[Roger Slater]

But come on, when someone says, as Eliot did, that it's really bad for society if there are too many Jews about, is it really just "PC" to condemn such a remark? I mean, when the "PC Police" yell at a woman for calling herself Mrs instead of Ms, isn't that just a bit different from complaining about the negative effect Jews have on the rest of "us"?

At what point does criticism of any view become PC overreaching? What if someone expresses the view that people with bad eyesight should be castrated so they will not be able to pass along the myopia gene? Would Mark or anyone else pounce on me as a fusty old PC-nik if I were to object?

I doubt it. I think "PC" is a word that applies at the borderline of the clash between progressive/conservative culture. But not everything is on the border. Wouldn't it be absurd for a murderer to say, "Don't impose your PC anti-homicide views on me!"?

I duly note that Mark has not been able to meet the challenge of finding anyone here who suggested that Eliot's views should affect our reading of his poetry, so it's apparent that his whole speech about dilettantism was aimed at a straw man. I wonder though, let's say I disagreed with Mark's view that you can and should separate the man from the poetry if you are not a dilettante . . . would it be proper for me to tell Mark that I just don't buy his PC view that poems should not be regarded in light of what we know about the poet? After all, I think Mark's view is widely held. Why isn't it suitable for the PC rubric? Is PC just a term that applies to those who disagree with us? Or is there some other distinguishing factor? Might the PC condemnation actually be reserved for liberal or progressive views? If so, isn't it just a conservative rhetorical device to try to win arguments by trying to climb upon the high horse of free speech and free thought?