From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:36:49 GMT

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

>> >What bothers me about this "PC" argument is the assumption that
>> >intimidation is censorship.
>>DS: 	It is not, unless said intimidation is directly responsible
>> for a person not expressing his view. 
>SH What is "direct."   And how directly responsible must someone be in order
>to censor?

	A tough question, that, and one to which I cannot compose a good
answer for.  I'd suggest that "direct" means that if the individual was
removed the person would express his view, but this is hardly all-emcompassing.
The threat might be economic, social ostracism, or bodily harm, but
where does one draw the line between not having the intestinal fortitude to
speak your mind amidst opposition and the opposition censoring you? 

>SH:  You've wasted 11 words.  If you had added "or her" you could have saved
>the explanation.  The dictionary defines "his" as "of or belonging to him."
>I really don't see this as neutral or generic.  If it were historically
>"normal" to use the word "his" for "his or her" then should (and hopefully
>will) be corrected.  Again, it is not generic in the least.

	And you wasted five lines arguing a semantic point, and one that
you are incorrect on to boot.  I mentioned that "his" was the generic to
avoid flames, but you apparently missed that.  It is also the posessive
pronominal adjective referencing "he," which is still a generic term
as it is defined as "anyone." [Websters New World Dictionary]  It does
not _need_ to be "corrected" simply because _you_ choose to assume it
refers only to the male gender, and I refuse to change my usage of the
language to suit your delicate sensibilities.  The phrase, "...that all
men are created equal" does include both men and women, but you would
have us change the wording because it's not explicit enough?  Let me
toss this one at you, "He who is without sin cast the first stone."
If it was a law, does it follow that women could toss stones with
impunity?  Of course not!  You remind me of lawyers who engage in the
art of "duelling word processors," to avoid any possible chance of a
misinterpretation, when a simple scan of the dictionary shows the
meanings of the words used.

>SH:  I think there is a slight difference between the above cases.  Common
>sensewise (I really don't want to go into this one).

	Alright, we won't.  There are some differences that make the
analogy somewhat different from the situation you provided.

>DS:  I, for one, think
>> the KKK, Black Panthers, Minutemen, and Weather Underground (all of
>> whom still exist, BTW) should be able to say what they want.  That
>> they might feel intimidated speaking before a bunch of rednecks does
>> not mean they are censored.  It merely means they don't have the
>> intestinal fortitude to speak their mind in all situations, and hence
>> the censorship lies with them, not with the audience, unless an
>> explicit threat is given.

>SH:  Great!  Lets just celebrate the right to verbally abuse the hell out of 
>any race,gender or sexual preference with impunity.  

	I celebrate the first amendment every day.  If you can't stand to
hear the opposition, I wonder what you have to fear?  Let them speak, and
the vast majority will see them as the nuts and flakes they really are.
There is no reason to fear an opposing view being expressed.  This is what
torques me about censorship, and it assummes I cannot make up my own mind
on the matter given both sides of the argument.  I do take exception with
speech that is incitation to riot.

>If the KKK wants to have a rally, people of color can have a counter rally.
>Fine.  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." 
>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.  If he can exercise his free speech with
>impunity, in all probability, I would be the one leaving.  Thats not my
>idea of freedom. 

	If that verbal-type KKK member works with you, you are free to give
a counter-speech to him at every opportunity.  Your choice lies in either
listening to him, countering him, leaving, or kicking him in the gonads.
All are responses to the situation, though you will pay a penalty for
exercising the last two options.  That I used to work with a very vocal
vegetarian did not require my leaving.  When she waxed on about the pain
and suffering, racing heartbeat and slow death of the cow that comprised
my lunch that day I merely said, "Keep talking -- it tastes better already."
The next day, the same treatment.  My answer, "Look, you can eat the rabbit
food, and I'll eat the rabbit, and we'll get along.  Otherwise, I can see
where a perfectly good working relationship will end simply because I don't
agree with your dietary views.  If that's what you want, fine.  I don't care
to have that happen, but I also don't care to hear your speeches."  The
situation was resolved then, and we agreed to disagree.  I cannot help but
think that that her rights to free speech are worth more than my wish to not
hear countering views, and that's the heart of this discussion.

>I repeat that my right to a hostilefree work environment comes before his 
>(not gender neutral since it probably would be a man/boy) right to make 
>my work environment unpleasant.  

	And I disagree, since you are free to fight back, and his words
can do nothing to harm you unless you wish them to.  There has never
been a right that states you shall be free from assholes.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >