A more serious aspect of PC is the ooutright lying and or censorship of news. E.g., there was a tremendous furor on the internet about two gay men who raped and killed a boy. The NY Times ignored the incident, the furor, and the guilty verdict. It just wasn’t PC to report rape and murder commited by gay men.
End quote
I hear about this case before. Apparently, these two bastards kidnapped a local boy to do all sorts of kinky things to him and accidentally killed him. Allegedly, they had a list of other neighborhood boys and girls they wanted to do the same to. But quite honestly, I don’t think the story was omitted from newspapers due to any pro-gay sympathies on the part of the media. How many murders committed by STRAIGHT people do you actually hear about in the news every day? I’m sure there are many stories that go unreported, if for no other reason then there are only so many minutes in an evening newscast and so many pages supported by only so many ads in a newspaper.
A good example of a news story that should’ve “had legs” but didn’t - remember those riots down in Cincinnati, Ohio? The ones spurred on by the fourth killing of an unarmed black man by the Cinci cops since November? I live in Cleveland and had heard NOTHING about ANY of those shootings until the riots were in full swing. Neither had any of my fellow Clevelanders I spoke to. I could see the first two shootings not making the news here, but why wouldn’t anyone report a PATTERN of shootings? And there’s no gay-or-straight issue here that I’m aware of. My point being there’s probably WAY more stories that don’t get notice then we realize, a situation made worse by some news organizations devoting way too much attention to non-issues, such as the OJ trial.
Getting back to the aforementioned murders, I think timing also played a role in the story not getting around. When Mathew Sheppard was beaten to death and James Byrd was dragged to death, there was debate in the country about whether or not “hate crime” laws were a good idea. These premeditated murders (which I don’t think December’s example was, as twisted as those two men are) came at a time when the very motive for those crimes was in the country’s conscious. Now, if the accidental killing via molestation December mentions happened 15 years ago, when the big hot button issue in the country was child molestation and how kids should protect themselves and so forth, I’d bet my next paycheck the story would’ve been on the national news in no time.
[English Major hat on.]
Getting back to the OP, I agree that at the very heart of PC is the desire for basic politeness, which I’m all for (I’m amazed at how many people can’t be bothered with “please” and “thank you”). I also agree there is such a thing as “going too far,” as in condemning a thing without even understanding it. The Huck Finn example has been mentioned quite a bit here. I’d like to add the Merchant of Venice example. Apparently, many folks seem to think this is an anti-Semitic play, whereas I see it as a play that acknowledges anti-Semitism exists but does not say it’s hunky-dory (sort of how Huck Finn acknowledges racism but certainly doesn’t condone it). I see Shylock as WAY more sinned-against than sinning, and considering that one could be sent to the gallows for stealing a loaf of bread or a sheep in Shakespeare’s day, the title character’s demand for a pound of flesh over kidnapping and theft charges seems like small potatoes. But the hard-core, unthinking PCers wouldn’t see it that way.
[English Major hat off.]
Whew! Sorry for such a long post! I’ll try to be brief next time.
Personally, I believe that we won’t accomplish anything through “the media reported this but they didn’t report that” types of arguments. Nobody really understands why the media reports what it does, but we could sit here arguing about it all day long. For example, a recent LA Times editorial pointed out that when white kids kill white kids, it gets more attention than when black kids kill black kids. So what does this prove? Does it prove that the media is racist, because they pay more attention to crime when the victims are white? Does it prove that the media or governed by the PC crowd, because they ignore crimes committed by blacks? Does it prove that the media tries to get money by focusing on stories that white people, who are the majority of consumers, will care about? Does it prove that there is no ryhme or reason to how the media chooses what to report? Or does it prove nothing at all?
[minor hijack]
I happen to read Salon frequently and I like it. Salon obviously leans to the left, there’s no denying that. But tehy are not governed by the rabid political correctness crowd, as we’ve defined it. They know insanity when it shows up. To prove my point, I plugged the words “politicaly correct” into their site-wide search engine and the first pages that came up were this article about the "intolerant closemindedness of the political correctness movement and this article about the dangers of PC censorship.
