NationStates Jolt Archive

I want a definition.

I want to know the rules.

I want someone to give me the codified law as to exactly what PC means.

From everything I've seen, the only people who complain about it are the same people who want to be allowed the right to use the word "******" and to be able to pinch the cute blonde at the office's buttocks without being sued for it.

So here's your chance! Show me where these laws are! Show me how "PC Thuggery" has ruined your life.

Wikipedia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Correctness)

Incidentally, it pissed me off at the pub last night.

It was a room entirely of white people, yet my mate was threatened with arrest by a labour campaigner when labelling a footballer a "******". Hardly matters if the social group considered likely to be offended are not present.

It's only political correctness if it's something proposed by liberals.

Otherwise it's called whining.

In general not being an offensive twat will make you politically correct. Thinking before you act will usually prevent you getting ridiculed/beaten up by us politically correct types.

It's only political correctness if it's something proposed by liberals.

Source, please.

I want a definition.

I want to know the rules.

I want someone to give me the codified law as to exactly what PC means.

From everything I've seen, the only people who complain about it are the same people who want to be allowed the right to use the word "******" and to be able to pinch the cute blonde at the office's buttocks without being sued for it.

So here's your chance! Show me where these laws are! Show me how "PC Thuggery" has ruined your life.
It hasn't ruined my life, but it's caused some problems with certain academics. For example, any research that even hints at the idea that different groups of people might have different traits gets shouted down with cries of racism. Whether there is any truth to it or not. One sociologist got condemned for claiming that facial expressions of Africans are identical to facial expressions of other people. You can't win. If you say people are different you're racist, if you show things that people have in common you're denying the diversity of different races. PC serves to stifle research for no good reason.

Source, please.
I think it was more of a general whiney comment that anything else.

Show me how "PC Thuggery" has ruined your life.

The PC Thuggery that governs these forums has prevented me from going into detail on the way I would service your cock and ass. So, you can see how my life is rendered destitute.

I can't help you. I am neither political nor correct. :(

It hasn't ruined my life, but it's caused some problems with certain academics.

This is good ... this is what I want ... thank you, dcd!

Yeah, not being to graphically describe sexual acts here in General has ruined my joy.

But the definition of PC? Anything Eut says it is, apparently.

This is good ... this is what I want ... thank you, dcd!
Also it makes people think I'm an asshole when I tell a racist joke. Just starting a joke with "The pope, a rabbi and Jesse Jackson were in a rowboat" will often lead to people looking uncomfortable.

From Wikipedia:

George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four holds the best-known fictional example of politically-driven language change. Newspeak, a bowdlerized form of English, is designed to make it impossible to express opposition to the totalitarian Party government. Expressing dissident thoughts, or thoughtcrime, becomes impossible; while the act of making self-contradicting excuses for the ruling powers, or doublethink, is coded into the language itself.

Such a concept of language is representative not only of the pro-PC Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but also of anti-PC views, and is said to be characteristic of totalitarian regimes.

Political Correctness is a form of politeness, specifically self censorship. It can be carried too far, in which case it becomes censorship.

I want a definition.

I want to know the rules.

I want someone to give me the codified law as to exactly what PC means.

From everything I've seen, the only people who complain about it are the same people who want to be allowed the right to use the word "******" and to be able to pinch the cute blonde at the office's buttocks without being sued for it.

So here's your chance! Show me where these laws are! Show me how "PC Thuggery" has ruined your life.
Here's how it works:

You're a guy who really wants to use the word "******." But, annoyingly, society no longer looks kindly on people who use the word "******" in public. Your fellow citizens find it rude and unpleasent when you try to explain to them about how the darkies aren't as good as we white folks. However, you don't want to accept that your behavior is simply rude or inappropriate. So, instead, you focus your ire on Political Correctness.

It is the fault of Political Correctness that you cannot say all the rude, discriminatory, or bigotted things that you really want to say.

It is Political Correctness which stands in the way of you publicly stating that women are inferior to men. Because you know they really are, but the libruls just won't let you say it. It is Political Correctness which shames you if you try to explain how all Muslims are evil heathens bent on destroying the world. They are, of course, all of them, but the libruls won't let you say it out loud.

Long story short? Political Correctness is what you blame when you hold a view that you know is rude, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise assinine, but you don't think you should have to grow up and get over it.

Also it makes people think I'm an asshole when I tell a racist joke. Just starting a joke with "The pope, a rabbi and Jesse Jackson were in a rowboat" will often lead to people looking uncomfortable.

I so want to haer the rest of that joke.

From Wikipedia:This too:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.

I so want to haer the rest of that joke.
So do I, but just telling a joke like that in some American companies can get you fired.

-snip-
But of course, when you say to these 'liberals' that perhaps people should show a little consideration towards the beliefs of others with regard to their attitudes to sex or religion, you're 'censoring'.

Oh look! You have a 'dirty' word that you throw around too.

One time, my GF wondered which of the 4 elevators would open first, and I said "eenie, meeny, miny, moe", and then realized that I wasn't allowed to say that anymore. If the wrong person had been waiting for the elevator, I could have been sued! :eek:

I want a definition.

I want to know the rules.

I want someone to give me the codified law as to exactly what PC means.

From everything I've seen, the only people who complain about it are the same people who want to be allowed the right to use the word "******" and to be able to pinch the cute blonde at the office's buttocks without being sued for it.

So here's your chance! Show me where these laws are! Show me how "PC Thuggery" has ruined your life.
It's little more than an attempt to add to the US Constitution some contrived "right" to never having your feelings hurt. Unfortunately, it was began in North Carolina by a Duke University college professor. :(

BTW ... I despise "political correctness," but your attempt to label me and others who despise it as bigots and chauvinsts is beneath you. :(

One time, my GF wondered which of the 4 elevators would open first, and I said "eenie, meeny, miny, moe", and then realized that I wasn't allowed to say that anymore. If the wrong person had been waiting for the elevator, I could have been sued! :eek:

What's wrong with eenie, meeny, miny, moe? I must ahve missed someting here?

What's wrong with eenie, meeny, miny, moe? I must ahve missed someting here?
The original version of the rhyme included the words "Catch a N..... by the toe"

Wikipedia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Correctness)

Incidentally, it pissed me off at the pub last night.

It was a room entirely of white people, yet my mate was threatened with arrest by a labour campaigner when labelling a footballer a "******". Hardly matters if the social group considered likely to be offended are not present.

Because being ignorant and offensive is only wrong if there are people present who match the slur. :rolleyes: I would've been offended, and I'm blonde-haired and blue-eyed.

It's one thing to not be able a joke, like DCD said. Jokes that are made in good fun. As long as the teller of the joke and the audience realize it is a joke. I revel in Blonde jokes, I don't get offended by them. Carlos Mencia and Dave Chappel are two famous people who are able to make what are on the face incredibly racist jokes. But most are still funny.

Also, on a sidenote, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. Many white people can NOT dance, many gay men do dress well, etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with a stereotype so long as one does not blindly apply it to all members of the stereotyped community.

But of course, when you say to these 'liberals' that perhaps people should show a little consideration towards the beliefs of others with regard to their attitudes to sex or religion, you're 'censoring'.

Oh look! You have a 'dirty' word that you throw around too.
Huh?

1) I'm not a liberal. At least, not as is defined in modern terms.
2) I don't think it is "censorship" to expect adult human beings to behave politely. If somebody wants to use "******" in a public conversation with me, I'm not going to pretend like I think that is appropriate, any more than if they decide they want to refer to all females present as "cunts." Part of being a grown up is knowing how to behave oneself in public. It's stupid to whine when you misbehave and other people point it out. Just learn self-control.

The original version of the rhyme included the words "Catch a N..... by the toe"

Ahhh, I only heard the catch a tiger version.

What's wrong with eenie, meeny, miny, moe? I must ahve missed someting here?

When I was growing up, there was a song that went "Eenie, meeny, miny, moe, catch a tiger by his toe". Apparently, before my time, they used the "N" word instead of tiger. So, now it's racist, even though there's a whole generation that heard that song with "tiger".

Political Correctness is an annoyance (and great fun) for me. Why I make a point of it to be an asshole. I once offended lesbians, Chinese, Christians, Randists, blacks, Canadians, Italians, optimists, women in general, Iggy Pop fans, and rather short fellow in one video project I made for school.

Because being ignorant and offensive is only wrong if there are people present who match the slur. :rolleyes: I would've been offended, and I'm blonde-haired and blue-eyed.

It's one thing to not be able a joke, like DCD said. Jokes that are made in good fun. As long as the teller of the joke and the audience realize it is a joke. I revel in Blonde jokes, I don't get offended by them. Carlos Mencia and Dave Chappel are two famous people who are able to make what are on the face incredibly racist jokes. But most are still funny.

Also, on a sidenote, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. Many white people can NOT dance, many gay men do dress well, etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with a stereotype so long as one does not blindly apply it to all members of the stereotyped community.

My point. "unPC jokes" are rarely intended to consider the recipients as a homogenous groups. Emo is an insult deemed acceptable, yet ****** is not. Why?

Huh?

1) I'm not a liberal. At least, not as is defined in modern terms.
By 'modern' I presume you mean 'American'.
2) I don't think it is "censorship" to expect adult human beings to behave politely. If somebody wants to use "******" in a public conversation with me, I'm not going to pretend like I think that is appropriate, any more than if they decide they want to refer to all females present as "cunts." Part of being a grown up is knowing how to behave oneself in public. It's stupid to whine when you misbehave and other people point it out. Just learn self-control.
Interesting. So the woman who dresses like a tart can expect people to completely ignore her clothes, and anyone who has a problem with it is behaving inappropriately, but the person who speaks like a idiot should be censored and shouted down.

Can we say 'double standards', children?

Political Correctness is an annoyance (and great fun) for me. Why I make a point of it to be an asshole. I once offended lesbians, Chinese, Christians, Randists, blacks, Canadians, Italians, optimists, women in general, Iggy Pop fans, and rather short fellow in one video project I made for school.

I like you.:)

The fact that Americans even argue about something as ridiculous as "can we call Christmas Christmas" has ruined my life.

In serious reply to the topic, I think with political correctness it's important to distinguish between things that are genuinly offensive and things that some white collar dogooder has decided must be changed because in his shortsighted opinion it might possibly offend someone maybe someday.

My current beef on this front is that you can no longer call black-boards black-boards in schools. You must call them chalk-boards in case someone gets upset.

My point. "unPC jokes" are rarely intended to consider the recipients as a homogenous groups. Emo is an insult deemed acceptable, yet ****** is not. Why?
Probably because it was never common to go lynch an Emo, or to yell Run Emo as you attempt chase one with your truck. Emo doesn't have the history of brutality and oppression attatched to it.

Probably because it was never common to go lynch an Emo, or to yell Run Emo as you attempt chase one with your truck. Emo doesn't have the history of brutality and oppression attatched to it.
At least not yet.

In serious reply to the topic, I think with political correctness it's important to distinguish between things that are genuinly offensive and things that some white collar dogooder has decided must be changed because in his shortsighted opinion it might possibly offend someone maybe someday.

My current beef on this front is that you can no longer call black-boards black-boards in schools. You must call them chalk-boards in case someone gets upset.
I like the story about the woman who got in trouble at work for using the word niggardly.

At least not yet.
Yeah, we're working on it, but it's hard to make them feel any worse than they already do. Hell, you cut them and it just saves them the trouble of cutting themselves.

Wikipedia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Correctness)

Incidentally, it pissed me off at the pub last night.

It was a room entirely of white people, yet my mate was threatened with arrest by a labour campaigner when labelling a footballer a "******". Hardly matters if the social group considered likely to be offended are not present.

Good! I don't care if that is 'PC'. You shouldn't be using such bigoted and racist words anywhere, even if there aren't any black people around. Or is bigotry okay in private?

Probably because it was never common to go lynch an Emo, or to yell Run Emo as you attempt chase one with your truck. Emo doesn't have the history of brutality and oppression attatched to it.

Not the point. In the PC age anything with the potential to offend is to be interdicted.

My current beef on this front is that you can no longer call black-boards black-boards in schools. You must call them chalk-boards in case someone gets upset.
o_O But, but, those are green. (they were in my school)

Ok, that sounds ridiculous too.

Good! I don't care if that is 'PC'. You shouldn't be using such bigoted and racist words anywhere, even if there aren't any black people around. Or is bigotry okay in private?

I personally feel that anything is acceptable in private. Life is a matter of judging the audiance, not acting from a universal set of morals.

I like the story about the woman who got in trouble at work for using the word niggardly.

Seriously? What happened to her?

Not the point. In the PC age anything with the potential to offend is to be interdicted.
You're contradicting yourself. Originally didn't you ask why the N word is off limits but Emo isn't? Emo is an insult deemed acceptable, yet ****** is not. Why? Yep, I thought so.

I personally feel that anything is acceptable in private. Life is a matter of judging the audiance, not acting from a universal set of morals.

Ahhh. So you can be a bigot and a racist in the private of your own home, and that somehow makes it better or acceptable?

EDIT: Holy crap. Me and DCD agreeing on an issue. Hell must've frozen over!

Seriously? What happened to her?
Not sure. I think she kept her job.

I am greatly opposed to ‘Political Correctness’™
I do believe in basic common courtesy and politeness.

You are forbidden to say things like policeman or fireman (sexist – you have to say policeperson and fireperson). You cannot say someone is short, they are vertically challenged. When someone has lost a limb or something they are not disabled they are ‘differently abled’. Garbage man (oops, sorry… garbage-person) cannot be used because it does not boost the ego of someone who works collecting trash so they are ‘sanitary engineers’. You cannot in any way imply that someone is not as good if not better than anyone else – that includes saying someone with an IQ of 60 is not as good as a genius at doing anything despite the obviousness of it. You cannot in any way hint that there tend to be differences between races or the genders. The one exception to that is when you are using statistics to complain that racial or sexual discrimination is present – otherwise, in any other context whatsoever, it is strictly prohibited.

There comes a point when you go way beyond being polite and cross into the obscenely ridiculous – that is what ‘Political Correctness’ is all about.

My point. "unPC jokes" are rarely intended to consider the recipients as a homogenous groups. Emo is an insult deemed acceptable, yet ****** is not. Why?
One is a fairly recent conception or subculture group that is used in an insulting manner, another is a racial slur that carries behind it hundreds of years of hatred, violence, and subjection? That's my guess.

I don't like it when people use the N word, and I don't care what color their skin is. I've asked Black people to not use the N word around me, cuz it makes me uncomfortable. Many don't understand it, but most respect it.

I don't mind "unPC" jokes, as long as the person is willing to make fun of everyone, including groups which he belongs to. However, it is obnoxious when the only "unPC" jokes a person will tell target only Muslims, or only Blacks, or only Hispanics, or only Whites, or whatever. When a person only tells jokes that insult a particular joke, it tends to be an indicator of inderlying bigotry and intolerance.

You're contradicting yourself. Originally didn't you ask why the N word is off limits but Emo isn't? Yep, I thought so.

No no no. My point is that neither should be legislated against. A term ought to be outmoded by social imperatives, not legislation.

Essentially, political correctness is pervaded by hypocrisy.

I am greatly opposed to ‘Political Correctness’™
I do believe in basic common courtesy and politeness.

You are forbidden to say things like policeman or fireman (sexist – you have to say policeperson and fireperson). You cannot say someone is short, they are vertically challenged. When someone has lost a limb or something they are not disabled they are ‘differently abled’. Garbage man (oops, sorry… garbage-person) cannot be used because it does not boost the ego of someone who works collecting trash so they are ‘sanitary engineers’. You cannot in any way imply that someone is not as good if not better than anyone else – that includes saying someone with an IQ of 60 is not as good as a genius at doing anything despite the obviousness of it. You cannot in any way hint that there tend to be differences between races or the genders. The one exception to that is when you are using statistics to complain that racial or sexual discrimination is present – otherwise, in any other context whatsoever, it is strictly prohibited.

There comes a point when you go way beyond being polite and cross into the obscenely ridiculous – that is what ‘Political Correctness’ is all about.
The disabled are more accurately refered to as "The conveniently parked".

The fact that Americans even argue about something as ridiculous as "can we call Christmas Christmas" has ruined my life.

I consider "Happy Holidays" offensive. ;)

Ahhh. So you can be a bigot and a racist in the private of your own home, and that somehow makes it better or acceptable?

EDIT: Holy crap. Me and DCD agreeing on an issue. Hell must've frozen over!

Yes.

What people don't know can't harm them.

I consider "Happy Holidays" offensive. ;)
I consider holidays in general offensive. Get back to work and celebrate religous crap on your own time.

Yes.

What people don't know can't harm them.
What about landmines?

What about landmines?

Hardly the same as semantics now, is it?

Yes.

What people don't know can't harm them.

That's a load of crap. Imagine you have children; you use words like '******' in front of them, and they grow up to see them as acceptable, and use them in public. You indoctrinate a whole other Generation into bigotry and racism.

Apart from that, it's just plain bigoted and stupid; it's an offensive phrase that carries hundreds of years of terrible history behind it. Yet people still wish to use it. Why, I don't understand.

No no no. My point is that neither should be legislated against. A term ought to be outmoded by social imperatives, not legislation.

Essentially, political correctness is pervaded by hypocrisy.
Well I agree that language shouldn't be legislated against any more than picking your nose at the dinner table ought to be against the law. Politeness is often a good thing though.

That's a load of crap. Imagine you have children; you use words like '******' in front of them, and they grow up to see them as acceptable, and use them in public. You indoctrinate a whole other Generation into bigotry and racism.

Apart from that, it's just plain bigoted and stupid; it's an offensive phrase that carries hundreds of years of terrible history behind it. Yet people still wish to use it. Why, I don't understand.

I wouldn't use it, nor would I use it in front of the impressionable. Once more testament to quite how one should judge one's audiance.

Well I agree that language shouldn't be legislated against any more than picking your nose at the dinner table ought to be against the law. Politeness is often a good thing though.

Naturally, however I object to government legislating for what society has already rendered taboo.

The fact that Americans even argue about something as ridiculous as "can we call Christmas Christmas" has ruined my life.

Many people think the change from Christmas to Holliday reflects the growing influence of political correctness. This is incorrect.

The reason why everyone is saying Holiday is because that is the name of the winter festival of those of us who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may he bless us with his sauce). The church of the FSM has been growing in popularity so quickly as to have overtaken Christmas.

If there was a flag for politival corectness, I would burn it.

I am greatly opposed to ‘Political Correctness’™
I do believe in basic common courtesy and politeness.

You are forbidden to say things like policeman or fireman (sexist – you have to say policeperson and fireperson). You cannot say someone is short, they are vertically challenged. When someone has lost a limb or something they are not disabled they are ‘differently abled’. Garbage man (oops, sorry… garbage-person) cannot be used because it does not boost the ego of someone who works collecting trash so they are ‘sanitary engineers’. You cannot in any way imply that someone is not as good if not better than anyone else – that includes saying someone with an IQ of 60 is not as good as a genius at doing anything despite the obviousness of it. You cannot in any way hint that there tend to be differences between races or the genders. The one exception to that is when you are using statistics to complain that racial or sexual discrimination is present – otherwise, in any other context whatsoever, it is strictly prohibited.

There comes a point when you go way beyond being polite and cross into the obscenely ridiculous – that is what ‘Political Correctness’ is all about.And how often do the PC police bust you for this and drag you to a jail cell so you can think about what you have done?

I want a definition.

I want to know the rules.

I want someone to give me the codified law as to exactly what PC means.

From everything I've seen, the only people who complain about it are the same people who want to be allowed the right to use the word "******" and to be able to pinch the cute blonde at the office's buttocks without being sued for it.

So here's your chance! Show me where these laws are! Show me how "PC Thuggery" has ruined your life.
You're kidding right? Or are you being deliberatly obtuse.

When a high school band can't play instrumental version of a song because it's too religious, what the band is really trying to do is call black people "******". http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003097914_avemaria01m.html

When a privately owned business can't have a theme night because it's too religious, he's really trying to scream "niggers" in his skating rink. http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/06/27/news-pbchristian-06-27.html

When Winnie the Pooh can't be shown because Piglet just might offend some Muslims, Pooh bear is actually secretly desiring to call blacks "******". http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19503274-1702,00.html?from=rss

When a politician used the term (correctly btw) niggardly, he was just tickled pink because it was close the his favorite term "******".

Yea, you are being deliberately obtuse.

I am greatly opposed to ‘Political Correctness’™
I do believe in basic common courtesy and politeness.

You are forbidden to say things like policeman or fireman (sexist – you have to say policeperson and fireperson). You cannot say someone is short, they are vertically challenged. When someone has lost a limb or something they are not disabled they are ‘differently abled’.

What world do you live in? I've never heard any of those used except by people whining about "Political Correctness."

If there was a flag for politival corectness, I would burn it.

Luckily for you it will be the politically correct people defending you

What world do you live in? I've never heard any of those used except by people whining about "Political Correctness."

That's the truth. Yes, there is some stupidity by overzealous Councils/States, but the majority of this is simply shit stirred up by Conservatives; it gives them a nice way to rally their supporters by shouting 'ZOMGPC!'.

Like the Daily Mail, for example.

In general not being an offensive twat will make you politically correct. Thinking before you act will usually prevent you getting ridiculed/beaten up by us politically correct types.
You mean like posting a picture of a sacred drawing of someone's head in a political satire? THAT kind of offensive? Of course, that's just someone's right.

The word "fuck" has been replaced by the word "******" as the word to generate the biggest reaction and be the most reluctantly used. Even when a white person is quoting a black person that says ******, they hunch their shoulders, look around, and whisper. I was once told by a black person listening to his CD of DMX that I wasn't allowed to sing along with it because it said ******. And he was serious.

Political correctness is a mob mentality to strong arm people into not using their speech freedoms to say what they think and feel.

I'd also like to point out that Bedford Forest is considered a racist, but Malcom X is a civil rights leader that we put on a stamp.

And it's not just race. Did you know that a woman in the U.S. Navy to do my job is only required to do 20 pushups when I have to do 45?

When Winnie the Pooh can't be shown because Piglet just might offend some Muslims, Pooh bear is actually secretly desiring to call blacks "******". http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19503274-1702,00.html?from=rss

ah, turkey, land of liberal pinko commie homos run amuk with pc police monitoring everything.

That's the truth. Yes, there is some stupidity by overzealous Councils/States, but the majority of this is simply shit stirred up by Conservatives; it gives them a nice way to rally their supporters by shouting 'ZOMGPC!'.

Like the Daily Mail, for example.

Not a stereotype at all though....:rolleyes:

If there is such a thing as political correctness, then have fun with it. :)

In serious reply to the topic, I think with political correctness it's important to distinguish between things that are genuinly offensive and things that some white collar dogooder has decided must be changed because in his shortsighted opinion it might possibly offend someone maybe someday.

My current beef on this front is that you can no longer call black-boards black-boards in schools. You must call them chalk-boards in case someone gets upset.

Well a good deal of them are green anyways.

Not a stereotype at all though....:rolleyes:

sometimes i get the feeling you people don't really know what words mean, but just see how others use them and try to imitate it

You're kidding right? Or are you being deliberatly obtuse.

When a high school band can't play instrumental version of a song because it's too religious, what the band is really trying to do is call black people "******". http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003097914_avemaria01m.html

When a privately owned business can't have a theme night because it's too religious, he's really trying to scream "niggers" in his skating rink. http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/06/27/news-pbchristian-06-27.html

When Winnie the Pooh can't be shown because Piglet just might offend some Muslims, Pooh bear is actually secretly desiring to call blacks "******". http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19503274-1702,00.html?from=rss

When a politician used the term (correctly btw) niggardly, he was just tickled pink because it was close the his favorite term "******".

Yea, you are being deliberately obtuse.The first example is pretty much the only one that has any merit.

As for the "theme 'nights'", a Christian skate on every Sunday afternoon is rather discriminatory towards non-Christians and does not constiture a "theme night".

And if "some muslims" constitute the vast majority of the population of Turkey, you can hardly blame TRT for not showing something offensive to them.

Just to clear up, I give you Political Correctness: A handy NationStates General Guide.

If you say "Because of my faith I believe..." then you are inevitably an evil person and must be censored.

If you say "Because of my lack of faith I believe religion is evil" then you are a jolly good chap and deserve a pat on the back.

