[Platt] I'm with you. PC started at colleges with authoritarian speech codes and then infected the mainstream liberal media. Of course it's as phony as a $3 dollar bill because bad mouthing certain groups like Christians and conservatives is not only permitted but encouraged. Witness what the left has said recently about the tea parties and Ms. California. You even see such demonizing on this site from time to time coming from supposedly "tolerant" left-wingers. Hilarious actually. Anyway, you are not alone in your condemnation of PC.
[Krimel] Actually, PC started in churches in the south. King and other people of faith took to the streets to protest segregation, poverty and injustice in a land that saw itself as beacon of freedom and justice. Sure there was this idyllic time in the senile Raygunesque mind when there was no "race problem". It was also a time when it was a man's right to beat his wife and kids and no one reported it and no one did anything about it. Child abuse and spouse abuse, like racism, are late 20th century phenomena. It wasn't college professors who led the fight against the things you believe in and long for, Platt. It was black preachers and Jewish college kids and poor children from farms in the south and slums in the north who saw the blatant disparity between what America stands for and what it had become. These are the folks who decided that certain common modes of expression are not socially acceptable and that it is improper to demean and abuse individuals though reference to their race or sex or religion. I know you miss the good old days but as Steven Pinker notes there is really only one word left in the English language that provokes a universal negative response. That word is "nigger". I remember when it was common and I don't miss it a bit. I am frankly glad that it annoys you to have to mumble it under your breath and bury it under mounds of crap about PC and multicultural horrors. The fact that these terms bother the likes of you and Ham is reason enough to love them. The left has always championed individual rights and sought to expand and protect them. That is what the ACLU is. It is ironic that someone who claims to value the "individual" would so strongly defend the party that has been so callous and heedless of individual freedom. It was the party poor southern racists turned to when the Democrats stood true to their beliefs and inverted a centuries old dominance hierarchy. I do understand that twisting the economic "rights" of corporation into individual rights and confusing the terms kind of works. That allows the rich and powerful to keep their tax rates down and the workforce passive. But it is hypocritical to suppose that the rights of a hypothetical person should out weight the rights of a real one or that or all you need is the right sized loophole to deny someone due process or access to legal counsel. Or that torture by under any other name doesn't hurt nearly as much. Still, as always, it is refreshing to hear a stupid person shouting about the evils of smart people. Oh yeah, now it is your turn to respond that I am just attacking you, you know the Pee Wee maneuver. Just knowing that that is the best you can do is satisfaction enough for me. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