[/minor hijack]
One interesting effect of “PC” is that it lets us all live the shared lie that there are no racial differences. I suppose that this is good for helping people get along, but as someone who values truth for its own sake, I find it troubling.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that PC is evidence that our civilization is in decline. Every generation has its own naked emporers, its own silliness. And PC is less hurtful than some of the other insanity to come up the pike.
Frankly if the term PC is describing anything and not simply a term of ideological abuse, then it seems to me that PC --meaning positions deemed correct on political grounds regardless of other data-- afflicts the entire political spectrum.
Shaking me head. I suppose the term gay bashing is unknown to you? Perhaps Esprix or some other well-versed posters can come by to provide data to extract your cranium from your nether regions.
Then why do raise the issue, if not as subtle smear? What other purpose other than to attempt, while claiming otherwise, to dehumanize Matt?
Here’s the problem with anecdotes, they don’t reveal larger truths.
First, your “bet” I think should be taken up by Mattc or Esprix, I await their responses. Or the equally politized from your end of the spectrum obsesssion with “black on black”
I said raising the spector of Lysenkoism is scaremongering. I haven’t read the book, but it seems based on the reviews I read, however few, that it is simply her editorial stiched together albeit perhaps with more anecdotal “evidence” as well as if the NEJM reveiw is accurate, misreadings of actual evidence based on her pre-concieved political position (and it strikes me this seems likely since the hypertension issue quoted in the editorial review does just that.)
Which is a pity since I suspect there is a genuine issue to be addressed, but helpfully without a smear campaign based around conservative’s PC assumptions.
And my point is that your raising the issue of Lysenkoism without real, with a genuine data-based approach to the problem and with apparent greater concern to your political position than the facts such as they may be, is scaremongering and in fact a conservative form of PC. I.e. for all your complaining, your intellectual approach is no bloody different.
Yes, wonderful. However I believe real question is, and this has been raised so I find strange that you seem to not wish to grapple with it, is the reality of this scary picture. Senator McCarthy also scary pictures some years ago of Commies in the government and all that sort of thing. It lacked a good root in reality, although it did appeal to the based fears and instincts of his chosen audience.
I suggest well-documented and rationally considered discourse is infinately more useful, be it in science or even in politics.
Now, as for Autumn Wind Chick and her drive-by posting, what can I say? I grow tired of this empty posturing.
Well, what do we have. Someone who “values truth for its own sake” but who is unable to address the scientific data and in fact apparently refuses to, one can only guess because it challenges her belief system.
Well, my dear, I’ve challenged you before to stop your little drive-by postings where you make such unsupported claims and engage the data. Where’s your data? Or is simply your “common sense” in which I case I refer you to Edwino’s posting on “common sense” and science. Troubling is intellectual dishonesty, a better example of which I can’t think of this moment.
First, like any other dogma, it can and does damage those who are unfortunate or foolish enough to say the Wrong Thing. That sucks.
Second, most people are cautious enough to avoid saying something Offensive in public, but in private conversation it will emerge that they are aware of the truth. These people make up the bulk of the population, and it sucks that they have to spend time and energy being careful not to say the Wrong Thing.
Third, as with every dogma, there is a small group of zealots who have basically blinded themselves to the truth; who sieze on every opportunity to “be offended” and to persecute those who say the Wrong Thing. These people suck, although at least it can be said that they have good intentions.
Finally, there are the total hypocrites, who behave as do the zealots, but are well aware of the truth. This can be seen from how they conduct their lives. These people totally suck.
A note on “racial differences”: Just as with “smoking causes cancer”; “the holocaust happened”; and “astrology is BS”; I am disinclined to get in a debate over whether “racial differences exist.” I’m not going to waste time this week defending the obvious. (Maybe next week.)
Ahhh, the appeal to the silent majority. Very convincing.
