Conference quark::mennotes-v1

> I have done extensive research into gun control. I have examined the rhetoric 
>from both sides. I have examined the raw data, from DOJ and FBI reports. I have
>examined demographic data, cause of death data, crime data. I have made my
>conclusions about gun control based upon these observations and common sense.

I notice that your research includes lot of facts and statistics, but
it does not include two things that I think are important in
determining whether something is PC ("mindlessly following a
checklist"), or not: 

	o  Investigation of someone's motives

	o  How someone feels about the issue, and how much time a 
	   person has spent examining her or his emotions

The "data" tells you nothing about a person's motives.  I realize 
that some people feel that opinions should be based solely on facts 
and reason; however, human beings are not based solely on facts and 
reason.  Most people have an emotional component to their opinions, 
whether or not they choose to cover it up with "logical" rhetoric.  
The degree to which someone bases an opinion on emotion is personal 
style, but I don't think that emotion should be discounted as PC or 
"uninformed."  Someone who has strong feelings and who has examined 
those feelings over a period of time should be given the same respect 
as a person who has examined her or his logical ideas over a period of 
time.  Examined feelings are not "mindless."

You seem to have a gut feeling about the motivations of most people
who are against gun control.  I think that feelings are valid, so I'll 
be the last person to say that you should go against your intuition.  
The only thing I am suggesting is that you might want to leave the 
door open for reasons other than "PC" as to why folks aren't responding 
to the data the way you are (actually, there is an assumption being 
made that they have seen the data or that they "don't understand" it).

As for your facts and why "PC" people aren't immediately won over by 
them:

	"Facts all come with points of view,
	 Facts don't do what I want them to"

				--Talking Heads

It is very difficult to tell when a fact is "all encompassing" (if 
that is indeed possible).  It is also difficult to tell when someone 
is ingoring a fact or if a person disagrees that the fact has bearing 
on the issue, or how much bearing it has on the issue.

Fact: The United States has thousands more deaths by handguns than 
England, Japan, Germany, and most industrialized countries.

So, Mark, are you ignoring that fact?  Are you logically deducing that 
this fact does not have great enough bearing on the issue to change 
your mind?  (I have no idea; I don't know you well enough to determine 
this.)  But it's still a "fact," for all the good it does us.

>AIDS, fortunately enough, is far less political than gun control. Far
>fewer people are trying to foist misinformation about AIDS than about gun 
>control. There is no national "AIDS is the result of sin" coalition. There is
>a lack of political machinery designed specifically to ram that concept down
>our collective throats. 

I don't know how much I want to get into this discussion.  I'll leave 
it at this: I believe AIDS to be highly political; I believe that 
there are significant forces spreading AIDS misinformation (though 
less today than in years past); and, I believe that "AIDS is the 
result of sin" sums up this country's response to the epidemic in its 
first five years.

Who is to judge?  Is Mark ignoring data and acting PC?  Am I ignoring 
data and acting PC?  Or do we just come at the "facts" from different 
experiences, causing us to come up with different opinions?  And who 
is to judge how much time Mark and I have spent examining and 
formulating our opinions?

PC can only be determined by getting at someone's motives.  I maintain 
that you can't judge PC simply by looking at someone's opinion 
(_especially_ if you aren't addressing the person face-to-face).


							--Gerry

If someone is being "PC" then they will subscribe to ALL of the causes that
belong to the particular branch of PCness that they are following.  If they
do spend time examining each issue on its own merits, then most likely there
will be an issue or two in which they disagree with, maybe not completely, but
to some extent.

As for the Fact that you mentioned - it is incomplete.  It is an absolute number
and since the various countries listed do not have similar population sizes you
can't compare absolute numbers.  It is the type of fact that is used by a group
that is promoting a particular cause.

>As for the Fact that you mentioned - it is incomplete
    
    No, it isn't incomplete. It is a complete fact. It just doesn't tell
    the whole story.
    
    But then, no fact does. 
    

    I like the final twist you gave the question, Gerry- what does PC mean
    in our mennotes discussions.  I'll broaden it just a bit to include 
    *all* of my notesfile discussions.
    
