From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:43:07
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov9.184653.5563@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:46:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.184653.5563@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov9095243@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.e
>du (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>"PC" is not just language, it is thoughts and actions, too.  So, if you,
>>for example, express the thought that women are not inferior to men and
>>should not be treated as such, you are being PC (worse, you've been
>>brainwashed by the evil feminists, who are, of course, PC as all heck).
>>Just try it in alt.feminism and see what I mean...*grin*.

>I don't think anyone's objecting to the ideas and attitudes that are
>considered 'PC'.

No, people are just objecting when someone expresses those ideas.
That's like saying "I don't mind if people are gay, I just don't think
they should be so public/blatant/vocal about it."

>I think that what people are objecting to (at least,
>what _I'm_ objecting to) is the way it is asserted by PC-ites that one
>should adhere to this code of believe because it's Correct.  It is the
>Right Thing To Do.  No rationale, no logical arguments, just "It's Correct."

When someone decides to label me as PC, they don't *care* if I have
logical arguments or not, they simply refuse to listen to anything I
have to say, since they have decided that I am "PC," and therefore evil
(as you say later).  Shoot first, don't bother asking questions later.

>>Yeah, it's silly to have ideas like everyone should be treated as
>>individuals, rather than discriminated against because they happen to
>>belong to a particular group, and to insist on expressing them.  

>But that's not what 'PC' is, or at least, that's not the way I perceive
>it.

Well, when I say something like that, that is when people tell me that I
am "being PC."

>But when someone disagrees that our environment is in the situation that
>you perceive it to be in, do you attack that person for not being PC? 

It depends on what you mean by "attack."  I might say "but look, here's
this evidence here and that evidence there" (assuming I had some).  One
of these PC-labellers would then say "oh, you're just being PC, so I'm
not going to listen to you."  I encounter this sort of thing quite
frequently.

>I believe you entirely, and I respect you for choosing your own beliefs.
>Will you respect me for choosing mine?

That depends on how you choose them, actually.  If you think about
things, examine evidence, etc., I probably will respect you.  If, on the
other hand, you believe something simply because it is "not PC," I won't
be terribly impressed.

>I *don't* think that PC describes a set of political, social, and cultural
>beliefs.  PC is the way a certain set of ideas is thrust upon people,

As Mike asked elsewhere - if I say "well, I think global warming is a
problem," am I "thrusting" those ideas upon you?  PC, to me, is a
label used to tell people "shut up, I don't want to hear about it."  Not
"don't force those ideas on me," but "don't express those ideas in my
presence."

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi