Oh god, this is so funny

OK, so in order to lighten things up a bit and to give me a way of posting again without repeating things which have been beaten to the ground, I decided to translate Jordan's last response to "Daria pulls some punches" to the '80s Server's Valley Speak. It's still an intellectual post, but it's so much more lighter than its original. Here, here's a cut and paste of the translation...

==============================

Milton Brewster said:

To label a position "politically correct" is totally to claim, by mere assertion, that this position is totally right and bitchin' because you've said it's "correct", and that any other position, being "incorrect", is totally therefore wrong and grody to the max Claims by mere assertion are of course a logical fallacy, and therefore an attack on a position for being "politically incorrect" should be dealt with as no more meaningful or relevant than the sighing of the wind in the trees or the sound of raindrops ... i.e. it should be ignored.

Unfortunately, certain shoppers in positions of power, especially on campuses and in the government bureaucracy, are willing to behave unethically in order to enforce conformity of thought and action with "politically correct" norms. This has extended so far, on some campuses, as to classify reasoned opposition to (say) affirmative action as "racist" or "hate speech", effectively hosing debate on this and other issues.

This is totally grody to the max because freedom of speech is totally important to the health of an open society. Exposing ideas to free debate improves the quality of those ideas which survive the process. One of the reasons why modern left-liberalism is totally so intellectually stagnant is totally that, around 25 years ago, it embraced the concept of "political correctness", and afterwards ceased to ventilate its own ideological house.

(There are, of course, equivalent potential tendencies on the right Like, there, the equivalent of "political correctness" is totally "family values" Like, however, the right is currently less influential on campuses and in the bureaucracy).

Ad homineum. Like, gag me with a spoon! And worse, you're just *assuming* that everyone in your audience will despise or at least disagree with Rush.

I've read them.

Seen it, long ago. Fun cyberpunk and social satire.

Different genres entirely. BNW and AF are (respectively) dystopian science fiction and allegory. MH is totally cyberpunk dweeb stuff fiction.

All three were very selective in terms of what they chose to show, btw, as much so as *Daria*. None were "realistic", incidentally; all three dealt with fictional societies, with major logical flaws which required hefty suspension of disbelief (though all three were bitchin' .

It would either be forced to conform to PC or be taken off the air. Either way, the audience would lose.

Sincerely Like, duh! Yours, Jordan

==============================

Like, oh my god! :)

Please forgive me, Jordan. I really wanted to find something really intensely intellectual on this ng and translate it, and yours was the first post to catch my attention. I'll post a couple more translations for you guys and then quit, OK?

deena lissa just trying to be really funny now

Dear Deena,

ROFL!!! Thanks :D

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

In article ,

Like, no problem! :)

OK, so I did a couple others and I'll be posting them one per day. Here's Bob's post on "Daria pulls some punches" in '80s Server Valleyspeak....

==============================

In article , [email] (JBassior) wrote:

Don't you remember? Like, I am so sure! Melody Powers "took them out" in "Cafe Disaffecto".

Daria exposes the sordid world of high school where shoppers who can carry a football or shake pom-poms are acclaimed as the penultimate achievement of human evolution while intelligent shoppers who prefer to focus their attentions on a wider range of interests are held in the lowest regard Like, there are many of us for whom Daria represents a very stark reality, much more real than any other TV show that comes readily to mind Like, the realization that it totally isn't just like, you know, about high school but like, you know, about life in general only enhances the satire. Good satire only hits the reader/viewer with a Nerf bat instead of a club Like, the addition of any of these other trivial "issues" would only clutter Daria with frivolous side-plots while diminishing the effectiveness of the satire by making it too intense. Daria is totally totally real enough for me as it and I totally don't see any need for any further enhancement. It's just real enough to get the job done.

Bodacious Bob -----------== Posted via Deja News Like, the Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Like, duh! Your Own

=============================

LOL...I just HAD to post it up for what it calls Bob.... :)

deena lissa

<snipped>

Deena, you are scarily good at this. :)

deena lissa wrote in message ...

*Politicaly correct* is largely used as a term of abuse in the UK by the press I believe the term was origionaly coined by the press as a term of abuse..

These people have "abusive" names for their opponents as well...it is all rather silly

Only some of the left btw large areas of the right are also equaly stagnant and doctrine ridden imo

i`m glad you spoted that areas of the the right, also have a *value system* that It claims is *correct* and is prepared to *enforce*

Paul Gate said:

No, it was not. It was in use in Maoist China to mean "the party line" (though if you'd openly defined it that way in Maoist China you'd have been risking your life), and may have originated in Stalinist or even Leninist Russia. The American Left thought it was a cute idea, and useful to suppress dissent on campus, and adopted it.

I first encountered the term personally when I was working for the New York Public Interest Research Group, a left-wing lobbying organization. I was discussing something (I forget what) with someone and she said in response to a statement of mine "But that's politically incorrect" (she meant it seriously). I replied. "So? What's your point?" and she looked at me in disbelief. She'd never met anyone at the organization before who wouldn't have either been convinced by this "argument" or tried to argue that their point WASN'T "politically correct".

After the American Left used the term for a while, people started catching on to its essential emptiness. At that point it became used as a derogatory term for a certain kind of "groupthink". I don't know if the Left still uses the term, but the concept is very much alive, and restrictions on free debate still enforced on American campuses.

Not really. Probably because the right hasn't "enjoyed" as much control of academia and the media in the last few decades. Such power tends to corrupt, you see. Back in the 1920's, when the right had the same position on campus that the left does now, the right WAS "equally stagnant and doctrine ridden". Being on the inside makes one fat and lazy, being on the outside lean and energetic. Right now the Left is on the inside, and the Right on the outside. It could change, of course.

Indeed. The tendency towards this sort of corruption is a human failing. Universal.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

JBassior wrote in message ...

ahh mmm i was talking about the uk press...not sure which came first the chicken or the American left..probably the american left :-)

and useful to suppress dissent on

Supress? how does this suppress debate? Are you are afraid of somebody calling you *incorrect*?.

What a mindless bunch of people. I hope you ignored this and argued your case. I have very rarely heard PC talked about *seriously*...ie that it was demonstratably *correct* It is a silly name for a set of principles that are *debatable* at best The PC label (wherever it came from) Identifies largely a set of rules about use of language (which i imagine you find objectionable) It is interesting that one of your objections to PC is therefore the name itself...ie a use of language. IMO you are engaging in the same lack of vision as those who made these rules, by focusing on the label rather than the *content* or *intent*

I don`t know anybody who uses the term to describe themselves or their position The phrase is used as a term of abuse by the left right and center

What sort of restrictions? do they amount to more than not allowing overt race hatred ect?

Yes really large portions of the right are still struggling against evolutionary theory, their preffered theory is one that is at least three or four thousand years old, beat that for stagnant and doctrine riddden. Other portions still hold on to the principle that the *free* market is a satisfactory solution to *all* human problems, even though economic theory shows its applicability to human problems to be restricted by a set of conditions.

Probably because the right hasn't "enjoyed" as much control of

I think this is largely your imagination...i find it hard to see the influence of the left in either Americas movie output or the television i see I have seen movies that are clearly dismissive of the left..Forest Gump for instance, and i have heard people claim that *Titanic* was a piece of leftish propaganda because it portrayed lower class passengers being locked in a sinking ship while the wealthier passengers grabbed lifeboats....the fact that this actually happened seems irrelevant to their conclusion that it was leftish propaganda. Which makes me suspicious that they would rather the movies were filled with rightist propaganda....ie no mention of companies locking poor people in sinking ships for commercial reasons ect

I admit I know nothing of American universities however :-)

Cheers :-)

Paul gate said:

No, you're afraid of the campus administration cutting your funding (if you're a tenured professor), firing you (if you're untenured), or expelling or suspending you (if you're a student). And, of course, you ARE afraid of merely being called "incorrect" if you buy into the PC idea.

Yes, I did.

Because the "rules" are tilted. It's "incorrect" to use derogotary language regarding "protected" minorities, but not "unprotected" ones or "majority" groups. Taken to the extreme, even reasoned opposition to certain positions can be called "racist" or "sexist". It's a device to shut off dissent, pure and simple.

I *am* focusing on the "content". The "content" of the accusation against me that my position was "politically incorrect" was empty. However, the "content" of the threats to the livelihood and careers of people so accused in academia (and in lawsuit-spooked corporations) can be very, very real).

Were you at all politically or academically active in the late 1980's?

Well, even reasoned opposition to affirmative action as a policy has been judged to be "racist" on some campuses, and the open expression of such views a just cause for dismissal or expulsion.

evolutionary theory,

Indeed. But there are also large portions of the right who are not Creationists. In fact, the Creationists are a minority within the American right.

shows its

The doctrinaire Libertarians are also a minority within the American right. And the American right is CURRENTLY more tolerant of dissent than is the American left (subject to change, of course, if we win the culture wars).

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

JBassior wrote in message ...

To my knowlege this is untrue. Derogatory language or naming with race references was deplored by this set...not references to particular "protected" races I object to it because its implementation is "trivial" and pedantic. The principles behind it are those of "polite" society, and not in themselves objectionable however there is a big difference between holding polite principles and enforcing politeness on others. Secondly it benifits nobody...genuine racism continues unabashed, while people who were merely *careless* came in for pointless critisism

Taken to the extreme, even reasoned opposition to certain positions can

Somewhat like Mcarthyism If what you describe is not an exageration then it is to be deplored There is a big difference between being a racist and being opposed to positive descrimination. I feel it is possible that the left in America has plumbed for positive descrimination out of desperation though...there being largely no other realistic way to get large numbers of people from minorities into the education system at all, The state high school system in poor areas being so bad. Their positions are extremish because in America the education situation is extremish

If its a matter of law...then surely only overt racism / descrimination can be pursued

In uni at that time, but not particularily *active* in any area :-)

The PC fraternity as you describe above is a dwindling almost non-existent minority in the UK left. It was never very large even when the whole thing was at its peak The press blew a few minor *sillinesses* out of all proportion in an attempt to paint the left as universaly lunatic...it worked of course

Paul Gate said:

On American campuses, prejudice against whites, males, Catholics, and Jews (the latter only if coming from blacks) was considered ok, but prejudice against blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, females, and Muslims was not seen as ok. To take a few examples.

objectionable

Exactly my point. I do not use racist language myself, but politeness should not be enforcable at law. To do so robs it of its very content.

Yes, and in some cases the PC activists claim that formerly neutral words (like "Oriental") have now magically BECOME racist and should be replaced by other words (like "Asian").

Indeed.

Possibly. Our public education system, especially in the inner cities, sucks.

College administrations have a lot of latitude in their hiring and firing policies, and in enforcing rules of coduct on campus. Furthermore, wasting one's time in lawsuits retards one's career. It's a lot easier for most teachers to just go along with the rules, regardless of how stupid they consider them to be.

I think it was always bigger in the USA, partially because our Left is smaller and hence easier for extremists to dominate.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

In article ,

race

Jews (the

against

seen as ok.

The

themselves

and

should

for

words (like

other

"What kind of country is it when you're not allowed to hate a man because of his colour?"

Hank Hill (paraphrased). During an episode of "King of the Hill" where his Laotian neighbour Kon was being especially arrogant and irritating. Hank says he hates the guy because he's a jerk, and gets accused of rasicm as a result.

On the mountaintop, Bear spake thusly:

<snip snip snip, and some maniacal laughter for effect>

This happens all too often: you dislike someone who is not a heterosexual white male, aged 18-49, and are automatically accused of being a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, whatever, when your real problem is with their personality. Most of my school seems to think I'm racist because of this ONE black girl I don't like, mostly because she thinks it's cool to laugh at me for being a white geek. Mostly for the white part. Excuse me, find the racist in this situation... and for the Lit Geeks (TM), don't you think it's ben too long since we played Find the Christ Figure? <g>

-Mindy (Unwinding from a pretty crappy day)

[email] (Mindy) wrote:

<snipitty snip snip>

Well, okay, here's your assignment, Mindy-- Mr. DeMartino. ;-)

rich.

Quinn: I can't be a brain! My friends will hate me!

On the mountaintop, [email] spake thusly:

I'm new to this, but I'll try (and keep in mind I'm not too familiar with the REAL Christ figure either).

Mr. D., like Christ, is often misunderstood as a stern and unapproachable person. In both cases, however, the individual merely wants to teach, and to show others a message vitally important to their continued well-being. Mr. D. has been scarred, just as Christ was (I think...). They are both tempted: Christ by Satan, who asked him to turn stones into bread, and Mr. D. by Kevin, who tempts him to listen to those voices in his head.

That's all I can think of, Rich. Sorry; I guess I'm not really a very good Lit Geek(TM) yet. :(

-Mindy Hoping time and many bad novels will improve her

Interestingly, all the genders are reversed in the Daria Gospels:

Daria = Christ Quinn = Judas Jane = John the Baptist Helen = Joseph Jake = Virgin Mary Aunt Amy = The Holy Spirit Trent = Mary Magdalene Fashion Club = 3 Wise men Ms Li = Pontius Pilate Lawndale High = The Temple, full of corrupt money changers etc

-Shez.

In article ,

thusly:

where

irritating.

being a

problem is with

because of

to laugh

find the

think it's

Well, aren't you a geek goddess? <G>