[I] Life a-sewer-ants
Lister
sign up with Alcor, for which I need a life a-sewer-ants polly sea.
Could the group recommend any companies which meet the requirements of
Alcor?
Sabremeister Brian
What's an Alcor when it's at home?
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"What's wrong with dropping out? To me, that is the whole point -
to remove oneself from an environment that is spiritually and
intellectually unfulfilling."
- William S Burroughs
Larry Moore
This Alcor?
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world leader in cryonics,
cryonics research, and cryonics technology. Cryonics is the science of
using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life with the intent of
restoring good health when technology becomes available to do so. Alcor
is a non-profit organization located in Scottsdale, Arizona, founded in
1972.
They have a FAQ on their website, perhaps that'll answer your question.
--
We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. - Marshall McLuhan
Bonzai Kitten
<Snip>
>
> Alcor Life Extension Foundation
>
> The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world leader in cryonics,
> cryonics research, and cryonics technology. Cryonics is the science of
> using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life with the intent of
> restoring good health when technology becomes available to do so. Alcor
> is a non-profit organization located in Scottsdale, Arizona, founded in
> 1972.
Oh cool! I wanna be a head in a jar- If I get to hang out in the Head
Museum. I can bring my own bottle...
Lister
<ljm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>On 2008-04-09, Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> wrote:
>> Following an article today in The Scotsman newspaper, I would like to
>> sign up with Alcor, for which I need a life a-sewer-ants polly sea.
>> Could the group recommend any companies which meet the requirements of
>> Alcor?
>
>This Alcor?
>
>Alcor Life Extension Foundation
<snip>
Indeed :)
The Stainless Steel Cat
Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> wrote:
Hmmm, never figured you for an Extropian. Or are you just a fan of Sleeper?
I have to say I'm extremely cynical about this stuff, but feel free to say
"Haha, told you so!" in a thousand years if I'm wrong.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
"Look, you gotta be kidding. I wanna go back to sleep! If I don't get at
least 600 years, I'm grouchy all day."
Lister
Stainless Steel Cat) wrote:
>In article <gtopv311futippood...@4ax.com>,
>Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:11:29 -0500, Larry Moore
>><ljm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-04-09, Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> wrote:
>>>> Following an article today in The Scotsman newspaper, I would like to
>>>> sign up with Alcor, for which I need a life a-sewer-ants polly sea.
>>>> Could the group recommend any companies which meet the requirements of
>>>> Alcor?
>>>
>>>This Alcor?
>>>
>>>Alcor Life Extension Foundation
>><snip>
>>
>>Indeed :)
>
>Hmmm, never figured you for an Extropian. Or are you just a fan of Sleeper?
>
>I have to say I'm extremely cynical about this stuff, but feel free to say
>"Haha, told you so!" in a thousand years if I'm wrong.
>
>Cat.
Well, a lot of people are cynical about it, but what have you got to
lose? :)
Cameron Biggart
news:hq0qv31sqmq3cdcjn...@4ax.com:
Your children's inheritance.
--
Cameron
SteveD
<ljm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Cryonics is the science of
>using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life with the intent of
>restoring good health when technology becomes available to do so.
So basically, freezing your noggin, and hoping that by the time something
is invented which can sort through the ice-crystal-shredded organic mush
that used to be a cellular structure, the foundation won't have run into
any financial, legal, administrative, political, religious, structural,
physical, or accidental problems sufficient to result in accidentally
having said frozen bonce tossed out, thawed before time, dropped,
microwaved, or generally rendered inviable.
And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
If I was doing it, I'd specify not to be revived until there existed a
process to defossilise my learning ability, or at least give me a solid
psychological and knowledgeable foothold in the world of the Nth Century.
Maybe pop me in a sim and regress me to childhood, or something.
-SteveD
Lister
Yeah well, it's the future, who knows what will happen :)
Bonzai Kitten
(snip)
> So basically, freezing your noggin, and hoping that by the time something
> is invented which can sort through the ice-crystal-shredded organic mush
> that used to be a cellular structure, the foundation won't have run into
> any financial, legal, administrative, political, religious, structural,
> physical, or accidental problems sufficient to result in accidentally
> having said frozen bonce tossed out, thawed before time, dropped,
> microwaved, or generally rendered inviable.
They say they aren't freezing you as such...
> And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
> think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
> technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of humour.
The problem will be them refraining from exhibiting you like a Barnam
carni act.
> If I was doing it, I'd specify not to be revived until there existed a
> process to defossilise my learning ability, or at least give me a solid
> psychological and knowledgeable foothold in the world of the Nth Century.
> Maybe pop me in a sim and regress me to childhood, or something.
Childhood was annoying enough the first time. Me? I'd go for something
a little more like Better Than Life.
Still, I'd love to see what's happening in a couple of thousand years
from now.
Arthur Hagen
> On Apr 10, 1:54 pm, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>
>> And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
>> think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
>> technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
>
> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of humour.
Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell irony
from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left? Slapstick prompted
by canned laughter to tell you when you're /supposed/ to laugh?
I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's books. In
addition to sanitised covers (we already get those on the US editions), they
will likely have smileys in the text to tell the readers just when to laugh.
> Childhood was annoying enough the first time. Me? I'd go for something
> a little more like Better Than Life.
With nothing else to compare life against, and keeping in mind Sturgeon's
law, I think I'd settle for nirvana.
> Still, I'd love to see what's happening in a couple of thousand years
> from now.
You might as well pick up a SciFi book, because that's the closest you'll
get to know what the future brings. It'll be wildly inaccurate, but at
least it may be enjoyable.
Regards,
--
*Art
Daniel Orner
> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 1:54 pm, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>> And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
>>> think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
>>> technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
>>
>> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of humour.
>
> Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
> irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left? Slapstick
> prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're /supposed/ to laugh?
Which "them" are you referring to? There have always been unwashed
masses who didn't "get" humour, and there are still plenty of more
well-rounded people who do. Perhaps the audience of the former has
gotten a little larger, but it's far from being the only game in town.
Brian Howlett
> I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's books.
Why? Even supposing they are still being published, it's pretty
unlikely that you'll be around to see them.
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
-----------------------------------------------------
"I'm Brian, and so's my wife..."
Lesley Weston
Money. Quite a lot of it.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Lister
Ah, not really...
Jennifer & Reinier Sjouw
<snip>
>>>> On 2008-04-09, Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> wrote:
>>>>> Following an article today in The Scotsman newspaper, I would like to
>>>>> sign up with Alcor, for which I need a life a-sewer-ants polly sea.
>>>>> Could the group recommend any companies which meet the requirements of
>>>>> Alcor?
>
> Well, a lot of people are cynical about it, but what have you got to
> lose? :)
Have a read in Larry Niven's "a world out of time".
Especially about what happens to corpsicles.
Spend your money on having a Better Life(TM), rather than a possible
physical afterlife.
TTFN,
Reinier.
Chris Zakes
caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
(snip)
Speakiing of cryonic freezing and revival...
>If I was doing it, I'd specify not to be revived until there existed a
>process to defossilise my learning ability, or at least give me a solid
>psychological and knowledgeable foothold in the world of the Nth Century.
>Maybe pop me in a sim and regress me to childhood, or something.
>
>-SteveD
<shrug> In a rational and well-ordered system, such re-education would
be part of the standard revival process. Heinlein's "The Door Into
Summer" shows a pretty good example of such re-education.
Unless, of course, you were one of the very first people to be so
revived, because the revivers hadn't realized this would be a problem
since they're not science fiction fans.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
My reality check came back marked "insufficient funds."
Lister
<sjouw_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Lister wrote:
><snip>
>>>>> On 2008-04-09, Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Following an article today in The Scotsman newspaper, I would like to
>>>>>> sign up with Alcor, for which I need a life a-sewer-ants polly sea.
>>>>>> Could the group recommend any companies which meet the requirements of
>>>>>> Alcor?
><snip>
>>
>> Well, a lot of people are cynical about it, but what have you got to
>> lose? :)
>
>Have a read in Larry Niven's "a world out of time".
>Especially about what happens to corpsicles.
>
No, I haven't
Do tell :)
Chris Zakes
If it's the usual Niven future, they've gotten transplant technology
to a level that even an Igor would be proud of. Corpsicles (i.e.
humans in cryogenic suspension) are "harvested" for their organs.
Niven has another story where convicted criminals are *also*
harvested--which may make sense if we're talking about murderers and
rapists, but the harvesting law has been extended to the point where
people with too many traffic citations are up for recycling as well.
Creepy.
Janaina Rudberg
> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 1:54 pm, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>> And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
>>> think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
>>> technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
>>
>> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of humour.
>
> Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
> irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left? Slapstick
> prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're /supposed/ to laugh?
>
different matter), but I just never found them particularly funny. I may
have seen the wrog kind of clowns at the circuses I went to, but
basically what they seemed to be doing was fall over a lot and pour
buckets of stuff over other clowns (which seemed mean rather than
funny). I really don't see the difference between that and your laugh
track-slapstick, they even had deums to tell you what was funny...
The PC sarcasm thing though, is scary if true. I haven't noticed such a
trend, but then PC to me has to do mostly with not using language that
smacks of racism or inequality - I've gathered it's different elsewhere.
> I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's books. In
> addition to sanitised covers (we already get those on the US editions),
> they will likely have smileys in the text to tell the readers just when
> to laugh.
>
Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
/Janaina
Sabremeister Brian
Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> said:
> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>
>> I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's
>> books. In addition to sanitised covers (we already get those
>> on the US editions), they will likely have smileys in the text
>> to tell the readers just when to laugh.
>>
> Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
None of us may do so, what with overpopulation, climate change,
resource depletion, lack of arable land and rising sea levels. I
think the catastrophe curve is supposed to plunge somewhere around
2050.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
Literary threat #19:
They say the pen is mightier than the sword -
and I'm pretty handy with both, you know...
Janaina Rudberg
> In a speech called ftm9li$2s2f$1...@mud.stack.nl,
> Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> said:
>> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>>
>>> I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's
>>> books. In addition to sanitised covers (we already get those
>>> on the US editions), they will likely have smileys in the text
>>> to tell the readers just when to laugh.
>>>
>> Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
>
> None of us may do so, what with overpopulation, climate change,
> resource depletion, lack of arable land and rising sea levels. I
> think the catastrophe curve is supposed to plunge somewhere around
> 2050.
>
/Janaina
Bonzai Kitten
> > Janaina Rudberg <cl5jr...@cling.gu.se> said:
> >> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>
> >>> I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's
> >>> books. In addition to sanitised covers (we already get those
> >>> on the US editions), they will likely have smileys in the text
> >>> to tell the readers just when to laugh.
>
> >> Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
>
> > None of us may do so, what with overpopulation, climate change,
> > resource depletion, lack of arable land and rising sea levels. I
> > think the catastrophe curve is supposed to plunge somewhere around
> > 2050.
>
> Phew, that crisis is averted then.
>
> /Janaina
Ah, that would be the silver lining in the mushroom cloud?
Bonzai Kitten
> Arthur Hagen skrev:> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonzai.Kit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 1:54 pm, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>
> >>> And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
> >>> think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
> >>> technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
>
> >> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of humour.
>
> > Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
> > irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left? Slapstick
> > prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're /supposed/ to laugh?
>
> Iwas never afraid of clowns as a child (now Santa Clause, tat was a
> different matter), but I just never found them particularly funny. I may
> have seen the wrog kind of clowns at the circuses I went to, but
> basically what they seemed to be doing was fall over a lot and pour
> buckets of stuff over other clowns (which seemed mean rather than
> funny). I really don't see the difference between that and your laugh
> track-slapstick, they even had deums to tell you what was funny...
Actually, I was scared of clowns as a kid... I think I was a little
too young for the circus back then. Apparently I started crying
because the clown that got up in my face for the audience
participation bit smelled bad...
Arthur Hagen
> In a speech called ftm9li$2s2f$1...@mud.stack.nl,
> Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> said:
>> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>>
>>> I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's
>>> books. In addition to sanitised covers (we already get those
>>> on the US editions), they will likely have smileys in the text
>>> to tell the readers just when to laugh.
>>>
>> Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
>
> None of us may do so, what with overpopulation, climate change,
> resource depletion, lack of arable land and rising sea levels. I
> think the catastrophe curve is supposed to plunge somewhere around
> 2050.
While I don't doubt there will be some major catastrophes (and those we've
seen during my and my parents' lifetime -- including WWII -- are minor on a
planetary scale), but I also don't believe a total purge will occur. As
with any catastrophe, the scum will raise to the top and ensure their own
survival, trampling others when it gives them a slight advantage.
The H-bomb research seemed promising, but now it has all but stopped.
Perhaps someone can draw useful information from the black hole creation at
the large hadron collider, and finally come up with a viable plan for total
extermination. I'm not hopeful, though -- the survival instinct is too
strong.
Regards,
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of
>>> humour.
>>
>> Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
>> irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left? Slapstick
>> prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're
>> /supposed/ to laugh?
> Iwas never afraid of clowns as a child (now Santa Clause, tat was a
> different matter), but I just never found them particularly funny. I
> may have seen the wrog kind of clowns at the circuses I went to, but
> basically what they seemed to be doing was fall over a lot and pour
> buckets of stuff over other clowns (which seemed mean rather than
> funny). I really don't see the difference between that and your laugh
> track-slapstick, they even had deums to tell you what was funny...
Were you ever exposed to the full clown experience, though? Not just the
cheap slapstick jokes, but full stories, exaggerating not just glee, but
other emotions like sadness and despair too, to generate a contrast which
elevates the happy feelings?
Charlie Chaplin is, perhaps, the last clown that people in general still
have access to. But I wonder, do people today feel joy in the contrast
between personal tragedy and personal success?
Regards,
--
*Art
Daniel Orner
If you're so dead set on exterminating the human race, you can start
with yourself and we'll all jump on the bandwagon when you're done, how
does that sound?
8'FED
> If you're so dead set on exterminating the human race, you can start with
> yourself and we'll all jump on the bandwagon when you're done, how does that
> sound?
It's been a while since the VHEMT was mentioned on this group, and it
ought to be mentioned now and then, for a laugh: http://www.vhemt.org/
Adrian.
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Sabremeister Brian <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In a speech called ftm9li$2s2f$1...@mud.stack.nl,
>>> Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> said:
>>>>>
>>>> Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
>>>
>>> None of us may do so, what with overpopulation, climate change,
>>> resource depletion, lack of arable land and rising sea levels. I
>>> think the catastrophe curve is supposed to plunge somewhere around
>>> 2050.
>>
>> While I don't doubt there will be some major catastrophes (and those
>> we've seen during my and my parents' lifetime -- including WWII --
>> are minor on a planetary scale), but I also don't believe a total
>> purge will occur. As with any catastrophe, the scum will raise to
>> the top and ensure their own survival, trampling others when it
>> gives them a slight advantage.
>>
>> The H-bomb research seemed promising, but now it has all but stopped.
>> Perhaps someone can draw useful information from the black hole
>> creation at the large hadron collider, and finally come up with a
>> viable plan for total extermination. I'm not hopeful, though -- the
>> survival instinct is too strong.
>
> with yourself and we'll all jump on the bandwagon when you're done,
> how does that sound?
There's no point to extermination unless it's /total/, and your proposed
solution won't work because (a) you don't control all others, and (b) you're
quite likely a liar who have no intention of following through.
(By the way, what would you do if I /do/ kill myself now? You know
absolutely nothing about me, or my mental stability. Would you turn
yourself in to the mounties, because inciting suicide or suicide pacts over
the internet is a felony? Or would you ignore it and prove yet again what
kind of scum you are?)
--
*Art
Daniel Orner
Or I was being sarcastic. But maybe you have trouble detecting that. I
seem to recall you saying people nowadays have that problem.
As for there being no point to extermination unless it's total... well,
one step at a time, eh?
>
> (By the way, what would you do if I /do/ kill myself now? You know
> absolutely nothing about me, or my mental stability. Would you turn
> yourself in to the mounties, because inciting suicide or suicide pacts
> over the internet is a felony? Or would you ignore it and prove yet
> again what kind of scum you are?)
>
How could I incite suicide if you were the one who first brought up the
idea of destroying the human race entirely? Obviously this would include
yourself.
I was simply agreeing with you on a course you decided on yourself.
You, on the other hand, were essentially deciding that I and everyone I
knew should be dead. I leave it to everyone else to decide which one is
more "scum"-like.
Len Oil
> knew should be dead. I leave it to everyone else to decide which one is
> more "scum"-like.
Art is being his usual abrasive self that we know and love[1]. I'd
suggest staying seated and not rising to it if it weren't perhaps a
little too late.
(Which is not to say that I haven't succumbed to similar sorts of urges
in other discussions with other people, naturally.)
[1] YMMV. MyMMV, sometimes. Gods know that everyone has their niggles,
me included. It might be termed "character". Some of it might be
suspected to be willfulness, in some people. Only the protagonist
concerned could generally know for sure, and then not always. I've a
/feeling/ I'm doing my "trying to make oneself an authority" thing, with
a dash of netcop-impersonation on the side, though neither of these are
my intention. I /know/ I'm putting far too much misdirected effort into
fully qualifying this footnote, including this self-referential bit, but
consider that this can't be helped.
Daniel Orner
I wonder if you can go recurse self-referentially into infinity?
This footnote talks about itself. Of course when I say it talks about
itself I have to note that it's talking about itself talking about
itself, and when I say *that*...
Anyway, yes, I should know better, I know. -_- I have a sort of
knee-jerk reaction whenever people insult me to try and defend myself.
Maybe because it happens so rarely, I suppose. I should have gotten into
more fights as a kid.
Janaina Rudberg
> Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>>> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of
>>>> humour.
>>>
>>> Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
>>> irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left?
>>> Slapstick prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're
>>> /supposed/ to laugh?
>> different matter), but I just never found them particularly funny. I
>> basically what they seemed to be doing was fall over a lot and pour
>> buckets of stuff over other clowns (which seemed mean rather than
>> funny). I really don't see the difference between that and your laugh
>
> Were you ever exposed to the full clown experience, though? Not just
> the cheap slapstick jokes, but full stories, exaggerating not just glee,
> but other emotions like sadness and despair too, to generate a contrast
> which elevates the happy feelings?
>
Well, I was a child, so I can't rightly remember, but I think not. I
supposed I could have fazed out a bit. To me, clown acts were what you
sat through in order to watch the tight-rope walker.
I did meet clowns (out of costume) at the communal swimming pool once
though, and since they were also acrobats they did some things involving
the pool ladder that I very much enjoyed.
> Charlie Chaplin is, perhaps, the last clown that people in general still
> have access to. But I wonder, do people today feel joy in the contrast
> between personal tragedy and personal success?
>
Hmmm. It's been a long time since I watched a Chaplin film, apart from
'The Great Dictator', which I think is brilliant. I know that as a child
I didn't enjoy the silent films, but of course I mostly didn't know what
was being said, not being a fast enough reader to keep up with the
subtitles.
I've realised that i should probably give both Chaplin and clowns
another chance (although where to find good clowns, I don't know), since
I've mostly stayed away from both based on opinions formed as a child.
That's just silly, since I know of plenty of things I enjoyed as a child
that I think are insufferable now, and vice versa. A bit like broccoli.
Mmmm... Broccoli.
/Janaina
Chris Zakes
caused Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> to write:
>Arthur Hagen skrev:
>> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 1:54 pm, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
>>>> think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
>>>> technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
>>>
>>> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of humour.
>>
>> Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
>> irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left? Slapstick
>> prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're /supposed/ to laugh?
>>
>Iwas never afraid of clowns as a child (now Santa Clause, tat was a
>different matter), but I just never found them particularly funny. I may
>have seen the wrog kind of clowns at the circuses I went to, but
>basically what they seemed to be doing was fall over a lot and pour
>buckets of stuff over other clowns (which seemed mean rather than
>funny). I really don't see the difference between that and your laugh
>track-slapstick, they even had deums to tell you what was funny...
>
>The PC sarcasm thing though, is scary if true. I haven't noticed such a
>trend, but then PC to me has to do mostly with not using language that
>smacks of racism or inequality - I've gathered it's different elsewhere.
Have you ever noticed how much Political Correctness resembles a
complete lack of a sense of humor?
Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should* be
common politeness. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
verging toward Thought Crimes.
Chris Zakes
caused "Sabremeister Brian" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> to write:
>In a speech called ftm9li$2s2f$1...@mud.stack.nl,
>Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> said:
>> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>>
>>> I truly dread the 22nd century editions of Terry Pratchett's
>>> books. In addition to sanitised covers (we already get those
>>> on the US editions), they will likely have smileys in the text
>>> to tell the readers just when to laugh.
>>>
>> Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
>
>None of us may do so, what with overpopulation, climate change,
>resource depletion, lack of arable land and rising sea levels. I
>think the catastrophe curve is supposed to plunge somewhere around
>2050.
That's actually kind of encouraging. Weren't they saying 40 years ago
that the world was going to collapse around now?
Arthur Hagen
Did I say /anything/ that even /hinted/ at me being or wanting to be a party
to the destruction? No? Did you drag this too out of your ass?
--
*Art
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:59:46 +0200, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> to write:
>
>>Arthur Hagen skrev:
>>> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of
>>>> humour.
>>>
>>> Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
>>> irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left?
>>> Slapstick prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're
>>> /supposed/ to laugh?
>>The PC sarcasm thing though, is scary if true. I haven't noticed such
>>a trend, but then PC to me has to do mostly with not using language
>>that smacks of racism or inequality - I've gathered it's different
>>elsewhere.
>
> Have you ever noticed how much Political Correctness resembles a
> complete lack of a sense of humor?
At the extreme, yes. At the extreme most opinions do.
> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should* be
> common politeness. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
> verging toward Thought Crimes.
Yes, it should be. Political Correctness, in my observation, is largely
(but not entirely) a term used by people who lack common politeness to
justify themselves. In such people's lexicons it's "gone mad" every time
they're told offensive words might offend people.
I kind of consider myself PC, or at least I don't consider myself
politically *in*correct, but I'm sure most people on the group would
agree that, contrary to Art's point, I have no problem with sarcasm,
except in the sense that I'm not very good at it.
--
Dave
"I thought Billie Piper was an oil rig."
-Sandi Toksvig, The News Quiz
8'FED
> Yes, it should be. Political Correctness, in my observation, is largely
> (but not entirely) a term used by people who lack common politeness to
> justify themselves. In such people's lexicons it's "gone mad" every time
> they're told offensive words might offend people.
I have to disagree with that. There /may/ be some truth to it as far
as British newspapers are concerned, but in the rest of the world,
definitely not.
Political correctness is what happens when people who lack a sense of
proportion get it into their heads that a particular word might offend
people.
However, it shouldn't *matter* anymore. The term "politically correct"
belongs to the nineties, and I vote we leave it there.
Adrian.
Janaina Rudberg
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:59:46 +0200, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> to write:
>
>> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>>> Bonzai Kitten <The.Bonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 10, 1:54 pm, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And then assuming that the people of said far-distant future era will
>>>>> think it's a good idea to bring back an ancestor whose social and
>>>>> technological knowledge may be centuries out of date.
>>>> Hey, people in the future will probably still have a sense of humour.
>>> Are you sure? Clowns scare them, sarcasm isn't PC, they can't tell
>>> irony from sarcasm, and puns are beyond them. What is left? Slapstick
>>> prompted by canned laughter to tell you when you're /supposed/ to laugh?
>>>
>> Iwas never afraid of clowns as a child (now Santa Clause, tat was a
>> different matter), but I just never found them particularly funny. I may
>> have seen the wrog kind of clowns at the circuses I went to, but
>> basically what they seemed to be doing was fall over a lot and pour
>> buckets of stuff over other clowns (which seemed mean rather than
>> funny). I really don't see the difference between that and your laugh
>> track-slapstick, they even had deums to tell you what was funny...
>>
>> The PC sarcasm thing though, is scary if true. I haven't noticed such a
>> trend, but then PC to me has to do mostly with not using language that
>> smacks of racism or inequality - I've gathered it's different elsewhere.
>
> Have you ever noticed how much Political Correctness resembles a
> complete lack of a sense of humor?
>
Very seldomly, as I've indicated above. I can remember maybe two times
where that seemed to be the case, but generally it seems to me that it's
basically stuff that most people already know, but some have to have
pointed out to them for whatever reason.
As mentioned, this applies to where I live, not necessarily to any place
you could get fired for using the word 'niggardly' (or, indeed anywhere
else), which doesn't seem PC to me so much as it seems stupid.
> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should* be
> common politeness. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
> verging toward Thought Crimes.
>
In some cases it's simply a reminder for people who lived the bulk of
their lives in a time where some phrases were considered acceptable and
commonplace, that they are not so now.
/Janaina
Eric Jarvis
dont...@gmail.com says...
>
> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should* be
> common politeness. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
> verging toward Thought Crimes.
>
Which is why it doesn't exist. It is a term invented purely to attack
others. There isn't anyone out there deciding what is and isn't
"politically correct". There are just people trying to avoid language
that smacks of racism or inequality, and other people who claim that to
be "political correctness gone mad" whenever they don't like a change.
Usually because they don't understand the reason for the change in use of
language and prefer to assume that is because of malice on somebody
else's part rather than their own ignorance.
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Larry Moore
> I've realised that i should probably give both Chaplin and clowns
> another chance (although where to find good clowns, I don't know), since
> I've mostly stayed away from both based on opinions formed as a child.
> That's just silly, since I know of plenty of things I enjoyed as a child
> that I think are insufferable now, and vice versa. A bit like broccoli.
>
> Mmmm... Broccoli.
>
> /Janaina
If you get a chance to see one of the Cirque travelling companies,
they have funny, traditional clowns.
--
If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood.
I'd type a little faster.
Isaac Asimov
Sabremeister Brian
Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow the
reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"? Because someone thinks the
descriptive words in that nursery rhyme smack of racism or
inequality? And because some local authorities are trying to
persuade people not to put up Christmas decorations? I used to
work at Harrow Council, a LA with, AFAIAA, a signifigcant
proportion of non-Christian councillors. The building I worked in
probably had about as many non-Christians as nominal Christians.
No one ever objected to the Christmas decorations going up.
(Except the civic ones, which went up in late October, and came
down in February.)
There is a dividing line between "political correctness" and
"political correctness gone mad". It's political correctness to
call someone from (for example) Ethiopia "African" or "black".
It's PCGM to ban the reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep" because it
might offend that person. It's also PCGM to ban putting up
Christmas decorations in case the reasonable chance of that person
being a Muslim might mean they'll be offended by them. It would be
PC to ask them if they mind the decs going up, and if so, tell
people "don't put them up *here*".
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"I want a lot of medical jargon, I'll talk to a doctor!"
"You are talking to a doctor."
- Mal and Simon, /Firefly/
Chris Zakes
<shrug> Here's my favorite example of political correctness gone amok:
Speedy Gonzalez is a fast-moving cartoon mouse, set in a stereotypical
Mexican setting. He was been banned from US TV by the Cartoon Network
in 1999, because the cartoons are considered "an offensive ethnic
stereotype." What's particularly ironic is that the cartoons are
still shown--and are quite popular--in Mexico.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48872,00.html
Or, if you want more examples, try here: http://snorphty.blogspot.com/
Elliott Grasett
<snip>
>
> <shrug> Here's my favorite example of political correctness gone amok:
>
> Speedy Gonzalez is a fast-moving cartoon mouse, set in a stereotypical
> Mexican setting. He was been banned from US TV by the Cartoon Network
> in 1999, because the cartoons are considered "an offensive ethnic
> stereotype." What's particularly ironic is that the cartoons are
> still shown--and are quite popular--in Mexico.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48872,00.html
>
> Or, if you want more examples, try here: http://snorphty.blogspot.com/
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> My reality check came back marked "insufficient funds."
I suspect that if Cantinflas were still alive, he'd be banned for a
lamentable lack of Political Rectitude.
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Tiny Bulcher
> In a speech called MPG.226a8c5b7...@news.aqxs.net,
> Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> said:
>> In article <0suvv39s61bn5jplf...@4ax.com>,
>> dont...@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should*
>>> be common politeness. Political Correctness, in my
>>> observation, is verging toward Thought Crimes.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why it doesn't exist. It is a term invented purely to
>> attack others. There isn't anyone out there deciding what is
>> and isn't "politically correct". There are just people trying
>> to avoid language that smacks of racism or inequality, and
>> other people who claim that to be "political correctness gone
>> mad" whenever they don't like a change. Usually because they
>> don't understand the reason for the change in use of language
>> and prefer to assume that is because of malice on somebody
>> else's part rather than their own ignorance.
>
> Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow the
> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"?
Cite or it never happened. I've heard so many tales of alleged PC Gone
Mad, and nearly all of them have been traced back to /The Politically
Correct Handbook/, which was of course a joke book, full of jokes. And,
lo, it came to pass that some people heard the joke and didn't know it
was a joke, and the next thing you know you have a /Daily Mail/
editorial fulminating about PC Gone Mad.
Tiny Bulcher
Tiny Bulcher
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:08:38 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> to write:
>
>> In article <0suvv39s61bn5jplf...@4ax.com>,
>> dont...@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should* be
>>> common politeness. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
>>> verging toward Thought Crimes.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why it doesn't exist. It is a term invented purely to attack
>> others. There isn't anyone out there deciding what is and isn't
>> "politically correct". There are just people trying to avoid language
>> that smacks of racism or inequality, and other people who claim that
>> to be "political correctness gone mad" whenever they don't like a
>> change. Usually because they don't understand the reason for the
>> change in use of language and prefer to assume that is because of
>> malice on somebody else's part rather than their own ignorance.
>
> <shrug> Here's my favorite example of political correctness gone amok:
>
> Speedy Gonzalez is a fast-moving cartoon mouse, set in a stereotypical
> Mexican setting. He was been banned from US TV by the Cartoon Network
> in 1999, because the cartoons are considered "an offensive ethnic
> stereotype." What's particularly ironic is that the cartoons are
> still shown--and are quite popular--in Mexico.
And in 2002 it got unbanned, so it wasn't as amok as all that,
apparently. Tell me, have incidences of alleged political correctness
ever affected you personally? No? Then stop fucking whining about it.
8'FED
> Speedy Gonzalez is a fast-moving cartoon mouse, set in a stereotypical
> Mexican setting. He was been banned from US TV by the Cartoon Network
> in 1999, because the cartoons are considered "an offensive ethnic
> stereotype." What's particularly ironic is that the cartoons are
> still shown--and are quite popular--in Mexico.
On the other hand, there was a character in one Looney Tunes cartoon
("Bushy Hare") supposedly representing an Australian Aborigine, and
*that* character really *was* offensive. Certainly I found it so, and
so did other Australians I've spoken to (the fact that I've never
actually heard an Aborigine say so is irrelevant).
Adrian.
Bonzai Kitten
wrote:
(snip)
> Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow the
> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"? Because someone thinks the
> descriptive words in that nursery rhyme smack of racism or
> inequality?
(snip)
When will this one die? I've heard it said about Play School, a
children's programme, which wasn't true- and proven to be a beat up, a
local kinder, which wasn't true in any way whatsoever, and when you
press for details it's "Everybody knows *they* are trying to ban it"
and the like.
Windlingism seems to be everywhere.
Sabremeister Brian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/600470.stm
Okay, so that particular piece of legislation never got through.
But even if it had been a complete fabrication, it would still
have been a valid example of PCGM, because of your reaction to
its' hypothisation. If it's believeable enough to be taken
seriously, even by the Daily Mail, it's serious enough for someone
to actually consider doing it.
It's kind of like Rule 34
(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleThirtyFour)
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"He who laughs last thinks slowest"
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> In a speech called duednWjq2Iw2JZ3V...@bt.com,
> Tiny Bulcher <alyc...@btinternet.com> said:
>> Thus cwaeth Sabremeister Brian :
>>> Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow
>>> the reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"?
>>
>> Cite or it never happened. I've heard so many tales of alleged
>> PC Gone Mad, and nearly all of them have been traced back to
>> /The Politically Correct Handbook/, which was of course a joke
>> book, full of jokes. And, lo, it came to pass that some people
>> heard the joke and didn't know it was a joke, and the next
>> thing you know you have a /Daily Mail/ editorial fulminating
>> about PC Gone Mad.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/600470.stm
> Okay, so that particular piece of legislation never got through.
> But even if it had been a complete fabrication, it would still
> have been a valid example of PCGM, because of your reaction to
> its' hypothisation. If it's believeable enough to be taken
> seriously, even by the Daily Mail, it's serious enough for someone
> to actually consider doing it.
What an interesting way of looking at a conspiracy theory. Have you tried
applying it to any others?
"Prince Philip probably wasn't behind Diana's death, but the fact some
people believed it is evidence he *could* have been..."
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow the
> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"? Because someone thinks the
> descriptive words in that nursery rhyme smack of racism or
> inequality? And because some local authorities are trying to
> persuade people not to put up Christmas decorations? I used to
> work at Harrow Council, a LA with, AFAIAA, a signifigcant
> proportion of non-Christian councillors. The building I worked in
> probably had about as many non-Christians as nominal Christians.
> No one ever objected to the Christmas decorations going up.
> (Except the civic ones, which went up in late October, and came
> down in February.)
No, no-one ever does. Which doesn't stop the anti-PC lobby claiming people
do. (But I note that you elsewhere claim that the mere fact someone
*believes* a particular example of PCGM to be true is evidence that it's
close enough to true.)
Arthur Hagen
*Why* is it irrelevant? To me, it seems that taking offense on the behalf
of others, dismissing what /they/ may feel as irrelevant, is placing your
own norms and sentiments above theirs. Colonialism at its worst.
A couple of decades ago, I heard a speech by a "native" from a different
continent - Rigoberto Manchu. Basically, she told people to stop acting on
the indigenous peoples' behalf without consulting them first. While the
sentiment was appreciated, people often did more harm than good. We were
not walking in her shoes, and we were denigrating her people by assuming we
always knew what was best for them, and that they couldn't speak for
themselves. First, we stole their land, and now we stole their pride. If
we wanted to help, we should ask them what they needed, and they would give
us plenty to do.
--
*Art
Eric Jarvis
says...
> If it's believeable enough to be taken
> seriously, even by the Daily Mail, it's serious enough for someone
> to actually consider doing it.
>
You have more faith in the Daily Mail than most. When it comes to regard
for the truth the Daily Mail is, if anything, worse than the worst
excesses of the Daily Sport or the National Enquirer. The difference
being that the Daily Mail has a political agenda and thus prefers its
fabrications to be slightly less extraordinary.
Eric Jarvis
says...
> In a speech called MPG.226a8c5b7...@news.aqxs.net,
> Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> said:
> > In article <0suvv39s61bn5jplf...@4ax.com>,
> > dont...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should*
> >> be common politeness. Political Correctness, in my
> >> observation, is verging toward Thought Crimes.
> >
> > Which is why it doesn't exist. It is a term invented purely to
> > attack others. There isn't anyone out there deciding what is
> > and isn't "politically correct". There are just people trying
> > to avoid language that smacks of racism or inequality, and
> > other people who claim that to be "political correctness gone
> > mad" whenever they don't like a change. Usually because they
> > don't understand the reason for the change in use of language
> > and prefer to assume that is because of malice on somebody
> > else's part rather than their own ignorance.
>
> Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow the
> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"? Because someone thinks the
> descriptive words in that nursery rhyme smack of racism or
> inequality?
Actually there has been only ONE school in which this has happened.
Though it's often been reported as if it's a common occurence. It
happened in Aberdeen as a decision taken locally in a school, which was
soon advised that the whole idea was ridiculous. Birmingham Council for a
while included a paragraph in its guidance notes for schools that the
rhyme could be construed as having historical connections to slavery, but
they didn't impose a ban and so far as I am aware there are no reports of
schools in Birmingham doing so. Some schools have taken to using a new
rhyme that includes a wide range of colours instead of just black and
white. That has nothing to so with anything other than increasing the
vocabulary the children use when reciting nursery rhymes.
I'm afraid that's a fairly typical example of wishful thinking on the
part of those who want to believe that some sort of PC conspiracy is
trying to brainwash us all. It's happened only once in the real world no
matter how many times it's been reported as happening in Daily Mail Land.
> And because some local authorities are trying to
> persuade people not to put up Christmas decorations?
I can't find any even vaguely reliable reports of any such thing
happening anywhere in the UK. Nary a one. Not a sausage. I can find a
number of reports of Christian groups complaining that it's happening,
and even reports of Jack Straw doing his usual stunt of berating
something that isn't actually based on anything real.
The closest I can see is that Birmingham Council decided to celebrate
Winterval a few years ago, adding the celebration for other religions in
with the Christmas celebrations. They didn't even remotely suggest any
sort of ban on Christmas decorations.
> I used to
> work at Harrow Council, a LA with, AFAIAA, a signifigcant
> proportion of non-Christian councillors. The building I worked in
> probably had about as many non-Christians as nominal Christians.
> No one ever objected to the Christmas decorations going up.
> (Except the civic ones, which went up in late October, and came
> down in February.)
>
Nor would I expect anyone to. Because nobody does. The only reasons I've
ever heard for even reducing the number of Christmas decorations are cost
or the length of time for which they are displayed (since many of us
don't really like Christmas starting in October).
> There is a dividing line between "political correctness" and
> "political correctness gone mad". It's political correctness to
> call someone from (for example) Ethiopia "African" or "black".
> It's PCGM to ban the reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep" because it
> might offend that person. It's also PCGM to ban putting up
> Christmas decorations in case the reasonable chance of that person
> being a Muslim might mean they'll be offended by them. It would be
> PC to ask them if they mind the decs going up, and if so, tell
> people "don't put them up *here*".
>
All well and good, but it's a response to something that ISN'T HAPPENING.
Lesley Weston
>>>>> In a speech called ftm9li$2s2f$1...@mud.stack.nl,
>>>>> Janaina Rudberg <cl5j...@cling.gu.se> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ugh. Although I probably won't live to see the 22nd century.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of us may do so, what with overpopulation, climate change,
>>>>> resource depletion, lack of arable land and rising sea levels. I
>>>>> think the catastrophe curve is supposed to plunge somewhere around
>>>>> 2050.
>>>>
>>>> we've seen during my and my parents' lifetime -- including WWII --
>>>> are minor on a planetary scale), but I also don't believe a total
>>>> purge will occur. As with any catastrophe, the scum will raise to
>>>> the top and ensure their own survival, trampling others when it
>>>> gives them a slight advantage.
>>>>
>>>> The H-bomb research seemed promising, but now it has all but stopped.
>>>> Perhaps someone can draw useful information from the black hole
>>>> creation at the large hadron collider, and finally come up with a
>>>> viable plan for total extermination. I'm not hopeful, though -- the
>>>> survival instinct is too strong.