Not a stereotype at all though....:rolleyes:

Exactly. Skinny, stop being so politically incorrect!

ah, turkey, land of liberal pinko commie homos run amuk with pc police monitoring everything.
Did I mention once about it being a liberal vs conservative issue?
No, contrary to the OP's thoughts on the subject it's not.

It's a "there is no right to not be offended" issue.

ah, turkey, land of liberal pinko commie homos run amuk with pc police monitoring everything.

That's why we won't let them into the EU. We are scared they'll make us stop our illiberal ways

The first example is pretty much the only one that has any merit.

As for the "theme 'nights'", a Christian skate on every Sunday afternoon is rather discriminatory towards non-Christians and does not constiture a "theme night".

And if "some muslims" constitute the vast majority of the population of Turkey, you can hardly blame TRT for not showing something offensive to them.
It's a privately owned business. If the owner wishes to have a christian music theme night, that's his right. And if someone gets offended by the choice of music he plays in his business they have the right to go elsewhere. It most certainly is an example of PCness.

I never did blame TRT for not showing Winnie the Pooh, but it is an example of PCness.

It's a "there is no right to not be offended" issue.

Yeah, good luck persuading certain coutries in the Middle East to assimilate that meme into their constitutions

It's a "there is no right to not be offended" issue.I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but some countries actually have that right guaranteed in their constitution to a sensible degree.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but some countries actually have that right guaranteed in their constitution to a sensible degree.
This I GOT to see... please post some reference to a guaranteed right not to be offended in their constitution.

It's a privately owned business. If the owner wishes to have a christian music theme night, that's his right. And if someone gets offended by the choice of music he plays in his business they have the right to go elsewhere. It most certainly is an example of PCness.Ah, but the problem that a Christian skate is that it implies "non-Christians not welcome".

I never did blame TRT for not showing Winnie the Pooh, but it is an example of PCness.It is an example. A particularly bad example for trying to get rid of it though.

Not a stereotype at all though....:rolleyes:

Oh. I'm sorry; did my stereotype annoy you? Perhaps if you didn't stereotype 'PC People' then you might have a case.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but some countries actually have that right guaranteed in their constitution to a sensible degree.
I don't think legislating politeness is sensible in any degree.

I never did blame TRT for not showing Winnie the Pooh, but it is an example of PCness.

So a government dictating the schedules of the state Broadcaster is politically correct? And not an example of a (quasi)theocratic state?

Here's how it works:

You're a guy who really wants to use the word "******." But, annoyingly, society no longer looks kindly on people who use the word "******" in public. Your fellow citizens find it rude and unpleasent when you try to explain to them about how the darkies aren't as good as we white folks. However, you don't want to accept that your behavior is simply rude or inappropriate. So, instead, you focus your ire on Political Correctness.

It is the fault of Political Correctness that you cannot say all the rude, discriminatory, or bigotted things that you really want to say.

It is Political Correctness which stands in the way of you publicly stating that women are inferior to men. Because you know they really are, but the libruls just won't let you say it. It is Political Correctness which shames you if you try to explain how all Muslims are evil heathens bent on destroying the world. They are, of course, all of them, but the libruls won't let you say it out loud.

Long story short? Political Correctness is what you blame when you hold a view that you know is rude, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise assinine, but you don't think you should have to grow up and get over it.

That's a straw man you just burned down. Some people are like that, but political correctness is often pretty freaking ridiculous... I'm sure we can all think of examples.

This I GOT to see... please post some reference to a guaranteed right not to be offended in their constitution.
German Consitution (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html):
1. BASIC RIGHTS

Article 1 (Protection of human dignity).
(1) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law. To a reasonable degree, this means you have the right not to have your dignity violated through insults.

Ah, but the problem that a Christian skate is that it implies "non-Christians not welcome".2 things....
1. As I've said before, it's a privately owned business, he can do as he wishes.
2. Non-Christians might not be welcomed? So what? Let's take this to the illogical extreme and say a church is sponsoring a vacation bible study. Opps, can't do that... some non-christians might be offended by studying the bible.

It is an example. A particularly bad example for trying to get rid of it though.
You're assuming. I never said I was "trying to get rid of it", just trying to point out that anyone who says "only bigots and racists are complaining about PC" is themselves bigoted.

German Consitution (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html):
To a reasonable degree, this means you have the right not to have your dignity violated through insults.


Here's an example of "political correctness". While it's not OK to slur someone because they are gay, it's certainly seen as OK (except by this small town government) as OK to slur heterosexuals.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/14/a_new_intolerance_visits_provincetown/?page=full

Yes, it's acceptable discourse to call a heterosexual a "breeder" as a slur. But never slur a gay person.

Either slurs are OK all around, or they aren't OK at all.

I don't think legislating politeness is sensible in any degree.It's only really legislated towards law enforcement and judiciary representatives while in their functions and for when people take being rude to the extremes.

Here's an example of "political correctness". While it's not OK to slur someone because they are gay, it's certainly seen as OK (except by this small town government) as OK to slur heterosexuals.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/14/a_new_intolerance_visits_provincetown/?page=full

Yes, it's acceptable discourse to call a heterosexual a "breeder" as a slur. But never slur a gay person.

Either slurs are OK all around, or they aren't OK at all.I see, because I quote the German constitution, I must think it's ok to call heterosexuals "breeders". Thank you for clearing that up, it must have slipped my mind.

German Consitution (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html):
To a reasonable degree, this means you have the right not to have your dignity violated through insults.
That doesn't say that a person has the right not to be offended, but rather they have a right to not have their dignity violated... huge difference.

A person can be offended by anything, watching Jackass, or the Exorcist, or Texas chainsaw massacre. A person can be offended by someone's smell. None of this has anything to do with dignity.

Trying to say it does is a strecth at best.

Also it makes people think I'm an asshole when I tell a racist joke. Just starting a joke with "The pope, a rabbi and Jesse Jackson were in a rowboat" will often lead to people looking uncomfortable.

Funny, it makes my friends laugh with me. PC people... I honestly hate them with all my heart.:headbang:

I see, because I quote the German constitution, I must think it's ok to call heterosexuals "breeders". Thank you for clearing that up, it must have slipped my mind.
No, it's just that the German constitution doesn't apply in the US. Our Constitution says that we're allowed to insult people here, but apparently, some people think it should be a hate crime to insult gays (many laws like that here), but not a hate crime to insult heterosexuals.

That's the definition of political correctness - a major bias in attitude or legislation of a specific behavior, based solely on race, creed, color, or sexual preference, where it applies ONLY to specific groups that a specific political party uses as a constituency. Otherwise, the law applies in reverse - it's OK to insult or demean or discriminate against politically incorrect groups.

2 things....
1. As I've said before, it's a privately owned business, he can do as he wishes.
2. Non-Christians might not be welcomed? So what? Let's take this to the illogical extreme and say a church is sponsoring a vacation bible study. Opps, can't do that... some non-christians might be offended by studying the bible.You think he'd get away with a White People Skate?
Yeah, that is illogical, as a theme the guy does on Sunday afternoons has very little to do with a church sponsored vacation bible study, except that both somehow involve Christians. If the guy rented out his place to a church or so and they did a Christian skate, I'd see no problem with it.
You're assuming. I never said I was "trying to get rid of it", just trying to point out that anyone who says "only bigots and racists are complaining about PC" is themselves bigoted.My apologies :)

in Germany you can let ur little 6 year olds run around in parks completely naked pissing all over the place but in america you cant. Why is this? Are we simply more "civilized" than the Germans or what?



Also I find it quite strange that we cant say a thing about black people (or "african americans" as some PC obsessed people want us to say (many people with black skin arent even african...) but they can insult us and shit. You see a white person beat up in DC because he called a black person a n----r and everyones just like "omg he shouldnt have said that" and then if a black person gets beat up cuz he insulted a piece of white trash people r like "omg the person who beat him up is a horrible person!!!!!!"

edit - the you people thing was not meant to sound like that, I couldnt think of who exactly exept for some people in general.

I see, because I quote the German constitution, I must think it's ok to call heterosexuals "breeders". Thank you for clearing that up, it must have slipped my mind.
The poster never said you thought it was ok to call hetero's names.... you're assuming again.

He was simply pointing out another example.

Try replying to the point of his post, rather than replying with a sarcastic barb.

No, it's just that the German constitution doesn't apply in the US. Our Constitution says that we're allowed to insult people here, but apparently, some people think it should be a hate crime to insult gays (many laws like that here), but not a hate crime to insult heterosexuals.

That's the definition of political correctness - a major bias in attitude or legislation of a specific behavior, based solely on race, creed, color, or sexual preference, where it applies ONLY to specific groups that a specific political party uses as a constituency. Otherwise, the law applies in reverse - it's OK to insult or demean or discriminate against politically incorrect groups.But that's the big question, is there legislation supporting PC? Or is the problems associated with being politically incorrect merely the consequences of using your freedom of speech?

The poster never said you thought it was ok to call hetero's names.... you're assuming again.

He was simply pointing out another example.

Try replying to the point of his post, rather than replying with a sarcastic barb.Indeed. I was merely wondering why. I've given my definition of Political Correctness before. No one needs to remind me that some people carry it too far.

But that's the big question, is there legislation supporting PC? Or is the problems associated with being politically incorrect merely the consequences of using your freedom of speech?
Hate speech laws in the US often only cover specific groups and not everyone.

You can be fired for insulting certain groups, but not others.

Where I work now, if I insult a gay man, I can be fired. Just for saying "faggot" (which I would not).

But if a gay man here at work called a heterosexual a "breeder" with the same air of contempt that someone might call him "faggot", he could NOT be fired and it wouldn't even come up.

But that's the big question, is there legislation supporting PC? Or is the problems associated with being politically incorrect merely the consequences of using your freedom of speech?

Any law or ordinance that allies itself with one particular group, and attempts to defend it at all over another is being PC. So, YES, we do have a problem with Freedom of Speech in America.

EDIT: That sounded odd- What i mean is Freedom of Speech is being desecrated by bleeding-heart congressmen who seem to shrivel up whenever someone states an opinion they don't agree with, regardless of how ignorant it is.

Hate speech laws in the US often only cover specific groups and not everyone.

You can be fired for insulting certain groups, but not others.

Where I work now, if I insult a gay man, I can be fired. Just for saying "faggot" (which I would not).

But if a gay man here at work called a heterosexual a "breeder" with the same air of contempt that someone might call him "faggot", he could NOT be fired and it wouldn't even come up.The main reason for that would most likely be that heterosexuals aren't referred to as "breeders" quite as often as homosexuals are referred to as fags. No, its not fair, but if the latter happens often enough, it would most likely end up with similar consequences.

The main reason for that would most likely be that heterosexuals aren't referred to as "breeders" quite as often as homosexuals are referred to as fags. No, its not fair, but if the latter happens often enough, it would most likely end up with similar consequences.

Rarely here in the US. The laws, even if written fairly, are most definitely applied unequally.

If insulting someone based on their sexual preference is a crime, then it shouldn't matter "how often" it has occurred. The simple utterance of the word "breeder" should get you the same penalty as the word "faggot". Instantly.

Hate speech laws in the US often only cover specific groups and not everyone.

You can be fired for insulting certain groups, but not others.

Where I work now, if I insult a gay man, I can be fired. Just for saying "faggot" (which I would not).

But if a gay man here at work called a heterosexual a "breeder" with the same air of contempt that someone might call him "faggot", he could NOT be fired and it wouldn't even come up.

If you really want that term to be included under hate speech, then you need to bring attention to it. The term sounds relatively new, so you may be one of the first people to do so, but that shouldn't stop you. File a lawsuit, stage a protest, threaten to quit and just raise a general fuss. It won't be called a hateful term until you let your employer know how hateful you find "breeder"

2 things....
1. As I've said before, it's a privately owned business, he can do as he wishes.
2. Non-Christians might not be welcomed? So what? Let's take this to the illogical extreme and say a church is sponsoring a vacation bible study. Opps, can't do that... some non-christians might be offended by studying the bible.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong but non-christian people, when faced with a private owner that discriminate like so, do they not have a right of peacefull protest, a right to expose the racist in every media possible, the right to boycot and call for boycott?

So why should people complian that they are "PC". They are raising a fuss to incite change. Why should they have to bend over and move elsewhere if they can make it too costly for the private company to continue his bigoted ways.

But yeah, your illogical extreme is silly. I'd be with you calling them silly if someone would propose such a thing. Doesn't mean they can't try, though. Public opinion wins everytime.

The losers get to complain about "PC".

Here's how it works:

You're a guy who really wants to use the word "******." But, annoyingly, society no longer looks kindly on people who use the word "******" in public. Your fellow citizens find it rude and unpleasent when you try to explain to them about how the darkies aren't as good as we white folks. However, you don't want to accept that your behavior is simply rude or inappropriate. So, instead, you focus your ire on Political Correctness.

It is the fault of Political Correctness that you cannot say all the rude, discriminatory, or bigotted things that you really want to say.

It is Political Correctness which stands in the way of you publicly stating that women are inferior to men. Because you know they really are, but the libruls just won't let you say it. It is Political Correctness which shames you if you try to explain how all Muslims are evil heathens bent on destroying the world. They are, of course, all of them, but the libruls won't let you say it out loud.

Long story short? Political Correctness is what you blame when you hold a view that you know is rude, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise assinine, but you don't think you should have to grow up and get over it.

news flash: YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED! FIRST AMENDMENT, PEOPLE! YOU DON'T KILL SOMEONE'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH BECASE WHAT THEYRE SAYING HAPPENS TO OFFEND YOU! political correctness is an idea dreamed up by a bunch of thin-skinned wimps who cant take a verbal punch. or who think that making sure that everyone is double-bound so its never possible to do anything. remember: say races are different and youre racist, but say theyre the same and youre denying diversity. say terrorisms a threat and youre an insane reactionary, but say its not there and youre an unpatriotic bitch

PC IS A USELESS HEAP OF SHIT, like BOTTLE

If you really want that term to be included under hate speech, then you need to bring attention to it. The term sounds relatively new, so you may be one of the first people to do so, but that shouldn't stop you. File a lawsuit, stage a protest, threaten to quit and just raise a general fuss. It won't be called a hateful term until you let your employer know how hateful you find "breeder"
We've already done a petition, with over 1200 signatures, and management told us to forget it.

in Germany you can let ur little 6 year olds run around in parks completely naked pissing all over the place but in america you cant. Why is this? Are we simply more "civilized" than the Germans or what?

Interesting you don't think it could be the other way around

(or "african americans" as you idiot people want us to say (many people with black skin arent even african...)

I don't want you to refer to all black people as "african-americans." I just don't want you to call them "niggers" or any similarly offensive term.

*snip* :eek:
Cool it.

We've already done a petition, with over 1200 signatures, and management told us to forget it.

Then you go beyond your management, or keep pressing until you get fired. That way, you can bring even greater attention to your cause The reason most of these terms like "faggot" are called hate speech is because a big enough stink was raised. You just have to have the committment to getting "breeder" placed under hate speech.

I don't want you to refer to all black people as "african-americans."

Officially on US Census forms, it's mandatory. You can't even pick "black" because it doesn't exist.

Rather like the Newspeak in 1984 - the government changes the language so you have to label people the way the government wants you to, even if you know they aren't African at all.

... you can no longer call black-boards black-boards in schools. You must call them chalk-boards in case someone gets upset.
You are kidding, right???

PC IS A USELESS HEAP OF SHIT, like BOTTLE

I believe Bottle is helping advance the field of science.

What do you do?

You are kidding, right???

He is, or he reads the Daily Mail

You are kidding, right???
No.

You also can't, as a teacher, read any stories that characterize good as "white" or black as "evil". A few teachers here lost their jobs reading a kid's book. It wasn't about black Americans - it was about some magical kingdom where the evil guy was literally "black" as in the color of pure darkness.

Can't go around making kids feel bad, ya know.

in Germany you can let ur little 6 year olds run around in parks completely naked pissing all over the place but in america you cant. Why is this? Are we simply more "civilized" than the Germans or what?



Also I find it quite strange that we cant say a thing about black people (or "african americans" as you idiot people want us to say (many people with black skin arent even african...) but they can insult us and shit. You see a white person beat up in DC because he called a black person a n----r and everyones just like "omg he shouldnt have said that" and then if a black person gets beat up cuz he insulted a piece of white trash people r like "omg the person who beat him up is a horrible person!!!!!!"
unfortunately for you, this is not the US of A and this private forum have rules. I suggest you refrain from insulting people as this is contrary to the rules you agreed upon.

Just a friendly reminder.

Interesting you don't think it could be the other way around

Actually thats not my opinion, I was looking for your alls opinions and giving a slight example.

Political correctness was invented by sociallist. They said that if someone will obey nonsense limitations in his own language, he will for sure follow other social limitations. Simply: Another way to make people social slaves.

edit: concerning pc discussion;
check out murphy's laws. i don't remember them good enough not to miss-quote and I don't want to spoil the fun.

Officially on US Census forms, it's mandatory. You can't even pick "black" because it doesn't exist.

Maybe so.

Out of interest what does a liberal PC-type American call black people from outside America?

Which is kinda what I was getting at, I really don't think it is tenable to call every black person in the world "African-American"

Rather like the Newspeak in 1984 - the government changes the language so you have to label people the way the government wants you to, even if you know they aren't African at all.

Well ethnicity forms are generally pretty stupid. There doesn't seem to be a standard format here in Britain but generally they have at least one howler

Political correctness was invented by sociallist. They said that if someone will obey nonsense limitations in his own language, he will for sure follow other social limitations. Simply: Another way to make people social slaves.
Dear Evil Flame, I am fascinated by your theory and wish to suscribe to your newsletter.

No.

You also can't, as a teacher, read any stories that characterize good as "white" or black as "evil". A few teachers here lost their jobs reading a kid's book. It wasn't about black Americans - it was about some magical kingdom where the evil guy was literally "black" as in the color of pure darkness.

Can't go around making kids feel bad, ya know.
JHC! WTF, over?

news flash: YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED! FIRST AMENDMENT, PEOPLE! YOU DON'T KILL SOMEONE'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH BECASE WHAT THEYRE SAYING HAPPENS TO OFFEND YOU! political correctness is an idea dreamed up by a bunch of thin-skinned wimps who cant take a verbal punch. or who think that making sure that everyone is double-bound so its never possible to do anything. remember: say races are different and youre racist, but say theyre the same and youre denying diversity. say terrorisms a threat and youre an insane reactionary, but say its not there and youre an unpatriotic bitch

PC IS A USELESS HEAP OF SHIT, like BOTTLE

To paraphrase some random guy I saw on TV:

The opponents of political correctness tend to be social conservatives or right-wing zealots trying to protect their percieved right to be racist, sexist or homophobic.

To paraphrase some random guy I saw on TV:

The opponents of political correctness tend to be social conservatives or right-wing zealots trying to protect their percieved right to be racist, sexist or homophobic.

Really? I'm just someone who is tired of being called "breeder" with the same sneer that someone might use in calling a homosexual a "faggot".

No.

You also can't, as a teacher, read any stories that characterize good as "white" or black as "evil". A few teachers here lost their jobs reading a kid's book. It wasn't about black Americans - it was about some magical kingdom where the evil guy was literally "black" as in the color of pure darkness.


That's a far cry away from describing something by its colour though

That's a far cry away from describing something by its colour though

The point is that there is zero tolerance with zero judgment about the word "black" in that instance.

Black, no matter how you read the story, can't be construed as remotely meaning "black people in America" (or Africans, or anyone else with enough melanin in their skin to get a suntan).

You are kidding, right???

No, come spend sometime in the UK if you really want to know how far unelected council beaurocrats will try to push things like this.

Really? I'm just someone who is tired of being called "breeder" with the same sneer that someone might use in calling a homosexual a "faggot".How often do people call you a "breeder?"

Here's how it works:

You're a guy who really wants to use the word "******." But, annoyingly, society no longer looks kindly on people who use the word "******" in public. Your fellow citizens find it rude and unpleasent when you try to explain to them about how the darkies aren't as good as we white folks. However, you don't want to accept that your behavior is simply rude or inappropriate. So, instead, you focus your ire on Political Correctness.

It is the fault of Political Correctness that you cannot say all the rude, discriminatory, or bigotted things that you really want to say.

It is Political Correctness which stands in the way of you publicly stating that women are inferior to men. Because you know they really are, but the libruls just won't let you say it. It is Political Correctness which shames you if you try to explain how all Muslims are evil heathens bent on destroying the world. They are, of course, all of them, but the libruls won't let you say it out loud.

Long story short? Political Correctness is what you blame when you hold a view that you know is rude, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise assinine, but you don't think you should have to grow up and get over it.
Excuse me??? This is so disengenuous it's physically painful!

I totaly despise PC, not because I'm "rude, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic," or even otherwise "assinine." I oppose it because it's a restriction on freedom of speech and just plain stupid. Trying to slap an offensive lable on someone who simply advocates what is already guaranteed by the US Constitution is the moral equivalent of labelling someone with a racist, sexist or homophobic term. Physician, heal thyself.

No, come spend sometime in the UK if you really want to know how far unelected council beaurocrats will try to push things like this.
No thanks. PC is out of control here in America quite enough to make me want to voimit. I can't begin to imagine what anything worse would make me do. :headbang:

How often do people call you a "breeder?"
The gays make a habit of it at lunch in the cafeteria every day. Groups of them laughing at men and women sitting together (even though they are only co-workers and not spouses, etc.). I hear "fucking breeders" at least 10 times a day (all at lunch), and not always directed at me, but at other heterosexuals in the room.

We were told by HR that hate crime laws and policies only are intended to protect gays and minorities - not heterosexuals. Period.

So they are free to abuse heterosexuals as much as they like. And they do so at will.

The point is that there is zero tolerance with zero judgment about the word "black" in that instance.

Black, no matter how you read the story, can't be construed as remotely meaning "black people in America" (or Africans, or anyone else with enough melanin in their skin to get a suntan).

Do you have any proof of a teacher being warned for describing something as black? Coffee? A board? Night Sky? Anything?

No, come spend sometime in the UK if you really want to know how far unelected council beaurocrats will try to push things like this.

This sounds like a news story, got a link?

Excuse me??? This is so disengenuous it's physically painful!

I totaly despise PC, not because I'm "rude, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic," or even otherwise "assinine." I oppose it because it's a restriction on freedom of speech and just plain stupid. Trying to slap an offensive lable on someone who simply advocates what is already guaranteed by the US Constitution is the moral equivalent of labelling someone with a racist, sexist or homophobic term. Physician, heal thyself.I see. So restricting freedom of speech is bad when people don't want their feelins hurt? Do you support Fred Phelps all of a sudden or is this just a double standard?

I totaly despise PC,

Really? Don't you object to the term "USian" basically because you consider is un-PC, ie rude, derogatory and not the chosen label of the people it describes?

The gays make a habit of it at lunch in the cafeteria every day. Groups of them laughing at men and women sitting together (even though they are only co-workers and not spouses, etc.). I hear "fucking breeders" at least 10 times a day (all at lunch), and not always directed at me, but at other heterosexuals in the room.

We were told by HR that hate crime laws and policies only are intended to protect gays and minorities - not heterosexuals. Period.

So they are free to abuse heterosexuals as much as they like. And they do so at will.Keep making it an issue then. Martin Luther King jr. had to go to jail for his rights.

Do you have any proof of a teacher being warned for describing something as black? Coffee? A board? Night Sky? Anything?

This sounds like a news story, got a link?

The book "The Black Cauldron" was enough to get several teachers fired here. Didn't make the news, sorry. Apparently, calling something black isn't the crime here - associating the color "black" with anything evil is, no matter how disconnected the story may be from black people.

It not how the policy is written. Reading the policy, you would think that anything hateful would qualify. But the way the rule is interpreted, "hateful" means "any depiction of the word or color black in a negative light".

Keep making it an issue then. Martin Luther King jr. had to go to jail for his.

Try taking your kids to a company picnic, and have two lesbians come by and say to your children, "Hope you don't grow up to be fucking breeders like your parents!"

Really? Don't you object to the term "USian" basically because you consider is un-PC, ie rude, derogatory and not the chosen label of the people it describes?
:D

Wikipedia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Correctness)

Incidentally, it pissed me off at the pub last night.

It was a room entirely of white people, yet my mate was threatened with arrest by a labour campaigner when labelling a footballer a "******". Hardly matters if the social group considered likely to be offended are not present.
What is wrong with a white person being offended by any kind of comment by another white person that promotes hatred, or bigotry?

The gays make a habit of it at lunch in the cafeteria every day. Groups of them laughing at men and women sitting together (even though they are only co-workers and not spouses, etc.). I hear "fucking breeders" at least 10 times a day (all at lunch), and not always directed at me, but at other heterosexuals in the room.

We were told by HR that hate crime laws and policies only are intended to protect gays and minorities - not heterosexuals. Period.

So they are free to abuse heterosexuals as much as they like. And they do so at will.

Backlash for society's supression over the years.

I see. So restricting freedom of speech is bad when people don't want their feelins hurt? Do you support Fred Phelps all of a sudden or is this just a double standard?
False options. Neither one applies. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a shit less if someone's feelings are hurt. Fuck their feelings! Nowhere in the Constitution, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, or in any of the other documents upon which this Republic is based supports anyone saying "You hurt my f-f-f-feelings!" Go cry on your mommie's shoulder, the rest of us don't give a shit.

Try taking your kids to a company picnic, and have two lesbians come by and say to your children, "Hope you don't grow up to be fucking breeders like your parents!"You are aware that that kind of behavior isn't PC? The problem is one-sidedness. Or would you be happier if you get to call them "faggots" in return? The goal of political correctness would be to ensure that that kind of behavior wouldn't occur either.

The book "The Black Cauldron" was enough to get several teachers fired here. Didn't make the news, sorry. Apparently, calling something black isn't the crime here - associating the color "black" with anything evil is, no matter how disconnected the story may be from black people.

So several teachers were fired. Yet no news outlet ran it? Not even any bloggers?

What is wrong with a white person being offended by any kind of comment by another white person that promotes hatred, or bigotry?
Nothing at all! Why should it be?

Backlash for society's supression over the years.
oh, and that makes it right

Try taking your kids to a company picnic, and have two lesbians come by and say to your children, "Hope you don't grow up to be fucking breeders like your parents!"

Not trying to be offensive or anything. But why do you seem to attract so much hate?

Really? I'm just someone who is tired of being called "breeder" with the same sneer that someone might use in calling a homosexual a "faggot".
You get called "breeder" often?

Would you rather be called a stud? :p

Really? Don't you object to the term "USian" basically because you consider is un-PC, ie rude, derogatory and not the chosen label of the people it describes?
Of course. It says so right in my signature block. :)

But I don't consider it "un-PC or rude," nor do I try to have a law passed that restricts anyone else's right to say it.

Uh ... you do understand the difference, do you not?

False options. Neither one applies. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a shit less if someone's feelings are hurt. Fuck their feelings! Nowhere in the Constitution, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, or in any of the other documents upon which this Republic is based supports anyone saying "You hurt my f-f-f-feelings!" Go cry on your mommie's shoulder, the rest of us don't give a shit.So if a mourning family's feelings are hurt because Fred Phelps claims their sons and daughters were rightfully killed by God for the US's decadence, this would be what you'd tell them?

oh, and that makes it right

No. Anyway, as somebody else said, what they said to you wasn't PC.

me too im new to this particular discussion and my view on pc is that it started out as a good thing but now has gone insane!!

there is no longer any discussion- either agree or else......- the politically correct seem to be stuck in their moral highgrounds.

Nowdays it has become the new form of fascism- ironic in that it is exactly what it was created to fight for!!:p :p

And before you ask I am not racist, homophobic or sexist!! Also, there needs to be limits on immigration- in some places it is just out of hand. I am saying this as someone who believes all humans are equal!!

Some people are simply sick and tired with the modern liberal bilge and im one of them!!

Not trying to be offensive or anything. But why do you seem to attract so much hate?

Oh, I see. If a homosexual gets called names, you would never ask that question, would you?

I haven't done anything (neither have my co-workers). Apparently, having children is an offense to these two lesbians - a crime that we should be held responsible for.

You get called "breeder" often?

Would you rather be called a stud? :p

I have a name, like most people. I expect people to use it, rather than calling me what is obviously a slur.

So if a mourning family's feelings are hurt because Fred Phelps claims their sons and daughters were rightfully killed by God for the US's decadence, this would be what you'd tell them?
Laerod, you astound me. I couldn't give a rat's ass less what Fred Phelps says. He's an idiot and you know it. But he still has the right to say what he thinks, even if what he says is offensive to me. Surely you can understand this???

Nothing at all! Why should it be?
I don't find anything wrong with it, but apparently The blessed Chris does.

Suggs chastising someone for making a sexist comment.

Madness gone politically correct!

you could say hypocritical hapiness,then a lot more people would agree with it:p

:p :p yeah thats wat it should be called!!

But I don't consider it "un-PC or rude,"

The arguments you use against the term are pretty much the same as arguements people use against the word "faggot"


nor do I try to have a law passed that restricts anyone else's right to say it.

Ever so slightly irrelevent to what I was saying.

I have a name, like most people. I expect people to use it, rather than calling me what is obviously a slur.
That is not what I asked you. You stated that you were tired of being called a "breeder" and I was wondering if you get called "breeder" often?

Oh, I see. If a homosexual gets called names, you would never ask that question, would you?

No, it just seems like you get insulted a lot.

There is, in Britain, a form of racism. It is a form of racism that is encouraged in schools or workplaces, and is glorified by the liberal left.

It's called positive racism. (substiute racism for any other appropriate -ism here)

It does not promote equality. It does not treat black, white, and Asian the same. Nor does it for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

The only difference; this form of racism is against the nation's majority. White, British-born heterosexuals who are (at least nominally) Christian. And the majority sits there and seethes. Why?

If they spoke up about it, it would be seen as racism/sexism/whateverism.

So you know what? Call me "breeder", "cracker", whatever you like. Just don't flash the race/gender/sexual card when you get the same back. It's not racism if you both do it; it's equality.

I shall place this two pence coin in the jar now.

You are aware that that kind of behavior isn't PC? The problem is one-sidedness. Or would you be happier if you get to call them "faggots" in return? The goal of political correctness would be to ensure that that kind of behavior wouldn't occur either.
I agree.

This is a light hearted look at PC: http://www.pcphrases.com/

That is not what I asked you. You stated that you were tired of being called a "breeder" and I was wondering if you get called "breeder" often?
Very often. As do most of the heterosexuals in our building, especially if they find out you have children.

It is NOT being used in some lighthearted way.

There is, in Britain, a form of racism. It is a form of racism that is encouraged in schools or workplaces, and is glorified by the liberal left.

It's called positive racism. (substiute racism for any other appropriate -ism here)

It does not promote equality. It does not treat black, white, and Asian the same. Nor does it for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

The only difference; this form of racism is against the nation's majority. White, British-born heterosexuals who are (at least nominally) Christian. And the majority sits there and seethes. Why?

If they spoke up about it, it would be seen as racism/sexism/whateverism.

So you know what? Call me "breeder", "cracker", whatever you like. Just don't flash the race/gender/sexual card when you get the same back. It's not racism if you both do it; it's equality.

I shall place this two pence coin in the jar now.

Meh, the "positive discriminatio" does occasionaly happen but largely it is a load of bollocks used by white people who didn't get the job they want.

(Interesting enough I can easily count the number of people from ethnic minorities that work in the same office as me on my fingers.)

I agree.
It's considered PC here in the US to insult or deride one group, and not another. The laws are written generically, but interpreted specifically to protect specific politically popular constituencies at the expense of others.

Yes, I would like it if no one had the right to slur others. I would prefer that the law be enforces as written.

But it's not. And the reason is "political correctness".

Very often. As do most of the heterosexuals in our building, especially if they find out you have children.

It is NOT being used in some lighthearted way.Now we are getting somewhere. You work with many gay people and they prefer to call hetrosexual people "breeders", and often?

Have you asked them to stop?

Have you reported them?

Has anyone reported them?

Of course. It says so right in my signature block. :)

But I don't consider it "un-PC or rude," nor do I try to have a law passed that restricts anyone else's right to say it.

Uh ... you do understand the difference, do you not?
Surely, can see the irony in someone vociferously denouncing anything remotely "PC" asking people to not call him 'USian' and use the term he prefer.