Now, this is beautiful. The same assertion as last week. Would it be wrong of me to point out that in the aboriginal memory thread I already pointed out the bankruptcy of your analogy? Insofar as you have no data and your position appears to be something along the lines of I know what I know and the data be damned? Strange, your --what was the phrase-- attachment to truth does not seem to include actually grappling with data which I have personally long considered to be the fundament of truth. Peculiar this.
This sort of “argument” is contemptible, although the defending of the obvious as it were sounds so very familiar.
*Originally posted by Marvel * “I don’t think the story was omitted from newspapers due to any pro-gay sympathies on the part of the media.”
FWIT gay columnist Andrew Sullivan does think so. Also, even after this was a big story on the internet, and after the lack of main stream media coverage had itself become a big story, and at the time when the perps were convicted, the NY Times STILL didn’t print a single word.
C’burn wrote: “Then why do raise the issue, if not as subtle smear? What other purpose other than to attempt, while claiming otherwise, to dehumanize Matt?”
I raised the issue to be intentionally non-PC.
C’bury wrote: Frankly if the term PC is describing anything and not simply a term of ideological abuse, then it
seems to me that PC – meaning positions deemed correct on political grounds regardless of other data-- afflicts the entire political spectrum."
I agree conceptually. E.g., there are school board members who use their power to promulgate fundamentalism. I’ve dealt with employees who tried to convert people they met in the course of business to becoming Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are scientist in the pay of cigarette companies who bent over backwards to deny the link between cancer and smoking. However, the term “PC” isn’t used to describe these people; other epithets are used.
C’bury wrote: "Or the equally politized from your end of the spectrum obsesssion with “black on black”
I think C’bury and I are on the same end of the spectrum – concern for the downtrodden, their real problems and the solutions that will best help them. We evidently have different opinions regarding the problems and the solutions.
C’bury wrote: " However I believe real question is, and this has been raised so I find strange that you seem to not wish to grapple with it, is the reality of this scary picture."
Yes, indeed. One type of PC is a bad thing. I’d be happy to debate its extent. Maybe we need a new thread…
FWIW, now that I’ve read 2 or 3 chapters of Satel’s book, I am convinced that the Salon review was unfair. Even in the portion I’ve read, she describes various bad public health policies that [she says] have disserved many sick people. Her book contains far more than “a few” anecdotes.
This is fun, but now it’s off to the Saturday morning “honeydew” list…
It certainly is! Witness some of the cardinals of PC on this message board. While preaching views and behavioral preferences in step with the social agenda of the left, purportedly with altruistic motive in support of all people’s sense of well being (do not offend minorities), they think nothing of ascribing the vilest adjectives to personally attack individuals of different beliefs. The use of the Pit here at the Straight Dope is rife with this abuse.
As someone who has experienced discrimination and abuse as a result of ethnic origin in my youth, I find the personal slurs that I have received at the fingers of some of these PC warrior-preachers to be far more hurtful than to be called a dyke-hopper, or asked where my wooden shoes are.
If these PC cardinals were for real, then they would extend their concern for individuals as well as specific groups.
If only the famous civility of of the bigoted deep south, could combine with the progressively liberal attitude of insulting New Yorkers.
Well thankyou for asking Collounsbury. It just so happens that I am experiencing some indigestion. It seems that the eggs and ham I had this mornig fried in geneticly modified canola oil aren’t sitting well in my stomach.No, the eggs weren’t green…
FWIT gay columnist Andrew Sullivan does think so. Also, even after this was a big story on the internet, and after the lack of main stream media coverage had itself become a big story, and at the time when the perps were convicted, the NY Times STILL didn’t print a single word.
End quote:
Some questions:
Someone help me with the lingo here - what does “FWIT” mean?
Did you mention a columnist who happens to be gay to help bolster your argument? I’ve heard some women say some pretty wack things ABOUT women (one nutter I saw on “Politically Incorrect” claims that women should have the right to vote TAKEN AWAY because federal aide programs increased in number ten years after the 19th Amendment was passed - I guess that little thing called a Great Depression that left many Americans [read: voters] out of work had nothing to do with that), so citing one gay writer about this issue really doesn’t impress me. Now, if a couple of gay groups had said what this one columnist did, that would give the statement way more merit in my eyes. But I read The Gay People’s Chronicle once in a while and I read The Plain Dealer, and comparing these two local rags, I find it hard to believe there’s a pro-gay bias in the main-stream papers.
Why does it bother you so much that the New York Times hasn’t covered this story? I could maybe understand this if there were no other newspapers (what about USAToday? Or The Washington Post?) or if NYT was THE only national news medium (what about TV news? “ABC World News Tonight” did a whole segment on the murder and media coverage you speak of), but I’m rather confused as to why this particular omission seems to be an issue. Yeah, a lot of people read it, but I’d bet a lot more people watch the TV news then read the print stuff (it’s free, after all - and it doesn’t leave black ink on your fingertips).
Patty
Oh now that’s a … well non-explanation. What does intentionally “non-PC” really mean here? What real purpose was there for mentioning this accusation – I assume its unsupported-- and irrelevant piece of information? Non-PC? Fraid I’m going to have to call that weaseling and have to understand your reference as in fact what it appeared, a backhanded smear.
Many anecdotes, few anecdotes, the problem remains, anecdotes.
Originally posted by Marvel *
**
“what does “FWIT” mean?”*
It means “For What It’s Torth” (I typed a T instead of a W.)
2. Did you mention a columnist who happens to be gay to help bolster your argument?
yes
**3. Why does it bother you so much that the New York Times hasn’t covered this story? **
I grew up reading the NYT; it was a great newspaper. We need great newspapers. Today’s NYT has an editorial page and op-ed page that are childish – dependably PC policy recommendations with puerile or illogical justifications, or with no justifications as all. The news coverage is still better than just about any other source, but they do routinely censor certain non-PC stories.
I would like to see them rise to their former level of greatness. To that end I often write letters to the editor. They get a lot of criticism from web-sites that analyze media coverage. Andrew Sullivan’s is one of the best. SmarterTimes is a daily web site dedicated solely to pointing out NYT errors. IMHO these critics are having a positive effect on that newspaper.
Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**
Oh now that’s a … well non-explanation. What does intentionally “non-PC” really mean here? What real purpose was there for mentioning this accusation – I assume its unsupported-- and irrelevant piece of information? Non-PC? Fraid I’m going to have to call that weaseling and have to understand your reference as in fact what it appeared, a backhanded smear.*
Thanks C’bury, for helping me demonstrate that being non-PC means one can be called a bigot.
BTW my statement wasn’t “unsupported;” I provided a source.
**Many anecdotes, few anecdotes, the problem remains, anecdotes. **
C’bury, your posts make it evident that you are very intelligent. Still, you copuld be more sensitive to spin. You should be wary when a liberal reviews an anti-liberal book.
In this case, the Salon reviewer’s word “anecdotes” has about as much descriptive power as the military term “collateral damage,” which can mean killing a whole bunch of civilians.
When (or if) you read the book, you’ll discover that it covers many types of medical pseudo-science, and it names specific Medical University departments that are promoting them. There are also anecdotes about people who died because their medical practitioner used fake medicine, when real medicine could have cured them.
I’m currently reading a chapter on something called “Therapeutic Touch” (a misnomer, since there is no actual touching.) – whereby some nurses in are being trained that thay can help cure patients by passing their hands near them.
No, * december * intentionally introducing an irrelevancy into an argument whose purpose is hard to comprehend outside of being a smear is what gets one called one intentionally using a smear, whatever claims to martyrdom you may desire. I did not call you a bigot, if I wish to I will. I simply indicated that the introduction of the issue was a smear with no purpose in the discussion other than to (a) smear Matt for being gay (b) provoke based upon the self same smear. You introduced the smear, for that is what it is, to be intentionally offensive for the sole sake of claiming martyrdom, in which case, it is still a smear, albeit with different goals than bigotry.
One way or the other --you do note I’m not calling you a bigot, there are other words I can think of-- it was a gratitious and intellectually bankrupt little maneuver.
You made a vague reference to a columnist, Paglia yes? I hardly call that supported. Aside from the fact we don’t have a genuine reference, I for one do not consider opinion columns to be sources of data.
I am also aware of the counter-spin. I am most wary when ideological agendas otherwise unsupported by good data are introduced into science discussions. I am further aware that the NEJM is a fairly respected medical journal and in that light I find the review from NEJM suggestive of the substantive problems. Moreover, I am most aware of the ease with which anecdote is abused when not otherwise supported by data. Finally, I am particalarly concerned with those quotes from the book which clearly show, assuming the accuracy of the same, that the author was not well-informed --to be charitable-- of the science behind certain questions outside her expertise, suggesting her work is more driven by her political concerns and perhaps misconceptions than not.
My dear fellow, I have referred solely to the NEJM review, so you can stop using the Salon review as a scapegoat of liberal bias etc. etc. etc.
I will perhaps read the book on my next pass through North America or England, presuming it is available. Until then I shall have to depend on second hand reporting.
Insofar as the NEJM reviewer felt that her accusations were poorly supported and documented and insofar as it seems to be an inflammatory, popular book largely aimed at getting folks riled up and satisfying the pre-existing market for outrage against PC, I await more serious works with actual documentation before jumping to conclusions.
Well, let me make two corrections to the prior in re substance.
(a) in re the columnist issue, I meant to note that unless the columnist is otherwise an expert in the field (e.g. Krugman writing on economic issues is something different than Joe Columnist doing the same). I also meant to note that to my knowlege from following the story, I don’t believe anyone has any substantive reason to make the aforementioned accusation re rough sex. Now mind you, I could care less about the sex part, however the obvious implication is that Shepherd brought it on himself. I see little purpose dragging such into the conversation, and thus my rather pointed words to december.
(b) in re the book and the reviews, I meant to more clearly indicate that my issue with this is the apparent anecdotal nature, not the potential for unsubstantiated rot to creep into public health policy. However, given the citations in the substantive NEJM review and what I noted from the jacket in re hypertension, it appears the writer had larger goals of a more political nature. I don’t care for this sort of thing no matter whether its scaremongering re genetically engineered crops or scaremongering re “PC” in public health. There are proper ways to approach these issues, with science at hand, and there is anecdotal scaremongering.
C’bury wrote: "I also meant to note that to my knowlege from following the story, I don’t believe anyone has any substantive reason to make the aforementioned accusation re rough sex. Now mind you, I could care less about the sex part, however the obvious implication is that Shepherd brought it on himself. I see little purpose dragging such into the conversation, and thus my rather pointed words to december.
My purpose in writing the statement was to irritate PC censors like C’bury. Paglia’s purpose in reporting it was to more fully explain what had happened. As wring and others have pointed out, the good side of “PC” is simply being polite. However, a more pernicious practice, which is also referred to as “PC,” involves censoring “unacceptable” statements, even true ones. In particular, the “PC Police” prohibit casting any doubt on the victimhood status of their favored groups. They enforce censorship by accusing the offending party of being a racist, homophobe, woman-hater, etc. This technique is effective. Sadly, even the NY Times refuses to report many newsworthy items, rather than risk being criticized in this way.
C’bury claims not to have called me a bigot; decide for yourselves. He wrote, “Fraid I’m going to have to call that weaseling and have to understand your reference as in fact what it appeared, a backhanded smear.” IMHO he implicitly accused me of making a “backhanded smear” against gays, implying that I’m a homophobe.
Actually, I am bigoted. I’m bigoted against ideologues who censor speech, such as the John Birch Society, certain fundamentalists, and some PC speech monitors.
**C’bury wrote [regarding Satel’s book]: "…I don’t care for this sort of thing no matter whether it’s scaremongering re genetically engineered crops or scaremongering re “PC” in public health. There are proper ways to approach these issues, with science at hand, and there is anecdotal scaremongering.
**
If C’bury doesn’t like this style of book, that’s his business. However, this sort of scaremongering exposé has a long and respected pedigree. E.g., Rachel Carson’s, “The Silent Spring,” Ralph Nader’s, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” “The Waste Makers” and “The Hidden Persuaders,” by Vance Packard. A recent exposé of MacDonald’s et. al. is called, “Fast Food Nation.” Even “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was intended as an exposé of slavery. Being fiction, it was even less evidentiary than anecdotes, but it helped to end slavery in America.
and this is why I’m “PC”. Somehow or another, december seems to make it a thing to be proud of, that in the middle of a discussion, he interjects highly imflamatory, and completely irrelevant data (that has not been supported on a factual basis) into the fray, and he sees this as a support of the position that “PC is bunk”. Amazing.
Is December being “gratitiously” smeared here? Is the appeal to “Esprix and other well versed posters” a political ploy to bolster this “politically correct” smear?
Note reference to another popular member of the board. Just another political ploy to smear a debating opponent by charging hateful motive?
That is the problem with PC. In the moral zeal to protect distinct minorities PC requires political alliances to form predominant moral positions in order to legitimize smearing of dissenting minority opinions. Sort of a modern day morality directed through the media , inheriting the morality/belief control on society that the Roman Catholic Church heirarchy once possessed.
I couldn’t find anything December said that would be offensive or hateful.
Ah, now I am a PC censor. Queer accusation this. And from two sources. Let’s take a look at it, it could be fun as I do like taking apart bad arguments.
Obviously, and you may note that my comments to you have taken that as a given. Of course you are blissfully ignorant of the fact your statement also might irritate those interested in rational analysis based on coherent, logical argumentation. But perhaps this might be a trifle inconvenient insofar as it might require some reflection on your rhetoric here.
But let us look at what is meant by PC censor here.
What has been my objection to december’s disingenuous dialogue on this issue in particular? Relevance and purpose. Yes, kids, relevance and purpose. Not that one can not mention rough sex, only that in a discussion I prefer to focus on ** actual causitive factors** which is to say relevant data. If in some reply December gave me some reason to consider ‘seeking rough sex’ as relevant to the argument then I could care the fuck less if it is a ‘proper subject’ any more than I care if one is ‘living with aids’ or ‘suffering from aids’ to bring up a somewhat analogous question.
However, bringing in irrelevancies to my view is intellectual laziness as best, at worst a form of intellectual hypocrisy even dishonesty. It is in fact a red herring. My objection is in no way based on “PC” but rather on my dislike for deliberately muddying the waters with weak to illogical arguments whose sole purpose is to appeal to emotion or to distract from actual causation, etc.
When one faces an irrelevancy it seems proper to question why it is introduced. Apparently I hit the nail on the head. More disturbingly, apparently december has not understood this. Or perhaps December prefers to use this red herring to dodge the fundamentals of my critique.
And I once again refer you to the question of (a) the relevance insofar as “what had happened” doesn’t seem to be related to rough sex (b) the sourcing insofar as I am unaware of any reliable reporting as to this aspect. It could of course be my ignorance, however it does strike me as the sort of discourse that is used to deliberately smear the victim with the suble suggestion that somehow it is his fault without actually stating the same. A hypocritical move at best.
Leaving aside my questioning of whether the statement in question is true (subsidiary as that is to the real issue of relevancy), let’s take a look at the question of “acceptable”.
Perhaps december is unaware that in logical arguments, irrelevancies with no connection to the actual problem and whose intent is simply to distract from the actual issue are objectionable per se. Given what I have seen in terms of argumentation, this is not terribly surprising, but let me try to expand on this issue.
Let me try to clarify with an analogous example removed perhaps from the false dilemma behind which he scurries, i.e. the vague and apparently infinately expandable charge of “PC”.
Let us presume that the argument was on biotech, as you all know a topic dear to my very own pocketbook and which also drives me to paroxysms of rage over the illogic of most of the discussions about it.
Let us presume in this small scenario that december is making an argument against biotech qua biotech, that is that it is inherently bad as an applied science.
December commences the argument with at least two supposed facts or arguable assertions at the least, let us say the following:
(a) biotech undermines genetic diversity in seed stocks, (some factual support here).
(b) biotech creates problems in regards to certain species (some factual support here)
Well, I suppose in december and grieny world. I personally view it as simply an issue of logical argumentation strictly based upon truly relevant information. Now, if the poster in question came back with some genuine justification for bringing in the character of the president one might excuse this to an extent, but nonetheless it remains irrelevant to the question.
Now, I hope this analogy was clear and obvious enough to be understood. I believe we can rather clearly see that an objection to the interjection of non-relevant information which may be reasonably qualified as of an ad hominem character, even if that is obscured by indirect language, is a logical error and bad argumentation. As such it is objectionable on its face.
I explictely accused you of making a back-handed smear, and that is clear. And, in fact, that is what you did. As for the implication that you are a homophobe, I don’t see that I made that per se, only that I implied you were deliberately introducing an appeal to blaming the victim in order to muddy the waters. The purpose of such was not clear, ergo my repeated questions. As it turns out, you made this cynically. Congratulations. That does not detract from the irrelevancy and lack of logical connection, which you apparently can not support other than as a rather empty appeal to deliberate provocation.
It does however highlight my critique of your approach to the entire issue, its lack of foundation in a strictly logical analysis, in which I would partake frankly, and the use of deceptive and inflammatory rhetoric as appeals to emotion.
Wonderful posturing. Very nice. Next time engage my actual arguments and comments.
In re the book:
What does one make of this wonderful mix?
Let me tackle the last first. Uncle Tom’s Cabin Well what can one say? Inflammatory without proper grounding in reality? I do not believe one could accuse Sam Clemmens of the same. In any case, it is fiction over a century old and from another context. As we are discussing late 20th early 21st century medical science, I don’t think this is a well-founded or reasoned analogy.
Now then, Carson and Nader. I do not really care for them to be frank. However, be that as it may, for the analogy to hold we need to presume that there are substantive problems which the book in question raises, PC Medicine is its title, yes? I confess I have lost track now. In any event, given the examples from the NEJM review and the book’s own promotion, I fail to see a reason to give credit.
In any case, if you prefer inflammatory literature to well-grounded literature then allez-vous en, I prefer rational discourse and well-founded inquiry.
Now onto Grieny who it seems still bears some grudge for having his ass whooped, intellectually speaking, in regards to certain unsupported suppositions in the past:
Ah, grieny, ripping quotes out of their context does not contribute to a clear reading old boy.
I was of course making reference to the easy equivalence, counter-factual I may add, which december was making. That is the implication that gay on straight violence was equivalent in type and level to the reverse, for which he had I believe one anecdote which strictly speaking was not relevant or comparable. To be brief, december was trying the hoary old maneuver of the other side must be guilty too…
Was he being ‘gratitiously smeared’? No, I was making direct reference to what I believe is the fairly, considering the issue, well-documented problem of gay-bashing (given the limitations in re the data) – that is violence directed against gays qua gays and the lack of a reverse “straight-bashing”, or “gay” attacks on straights qua straights. I should think that to an ordinary reading this would be clear. I was in this case calling december on what I view as an analytically false analogy.
Now if being logical and wishing to base one’s argumentation on actual equivalences rather than some hand-waving non-equivalencies, then yes then this is a “PC” smear, although by such standards so are most factually based objections.
As for my invitation to Esprix et al, it was simply an invitation in case they wished to provide further information in re the issue of gay bashing. I presume that the author of four threads or so on the general issue of gay North American life and its challenges, joys etc. might be able to help december in this area.
How this is a political ploy I fail to understand. You will note however, I have attempted both a logical and clear response to your charge as it were.
Well, in fact I was referring to Mathew Shepherd, * the subject of the particular piece of dispute my dear fellow * which while I think that was clear in context, perhaps I should have been clearer. If I meant mattc I would have said the same.
Sorry grieny old boy, try again.
Nice posturing grieny old man, now I am tempted to take this beauty above apart, but I grow tired of this message.