>>>
>>> If you're so dead set on exterminating the human race, you can start
>>> with yourself and we'll all jump on the bandwagon when you're done,
>>> how does that sound?
>>
>> There's no point to extermination unless it's /total/, and your
>> proposed solution won't work because (a) you don't control all others,
>> and (b) you're quite likely a liar who have no intention of following
>> through.
>
> Or I was being sarcastic. But maybe you have trouble detecting that.
> I seem to recall you saying people nowadays have that problem.
> As for there being no point to extermination unless it's total...
> well, one step at a time, eh?
>
>>
>> (By the way, what would you do if I /do/ kill myself now? You know
>> absolutely nothing about me, or my mental stability. Would you turn
>> yourself in to the mounties, because inciting suicide or suicide pacts
>> over the internet is a felony? Or would you ignore it and prove yet
>> again what kind of scum you are?)
>>
>
> How could I incite suicide if you were the one who first brought up
> the idea of destroying the human race entirely? Obviously this would
> include yourself.
> You, on the other hand, were essentially deciding that I and everyone I
> more "scum"-like.
Daniel, I would say it's much better to stop feeding Arthur when he gets
into this troll-like mood, and just wait for him to return to his normal
ascerbic and amusing self, but your reply is too entertaining in its own
right for this approach to work.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Len Oil
> And in 2002 it got unbanned, so it wasn't as amok as all that,
> apparently. Tell me, have incidences of alleged political correctness
> ever affected you personally? No? Then stop fucking whining about it.
You sound touchy.
Does a case of PCGM have to affect oneself in some way? Well, I suppose
it would be more consistent to require so. After all, it's the
instances of "being offended by proxy"[1] that are the most usual causes
for the "GM" part.
So you cannot be offended on behalf of the people who would find
themselves offended by someone else deciding that a fourth-party would
perhaps be offended?
Or can we just say "think about it logically... why do we believe that
this is something we should/should not do? If it's on behalf of someone
else, can we not get a straw poll[2] to see if we're exercising a kind
of Displacement/Münchhausen's-By-Proxy hybrid instead of normal common
sense?" without treading on people's toes?
Of /course/ a lot of the reported instances (possibly the overwhelming
majority) are going to be hyped up by either the anti-PC brigade or by a
different group who perceives being on the wrong side of some form of
positive discrimination for another.
There'll be instances, though. Outside of fiction. Even if it's just
something like "all female shortlists" in local politics.
Balance in all things. That means not over-gilding the lily. It also
means not denying that some people /have/ attempted to gild lilies
because it sounded like a good idea at the time[6]. And 'fucking
whining' that someone is "fucking whining" seems to be a
disproportionate remark that seems to have come out of the blue, and
what riled me into this response.
[1] "I have no problem with the Three Little Pigs, myself[3], but it
might offend our Islamic brethren" sort of thing. Without even checking
to see if anybody from that group cares as long as they aren't compelled
to eat sausages immediately after witnessing the story...
[2] Or one made of bricks?
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2818809.stm and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7204635.stm for a start, if you
don't mind a single source. But rest assured that I found plenty of
other ones[4]. I felt sure that in my search there'd be some
counter-arguments about how "it wasn't really like this", but it appears
not, and indeed certain Islamic officials have taken it seriously enough
to lambaste the petty nature of the rulings for which they certainly
weren't consulted.
[4] Including, of course the "coming over here, changing our culture,
refusing to mix with the 'pure bred' English" camps, who would have
seized upon this regardless of reality, so I shall not consider them as
credible confirmations.
[6] I've seen it done. Or at least a reasonable chemical facsimile of such.
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> I've realised that i should probably give both Chaplin and clowns
> another chance (although where to find good clowns, I don't know),
Look for Jacques Tati's movies [1]. He makes Chaplin look rather
dull-witted. If possible, get his movies in the original French, whether
or not you'll understand it - he uses dialogue as part of the background
noises: the sounds are important but not the meaning. He has really good
jazz as his background music, too.
There's also Rowan Atkinson in his Mr. Bean character. He is heavily
indebted to Tati, which I think he acknowledges somewhere, but less funny.
[1] "Les Vacances de M. Hulot" and "Mon Oncle" are probably the easiest
to find, but he did a few others as well.
Jennifer & Reinier Sjouw
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:20:08 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> to write:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:36:02 +0200, Jennifer & Reinier Sjouw
>> <sjouw_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Lister wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> On 2008-04-09, Lister <fa...@SPAMclara.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Following an article today in The Scotsman newspaper, I would like to
>>>>>>>> sign up with Alcor, for which I need a life a-sewer-ants polly sea.
>>>>>>>> Could the group recommend any companies which meet the requirements of
>>>>>>>> Alcor?
>>> <snip>
>>>> Well, a lot of people are cynical about it, but what have you got to
>>>> lose? :)
>>> Have a read in Larry Niven's "a world out of time".
>>> Especially about what happens to corpsicles.
>>>
>> No, I haven't
>>
>> Do tell :)
>
> If it's the usual Niven future, they've gotten transplant technology
> to a level that even an Igor would be proud of. Corpsicles (i.e.
> humans in cryogenic suspension) are "harvested" for their organs.
>
and slightly more bitter than that. First the penniless corpsicles get
raided for re-usable parts, subsequently bank accounts/investments of
the corpsicles that have left money to themselves get raided by
gouvernment and descendants. After that, they are penniless, so they go
the way of the others. And, of course, if it is found there are no
usable parts, there seems to be no reason to spend gouvernment money on
refrigerating them.
TTFN,
RS.
Lesley Weston
> On 12 Apr 2008, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should* be
>> common politeness. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
>> verging toward Thought Crimes.
>
> Yes, it should be. Political Correctness, in my observation, is largely
> (but not entirely) a term used by people who lack common politeness to
> justify themselves. In such people's lexicons it's "gone mad" every time
> they're told offensive words might offend people.
It's not just words, it's concepts too. I can think of all sorts of
people, a few here but many more in RL, who know what words they're not
supposed to use and are careful not to, but still make it clear by what
they do say that they endorse the ideas that using PC language is
supposed to circumvent.
>
> I kind of consider myself PC, or at least I don't consider myself
> politically *in*correct, but I'm sure most people on the group would
> agree that, contrary to Art's point, I have no problem with sarcasm,
Indeed, but then most people here seem to manage OK.
> except in the sense that I'm not very good at it.
You're being sarcastic here, right?
Lesley Weston
In Canada, the cartoons featuring Black Jacques Shellac are quite popular.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2008, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should* be
>>> common politeness. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
>>> verging toward Thought Crimes.
>>
>> Yes, it should be. Political Correctness, in my observation, is
>> largely (but not entirely) a term used by people who lack common
>> politeness to justify themselves. In such people's lexicons it's
>> "gone mad" every time they're told offensive words might offend
>> people.
>
> It's not just words, it's concepts too. I can think of all sorts of
> people, a few here but many more in RL, who know what words they're
> not supposed to use and are careful not to, but still make it clear by
> what they do say that they endorse the ideas that using PC language is
> supposed to circumvent.
Good point.
>> I kind of consider myself PC, or at least I don't consider myself
>> politically *in*correct, but I'm sure most people on the group would
>> agree that, contrary to Art's point, I have no problem with sarcasm,
>
> Indeed, but then most people here seem to manage OK.
>
>> except in the sense that I'm not very good at it.
>
> You're being sarcastic here, right?
Actually no. There's been a number of times when I've said something
sarcastically, then had to *explain* I was being sarcastic, as a result
of which I've started toning it down.
Thomas Zahr
> Tiny Bulcher wrote:
>> And in 2002 it got unbanned, so it wasn't as amok as all
>> that, apparently. Tell me, have incidences of alleged
>> political correctness ever affected you personally? No?
>> Then stop fucking whining about it.
>
> You sound touchy.
>
> Does a case of PCGM have to affect oneself in some way? ...
The whole debate seems to be a huge waste of bandwidth. And
while wasting bandwidth is of course a time hallowed
tradition, the generous helping of righteous indignation with
which it is so often garnished certainly is a touch
irritating.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<http://www.zahr.de>
Ross
<MPG.226ae60af...@news.aqxs.net>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
[big snippage]
> The closest I can see is that Birmingham Council decided to celebrate
> Winterval a few years ago, adding the celebration for other religions in
> with the Christmas celebrations. They didn't even remotely suggest any
> sort of ban on Christmas decorations.
I have a vague memory of that celebration, or rather the kerfuffle in
the local rag [1].
ISTR that the non-event was most notable for the amount of sniggering
from the local Asian community, who couldn't believe that the
councillors who came up with the idea could possibly have been so
foolish.
IalsoSTR that the idea behind the non-event was probably quite good,
but as ever the implementation wasn't quite as effective.
[1] the Birmingham Evening Mail, which is nothing to do with the
national Daily Mail, but which aspires to be as ridiculous as its
national daily brother.
P.S. Hello again a.f.p, long time no see. Anyone insane enough to
remember me?
--
Ross.
* Opinions are my own; my employer has disowned me again.
* Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my first name to e-mail me.
AD: <http://www.merciacharters.co.uk> for rail enthusiast tours in Europe
Sabremeister Brian
The only newspapers I trust are a combination of the Times and the
Guardian. These I trust to, between them, give a reasonably
accurate and balanced report on things. That said, the only
newspaper I have ever read with regularity is the Metro.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."
Sabremeister Brian
Xns9A7EA8AE8191Ada...@130.133.1.4,
No, I don't. I state that the fact that someone is able to believe
a claim of PCGM means that it is probable someone else has at
least thought about implementing that bit of PCGM, and the
resulting claim and counter-claim is viable enough as evidence
that there is such a thing as taking political correctness to
ridiculous levels.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Cupid has a depressing tendency to use me for target practice"
- Me, sometime in 2002.
Alec Cawley
Which is, IMO, a ridiculous proposition. The gullibility of conspiracy
theorists is infinite. They will believe that /anything/. Which means,
by your proposition that /anything/ might happen.
Chris Zakes
caused "Tiny Bulcher" <alyc...@btinternet.com> to write:
>Thus cwaeth Sabremeister Brian :
>> In a speech called MPG.226a8c5b7...@news.aqxs.net,
>> Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> said:
>>> In article <0suvv39s61bn5jplf...@4ax.com>,
>>> dont...@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should*
>>>> be common politeness. Political Correctness, in my
>>>> observation, is verging toward Thought Crimes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is why it doesn't exist. It is a term invented purely to
>>> attack others. There isn't anyone out there deciding what is
>>> and isn't "politically correct". There are just people trying
>>> to avoid language that smacks of racism or inequality, and
>>> other people who claim that to be "political correctness gone
>>> mad" whenever they don't like a change. Usually because they
>>> don't understand the reason for the change in use of language
>>> and prefer to assume that is because of malice on somebody
>>> else's part rather than their own ignorance.
>>
>> Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow the
>> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"?
>
>Cite or it never happened. I've heard so many tales of alleged PC Gone
>Mad, and nearly all of them have been traced back to /The Politically
>Correct Handbook/, which was of course a joke book, full of jokes
Okay, try these:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp
Los Angeles County officials ban the use of "master" and "slave" for
hard drives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm
Washington DC bureaucrat forced to resign for using the word
"niggardly."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/april08/monkeyracist.htm
Obama delegate forced out because she called black kids who were
climbing in her tree "monkeys."
http://www.qatarliving.com/blog/camper/disneys-piglet-banned-in-middle-east
Winnie the Pooh books sold in Qatar, with Piglet censored out.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389075-details/Golliwogs+seized+in+racism+charges/article.do
Store owner charged with racism for selling Golliwog dolls.
http://news.moneycontrol.com/india/newsarticle/stocksnews.php?cid=1&autono=1367&source=ibnlive.com
Seven-year old black kid cast as a monkey in school play. Note that
the kid had to be *told* that it was racist and he should be offended.
Chris Zakes
Probably, along with Amos & Andy and Jose Jimenez.
Gid
decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> Which means, by your proposition that /anything/ might happen.
In the next half hour?..
--
Gid
Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)
Sabremeister Brian
Yes, and? We're not talking about conspiracy theorists, we're
talking about people who sign themselves "Disgusted of Tonbridge
Wells" in letters to the newspaper. How are they suddenly
conspiracy theorists?
> They will believe that
> /anything/. Which means, by your proposition that /anything/
> might happen.
Anything might indeed happen (like someone here getting what I
mean first time, without me having to restate my point again and
again in different ways until it's been turned round enough to fit
into everyone's brains), but that is not my proposition. My
proposition is that political correctness can be taken to
extremes. It doesn't necessarily mean that it will be, or has
been, but it does mean that the very fact that it can be taken to
extremes is sufficient for people to (willfully or not) mis-hear
or mis-read a reasonable statement (an advisory on why the council
shouldn't put up the town Christmas decorations right in front of
the local mosque, for instance) as the propoundation of an extreme
course of action (no town Christmas decorations at all). Because
they can *imagine* the situation, they can and will distort a
related statement into what they *think* is going to happen (ie.
the imagined situation).
I can imagine everyone with a more legitimate claim to the British
throne than me being killed one-by-one, but because no-one's
issued a threat to systematically kill probably 10 million people,
I'm not going to give it another thought. I won't start giving it
thoughts until the pile of bodies starts including members of my
family. Of course, by that point, I'm going to have a whole lot of
other thoughts to occupy myself with, so that thought will
probably be somewhere round number 99 on the "thoughts I should do
something about" list. But then, I'm sensible, intelligent,
largely unbigoted, and I try and do something about any bigotry
that I recognise surfacing in myself so that it never surfaces
again. A lot of people aren't one, some, many or any of the things
on that list.
I'm beginning to wish I should have tried to work in the Oliver
Cromwell bit in my first post. He banned Christmas decorations
about 350 years ago - was he being politically correct, or driving
political correctness insane? Of course not! He was being a
religious dictator, turning his views into the people's laws. Did
anyone accuse Birmingham council of being religious dictators over
the Winterval debacle? No, they just accused them of being
politically correct extremists. And yet, to the people who called
it PCGM, was there any difference between what B'ham council did
and what Cromwell did? No.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Reading is sometimes an ingenious device for avoiding thought."
- Sir Arthur Helps
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Because they're theorising the existence of a conspiracy? Everything I've
seen concerning "political correctness gone mad" implies that we PC
people are all in it together as part of a plot to control people.
>> They will believe that
>> /anything/. Which means, by your proposition that /anything/
>> might happen.
>
> Anything might indeed happen (like someone here getting what I
> mean first time, without me having to restate my point again and
> again in different ways until it's been turned round enough to fit
> into everyone's brains), but that is not my proposition. My
> proposition is that political correctness can be taken to
> extremes. It doesn't necessarily mean that it will be, or has
> been, but it does mean that the very fact that it can be taken to
> extremes is sufficient for people to (willfully or not) mis-hear
> or mis-read a reasonable statement (an advisory on why the council
> shouldn't put up the town Christmas decorations right in front of
> the local mosque, for instance) as the propoundation of an extreme
> course of action (no town Christmas decorations at all). Because
> they can *imagine* the situation, they can and will distort a
> related statement into what they *think* is going to happen (ie.
> the imagined situation).
If I'm reading that correctly, I agree.
But I'm afraid that, even knowing what you meant, I can't work out how
your original statement says that.
Eric Jarvis
dont...@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:27:05 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Tiny Bulcher" <alyc...@btinternet.com> to write:
> >Thus cwaeth Sabremeister Brian :
> >>
> >> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"?
> >
> >Cite or it never happened. I've heard so many tales of alleged PC Gone
> >Mad, and nearly all of them have been traced back to /The Politically
> >Correct Handbook/, which was of course a joke book, full of jokes
>
> Okay, try these:
> http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp
> Los Angeles County officials ban the use of "master" and "slave" for
> hard drives.
Which, if you actually read it isn't a ban at all. It's simply a memo
sent to suppliers as a response to a complaint. It's somebody covering
their back after somebody else has claimed offence. There is no ban,
there is no requirement for suppliers to do anything at all. It's a
typical case of reactionary journalists deliberately twisting the facts
in order to create a controversy that isn't based on reality.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm
> Washington DC bureaucrat forced to resign for using the word
> "niggardly."
Note that what actually happened here is that the rumour machine got out
of control and whilst the word he used wasn't offensive, merely not a
word familiar to some who heard it used, the word he was falsely reported
to have used was. It's got nothing to do with PCGM and everything to do
with people not bothering to check facts when presented with a juicy
story.
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/april08/monkeyracist.htm
> Obama delegate forced out because she called black kids who were
> climbing in her tree "monkeys."
Again a little digging beyond the surface shows a different picture. One
that appears to involve a long standing dispute between neighbours
leading to somebody who had been protesting against a new local ordinance
being ticketed by the local authority she had been protesting against.
The story as presented by the Telegraph skips all that and implies that a
single remark led to her resignation. That doesn't appear to be the case
at all. She was ticketed for "causing a disturbance" and forced to resign
because of misleading press coverage.
> http://www.qatarliving.com/blog/camper/disneys-piglet-banned-in-middle-east
> Winnie the Pooh books sold in Qatar, with Piglet censored out.
I haven't looked this one up. It wouldn't surprise me either way.
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389075-details/Golliwogs+seized+in+racism+charges/article.do
> Store owner charged with racism for selling Golliwog dolls.
Wrong. Store owner not charged with ANYTHING. A complaint was made. The
police investigated and found no cause for the complaint. Nobody was
charged with anything. Again it's misleading reporting.
> http://news.moneycontrol.com/india/newsarticle/stocksnews.php?cid=1&autono=1367&source=ibnlive.com
> Seven-year old black kid cast as a monkey in school play. Note that
> the kid had to be *told* that it was racist and he should be offended.
>
Note also that the entire fuss is down to two parents but is presented in
this and other news items as if it's many more. One child has been
withdrawn from a school play. According to the BBC reports the dispute is
now all over and settled.
In every case what is presented initially is not what happened. Every
single one of those reports is more to do with reporters knowing that if
they twist the facts to create a shocking expose of political correctness
gone mad then they will get their byline in the paper. The paper knows
that the vast majority of readers will uncritically accept the headline
and then at most skim through the story, so it doesn't matter how much
distortion is required to generate something controversial because few
readers will notice.
Not one of them involves any public authority or large company doing
anything that can even remotely be construed as over the top. It shows a
few individuals taking offence at very little, in several cases with
pointers to a further agenda. It shows a lot of other people kicking up a
fuss either because they can't be bothered to check facts or because they
don't want to.
Eric Jarvis
says...
>
> I'm beginning to wish I should have tried to work in the Oliver
> Cromwell bit in my first post. He banned Christmas decorations
> about 350 years ago - was he being politically correct, or driving
> political correctness insane? Of course not! He was being a
> religious dictator, turning his views into the people's laws. Did
> anyone accuse Birmingham council of being religious dictators over
> the Winterval debacle? No, they just accused them of being
> politically correct extremists. And yet, to the people who called
> it PCGM, was there any difference between what B'ham council did
> and what Cromwell did? No.
>
YES THERE BLOODY IS.
For God's sake read what's been written. Birmingham Council did not ban
Christmas decorations. They did not use the term "Winterval" to replace
"Christmas". For one year only they attempted to link several midwinter
festivals under the single banner of "Winterval". Each festival was
celebrated separately, they just attempted to save money on publicity by
lumping them all together.
They haven't repeated it because the myth of PC gone mad is clearly so
set in many people's minds that it overrides any ability to deal with
reality as soon as the phrase has been invoked.
