From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:39:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Jul28.215009.15128@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
   
>Is caring about how the other party, especially one that
>has historically been incredibly oppressed and trodden upon 
>in the US and within other colonized  territories, feels too much to
>ask?  C'mon.  The problem has really become a "rights vs responsibility" issue.
>You are standing up for your rights, and the "system" is designed to support
>your stand.  What all of us forget is that we also have "responsibilities"
>towards each other.  These include taking into account how the other feels
>when making particular remarks, supporting certain policies or cracking some
>jokes.  Some people arn't laughing.  
>I really dont think Pol. Correctness is oppressive.  

Just where do you get these responsibilities of not making other people feel
bad come from?  Are you saying it is morally sound to argue that because some
white people (none of whom were my ancestors) treated some non-white people
badly, I have a "responsibility" to feel all warm and fuzzy for them, and 
indeed censor myself so I don't offend some sensitive "oppressed" minority?
(Note that none of these oppressed people were actually around at the time
of oppression, as were none of the "oppressors".)

Political correctness (among its many stupid accomplishments) imposes a speech
code on white men, telling them that they are NOT free to speak as they see
fit.  Women, gays, and ethnic minorities (odd how >50% of the population--
women-- are a protected minority) are free to say what they want, and lauded
when they say things which, if white and fill-in-minority-here were switched,
would be recognized as a racist screed.

>
>To some other replies I got:
>
>I think Clarence Thomas did it!

Well, that's pretty interesting as the *testimony* indicates that Anita Hill
was sexually harrassed *before* she had gone to work for Clarence Thomas. Her
much-vaunted call to Judge Hoerchner about the incident actually occured before
fall of 1981.  Judge Hoerchner testified that the call occured *before* fall
of 1981, and only when interviewing senators made it *abundantly* clear that
her testimony proved this did she relent and say, when asked if she recalled
when and where this phone conversation took place (at least the third time
she was asked), she replied "I don't know for sure."

Unfortunately for you, you fall in the minority of Americans vis a vis the
Hill-Thomas nonsense.

>Di'nesh Desousa is an idiot 
>(I mean intellectually challenged!) 
>and anyone who can take him seriously is probably
>a bigger one!

I see this assertion all over the place, but no evidence or even argument to
back it up.  Is he kooky because his book had 47 pages of references cited,
with over 750 endnotes ranging from texts cited to full paragraphs of pulled
information and text?  Or is it because you don't like the way he demonstrates
American universities being destroyed by the politics of race and sex?

>Peace

Gee, my name is Sheheryar and I think I'll promote the politics of envy and then
sign off with "peace."  How can you say "peace" when you want everyone to
be one edge whenever they speak as part of their "responsibilities" to each
other?  I mean, I know how very en vogue it is to say "peace" when signing off,
regardless of what you think, but do you think you could leave that to the
morally consistent?

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


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality