From: ljt3@CS1.CC.Lehigh.EDU (LEWIS JOSEPH TANZOS III)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:09:37 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

In article <1992Nov8.173804.12233@leland.Stanford.EDU> mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
>gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
>[defense of PC-talk]
>:[linguist argument]
>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.

But you're going at it _backwards_.  Language doesn't change attitudes,
attitudes change language.  PC was intended to point out abusive attitudes.
It was not intended as a pedantic attempt to change speech.  But in many
cases, the people are PC for the sake of PC, and that's not what it's all
about.

>I do suggest, however, that the only alternative to being poltically
>correct is to be politically incorrect;

This sounds a lot to me like "you're either straight, or you're gay, you
can't be bisexual.  There's no such thing."  It's _*NOT*_ an either-or
proposition.  There's a wonderful Bloom County comic strip on this.
("Don't say _colored_ ma, you can't say that!"  "Can I say 'NAACP?'")
Does it really matter how I say what I want to say?  Or does it matter
how I treat the people?

>Do you object if you are then left feeling like an outsider if
>you choose not to?

The problem is not that I feel like an outsider because I don't use PC
language.  The problem is that those who _are_ PC try to make me feel
that way because I don't use the PC terms.

>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.

Exactly.  The problem is that most of the visible PC people are the ones
that are _being_ abusive.  I don't use PC language, and those people who
I perceive as being PC are constantly pestering me to use it.  To me, that
is abusive.

>: 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

>Sorry, Graham.  I don't see it.  "Forced and artificial"?  "Woolly-
>minded"?

Yep.  I agree with Graham.  In many cases, PC-ness is a reason that
people won't take you seriously, because they think it's silly.

>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.

Depends on who you're talking to.  It might make you seem that way to
people who already have the _attitude_ that you're trying to achieve.
The people you _should_ be talking to see you as woolly-minded.

>: 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? 

no.

>Ramming if I object to its use?

Depends on how often you use it.

>Ramming if I listen to a group's request to be termed people of colour?

Hmmm... I've known a lot of 'black'-skinned people.  Not once have I
ever heard any of them object to the use of that term, if it's used in
a descriptive sense, same as 'red hair' or 'blue eyes'.  And that's the
only reason to use it.

>I choose to be PC all the time, and damn it, I >think< you should too.
>Won't force you, though.

Fine.  You'd like me to be PC.  You've said it, I know it.  Now that we
both know what you'd prefer, I'll consider it an attempt to force it if
you bring it up again, because I think you're wrong.

Now, go back and re-read that last paragraph.  You'd be amazed by the 
number of PC people who sputter and rant and rave when I say that.
I don't really mean it most of the time, but once I explain it, it helps
get my point across.  (Graham's too, I think).  Sometimes, you have to
jolt people to get your point across.  Do it too often, and they get used
to it, and ignore it, and keep doing things the way they always have.

PC is only a means to an end.  Too many people forget that and let the
means become the end.  It's one of the biggest reasons that I _won't_
cater to the PC types.  It gives me a better chance to influence the
attitudes of those people who I think need an attitude adjustment.
--
  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.
Newsgroups: soc.bi