One more time. Cromwell banned Christmas decorations. Birningham Council
banned absolutely nothing, they didn't even attempt to discourage
anything. It is not the same thing. It is about as not the same as any
things can possibly be.
Now what would be the same thing would be if in my mind Cromwell had
eaten the livers of the royal family of Bohemia. It would be the same
thing as somebody believing that Birmingham Council banned Christmas. It
would be the same in that it would be completely false.
Janaina Rudberg
> Janaina Rudberg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I've realised that i should probably give both Chaplin and clowns
>> another chance (although where to find good clowns, I don't know),
>
> Look for Jacques Tati's movies [1]. He makes Chaplin look rather
> dull-witted. If possible, get his movies in the original French, whether
> or not you'll understand it - he uses dialogue as part of the background
> noises: the sounds are important but not the meaning. He has really good
> jazz as his background music, too.
>
> There's also Rowan Atkinson in his Mr. Bean character. He is heavily
> indebted to Tati, which I think he acknowledges somewhere, but less funny.
>
Oh, dear. While being a fan of most of Mr. Atkinson's work, I think I
need to confess to not having the 'Bean'-series amongst my favourites.
I'll try Tati, though, if and when I find something that seems interesting.
/Janaina
Daniel Orner
> Thus cwaeth Sabremeister Brian :
>> In a speech called MPG.226a8c5b7...@news.aqxs.net,
>> Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> said:
>>> In article <0suvv39s61bn5jplf...@4ax.com>,
>>> dont...@gmail.com says...
>>>> Avoiding language that smacks of racism or inequality *should*
>>>> be common politeness. Political Correctness, in my
>>>> observation, is verging toward Thought Crimes.
>>>>
>>> Which is why it doesn't exist. It is a term invented purely to
>>> attack others. There isn't anyone out there deciding what is
>>> and isn't "politically correct". There are just people trying
>>> to avoid language that smacks of racism or inequality, and
>>> other people who claim that to be "political correctness gone
>>> mad" whenever they don't like a change. Usually because they
>>> don't understand the reason for the change in use of language
>>> and prefer to assume that is because of malice on somebody
>>> else's part rather than their own ignorance.
>> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"?
>
> Cite or it never happened. I've heard so many tales of alleged PC Gone
> Mad, and nearly all of them have been traced back to /The Politically
> was a joke, and the next thing you know you have a /Daily Mail/
> editorial fulminating about PC Gone Mad.
>
>
there's another brouhaha about some overzealous public servant deciding
that someone out there might be offended by something. I haven't
memorized the incidents, though, so I can't quote chapter and verse, but
every so often there's another headline that makes me shrug. One that
comes to mind is the revocation of a license plate by a chaplain of some
sort which read "REV JO" because it might incite some young punk to make
his car go faster.[1]
Ironically enough this is tempered by the fact that, at almost the same
frequency, stories break about government officials at various levels
letting loose with the kind of ridiculous racist or sexist remarks that
we've all hoped have gone the way of the dodo.
[1] Actually, I'm not sure that actually falls under the purview of
Political Correctness so much as Safety Correctness, which stems from
the same mental malady and seems to be just as prevalent.
Daniel Orner
> Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>> Speedy Gonzalez is a fast-moving cartoon mouse, set in a stereotypical
>> Mexican setting. He was been banned from US TV by the Cartoon Network
>> in 1999, because the cartoons are considered "an offensive ethnic
>> stereotype." What's particularly ironic is that the cartoons are
>> still shown--and are quite popular--in Mexico.
>
> ("Bushy Hare") supposedly representing an Australian Aborigine, and
> *that* character really *was* offensive. Certainly I found it so, and
> so did other Australians I've spoken to (the fact that I've never
> actually heard an Aborigine say so is irrelevant).
>
>
>
What about "Injun Joe"?
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>
>>> (By the way, what would you do if I /do/ kill myself now? You know
>>> absolutely nothing about me, or my mental stability. Would you turn
>>> yourself in to the mounties, because inciting suicide or suicide
>>> pacts over the internet is a felony? Or would you ignore it and
>>> prove yet again what kind of scum you are?)
>>
>> How could I incite suicide if you were the one who first brought up
>> the idea of destroying the human race entirely? Obviously this would
>> include yourself.
>
> party to the destruction? No? Did you drag this too out of your ass?
>
Ending the discussion here due to unnecessarily inflammatory language
and the high likelihood of it escalating into a flame war.
Daniel Orner
Just because people weren't charged doesn't make it any less PCGM.
People kicking up a fuss over silly things like that is still senseless
and annoyingly overbearing, regardless of whether they involve
authorities or not.
Another incident that comes to mind which is somewhat related to this
is the remarks by Harvard president Lawrence Summers in 2005 that women
and men may have different ways of thinking and hence may have different
success rates in different careers. The firestorm after these comments
(which sound perfectly rational and scientific to me - just ask John
Gray) eventually contributed to his resignation.
Daniel Orner
Really? O_o Strange. The only reason I've ever thought of for PCGM is
that certain individuals find a higher calling by purporting to act
offended on behalf of other people who don't particularly care about
whatever it is they're supposed to be offended of. It gives them a nice
warm feeling inside that they're sticking up for the underdog.
Pterry seems to have noticed this as well with his description of the
Campaign for Equal Heights in Hogfather, which I'm currently re-reading,
where he says that they have to spend so much time explaining to gnomes
and pixies that they have no rights that they barely have any time left
to fight for them.[1]
>
>>> They will believe that
>>> /anything/. Which means, by your proposition that /anything/
>>> might happen.
>> Anything might indeed happen (like someone here getting what I
>> mean first time, without me having to restate my point again and
>> again in different ways until it's been turned round enough to fit
>> into everyone's brains), but that is not my proposition. My
>> proposition is that political correctness can be taken to
>> extremes. It doesn't necessarily mean that it will be, or has
>> been, but it does mean that the very fact that it can be taken to
>> extremes is sufficient for people to (willfully or not) mis-hear
>> or mis-read a reasonable statement (an advisory on why the council
>> shouldn't put up the town Christmas decorations right in front of
>> the local mosque, for instance) as the propoundation of an extreme
>> course of action (no town Christmas decorations at all). Because
>> they can *imagine* the situation, they can and will distort a
>> related statement into what they *think* is going to happen (ie.
>> the imagined situation).
>
> If I'm reading that correctly, I agree.
>
> But I'm afraid that, even knowing what you meant, I can't work out how
> your original statement says that.
>
[1] Strange how it the CEH seems to have started off with just dwarves
in Feet of Clay but extended to even smaller beings later on.
Arthur Hagen
Ah. I take that as an affirmative to the last question, then.
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
>
> Daniel, I would say it's much better to stop feeding Arthur when he
> gets into this troll-like mood, and just wait for him to return to
> his normal ascerbic and amusing self, but your reply is too
> entertaining in its own right for this approach to work.
Note that it was Daniel Orner who out of the blue entered the discussion to
make a personal attack here. I didn't start attacking Mr. Orner -- check
for yourself, and you'll find it was the other way around. Who's trolling,
again?
--
*Art
Eric Jarvis
says...
>
> Another incident that comes to mind which is somewhat related to this
> is the remarks by Harvard president Lawrence Summers in 2005 that women
> and men may have different ways of thinking and hence may have different
> success rates in different careers. The firestorm after these comments
> (which sound perfectly rational and scientific to me - just ask John
> Gray) eventually contributed to his resignation.
>
Again that is far from the whole story. Summers was involved in a number
of incidents prior to that, which as a whole led to his position being
questioned. In addition, apparently, questions were already being asked
because the percentage of tenured jobs offered to women had dropped
whilst he had been in charge.
As for Summers actual remarks, as I understand it, the context was not a
general discussion of the relative abilities if men and women in
different spheres of activity. Had that been the case then they would not
be anything other than scientific. However the context was a discussion
of why there are so few women in academic careers in science. The thrust
of his argument was that this is primarily because women don't want to be
scientists, but also that on average women are genetically less well
equipped for a career in science than men, and that women are less
willing to work long hours. In the context those are provocative remarks.
In the context of remarks made by somebody already under fire for hiring
fewer women than his predecessor they are certainly something that would
make me lose confidence in that person's judgement.
Sorry to spoil a nice little urban myth about a noble free thinker
hobbled by over zealous PC fanatics, but the issues behind Summers'
resignation are a lot more complicated and range from protecting a close
associate from investigation about a possible ethics violation, to a poor
record on hiring women exacerbated by some deliberately provocative
remarks. So far as I can see that makes the issue one of political
judgement rather than political correctness. I can see how it would be
very easy to see Summers as lacking the judgement required for the job
regardless of the precise nature of anything he said.
Of course it may not be his fault. As a man he's probably not genetically
as well equipped as a women would be when it comes to social skills.
jester
<ericj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <66d0d8F...@mid.individual.net>, bpwak...@hotmail.com
>says...
>>
>> I'm beginning to wish I should have tried to work in the Oliver
>> Cromwell bit in my first post. He banned Christmas decorations
>> about 350 years ago - was he being politically correct, or driving
>> political correctness insane? Of course not! He was being a
>> religious dictator, turning his views into the people's laws. Did
>> anyone accuse Birmingham council of being religious dictators over
>> the Winterval debacle? No, they just accused them of being
>> politically correct extremists. And yet, to the people who called
>> it PCGM, was there any difference between what B'ham council did
>> and what Cromwell did? No.
>>
>
>YES THERE BLOODY IS.
Really? In the minds of those who *claimed* Birmingham Council banned
Christmas decorations?
>
>For God's sake read what's been written.
Might want to check the colour of your kettle, Eric.
--
Andy Brown
Happiness, n.:
An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of
another.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
The Stainless Steel Cat
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 12 Apr 2008, "Sabremeister Brian" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, so that would be why some nursery schools no longer allow the
>> reading of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"? Because someone thinks the
>> descriptive words in that nursery rhyme smack of racism or
>> inequality? And because some local authorities are trying to
>> persuade people not to put up Christmas decorations? I used to
>> work at Harrow Council, a LA with, AFAIAA, a signifigcant
>> proportion of non-Christian councillors. The building I worked in
>> probably had about as many non-Christians as nominal Christians.
>> No one ever objected to the Christmas decorations going up.
>> (Except the civic ones, which went up in late October, and came
>> down in February.)
>
>No, no-one ever does. Which doesn't stop the anti-PC lobby claiming people
>do. (But I note that you elsewhere claim that the mere fact someone
>*believes* a particular example of PCGM to be true is evidence that it's
>close enough to true.)
Then there's the one that appears every December now, that (I think)
Birmingham is trying to ban Christmas and replace it with a PCGM
"Winterval".
In fact, the Winterval was an attempt to boost local trade and nightlife by
having a festival from late autumn to early spring *without* people
complaining that Christmas started in September, greedy shopkeepers cashing
in on a religious event etc etc etc.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
"They call nuthouses 'mental institutions' now. It's madness gone
politically correct!"
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> For God's sake read what's been written. Birmingham Council did not
> ban Christmas decorations. They did not use the term "Winterval" to
> replace "Christmas". For one year only they attempted to link several
> midwinter festivals under the single banner of "Winterval". Each
> festival was celebrated separately, they just attempted to save money
> on publicity by lumping them all together.
>
> They haven't repeated it because the myth of PC gone mad is clearly so
> set in many people's minds that it overrides any ability to deal with
> reality as soon as the phrase has been invoked.
According to a Guardian article I read the last time the subject came up,
they did it two years running. Rather proving your point, the fuss started
the *second* year; the first year hardly anyone even noticed.
Eric Jarvis
says...
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:39:26 +0100, Eric Jarvis
> <ericj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <66d0d8F...@mid.individual.net>, bpwak...@hotmail.com
> >says...
> >>
> >> I'm beginning to wish I should have tried to work in the Oliver
> >> Cromwell bit in my first post. He banned Christmas decorations
> >> about 350 years ago - was he being politically correct, or driving
> >> political correctness insane? Of course not! He was being a
> >> religious dictator, turning his views into the people's laws. Did
> >> anyone accuse Birmingham council of being religious dictators over
> >> the Winterval debacle? No, they just accused them of being
> >> politically correct extremists. And yet, to the people who called
> >> it PCGM, was there any difference between what B'ham council did
> >> and what Cromwell did? No.
> >
> >YES THERE BLOODY IS.
>
> Really? In the minds of those who *claimed* Birmingham Council banned
> Christmas decorations?
>
Yes. Because there is conclusive evidence that Cromwell banned Christmas
decorations. There is no evidence that Birmingham Council did so. The
huge difference is between believing something because there is clear
evidence that it's true and believing something because you want to
believe it to be true despite there being no evidence.
> >For God's sake read what's been written.
>
> Might want to check the colour of your kettle, Eric.
>
My point is that there is a huge difference between thinking something
based on evidence and thinking something erroneous based on prejudice.
The whole problem with the PC gone mad syndrome is that almost inevitably
it relies on people uncritically accepting anything they hear or read
that fits with their existing prejudices. You can't separate process and
conclusion and then treat any thoughts that lead to the same conclusion
as being the same. "I believe the Earth is spherical because I have
looked at extensive scientific evidence that proves it to be so" is a
different thought from "I believe the Earth is spherical because the full
moon is round", "I believe the Earth is spherical because my mother told
me so", or "I believe the Earth is spherical because I have five fingers
on each hand".
That's what concerns me about the subject. That so many people seem to
latch on to every accusation of PC gone mad and treat it as
unquestionably true whatever the source and regardless of any evidence.
Just do a web search on any of the examples mentioned and you'll see a
ration of at least ten to one of news items uncritically accepting other
news items against news items written with even the vaguest attempt at
fact checking. Newspapers do this because they get away with it.
Len Oil
> According to a Guardian article I read the last time the subject came up,
> they did it two years running. Rather proving your point, the fuss started
> the *second* year; the first year hardly anyone even noticed.
Like the Peppered Moth being now less than perfect for proving the
theory it is supposed to espouse (though there are plenty of
replacements, should anyone wish to object to the entire concept based
upon where this fails), the Winterval situation certainly isn't the
poster-boy for the PCGM side of the argument.
But it does demonstrate the flip-side. The "some people will grab at
anything to be upset by" one. I will briefly mention teddy-bears here,
similarly having had virtually no fuss made until certain individuals
decided they wanted to make trouble, but I wouldn't want to stoke /that/
fire.
The existence of the 'grabbers' of course encourages the surfacing of
'padders', coating everything in cotton-wool lest someone wish to
collide with it[0]. Or, to put it in other terms, it's like the only
partially unapocryphal reason for piano-leg covering. That particular
phase has largely passed us by, but considerations of "chairman",
"chairwoman" or "chairperson", or even Captain Janeway's opinions
regarding "Sir" or "Ma'am"[1], is an interesting subject with as many
opinions, I'm sure, as there are those actually bothered about the issue.
[0] Which is not to say that, without padding and copious warning signs,
someone could collide with something sharp against their own wishes.
Especially as some people /do/ want to put sharp things in the way of
others in ways that should be discouraged.
[1] As a fictional reflection of contemporary opinions, not as proof as
to how the future terminology /will/ be, of course. ;)
Lesley Weston
> On 12 Apr 2008, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
<snip>
>>> I kind of consider myself PC, or at least I don't consider myself
>>> politically *in*correct, but I'm sure most people on the group would
>>> agree that, contrary to Art's point, I have no problem with sarcasm,
>> Indeed, but then most people here seem to manage OK.
>>
>>> except in the sense that I'm not very good at it.
>> You're being sarcastic here, right?
>
> Actually no. There's been a number of times when I've said something
> sarcastically, then had to *explain* I was being sarcastic, as a result
> of which I've started toning it down.
Join the club.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Lesley Weston
> In article <66cq6rF...@mid.individual.net>, Alec Cawley generously
> decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> Which means, by your proposition that /anything/ might happen.
>
> In the next half hour?..
>
apparent reason is as likely to happen in the next half hour as at any
other time.
Daniel Orner
You're right, your attack wasn't personal, it was against the entire
human race as a whole, of which I am a part. Forgive me for taking it
personally.
Daniel Orner
Oh, excellent form. Trying to wade out of an insult-filled argument is
an automatic acceptance that one is wrong, rather than trying to take
the high road and avoid further insults?
I have far more to say here, much of which I'm sure would be
entertaining to some, but doing so would contradict my own intention of
not devolving into a flame war.
Daniel Orner
> In article <fts2ut$2hje$1...@mud.stack.nl>, webm...@ffcompendium.com
> says...
>> Another incident that comes to mind which is somewhat related to this
>> is the remarks by Harvard president Lawrence Summers in 2005 that women
>> and men may have different ways of thinking and hence may have different
>> success rates in different careers. The firestorm after these comments
>> (which sound perfectly rational and scientific to me - just ask John
>> Gray) eventually contributed to his resignation.
>>
>
> Again that is far from the whole story. Summers was involved in a number
> of incidents prior to that, which as a whole led to his position being
> questioned. In addition, apparently, questions were already being asked
> because the percentage of tenured jobs offered to women had dropped
> whilst he had been in charge.
>
> As for Summers actual remarks, as I understand it, the context was not a
> general discussion of the relative abilities if men and women in
> different spheres of activity. Had that been the case then they would not
> be anything other than scientific. However the context was a discussion
> of why there are so few women in academic careers in science. The thrust
> of his argument was that this is primarily because women don't want to be
> scientists, but also that on average women are genetically less well
> equipped for a career in science than men, and that women are less
> willing to work long hours. In the context those are provocative remarks.
I don't see it. The problem under disussion is why women aren't well
represented in the sciences. If it's true that women's brains aren't
wired properly to enjoy the sciences, that's a perfectly valid reason
and something that should be discussed *precisely* in this situation.
I don't disagree that the reasons behind his resignation may be more
complex than this one issue, but this was by far the most public of the
issues, and I don't think I'm being naive in saying it was the straw
that broke the camel's back.
Even if it didn't directly cause his resignation, the sheer fact that
it was the cause of so much righteous indignation is evidence of PCGM.
> In the context of remarks made by somebody already under fire for hiring
> fewer women than his predecessor they are certainly something that would
> make me lose confidence in that person's judgement.
>
> Sorry to spoil a nice little urban myth about a noble free thinker
> hobbled by over zealous PC fanatics, but the issues behind Summers'
> resignation are a lot more complicated and range from protecting a close
> associate from investigation about a possible ethics violation, to a poor
> record on hiring women exacerbated by some deliberately provocative
> remarks. So far as I can see that makes the issue one of political
> judgement rather than political correctness. I can see how it would be
> very easy to see Summers as lacking the judgement required for the job
> regardless of the precise nature of anything he said.
>
> Of course it may not be his fault. As a man he's probably not genetically
> as well equipped as a women would be when it comes to social skills.
>
Probably not - but then politics isn't the same as social skills, not
by a long shot.
Janaina Rudberg
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2008, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> I kind of consider myself PC, or at least I don't consider myself
>>>> politically *in*correct, but I'm sure most people on the group would
>>>> agree that, contrary to Art's point, I have no problem with sarcasm,
>>> Indeed, but then most people here seem to manage OK.
>>>
>>>> except in the sense that I'm not very good at it.
>>> You're being sarcastic here, right?
>>
>> Actually no. There's been a number of times when I've said something
>> sarcastically, then had to *explain* I was being sarcastic, as a
>> result of which I've started toning it down.
>
> Join the club.
>
Oooh! There's a club!
Can I join too?
/Janaina