Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:No. I suggest you stop worrying about it too, as a philosophical issue.
> And "shaping community life" doesn't worry you? Having a group of people
> declare themselves the verbal gate keepers shouldn't be a concern?
[ snip ]
> So arguing against PC is PC? Sounds like some circular logic there.Yes. You made it clear earlier that you resist because you have
> If I use a word that you (hypothetically) or someone else doesn't like and am
> corrected, then I tell you (hypothetically) or the verbal gate keeper to mind
> their own damn business, that is restricting their speech in some way? I'm
> sorry, I can't see it.
different political objectives.
> That brings to mind the old Dixie Chicks controversy. They got up and spokeSo the Dixie Chicks violated your version of PC, and you approve of how
> their mind. Works for me. Peer pressure took care of the rest. There were
> some, after their career went to hell, that said 'how can you restrict their
> free speech' (or something of that nature)? Nope, along with free speech
> comes responsibility for that free speech. The fans that deserted them
> weren't restricting the groups free speech, they just didn't agree with it.
> Some group of gate-keepers saying 'you can't condemn them' don't get it.
> Being a well paid court-jester (Dixie Chicks) doesn't give you the option of
> pissing off the king (the public).
they were made to pay for this. That's how I interpret this para.
From my perspective, you want to make your PC OK, while stigmatizing
I don't object to this in principle, because I know that it has always
And yes, I believe that you like rules that give your side a
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.