# PC's latest victim: The History of the Holocaust



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/l...770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

This is truly absurd.

Also with the Crusades...

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

WTF!? Isn't that the point of education? WOW...


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Yes, this is frightening.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

There has been a string of such things occuring in the UK lately.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Ugh. We need to put the politically correct teaching establishment on a rocket ship with the right wing superficial Christians and send them off together.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Ugh. We need to put the politically correct teaching establishment on a rocket ship with the right wing superficial Christians and send them off together.


As an old fashioned liberal I agree completely.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Ugh. We need to put the politically correct teaching establishment on a rocket ship with the right wing superficial Christians and send them off together.


I will light the fuse if you get them on board!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Political correctness isn't always a bad thing, some social pressure is a good thing in selected areas. There's certainly a difference between progressive action on issues like gay rights, versus fear based PC in this instance.

-spence


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

What does the Penn Central Railroad have to do with the Holocaust?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Political correctness isn't always a bad thing, some social pressure is a good thing in selected areas. There's certainly a difference between progressive action on issues like gay rights, versus fear based PC in this instance.
> 
> -spence


No, PC is always a bad thing IMO. Giving gay couples in long term committed relationships the same legal rights as other people in long term committed relationships is not about being PC, that is about basic equity. Being PC is Heather Has Two Mommies for eight year olds or forcing semi-nude men, dressed in nothing but leather and acting suggestively with each other, into the NYC St. Paddy's Day Parade.

PC is not about effecting real and meaningful change, it is shoving controversial, and often inappropriate for the target audience, things down people's throats.

Just my opinion, YMMV.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No, PC is always a bad thing IMO. Giving gay couples in long term committed relationships the same legal rights as other people in long term committed relationships is not about being PC, that is about basic equity. Being PC is Heather Has Two Mommies for eight year olds or forcing semi-nude men, dressed in nothing but leather and acting suggestively with each other, into the NYC St. Paddy's Day Parade.
> 
> PC is not about effecting real and meaningful change, it is shoving controversial, and often inappropriate for the target audience, things down people's throats.
> 
> Just my opinion, YMMV.


I also hold a negative opinion on political correctness, but, I think its being shored up by those opponents who use their opposition to it as an excuse to engage in boorish and offensive behavior or refer to people in racist terms. If those people were removed I'm sure most of its supporters would lose their rhetoric or atleast marginalized.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> I also hold a negative opinion on political correctness, but, I think its being shored up by those opponents who use their opposition to it as an excuse to engage in boorish and offensive behavior or refer to people in racist terms. If those people were removed I'm sure most of its supporters would lose their rhetoric or atleast marginalized.


The world's a mean place, kids should learn that...


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> No, PC is always a bad thing IMO. Giving gay couples in long term committed relationships the same legal rights as other people in long term committed relationships is not about being PC, that is about basic equity. Being PC is Heather Has Two Mommies for eight year olds or forcing semi-nude men, dressed in nothing but leather and acting suggestively with each other, into the NYC St. Paddy's Day Parade.
> 
> PC is not about effecting real and meaningful change, it is shoving controversial, and often inappropriate for the target audience, things down people's throats.
> 
> Just my opinion, YMMV.


But that generally begs the question. "PC" is often invoked as a shibboleth by those who are uncomfortable with what others would view as basic equity. I'm not sure the line between giving equal legal rights to people in long term committed relationships and "Heather Has Two Mommies" is as clear as you suggest. Certainly "PC" can become excessive, but there's no shortage of actual bigotry and unfairness in our society, either. In my experience (presence company perhaps excluded) hearing people aggressively complain about "PC" is often akin to hearing people begin rants with "I'm not racist, but . . ."


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> No, PC is always a bad thing IMO. Giving gay couples in long term committed relationships the same legal rights as other people in long term committed relationships is not about being PC, that is about basic equity. Being PC is Heather Has Two Mommies for eight year olds or forcing semi-nude men, dressed in nothing but leather and acting suggestively with each other, into the NYC St. Paddy's Day Parade.
> 
> PC is not about effecting real and meaningful change, it is shoving controversial, and often inappropriate for the target audience, things down people's throats.
> 
> Just my opinion, YMMV.


Hilarious. As it typically the case, Wayfarer gets the matter completely backwards. "PC," as exemplified in this article, is primarily a program of suppression, and secondarily one of promotion. Thus, to the extent that the slogan has any meaning, it is a program to suppress information that annoys, disputes, or otherwise offends some influential individual or group. For instance, prohibitions against "hate speech" are primarily intended to censure and suppress certain forms of 'offensive" speech rather than to promote acceptable forms of "inoffensive" speech. At its worst, PC involves the suppression of historical, political, or cultural truths that conflict with acceptable opinion among those who wish to see contrary views suppressed. To that extent, "PC," is primarily a tool of the ruling class, which employs the numerous means at its disposal to suppress politically or culturally threatening opinion. The cultivation and manipulation of public discourse in this respect is hardly new, and is, in fact, necessary to the smooth functioning of any more or less open society, as Walter Lippman noted in his landmark study _Public Opinion_ published in 1922. Only when hitherto politically marginalized groups and individuals began mobilizing their resources to employ similar techniques of discourse manipulation did the matter become a "hot" issue*, *and use of the term "PC" now has become so debased that it is practically meaningless. Still, let us observe Wayfarer's fumbling use of the concept. He employs the example of the entry of homosexuals into public life. Magnanimously, Wayfarer will allow gay couples in "long term committed relationships" to enjoy the same legal rights as those that similarly placed heterosexuals enjoy as a matter of course, but he finds any cultural or educational expression of homosexuality, especially homosexuality that deviates from the "long-term committed relationship" variety, to be "controversial" and "inappropriate"; notwithstanding the fact that millions of American live lives that do not conform to his narrow-minded view of acceptable homosexual behavior. In other words, Wayfarer will acquiesce to the entry of gay men and women into public life, but only in ways that he deems inoffensive. Thus, to bemoan the evils of "PC," Wayfarer engages in a ham-fisted bit of "PC" polemic. Hilarious.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> In my experience (presence company perhaps excluded) hearing people aggressively complain about "PC" is often akin to hearing people begin rants with "I'm not racist, but . . ."


You're example is precisely what the problem with PC is. It suggests that if you don't buy into the concept of "progressive inclusiveness" then you're a bigot or racist. PC is a great slippery slope and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Those who are bigots and racists will not be changed by PC language. I very much doubt there is anyone in this country that doesn't understand what it means to be a racist or what the language of racism is. Believe, I hear it on a daily basis in my line of work. So to that end it serves no purposes.

Unfortunately what it does do is stifle ideas. It makes taboo any discussion of the worth of ideas because it may offend someone, something or some class. However the notion of PC does not take into account the merit of the offense, meaning is the language or the idea really offensive? Should it be offensive? Dropping the "N" word in a conversation is certainly inappropriate and offensive however is a discussion of how our culture is affected by rap music offensive? Should it be offensive. The liberal intelligensia could make that argument using the doctrine of PC. Calling a gentleman of middle-eastern descent a terrorist, insulting his heritage is certainly offensive but is an open discussion of Islam and its stance on violence such? How about when a group of imams start behaving in a disruptive manner? Should the resultant removal from the airplane be considered offensive?

My problem with PC is not that it tries to shield people from *truly *offensive behaviors, its that it has turned into a slippery slope where the prime directive is to silence _any _speech that could in _any_ way be offensive to _anyone._ Hence we end up altering our textbooks. We go so far as to consider the exclusion of something as offensive. Heaven forbid we not include that native american literature has contributed to our society. We should consider the most mundane of contributions, not based on it merit but based solely on the class from which the contributor is from.

And in England we end up with what the OP referenced; a complete disregard for actual history because it may upset someone or some class.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> In my experience (presence company perhaps excluded) hearing people aggressively complain about "PC" is often akin to hearing people begin rants with "I'm not racist, but . . ."


This wasn't the point of the OP.

The goofy self esteem movement is in the US as well.

https://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_500410.html


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Hilarious. As it typically the case, Wayfarer gets the matter completely backwards. "PC," as exemplified in this article, is primarily a program of suppression, and secondarily one of promotion.


I list two examples of "promotion". How is this completely backwards from your stated summation of the purpose of PC? Oh yes...there is no difference except that I said it.



Lushington said:


> Still, let us observe Wayfarer's fumbling use of the concept. He employs the example of the entry of homosexuals into public life. Magnanimously, Wayfarer will allow gay couples in "long term committed relationships" to enjoy the same legal rights as those that similarly placed heterosexuals enjoy as a matter of course, but he finds any cultural or educational expression of homosexuality, especially homosexuality that deviates from the "long-term committed relationship" variety, to be "controversial" and "inappropriate"; notwithstanding the fact that millions of American live lives that do not conform to his narrow-minded view of acceptable homosexual behavior. In other words, Wayfarer will acquiesce to the entry of gay men and women into public life, but only in ways that he deems inoffensive. Thus, to bemoan the evils of "PC," Wayfarer engages in a ham-fisted bit of "PC" polemic. Hilarious.


I tell you, if I was ever guilty of a crime (and only if I was guilty), I would call you to work for me. In typical slimeball lawyer fashion you omit and twist everything to suit your pre-formed position. You twist how I said "controversial" and "innappropriate for target audience" and twist that in maggot fashion into "ways that he deems inoffensive". Anyone with half a wit can see what you have done, and again, by all means it is a masterful example of why lawyers are generally deemed somewhat less than scum by so much of the US public.

Just for further elucidation, you even have your criticisms wrong. You malign my use of the phrase "long term committed relationship" yet if Heather does indeed have two mommies, they would be in one of these relationships. Again, target audience. If you are fine with eight year olds dealing with gay sexuality, that is your schtick big boy. I would prefer that today's eight year olds be as non-sexualized as possible. Maybe you are fine with the sexualization of the very young, I however think I would be happy if the public school system successfully imbued them with the ability to read and do math at grade appropriate levels.

Lushie, I just knew you could not resist tearing my post apart. Thanks for performing just like the circus jackass I know you are


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer[/quote said:


> What's the target audience of the Saint Patrick's Day parade? The whole of New York City? Yeah, one wouldn't want those innocents offended by a couple of gyrating leather boys on a parade float. _Heather Has Two Mommies_ was a lesbian sex manual? Really? How remarkable. Quit while you're behind, fool, you're way out of your league.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wow, you better go back and edit there Lushie, I have you so rattled it seems you cannot type at present!

Yes Lush, you and I are not in the same league. I wake up happy every day knowing that. Such as, again in slimeball fashion, purposefully misapplying "target audience" and "controversial". Again, you are way out of my league, perfectly executing your courtroom moves, where anything but the truth matters. Bravo.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Wow, you better go back and edit there Lushie, I have you so rattled it seems you cannot type at present!
> 
> Yes Lush, you and I are not in the same league. I wake up happy every day knowing that. Such as, again in slimeball fashion, purposefully misapplying "target audience" and "controversial". Again, you are way out of my league, perfectly executing your courtroom moves, where anything but the truth matters. Bravo.


"Target audience" are your weasel words, fool, to obscure your witless intent. What's the target audience of St. Patrick's Day Parade? No answer. Did _Heather_ deal with the "sexualization of the very young"? No answer. Talk about slimeball and backtracking. You're such a lousy polemicist it's painful.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> "Target audience" are your weasel words, fool, to obscure your witless intent. What's the target audience of St. Patrick's Day Parade? No answer. Did _Heather_ deal with the "sexualization of the very young"? No answer. Talk about slimeball and backtracking. You're such a lousy polemicist it's painful.


Yes, "target audience" are my words. Even more, "inappropriate for target audience" as in eight year olds having the public school system introduce them to lesbian relationships. Again, if you think that is good fodder for the public school to deal with, more power to ya.

Go whine away big guy and tell everyone how witless I am some more. Maybe you could bemoan the fact that you are male again now? That was classic Lushie, almost as good as bashing me for believing in civil unions. What's next? You're going to ridicule me for thinking women should be allowed to vote?

Carry on....it is not like you need another person to have one of these conversations!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Ugh. We need to put the politically correct teaching establishment on a rocket ship with the right wing superficial Christians and send them off together.


Oh, what a beautiful world it would be!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Lushington said:


> "Target audience" are your weasel words, fool, to obscure your witless intent. What's the target audience of St. Patrick's Day Parade? No answer. Did _Heather_ deal with the "sexualization of the very young"? No answer. Talk about slimeball and backtracking. You're such a lousy polemicist it's painful.





Wayfarer said:


> Yes, "target audience" are my words. Even more, "inappropriate for target audience" as in eight year olds having the public school system introduce them to lesbian relationships. Again, if you think that is good fodder for the public school to deal with, more power to ya.
> 
> Go whine away big guy and tell everyone how witless I am some more. Maybe you could bemoan the fact that you are male again now? That was classic Lushie, almost as good as bashing me for believing in civil unions. What's next? You're going to ridicule me for thinking women should be allowed to vote?
> 
> Carry on....it is not like you need another person to have one of these conversations!










Love it!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, "target audience" are my words. Even more, "inappropriate for target audience" as in eight year olds having the public school system introduce them to lesbian relationships. Again, if you think that is good fodder for the public school to deal with, more power to ya.


Now it's lesbian relationships that are inappropriate for the target audience. Before it was "sexualization of the very young" that was inappropriate. How does a lesbian relationship introduce sexualization in any greater degree than does a heterosexual relationship? Should reading material for elementary school age children omit any reference to any familial relationship? After all, families arise through sexual activity; thus any mention of a character's family will be "inappropriate," will it not? Or is it only lesbian relationships that do so?

You continue to confirm my point with every post, and you add little bonuses along the way. One, you don't know what "PC" is; two, you don't know what you're condemning; three, you don't grasp the irony of accusing me of slimeball tactics by attacking an entire profession and introducing completely bogus concepts such as the "sexualization of the very young." Pathetic.



> Go whine away big guy and tell everyone how witless I am some more Maybe you could bemoan the fact that you are male again now? That was classic Lushie, almost as good as bashing me for believing in civil unions. What's next? You're going to ridicule me for thinking women should be allowed to vote?


Were you born this stupid, or did you suffer a closed head injury at some point in your life? I didn't bash you for "believing in civil unions" you idiot. I pointed out the hilarious irony of your condemning the pernicious effects of "PC," which you don't understand, by making an entirely "PC" argument. Here's the crucial point Wayfarer, in red letters so you won't overlook it: You don't even understand your own argument.



> Carry on....it is not like you need another person to have one of these conversations!


Well, you're not much, I'll concede; but a diversion is a diversion.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> How does a lesbian relationship introduce sexualization in any greater degree than does a heterosexual relationship? Should reading material for elementary school age children omit any reference to any familial relationship? After all, families arise through sexual activity; thus any mention of a character's family will be "inappropriate," will it not? Or is it only lesbian relationships that do so?


While tangent to the initial thread, this is precisely the crux of this issue. Well said...

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Despite himself, Lushie did raise a point that I was aware of even as I typed it. Please do not think I despise all lawyers. Just the ones that take truth, reason, and logic and make them into insincere tools of victory vs. ends in themselves. We all know the type, do we not Lushie?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I haven't read such venomous postings since the Rachel Ray thread.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Just the ones that take truth, reason, and logic and make them into insincere tools of victory vs. ends in themselves.


Sounds like the job description for a Marketing Director 

-spence


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Back to the issue of the post if I may. The U.K. has a social fabric woven over time. It is not some threadbare cloth subject to a complete reweave. The UK is tweed, not Bokhara or Isfahan. As I understand it, the immigration of moslems to the UK has been through her past colonial history and various agreements of the commonwealth. Yet how little reciprocity is shown by these same islamic nation's closed societies. Will the UK omit the religon of PM Disraeli from the classroom? Like it or not, asked for or not, there is a clash of cultures taking place between West and East. It's been going on since Greece first stopped Persia and later a Europe pushed Islam back from Southern France and the gates of Vienna. We are more conscious of the physical and cultural borders of the very street divisions of nieghborhoods in Baghdad of Sunni and Shi'ite than we are of our own communities.


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> You're example is precisely what the problem with PC is. It suggests that if you don't buy into the concept of "progressive inclusiveness" then you're a bigot or racist. PC is a great slippery slope and it makes no sense whatsoever.


No, it doesn't suggest that at all. You might question why you're so eager to force any discussion of "PC" into that box.
What my post does suggest is that in my anecdotal experience, the "PC" card is frequently trotted out by people who are uncomfortable being called out for their own bigotry, etc. Are there fair-minded people who find the over-emphasis on political correctness problematic? Absolutely. But nevertheless, in my experience it's genuinely bigoted people who most eagerly wield that cudgel.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Kav said:


> Will the UK omit the religon of PM Disraeli from the classroom?


Which was much the same as most other PMs since the Reformation. He was a member of the Church of England. His family background was Jewish. He was not.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

lawyerdad said:


> No, it doesn't suggest that at all. You might question why you're so eager to force any discussion of "PC" into that box.
> What my post does suggest is that in my anecdotal experience, the "PC" card is frequently trotted out by people who are uncomfortable being called out for their own bigotry, etc. Are there fair-minded people who find the over-emphasis on political correctness problematic? Absolutely. *But nevertheless, in my experience it's genuinely bigoted people who most eagerly wield that cudgel*.


That last sentence seems to prove out pt4's point. Accede to PC or you are a bigot. Sorry to disappoint, but I am neither PC nor a bigot. I am just annoyed by PC's demands to whitewash reality.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Hilarious. As it typically the case, Wayfarer gets the matter completely backwards. "PC," as exemplified in this article, is primarily a program of suppression, and secondarily one of promotion. Thus, to the extent that the slogan has any meaning, it is a program to suppress information that annoys, disputes, or otherwise offends some influential individual or group. For instance, prohibitions against "hate speech" are primarily intended to censure and suppress certain forms of 'offensive" speech rather than to promote acceptable forms of "inoffensive" speech. At its worst, PC involves the suppression of historical, political, or cultural truths that conflict with acceptable opinion among those who wish to see contrary views suppressed. To that extent, "PC," is primarily a tool of the ruling class, which employs the numerous means at its disposal to suppress politically or culturally threatening opinion. The cultivation and manipulation of public discourse in this respect is hardly new, and is, in fact, necessary to the smooth functioning of any more or less open society, as Walter Lippman noted in his landmark study _Public Opinion_ published in 1922. Only when hitherto politically marginalized groups and individuals began mobilizing their resources to employ similar techniques of discourse manipulation did the matter become a "hot" issue*, *and use of the term "PC" now has become so debased that it is practically meaningless. Still, let us observe Wayfarer's fumbling use of the concept. He employs the example of the entry of homosexuals into public life. Magnanimously, Wayfarer will allow gay couples in "long term committed relationships" to enjoy the same legal rights as those that similarly placed heterosexuals enjoy as a matter of course, but he finds any cultural or educational expression of homosexuality, especially homosexuality that deviates from the "long-term committed relationship" variety, to be "controversial" and "inappropriate"; notwithstanding the fact that millions of American live lives that do not conform to his narrow-minded view of acceptable homosexual behavior. In other words, Wayfarer will acquiesce to the entry of gay men and women into public life, but only in ways that he deems inoffensive. Thus, to bemoan the evils of "PC," Wayfarer engages in a ham-fisted bit of "PC" polemic. Hilarious.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> You might question why you're so eager to force any discussion of "PC" into that box.


Please feel free to ask for me! Otherwise I'm afraid I don't understand what you are implying.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Blaming the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory for every ill of the modern world is a fairly common tactic of the middle-brow right. Lind misses the boat pretty badly, even on his own terms: Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" is more relevant to Lind's point than is _Eros And Civilization._ To wit_:_


> In the United States, this tendency goes hand in hand with the monopolistic or oligopolistic concentration of capital in the formation of public opinion, i.e., of the majority. The chance of influencing, in any effective way, this majority is at a price, in dollars, totally out of reach of the radical opposition. Here too, free competition and exchange of ideas have become a farce. The Left has no equal voice, no equal access to the mass media and their public facilities - not because a conspiracy excludes it, but because, in good old capitalist fashion, it does not have the required purchasing power. And the Left does not have the purchasing power because it is the Left. These conditions impose upon the radical minorities a strategy which is in essence a refusal to allow the continuous functioning of allegedly indiscriminate but in fact discriminate tolerance, for example, a strategy of protesting against the alternate matching of a spokesman for the Right (or Center) with one for the Left. Not 'equal' but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.


In either event, Lind's panicked alarum merely proves my initial point: it was only when hitherto marginalized groups began trying to suppress "offensive" discourse, employing - or said to be employing - techniques borrowed from Critical Theory, that the American public began giving the matter a thought. This ignores the far more extensive and successful manipulation of acceptable public discourse by ruling classes going back to time immemorial. It's right there in _The Republic_, for starters. Under frankly authoritarian regimes this is well-understood: say the wrong thing where someone can hear it and it's off to the stake, the block, or the wall for you. The very idea of heresy, for instance, posits the unpleasant truth that there are some things, that if thought, cannot be safely uttered. However, in an ostensibly open society more subtle means of limiting the scope of acceptable public utterance must be employed. One needn't enter into the complex mental world of exiled _Mitteleuropa_ intellectuals to get a handle on this. Lippman, Alex Carey, Chomsky, and Robert McChesney are far more accessible and illuminating on this issue than are Horkheimer and Adorno


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

KenR said:


> That last sentence seems to prove out pt4's point. Accede to PC or you are a bigot. Sorry to disappoint, but I am neither PC nor a bigot. I am just annoyed by PC's demands to whitewash reality.


Nope. What I said was that in my experience I most frequently hear complaints about "PC" from bigoted people trying to hide behind the mantle of people who hold your viewpoint. Emphasis on "my". I was quite clear in what I was saying. I did not say, for example, that "anyone who complains about the over-emphasis on so-called 'political correctness' must be a bigot" Had I said that, you might have a point. But I didn't. Maybe you move in different circles than I do. But in my personal experience, what I wrote accurately recounts what I've encountered. Sorry if my putting that out there makes you uncomfortable.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> Sorry if my putting that out there makes you uncomfortable.


I can't speak for KenR (although I believe him when he says he is not a bigot) but as for myself I am not made uncomfortable by your claim. What you are close to making is a fallacy of association. As stated before my problem with PC is not without merit. Allow me to turn the tables on you; why are you so quick to fall back on your argument without considering the merit of other conclusions.


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I can't speak for KenR (although I believe him when he says he is not a bigot) but as for myself I am not made uncomfortable by your claim. What you are close to making is a fallacy of association. As stated before my problem with PC is not without merit. Allow me to turn the tables on you; why are you so quick to fall back on your argument without considering the merit of other conclusions.


What other conclusions? I'll consider them if you point them out. The only conclusions I reached are those based on personal observation. If you have some basis for concluding that the people I had in mind when I hade that observation were not, in fact, the bigots they clearly seemed to be, I'll gladly consider it.
I acknowledged in one of my previous posts that there is merit to your problem with PC. I also specifically disclaimed any attempt to suggest that "present company" (i.e., posters on this thread) were the subjects of my observation. I merely pointed out that, unfortunately, bigots often like to hide behind the skirts of that meritorious concern, in a sort of reverse fallacy of association.
If anything, I'd respectfully suggest that the fallacy of assocation is being made on your part. You seem to assume that simply because I question the bona fides of certain people who invoke (perhaps in good faith, perhaps not) the same arguments you do, I must necessarily be making a personal attack on you.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

lawyerdad, just because certain bigots choose to hide their bigotry behind certain concerns regarding PC behavior does not invalidate those concerns. You may certainly ask what their motivation is but you cannot _prima facie_ dismiss the merit of that argument.

Look, bigots will be bigots. PC language is not a tool to change behavior. It is plabum, used in many cases to avoid discussion and debate. I don't doubt that the original purpose of such language was noble however like every other attempt at social engineering, whether through government or language, it has taken a turn toward the absurd. Consider the original post; one could argue that this is the inevitable result of PC run amock. I would argue that PC is actually a way of hiding guilt about a past some may be ashamed of; an over-compensation on the part of some to correct the wrongs of the past.


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> lawyerdad, just because certain bigots choose to hide their bigotry behind certain concerns regarding PC behavior does not invalidate those concerns.


I agree. That's what I already said that. Twice.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Jan, I know Disraeli's Biography well. If the mussleman in his mosque can deny the holocoast he can reshape past PMs.


----------