    I participate in notesfiles for lots of different reasons...some I
    probably haven't even realized yet.  But since this medium is both so
    compelling and so frustrating at times, I keep coming back to the
    question of what motivates me to participate; why am I in here?
    And in general terms, I use the conferences like mennotes and =wn= 
    as mirrors to look deeper into myself...as powerful sources of
    perspectives that see quite differently than I do, and that
    consequently reveal to me where I am coming from, what kind of 
    person I have been shaped to be.  Its selfish, in the final analysis; 
    I use you all to find out whats in me, and I consciously reshape what
    I find as I am able.  Of course, everyone has also that same
    opportunity, and I try to give back more than I take, but that's
    impossible; there is so much more to learn from seeing all the
    different ways people choose to share of themselves than I can ever
    hope to equal, that it can't be done.  But at least we all have the
    same chance to learn from each other.
    
    That is my strongest motivation for participating.  I have others,
    but that one is the key to understanding my best contributions, and
    why I stick around through the damndest times.
    
    I've already explained, as Mark certainly understands, because he
    alluded to it in the Scouting topic, that I find the accusation that
    someone is PC to be an insult.  At its best, if correct, then the
    person's position is vulnerable to reason in place of insults.  At its
    worst, then the accuser is groping, unable to refute the position, yet
    arrogant in their conviction that they're right.  I see that insult as 
    flying in the face of my stated motivations.  I refuse to note with 
    anybody who uses such an arrogant, callous disregard for follow noters. 
    It is a destructive tactic, and unworthy of the possibilities of this 
    forum.  I am here for honorable purposes.  I grant other people the
    same chance to prove that to me as I expect from them.  Accusing
    someone of being PC destroys that common bond, that chance for some
    real communication.  It gets no provenance from me.
    
    DougO

    *Flame on*
              
    I would echo the title of this note....almost.               
                                                                 
    Just what does PC mean?                                      
                                                                 
    I have only been a man, that is a male, for 46 years but I seem to
    have missed out somewhere.                                               
                                                                 
    Is it because I am from the UK (that's - United Kingdom).
                                                                 
    Is PC a buzzword?  Is it OK (that's - alright) to use it in mixed company?
                                                                              
    It's like "SO" which seems to be used so much in the notes files but I    
    don't believe it is common in the UK.  However, when someone asks         
    what it means, there is a whole new conference generated to discuss
    and decide.                 
                                                                              
    Why not let's speak in joined up writing here and cut out the TLAs? (that's
    - two letter abbreviations)   
                  
    
    If it is a US abbreviation, it would be courteous to those outside
    the US to explain what it means.
    
    *Flame off*
                                                                            
    If I have missed the obvious, then I apologise unreservedly for flaming.    
                                                               
    
        
    andy             
    

    ANdy, PC is short for POLITICALLY CORRECT.
    
    Usually used when discribing a persons motives for a spacific political
    agenda.  IE; it is POLITICALLY CORRECT to speak for womens rights, yet
    it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT to speak for[of] mens rights.
    
    to make it even easier, "what ever happens to be 'OK' with the public
    (or the spacific gathering of people) at the time.
    
    Better?
    
    AL

    Thanks for asking the question Andy.  I had no idea what PC
    meant either.  (Personal Computer?!?)
    

I totally agree with 449.5

I just would like to add something.
It seems to be sometimes difficult for the english nativ speakers to understand
the abbreviations: (either British English or American English),

Can you imagine how difficult it is for the people whose mother's language is 
not english.

could you SVP give the explanation of the abbreviation you are using.

(SVP= S'il Vous Plait = please)

Crdlt! (Cordialement)

	THIERRY 

    Yes, it would be easier if everyone would UNA, however it would be so
    much more wordy.
    
    ed
    
    [oh, btw, UNA => Use No Abbreviations :-)]

    yes it would be more wordy but it would not be unreasonable to
    establish at the beginning of a conference that it is about (for
    example) "What ever subject" to be known in future, for short, as WES. 
                    
    
    andy

    
    Re: .10
    
    I like that idea -  :-)
    
    Wes