How many roads must an individual walk down?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Interesting article on how the PC police are destroying education and free discourse, with a Dylan reference:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004691

― spoiler, Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:32 (twenty-two years ago)

PC is an invention of the right-wing media.

― Famous Athlete, Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Uh, no, it's not. Anyone who went to a liberal arts college in the early '90s knows it was and is a very real thing.

― spoiler, Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Interesting. Isn't the Wall Street Journal pretty right-wing, generally? I'm surprised they ran the story.

P.C. is as alive as ever in corporate offices and college campuses even today.

― Ben Boyer (Ben Boyer), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Ian Penperson to thread!

― jody (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:43 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, how could you read that article and say it is all a figment of the right's imagination. it's the current tendency, stop potentially offensive language instead of offering substantive arguments that work to refute it. ward connerly is meant to speak at your university, protest, block his speech, make threats, boycott, anything to stop him from speaking. same with david horowitz putting an ad in the college paper, you disagree so you steal the papers rather than running your own ad to prove him incorrect. call bush a nazi because it's emotional intimidation(and rather feeble actually), who would admit in public that they support a nazi.

― keith m (keithmcl), Thursday, 19 February 2004 04:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't the Wall Street Journal pretty right-wing

I think just the editorial page is right wing. The rest of the paper is pretty centerist. (I believe)

― Debito (Debito), Thursday, 19 February 2004 04:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Worth noting that when it comes to the real SUBSTANTIVE editing of text-books that more conservative voices are far and away the winners (read a high school U.S. history book or Biology book used in the South or Texas if you want examples.) But the language thing has become pretty silly, sadly.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 February 2004 04:55 (twenty-two years ago)

The WSJ is generally pretty conservative.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 February 2004 04:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm kind of baffled why this is on ILM and not ILE btw?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 February 2004 04:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I was an undergrad in the states in the early '90s and PC was very much alive and well. It began to annoy me when I began to understand that discourse is more effective at exposing the weaknesses of an argument that one disagrees with than simply attempting to silence the opposition.

― webcrack (music=crack), Thursday, 19 February 2004 04:59 (twenty-two years ago)

good point alex, this is not an ILM thread.

― webcrack (music=crack), Thursday, 19 February 2004 04:59 (twenty-two years ago)

That may be true, but the editorial page is far to the right. I don't think the rest of the paper is anything like the editorial dept.

― Debito (Debito), Thursday, 19 February 2004 05:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Fucking PC whingers strike again.

Mind you, anything that hinders people listening to Dylan is a good thing.

― Sasha (sgh), Thursday, 19 February 2004 06:11 (twenty-two years ago)

"How many roads must an individual walk down?"

...Before he becomes a collective farmer???

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Thursday, 19 February 2004 10:07 (twenty-two years ago)

(oo-aargh! a post soviet slip of the freud there, surely... 'fcourse it should've read:)

"...before he becomes a collective cockfarmer?"

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Thursday, 19 February 2004 10:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't want to see any pictures of poor people or references to Eastern religions in my books. While they don't actually offend me, they might. And I'm happier being oblivious to their existence.

The first amendment guarantees my right to not be potentially offended.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 19 February 2004 12:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I really don't like this kneejerk anti-PC thing. The aim is to stop people being offended. Please tell me what's wrong with that. And I think dave225 is stretching it a bit - PC doesn't stop certain representations of people, it gives people a way of understanding that something might cause offence. The most extreme it gets is stopping language/pictures that will cause such offence UNNECESSARILY.

NB: the article talks about PC in textbooks, that should try and be objective. It does not mean you burn books or steal newspapers or ignore the arguments in favour of semantics.

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Thursday, 19 February 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I put it on ILM because it does have ramifications for "offensive" song lyrics.

And Jim, since when is it your right not be offended? There's a lot wrong with stopping people from being offended. It's paternalistic and immature. A mature person can deal with being offended, it's just a fact of life. Why anyone would go to school to have their worldview confirmed and reinforced is beyond me. If you're not willing to be offended, you really have no business being educated.

― spoiler, Thursday, 19 February 2004 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Spoiler OTM.

― search and delete (searchanddelete), Thursday, 19 February 2004 13:56 (twenty-two years ago)

But Spoiler:

1. 'Mature person': does this include the school kids who have to use the textbooks mentioned in the article?
2. The 'worldview' that is being 'confirmed and reinforced' is one where anyone one who isn't stereotypically white, male, middle-class, blah, blah, blah is second-class. This is the 'offence' that PC tries to prevent.
3. Your 'right' comes from different places depending on what you're 'offended' about and what country you're in. I don't want to get all legal on your ass, but in the UK try European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act, Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act, Disability Discrimination Act, Treaty of Rome etc etc etc. Search: the doctrine of 'indirect discrimination'.
4. Why do you link 'offence' and 'education' so strongly?

NB: 'offence' covers a multitude of sins.

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Thursday, 19 February 2004 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

spoiler -- that's incredibly dense. A mature person can deal with being offended, it's just a fact of life. Can you back this up from personal experience aor what?

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 14:27 (twenty-two years ago)

PC doesn't stop certain representations of people
..unless those representations are of while male middle class christians.

White, male and middle class all exist in the real world. I agree that the books should not be lopsided toward any one ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.. but it does not need to be completely eliminated as if everyone in the world is identical. It makes more sense to represent reality than to disregard it. ..I'm not saying that textbooks have done a good job of this in the past - perhaps they are in more need of balance. I just don't think social or physical characteristics should be taboo subjects.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 19 February 2004 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

But PC doesn't make them taboo. It means that one way of life can't be universalised at the expense of others. PC does not cull any representations of white, male etc - it's a way of showing that these representations can get passed off as what is 'normal'. So the article talks about guidelines asking whether mentioning any religion is 'necessary', not just Christinaity.

For example, say the textbook includes a maths problem along the lines of Johnny got five Xmas presents, Julie got four Xmas presents -how many Xmas presents do they have all together? All PC (or the guidelines mentioned in the article) is suggesting is 'why mention Xmas at all, it acts to exclude those who don't celebrate Xmas etc etc'.

It doesn't propose hiding ANY people behind a semantic screen, that's precisely the point.

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Thursday, 19 February 2004 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Crikey, I remember when this PC malarky actually referred to a real policy thingie in the US colleges in the early 90s!!!!! Unfortunately by the time it crossed over to the UK it had basically become a synonym for "do-gooder", and used by people who basically couldn't be bothered justifying their prejudices!!!!!! Mind you it's really funny seeing all those Daily Mail types whine that because they can't boss Johnny Foreigner around anymore or put homosexuals in jail, that they're being "oppressed"!!!!! It's called evolution you saps!!!! Mind you, some people even regard teaching that subject as oppressive these days!!!!!

"You couldn't make it up"!!!!!!

― Old Fart!!! (oldfart_sd), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.