From: ljt3@CS1.CC.Lehigh.EDU (LEWIS JOSEPH TANZOS III)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:19:57 GMT
	<1992Nov9.184653.5563@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Nov9114307@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

In article <MUFFY.92Nov9114307@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.184653.5563@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Nov9095243@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.e
>>du (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>"PC" is not just language, it is thoughts and actions, too.

This is completely, totally, and utterly true.  The problem lies in two
places:

1) To many of the 'non-PC community', PC has taken on the meaning of 'the
   language that those eco-freaks (or insert appropriate phrase) use'.

2) A small, extremely vocal minority keep spouting off that thoughts and
   actions along aren't enough, but that you have to say everything in the
   PC mandated method.

>>>So, if you,
>>>for example, express the thought that women are not inferior to men and
>>>should not be treated as such, you are being PC (worse, you've been
>>>brainwashed by the evil feminists, who are, of course, PC as all heck).
>>>Just try it in alt.feminism and see what I mean...*grin*.
>>I don't think anyone's objecting to the ideas and attitudes that are
>>considered 'PC'.
>No, people are just objecting when someone expresses those ideas.
>That's like saying "I don't mind if people are gay, I just don't think
>they should be so public/blatant/vocal about it."

Actually, we're objecting when people tell us how we're allowed to express
_our_ ideas.  We're objecting to the fact that we aren't allowed to express
'PC' style ideas in our own fashion. (well, at least I am)  I have no
problem with 'PC' style thoughts.  I have no problem with other people
holding them. (I hold some of them myself!)  What I object to is being
told by someone how _I_ should speak.  There is a rather large contingent
here (well, maybe not large, but I know most of them), that tries very hard
to tell me how I'm allowed to say what I want to say.  Nevermind that I'm
expressing the 'right' ideas, they want me to say it right as well.

>>I think that what people are objecting to (at least,
>>what _I'm_ objecting to) is the way it is asserted by PC-ites that one
>>should adhere to this code of believe because it's Correct.  It is the
>>Right Thing To Do.  No rationale, no logical arguments, just "It's Correct."
>When someone decides to label me as PC, they don't *care* if I have
>logical arguments or not, they simply refuse to listen to anything I
>have to say, since they have decided that I am "PC," and therefore evil
>(as you say later).  Shoot first, don't bother asking questions later.

RIGHT!  So some of us out here _don't_ follow the PC mandated method of
expressing ideas.  It gives us that much of a better chance with the
closed minded types.  Sure, it gets me labeled from time to time (as PC
even), but at least it gives me a longer lead time, than when I start
right in spouting about 'people of color'.  If one of the PC (language)
types has tried before, and hasn't presented data, or reasoned arguments,
just affirmed that 'this is correct', then the next person who comes along
using the same method of speech has that much more against them.

>>I believe you entirely, and I respect you for choosing your own beliefs.
>>Will you respect me for choosing mine?
>That depends on how you choose them, actually.  If you think about
>things, examine evidence, etc., I probably will respect you.  If, on the
>other hand, you believe something simply because it is "not PC," I won't
>be terribly impressed.

How about the case where someone has their own beliefs which differ from
yours, and they just *don't* want to talk to you about it?  Do you leave
them alone?  Some of the more spectacular specimens of PC here would take
that as a challenge, and spend more time and energy to harass that person.

>>I *don't* think that PC describes a set of political, social, and cultural
>>beliefs.  PC is the way a certain set of ideas is thrust upon people,
>As Mike asked elsewhere - if I say "well, I think global warming is a
>problem," am I "thrusting" those ideas upon you?  PC, to me, is a
>label used to tell people "shut up, I don't want to hear about it."  Not
>"don't force those ideas on me," but "don't express those ideas in my
>presence."

If I have a position which I think is logical, and you ignore my data
and keep trying to present your own, yes you are.  Especially when your
'data' is emotion and a personal agenda, and no facts, and no reason
other than your own position.

If I hold the same position, and you want me to say it the 'right' way,
yes you are.

If I just don't have time right now, and just want to be left alone, and
you persist in harassing me, yes you are.

(No, I'm not saying that _you_ would do any of these things.  These
 are just things that the local PC types have done to me in the past.)
--
  Lewis Tanzos -   ljt3@cs1.cc.lehigh.edu - LJT3@PL122.eecs.lehigh.edu 
    They say that man ate the forbidden fruit, but I see few people
     who understand that 'evil' and 'different' are not synonyms.