From: larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr)
Subject: More Persons Stuff
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:10:09 GMT


Dear Larry,

I am the supervisor of a Hungarian political discussion group where
I posted your article published on alt.politics.correct.
The following reply has been arrived to the group (see below).
If you wish to answer, please send your letter to me (there is an
automated way to post, but all is in Hungarian language).
I will forward the future follow-ups to you as well.
_____________________________________

Hi Jozsef. Ok, here goes...


>Dear Larry Landwehr,
>
>I found your letter extremely interesting and stimulating. Still, I would
>like to point out that I cannot fully agree with your evaluation of
>political correctness.
>
>> Now many people use the words "sensitivity", "empowerment", and
>> "disadvantaged" without bothering to explain what they mean.
>
>No doubt. Even more people use the words "democracy", "rights", "freedom
>of expression" or "civil disobedience" without explanations. These words
>do not seem to be less problematic than the ones quoted by you.

My point was that the words "sensitivity" etc now have meanings that they
did not have just a few years ago. The words "democracy" etc are far older
and their meanings are still mostly the traditional ones. What people should
be aware of is that the English language is changing. Old words have new
meanings, new words are invented, and some words can no longer be freely
used in public discourse. Many people are not fully aware of this.


>> At the same time many words that used to be perfectly acceptable
>> have fallen into disfavor or have been banned from public speech.
>> Such words and phrases as "divorcee", "indian", "unwed mother",
>> "lesbian", "Negro", "stewardess", "meter maid", and "waitress" are
>> no longer used in public speech.
>
>Well, we have a factual disagreement here. I think the words "lesbian",
>"stewardess" and "waitress" are used very frequently even in liberal
>environments like Cambridge. It is also interesting that the word
>"nigger" is missing from your list. That word has virtually disappeared
>from public speech too. Do you consider this a great loss?

The words "lesbian" etc are still used in colloquial speech (slang) by
many people, but not by the national media. These words all have
politically correct equivalents. Neutered words such as "server" and
"flight attendant" were not widely used in the past.

The word "nigger" is a very negative word. So are the words "wop",
"spade", and "wetback". The word "Negro" is not negative, but it has
fallen out of public use. My article dealt with how English is being
shaped to be politically correct, not about prejudice and prejudicial
words.


>> Many of the old words had negative connotations.  The new words do
>> not.  The reason many of the old words had negative connotations
>> was because the behavior associated with them was behavior that the
>> majority of the public did not like.  People did not like divorce,
>> homosexuality, unwed mothers, and people who would not work.  These
>> activities and conditions were not looked upon favorably.
>> ...
>> Now days, we have to keep such opinions to ourselves.  We cannot
>> utter such opinions because the words used to express them have
>> been banned.
>
>If I am not mistaken you have succeeded to express such views right now.
>I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh in the other day expressing very similar
>views too. I vaguely remember a political speech of vice-president Dan
>Quayle who was also able to phrase such thoughts. I think if his intellectual
>capacity was sufficient for this, there is no real problem for Americans to
>formulate the same ideas.

I succeeded in expressing my views, but the net is just about the only
place where I can do so. Other media are overwhelmingly liberally biased.
I have written letters to newspapers, but they have accepted nothing.

When someone does manage to express a conservative viewpoint in other
media, they experience far more attackers than defenders. When this
happens people are silenced.  What is striking about these attacks is
that they are often targeted personally at the other speaker and not at
the ideas expressed. The above attack on Dan Quayle is such an attack.

The other way people are silenced is by passing laws making certain kinds
of speech illegal. The University of Wisconsin has just repealed such a
law that they passed about a year ago. For the past year, a student
could be booted out of school if someone took offense to a joke!

We also have "hate crimes" where the penalty is increased if the victim
belongs to certain groups. Ten years ago the term "hate crime" hadn't
even been invented.


>> We call people "the homeless" instead of "bums" and "hobos" even if it is a
>> voluntary "lifestyle".
>
>I thought homeless people had no place to live. I do not want to exclude the
>possibility that there might be people who would, even if they had the money,
>choose to sleep in shelters or on the streets. OK, let us call them hobos.
>But please, try to keep the distinction between them and the people who
>sleep on Central square. They told me (strangely enough) that they would be
>quite happy if they had a home.

