From: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 17:38:04 GMT

gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
[defense of PC-talk]
: 
: My argument against this is: linguists have show again and again that
: language changes to suit the needs of its users - it is *not* changed
: by fiat and forced changes simply do not work.  Whereas I actually
: agree with your motives - to increase tolerance in society - I merely
: disbelieve that PC-talk will achieve it.  

*good-humoured*laugh*  What's this?  A chance for some agreement?  Oh
happy day!  Well, let's see if I can wreck it ...

Taking the linguist's point, what if my needs of language include
non-exclusivity?  I'm not suggesting that changing language will make it
all happen in one blinding flash of light.  I do suggest, however, that
the only alternative to being poltically correct is to be politically
incorrect; I would rather call the oppressed what they want to be
called, rather than sticking with tradition.  After all, to me,
tradition is the last bastion of the bigot, whatever other constructive
uses it may have.

People use PC as an insult, and I object strongly to that.  If someone
tries to overrule your opinions by fiat, by all means object, but to
call them a name which, to me, sounds like high praise, is rather
counter-productive.  Particularly, it says PC is wrong, so it's OK to
use sexist, racist or homophobic language on grounds of "not being PC".
This may not be what you intended by attacking your presumed oppressor
with the PC label, but it is a result that I see in practice.

So, attack the fiat-users as necessary, but why attack others for their
use of language?  I >want< to change >my< language so that it is more
politically correct; do you object to that?  Do you object if lots of us
do it?  Do you object if you are then left feeling like an outsider if
you choose not to?  I don't attack people for not using sie/hir, even if
I use them; I might attack someone for saying "nigger", but that's a
rather rarer issue.  The point remains that many people are making
changes on political grounds.  Where exactly does your objection to that
begin?  I suspect it is at a point where it's not the PC-ness that gets
you, but at the point where a single PC individual gets abusive.
Conservatives do that too - we all do.  Doesn't make PC a bad idea.

: Worse, because it is forced
: and artificial, it makes you seem out of touch and a woolly-minded
: liberal who people won't take seriously (for instance, any time Tanaqui
: does one of her ke/kir-filled posts, I delete it unread as pretentious
: twaddle, even though I like tanaqui and usually otherwise read her posts)

Sorry, Graham.  I don't see it.  "Forced and artificial"?  "Woolly-
minded"?  OK, so perhaps these are your opinions, and you're at liberty
to hold them, but don't you feel just a shade dismissive?   It's my
honest opinion that you're plain wrong here; PC language makes one seem
a clear-thinking liberal who takes the time to be different, in my book.
As for junking Tanaqui's posts because of a stylistic feature you
dislike, well, it's a free net, but I think that makes you crazy.

: There is *occasionally* a need to do the odd bit of PC-talk, or to point
: out invalid assumptions about gender etc in people's speech - but it has
: to be used lightly to preserve the effect of it, not rammed down peoples
: throats all the time.

*LAUGH* cough, splutter.  Not laughing at you, G, just some interesting
associations.  I remember the "click - oh yeah" moment when someone
pointed out to me that damn-near every objector to gay rights and gay
free speech uses the "ramming down our throats" line!  You're no
homophobe (or at least I see no reason to assume you are).  Just an
interesting phrase.  Look, I don't call it "ramming" to say things the
way I say them.  Where is that line?  Consider "nigger".  Am I ramming
if I don't use it?  Ramming if I object to its use?  Ramming if I listen
to a group's request to be termed people of colour?  

I just don't see the problem with consistent PC talk.  It's like saying
civility only has value if used sparingly.  It's true that people will
be more impressed the few times you use it, but that's not the point.
If I'm unutterably rude to 80% of the people I meet, that's >rude<!  If
I'm politically incorrect 80% of the time, I'm a bigot.  Of course many,
many phrases are politically neutral, but when the need arises (like for
civility), I choose to be PC all the time, and damn it, I >think< you
should to.  Won't force you, though.

hugs
Mike
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--