Re: Political Correctness-OED def.

[Jean Pfleiderer <pfleiderer_j -at- WIZARD -dot- COLORADO -dot- EDU>]

In article <9506061541 -dot- AA28815 -at- dale -dot- iphase -dot- com> Joe Fockler
 <jfockler -at- iphase -dot- com> writes:
>From: Joe Fockler <jfockler -at- iphase -dot- com>
>Subject: Re: Political Correctness-OED def.
>Date: 6 Jun 1995 17:14:25 -0000

>Arlen P. Walker writes:
>+
>+       By my reading, this means that someone who is actively "POLITICALLY
>+       INCORRECT" makes a habit of excluding, marginalizing, or insulting
>+       others. I fail to see how anybody could take pride in such behavior.
 But
>+       then, I never could understand conservative Christians.
>+             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>+ Which of course makes it completely acceptable to exclude, marginalize or
> insult
>+ them, eh, Douglas?

>AMEN ARLEN! The only government sanctioned and acceptable form of
>bigotry, discrimination, and hate is that which is directed at
>"conservative Christians."

It is this kind of statement that really gets my hackles up.  Of course there
is no "government sanctioned and acceptable form of bigotry, discrimination,
and hate" directed at "conservative Christians".  Even if what you are
thinking of is affirmative action programs (an area I will freely concede
needs much more debate), to the best of my knowledge none of them are designed
to increase representation of any particular religion or of any particular
political persuasion, so one's being a conservative and/or a Christian would
be irrelevant in such programs.  You are perfectly justified in taking to task
Douglas, or any other individual, who appears to be prejudiced against or
insensitive to the difficulties encountered by this particular group, or any
other group for that matter.  But to leap to the conclusion that one person's
thinking represents government policy is, well, let's say it:  paranoid.

>It is ironic that Douglas would say "I never could understand
>conservative Christians." Isn't the purpose of Political Correctness and
>programs spawned from this movement (radical feminism, etc) to encourage
>people to be sensitive toward and understand those who are different?

The first step towards these goals, of course, is to acknowledge that one DOES
NOT understand, so Douglas may be well on his way.  But the fact that someone
recognizes that we all have prejudices and blind spots, and therefore supports
doing something about it, but nonetheless doesn't see his own blind spot or
prejudice, is not ironic.  It is precisely what one ought expect, isn't it?  I
mean, if we could SEE, we wouldn't have a blind spot.  If we were judging
fairly, we wouldn't be "pre-judging" (the meaning of "prejudice").

>Perhaps the fact that political correct people are walking contradictions
>is a major reason that the movement is quickly fading.

Since there is no "politically correct movement" in the first place (it's a
concept dreamed up by those opposed to trying to overcome our prejudices),
there is nothing to "fade".  But I think it wrong to suppose that people who
believe in being open, learning about others, and respecting others, are
somehow not to be taken seriously merely because they are themselves also
imperfect.

>Politically Correct   adj.  The radical belief that without government,
>certain people are powerless.

Without government, virtually everyone who is not young, strong, and willing
to kill indiscriminately is powerless.  Maybe that describes you, and
therefore you want anarchy.  It doesn't describe me, nor most people I know.
For us, the question is, just who is it that any particular government
empowers?


>Please send all flames directly to me:  jfockler -at- iphase -dot- com   I need a
>good hearty laugh at your expense :)

Have at it.  I've already had a pretty good laugh at your's.
Jean