned if I'll work for it. 

>         Yes, I also have the choice to make my family starve, 
> right Mike?  Your  statements implications are pretty scary, Mike:  
> Sexually Harrassed women should leave if they feel harrassed 
> right?  Hell if we want to get rid of someone in school or work 
> because they're of color or of a different sexual orientation, 
> lets harrass the hell out of them  WITH IMPUNITY!! Wow what a 
> great thing freedom is, right,Mike?  Remember that a lot of people 
> dont have the choice to leave with having to support a family. And 
> I don't know about you but, if you look at the economy, does 
> someone actually have that choice.  In all seriousness?  If you 
> are Jewish and someone constantly attacks and insults you on the 
> basis of your religion, given you are religious, would you feel 
> justice has been done if you end up leaving?

Perhaps you could use my name more often in that paragraph.  :^>

I never said that leaving was the only choice. Just one of many. 
You are reading more into my words than what I put in them. If 
people are intimidated by their surroundings they should work to 
change them. Most employers would be displeased with employees who 
screw up the productive atmosphere in the workplace. Start there. 

I encourage working for change, but I am opposed to getting 
government (read "politicians") into the act. This is where 
"rights" come in. Rights are (among other things) enforced by the 
government. So, the same jerks who ran the red scare committees in 
the 1950s can determine who is or is not fit to employ. No thanks, 
I'll take my chances trying to convince my employer that I'm being 
harassed and that the harassment cheats her of her money's worth.

Before I am misinterpreted again, I said nothing against legal 
prohibitions against threats of violence (including, of course, 
sexual violence) at the workplace. I just don't want the bozos in 
DC/Springfield/wherever passing laws declaring it illegal to make 
someone "uncomfortable".

>>> ...I believe that I have a right to a "hostility free" workplace
>>> BEFORE he has the right to his freedom of speech.  If he makes
>>> the environment hostile, he should be fired.
>>
> MB:  This depends on your definition of "hostility free." If this 
>> means that this person shouldn't be able to beat you up, throw you
>> in jail, or make you "illegal" in some way because he disagrees with
>> your opinions, then you are correct: you *do* have a right to a
>> "hostility free" workplace. But so does he. You can't throw him in
>> jail or make him illegal for expressing his ignoramus views
>> either.
> 
> SH: Beating up is assault.  I don't think thats what hostile 
> environment constitutes by law (but I'm no lawyer so...).  I know 
> that in sexual harrassment cases, the hostile environment case is 
> pretty commonly used : the defense is something to the effect that 
> the "environment" makes the woman uncomfortable.  A number of good 
> cases have been won on that account (if you want references, I can 
> give them since I did a whole series of papers on sexual harrassment
> about a year ago -- somehow I don't think you'll be interested!)

Au contraire, I'm very interested. I try to keep a file of 
such things. Please send them (brokowski@nwu.edu) if you 
have time.
> 
>> MB:  OTOH, if you mean that no one should be able to express opinions
>> that offend you, then you have no such right. You never have.
>> Check you copy of the constitution: free speech? yes, pleasant
>> work environment? not there.
> 
> SH: Think, Mike.  Read, yes, but then think!  As far as I'm concerned
> the constitution of the US of A is another well written piece of paper.

Agreed. But where do you see any right not to be offended? I'm not 
being a literal reader here, I honestly don't see it. 

> I've read a tremendous amount of maticulously written books that 
> have been crap (in my opinion of course) But thats not what I'm 
> arguing here.The constitution also states that all "men are 
> created equal."  Now how can I take, seriously, a document that 
> conveniently ignores half the population?  Again, your statements 
> have pretty scary implications.

D'oh! Not again. Please, this "she/he/hers/his/her/him" thread is 
being taken a little far. Intelligent people don't deny the abuses 
that women/minorities/gays/etc have suffered. But, when the 
constitution was written, people just didn't write things like 
"...insofar as he or she shall not in an untoward fashion infringe 
upon his or her aforesaid and hereby lawfully constituted rights; 
nor shall it be presupposed by him or her that when he or she is 
duly...." This doesn't mean that the writers excluded all women 
when they used the word "men." Sheesh. I would hope that this 
literalist mentality would be more rare outside of the bible belt.

Also, does this lack of "and women" mean that we shouldn't take 
the constitution seriously?

> Take a chill pill, Mike
> Sheheryar

I'll send you a prescription as well, Sheheryar. :-)

  - Mike Brokowski

  Disclaimer: My opinions are official policy for the entire 
planet. The planet is not Earth, but ....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct