And yet labeling certain positions PC is itself stifling.  In most cases I've
seen, the person who wields the label uses it to dismiss an idea or a statement
of an idea.  Most ideas thus dismissed are by no means "accepted by all and
uncontroversial."  Calling something PC is to refuse to engage with the idea
itself.  As for defining PC as simply raising hackles, I think it's partly
true, but once again it reduces the matter to expression and not issues: what
of the values and principles underlying the response of hackle-raising?


On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:04:55 -0400  Discussion of research and writing about
Virginia history             
<[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> While like most people I have bias, it was in this context (not  
> raising hackles) that I find PC to be stiffling. It is impossible to  
> have a good debate of a topic if only that which is accepted by all  
> and uncontroversial is voiced. This is also a good recipe for  
> groupthink.
> 
> James Brothers, RPA
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> On May 31, 2007, at 13:05, qvarizona wrote:
> 
> > Regarding the term PC,  Jon Kukla wrote,
> >
> > "In that context, the term was NOT associated with any particular  
> > point of view or ideology, but rather with what was least likely to  
> > raise anyone's hackles."
> >
> > Thinking about this in several contexts, I think that's
> > one of the best definitions of the term PC I've come across.
> >
> > --Joanne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not  
> > web links.
> 
> 
>