Hi Arlo, I do not understand how you value PC.
Let me give you the following situation, please comment whether this is good PC or bad PC: I believe that some screen actors make way to much money for the amount of work that they do. The Hollywood wealth is very lopsided, some actors making millions, while others not making anything. My proposal is to mandate a 4 movie limit per actor. This would allow other actors to make money. In order to achieve this, the population at large needs to be educated in a PC way, that the current system is unfair, and be educated that if an actor makes more than four movies they should not go to them. This kind of education may take time, but in the long run, the wealth of acting will be shared in a manner which is more socially just. Is this an example of good PC in your opinion? Thanks, Willblake2 On May 8, 2009, at 1:05:29 PM, "Arlo Bensinger" <[email protected]> wrote: [Sharath] I can't comment on pre-60's I wasn't born then... [Arlo] I think we certainly can comment on the pre-60s, there have been many accounts and recording of incidents in legal records we can point to. The point is, if all we examine is the modern day, we completely lose sight of how we got here from there. Things have changed drastically regarding civil rights in this country, and this is in no small part to the efforts made by those around this time. [Sharath] But even with all that I am not too convinced that the entire country purported [discrimination of non-white races]. [Arlo] Of course they did not. But enough did to warrant those who do not to take action. I think my point is still not being answered here, so let me repeat it. Prior to the 60's I see little evidence that things were improving much if at all for blacks in this country. They had to sit in the back of buses, they had to drink from separate waterfountains. They faced widespread aggression and assault (according to Wikipedia, the city of Birmingham, Alabama was nicknamed "Bombingham" due to the violence of the Klan against blacks there). If one says "things were improving", I have two questions. What evidence do you offer to support this? And, what if the "natural" way of just ignoring this until it went away took six generations, twelve, even three? At what point do we stop saying "oh well, sucks to be you, shut up and quit whining and deal with the fact that your never going to have the same opportunities as whites"? At what point would intervention be justified? Never? [Sharath] unless someone from the other race is marrying their daughter or something [Arlo] Yes, there are many in this country, and some on this list, who find the idea of interracial marriage immoral. My question is, is it "PC" to "force" people to recognize interracial marriages? Would it be moral for a county or state to declare that within its borders interracial marriages will not be recognized? Or would that be immoral? [Sharath] My logic is simple - if majority of the people in a region did really practice the extreme form of discrimination then I'm pretty sure it would've still existed (whether or not someone smart and intelligent in the govt wanted to get rid of this). [Arlo] By forcing it underground, and by refusing to provide discrimination and racism social support, you neuter it of its power. And in doing so, over time, I believe things have improved. It hasn't been perfect, by any stretch, but the condition for minorities today is much, much better than it was fifty years ago. Of course, it takes time. Of course, xenophobia continues to be manipulate by ideologues to secure their power. Again I offer my personal experience with the changing tolerance and respect towards the mentally-handicapped. In my tenth grade year, I saw a young boy ridiculed and harrassed to the point where he had to leave school and his family move away. No one did anything, not the school administrators, not the parents, not the community, no one. Two years later, another mentally-handicapped child came to our school. There was what we now call "sensitivity workshops", ridicule of this child about his condition was met with zero tolerance by administrators, other students were "forced" to work with this child in small group activities. And you know what, it was better for him. Today, with my daughter herself in tenth grade, I ask her if people even still use the slur "retard", she said "no, well every now and then someone uses it to try to be funny, but no one laughs".I'd say that is amazing progress, that I would attribute directly to certain "PC" initiatives designed to foster tolerance and respect for the mentally-handicapped. These include not only the "coerced workshops", but a media campaign designed to "humanize" these children and bring the way they had been treated for decades to light. If you say, it had nothing to do with PC, then what DID it have to do with? Is it just coincidence that after decades of no-to-little improvement, we suddenly had such extreme improvement in one generation? No, its not entirely beaten. I imagine many mentally-handicapped children are still the victims of verbal abuse, alienation, discrimination and vicious and hurtful attacks. But I see improvement. Plain and simple. [Sharath] Tell me why don't you ( I assume you are a white man from the US) practice discrimination or do your friends or your parents generation do ? or are you trying to be just PC :P ? [Arlo] That's like asking me if the only reason I don't kill people is because of the laws against it. Obviously, the answer is "no". And its so for many people. The "law" against killing is there to ensure that the few who would kill do not, and when they do to receive punishment. If we removed the law, would you kill? I'd say you likely would not. Nor would most people. But a few would. And that should not be acceptable. To continue this thought, I really wish we lived in a world where you could remove the laws against murder and no one would murder. Its utopic to say the least. But until we get there, we kinda need those laws to ensure that the few people who would are punished, and to say that we as a people vociferously make a stand that killing is bad. [Sharath] but I think even in the 60's there were white people who were supporting the black movement [Arlo] Of course there were. Where did I say differently? I don't like the "all" or "none" arguments, they never hold water. [Sharath] But c'mon the way the society is setup there is bound to be discrimination. I am a short guy *but* posses more than an average basketball skill, I'm of course discriminated by basketball players at the gym [Arlo] Height is a valid component of success in basketball, and as such "discriminating" among players by considerations of height is hardly immoral. But what if those same players at the gym discriminated against you because you were "colored"? The color of your skin has nothing whatsoever to do as a predictor of success in basketball, and hence that discrimination is immoral. [Sharath] Everyone is discriminated in some way or the other. [ gay, single, women, christians, chinese, blacks, mexicans, whites, teens, seniors, teachers, intelligent, stupid, priests, beggars, artists, politicians the list covers everyone no ?] [Arlo] First you have to separate out legitimate discrimination from non-legitimate discrimination. If I was a potential pool of pianists for playing at Carnegie Hall, and I didn't get the job because I (quite frankly) suck at playing the piano, that's fine. But if I didn't get it because I was hispanic, or jewish, or christian, then that would be non-legitimate discrimination. Second, yes, everyone faces prejudice for immoral reasons. This does not mean we should ever excuse it or condone it. If a christian is denied a job because he is a christian, this is as abhorrent as if a black is denied a job for his skin color. If a senior is denied service at a restaurant because of his age, this is as abhorrent as if you were denied service because of your ethnicity. [Sharath] I frankly don't know what the solution is but I don't believe govt can enforce laws for forcing business or organizations to hire people from different races. [Arlo] Well given the immobility of minorities before these laws, I'm open to alternative solutions. As I said before, one person had once suggested to me that we should remove affirmative action but force companies to disclose their policies on their products. That way you, as an Indian, would be able to make an informed decision when you walk into the store and see a can of Coke that says "Coca Cola refuses to hire Indians, as it considers them inferior people" on the side. [Sharath] I think there are bigger problems than race discrimination right now at least. I feel greed has a lot to do with why there is an unfair wealth distribution in the world. [Arlo] You may be right. [Sharath] And the sort of greed where people just don't have control and buy and live in excess for no real reason. [Arlo] This sort of thing was touched on in ZMM. I'd agree with it being a problem. Maybe that could go into another thread at some point. 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/ 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/