You should have asked them if they would be quite happy to *work* to have
a home. Some people just plain do not want to work for a living. They
find it too boring. They'd like to have a home, but they are not willing
to pay the price and I don't want to pay it for them.


>> This vocabulary revolution has had far ranging effects on people's
>> lives.  It has placed limits what we can say in public.  It affects
>> how we think about things.  We no longer think about ourselves as
>> a "people".
>
>There was a time in American history when people thought about themselves
>as citizens of a democratic country, but slavery was accepted. Then there was
>a time when they still thought about themselves as citizens of a democratic
>country, slavery was banned, but blacks could not sit on the front seats in
>buses. And there was a time in American history when the people thought
>about themselves as citizens of a democratic country, slavery was banned,
>blacks could sit on the front seats in buses, but it was yet a considerable
>disadvantage to be born black in America. It is not that all these thoughts
>are mistaken, it is just that the ideal of democracy changes. I do not
>think that it is advisable to silence opinions that do not correspond to
>the current (or desired) standard of democracy, hence I oppose the views
>of some radical liberals in America. I am happy that you have the
>opportunity to say what you have said, but I am sad that you have these
>views.

It's funny how you and many others only speak about the bad in the past.
And it's funny how you only use blacks for your examples. What about Asians
and Mexicans? Someone has wrapped the liberal philosophy up with a pretty
ribbon and you have bought it all.

I started out as a completely liberal person when I was young and have
seen what some of the logical consequences of that philosophy are for
this country. I don't like what I see.

I see minority criminals get special treatment because they are minorities.
Here in Milwaukee, we had a case where four or five blacks beat up a
white guy and chased him into Lake Michigan where he drowned. There was
almost a total blackout on this crime. I heard about it on the radio.
The local TV stations carried virtually nothing on it. A year later the
defendants were sentenced. They got one year of probation. The local
newspaper reported the sentences on page 27 in the sporting section.

I see "affirmative action" where the local paper runs ads for the police
department. The ads clearly state that white males cannot apply (including
the men who fought in the war against Iraq).

I see "minority owned businesses" favored over other companies. Just recently,
a car towing company that existed only on paper (the company actually was in
the laundry business) ripped off the city of Milwaukee for $500,000 in
fraudulent claims. They then filed bankruptcy.

I see where women who shoot their husbands while he is asleep get out of jail
because they claim abuse.

I see fathers who can't see their kids on visitation day, but who had
better send in the child support check or the state will put them in jail.

I have seen what liberalism is doing to this country and I am sick to death
of it.

This country had problems in the past, but it had a lot of goodness too.
People have forgotten that goodness. They mock it. They invent new words
and meanings so that meanings inherent in the old vocabulary are no
longer expressible. To use those words immediately marks you as old
fashioned and intolerant. Liberals have managed to convince many people
that:

    liberal             = good  |  conservative    = bad
    women               = good  |  men             = bad
    minority            = good  |  white           = bad
    homeless            = good  |  government      = bad
    environmentalist    = good  |  business        = bad
    non western culture = good  |  western culture = bad

It is surprising that more people aren't half liberal and half conservative.
Few people take whatever is good from each side and fashion their own
philosophy. They either buy into one or the other. The result is total
polarization.

Liberalism is much less tolerant of conservative viewpoints than
conservativism is of liberal views - this from a philosophy that prides
itself on its tolerance. Actually liberalism is very intolerant of
competing philosophies. That alone probably explains its present
dominance.

Liberalism is also very hateful and devisive. It discriminates against
certain groups of people. It labels them as bad. It pits people against
each other. It turns a people into a collection of persons. I wish
people would just think for themselves instead of buying whatever
package the media favors.

Christianity has been called a slave religion. I think Liberalism is a
have-nots philosophy and conservatism is a haves philosophy. A tyranny
of the have-nots is just as odious as a tyranny of the haves. It is
especially bad when people are so caught up in their environment that
they don't even realize that a tyranny exists.

Have you read the book "Animal Farm"? Remember how the word "equal"
got bent - All animals are "equal", but some animals are more "equal"
than others? Welcome to "affirmative action" folks.