Assuredly, your logic would call for you to stop using terms such as "******", "breeder", "slut" or other, no? I wonder why you fight for the right of people to say "******" while you fight for the right for people to not be called "USian"

(Disclaimer: not that I say you are using the mentionned terms)

The arguments you use against the term are pretty much the same as arguements people use against the word "faggot"

Ever so slightly irrelevent to what I was saying.
But definitely not "irrelevant" to this discussion. Just because I don't like what someone says does not mean that I want to create some PC bullshit that forbids him to say it. Does this not make any sense to you?

Now we are getting somewhere. You work with many gay people and they prefer to call hetrosexual people "breeders", and often?

Have you asked them to stop?

Have you reported them?

Has anyone reported them?

You obviously haven't read the thread.

Yes, many times, and many of us have asked, reported, and even signed a petition (over 1200 signatures).

Management (the HR department) says that company policy on the matter only protects certain specific groups (that are enumerated in the HR policy document).

Heterosexuals aren't protected. There is some talk of perhaps rewriting the policy next year, if it remains an issue. But until then, anyone can slur anyone in the workplace on the basis of their heterosexuality with no repercussions.

It's considered PC here in the US to insult or deride one group, and not another. The laws are written generically, but interpreted specifically to protect specific politically popular constituencies at the expense of others.As stated before, that wouldn't be politically correct.

Yes, I would like it if no one had the right to slur others. I would prefer that the law be enforces as written.Then you are for political correctness, because that just so happens to be all that it is about.

But it's not. And the reason is "political correctness".The reason is one-sidedness, not political correctness. Just because the DPR Korea calls itself democratic doesn't mean it is, just like calling rude behavior political correctness doesn't make rude behavior any more PC.

It's considered PC here in the US to insult or deride one group, and not another. The laws are written generically, but interpreted specifically to protect specific politically popular constituencies at the expense of others.

Yes, I would like it if no one had the right to slur others. I would prefer that the law be enforces as written.

But it's not. And the reason is "political correctness".
Well, I live in Canada and most companies would not tolerate anyone calling fellow employees derogatory names. Do you not have a sexual harassment policy in your workplace?

As stated before, that wouldn't be politically correct.

Then you are for political correctness, because that just so happens to be all that it is about.

The reason is one-sidedness, not political correctness. Just because the DPR Korea calls itself democratic doesn't mean it is, just like calling rude behavior political correctness doesn't make rude behavior any more PC.

Our HR vice president said it would not be politically correct to protect heterosexuals, as they are not an "aggrieved minority".

Try taking your kids to a company picnic, and have two lesbians come by and say to your children, "Hope you don't grow up to be fucking breeders like your parents!"

You keep being told that this is also manifestly not PC, and that, if it bothers you, you should make an issue out of it, but you seem still to be arguing with people who are agreeing with you that deliberately offensive behavior on the part of your coworkers is inappropriate. Political correctness is not inherently one-sided; sometimes people misapply it, since (shockingly enough) people aren't perfect. If being called a "fucking breeder" bothers you (and I can see why it might), bring it to the public's attention. Make noise about it. But don't blame people who would prefer that no one be called offensive names based on their race/sex/gender/sexual orientation/etc. because you're being called an offensive name, unless your real goal is just to be able to shout "faggot" back at people who say "breeder."

(Incidentally, I've seen a lot of confusion on this thread as to whether "PC" refers to laws or to social conventions/employment standards. I think actually legislating political correctness per se would be absurd, but I think employers have every right to fire employees for violating company rules, and that "Don't use racist, sexist, or otherwise deliberately discriminatory language on the job" is an entirely reasonable company rule.)

There is, in Britain, a form of racism. It is a form of racism that is encouraged in schools or workplaces, and is glorified by the liberal left.

It's called positive racism. (substiute racism for any other appropriate -ism here)

It does not promote equality. It does not treat black, white, and Asian the same. Nor does it for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

The only difference; this form of racism is against the nation's majority. White, British-born heterosexuals who are (at least nominally) Christian. And the majority sits there and seethes. Why?

If they spoke up about it, it would be seen as racism/sexism/whateverism.

So you know what? Call me "breeder", "cracker", whatever you like. Just don't flash the race/gender/sexual card when you get the same back. It's not racism if you both do it; it's equality.

I shall place this two pence coin in the jar now.

Exactly the same is happening in the States; using this 'equality' guise, liberals are squeezing out Christianity from our education system and government, while replacing it with pro-Muslim, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual propaganda.

Surely, can see the irony in someone vociferously denouncing anything remotely "PC" asking people to not call him 'USian' and use the term he prefer.

Assuredly, your logic would call for you to stop using terms such as "******", "breeder", "slut" or other, no? I wonder why you fight for the right of people to say "******" while you fight for the right for people to not be called "USian"

(Disclaimer: not that I say you are using the mentionned terms)
1. The freedom of speech is absolute: even the hateful rantings of Nazis and other assorted idiots is protected.

2. Just because you have the right to say whatever you please, does not mean that others cannot oppose what you say.

Do you understand?

Our HR vice president said it would not be politically correct to protect heterosexuals, as they are not an "aggrieved minority".

Okay, so your HR vice president is a dumbass. Got it. But how does this prove or even suggest that "being deliberately offensive = bad," which is the essential idea behind political correctness, is to blame for your situation?

You obviously haven't read the thread.

Yes, many times, and many of us have asked, reported, and even signed a petition (over 1200 signatures).

Management (the HR department) says that company policy on the matter only protects certain specific groups (that are enumerated in the HR policy document).

Heterosexuals aren't protected. There is some talk of perhaps rewriting the policy next year, if it remains an issue. But until then, anyone can slur anyone in the workplace on the basis of their heterosexuality with no repercussions.
Over 1200 signatures and your company will not change the policy? Amazing. Collect $10 apiece and hire a lawyer.

Meh, the "positive discriminatio" does occasionaly happen but largely it is a load of bollocks used by white people who didn't get the job they want.

(Interesting enough I can easily count the number of people from ethnic minorities that work in the same office as me on my fingers.)

It's mainly in the public service, I believe.

Most private corporations have the common sense to employ on merit; in my place we have about ten non-whites in an office of seventy, and two of those are management.

1. The freedom of speech is absolute: even the hateful rantings of Nazis and other assorted idiots is protected.

2. Just because you have the right to say whatever you please, does not mean that others cannot oppose what you say.

Do you understand?
oh I understand. I just view your stance on USian as hippocrit. That's all. You can do whatever you want with that. I can't force you to change nor would I want to.

But it's easier to see the needle in the eye of your neighbour than the 2x4 in your own eye.

Okay, so your HR vice president is a dumbass. Got it. But how does this prove or even suggest that "being deliberately offensive = bad," which is the essential idea behind political correctness, is to blame for your situation?

No one would ask a homosexual who complained of being called "faggot" any further questions. They would help that person through whatever steps it would take to make the namecalling stop.

Why are you asking me any questions? Why is the petition ignored? Why is the HR VP allowed to say that a very generically written policy applies only to "aggrieved minorities"? Why does management agree?

That's what most of us call "political correctness". If it was just "correctness", then it would apply to everyone. But it is "political" - which means that certain groups are going to be protected, and NOT others.

But definitely not "irrelevant" to this discussion. Just because I don't like what someone says does not mean that I want to create some PC bullshit that forbids him to say it. Does this not make any sense to you?

You make it sound like their is a law that compels people to always use "approved language." There isn't. The aim of certain PC types is to make a word socially wrong to say.

And you've made it clear on plenty of occasions you don't want people to use "USian"

Over 1200 signatures and your company will not change the policy? Amazing. Collect $10 apiece and hire a lawyer.

They want far more than 12,000 dollars for a retainer. They wanted 50,000. And thought our chances of winning would be small, as they felt the case would be tried in the press, where we would be considered jackasses for claiming harassment.

Our HR vice president said it would not be politically correct to protect heterosexuals, as they are not an "aggrieved minority".
Here, copy this and give it to your employer:

To: All Employees From: Head of the Company and/or Head of Human Resources Re: Sexual Harassment Policy This company is strongly committed to having a workplace that is free of all unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is illegal, and it violates the policies of this company. Sexual harassment includes: unwelcome sexual advances requests for sexual favors other verbal or physical conduct that is sexual in nature that is used as a basis for employment decisions or unreasonably interferes with a person's job performance by creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment Examples of sexual harassment are: Physical: unwelcome touching, rubbing, assaulting. Verbal: sexual jokes, insults, propositions or comments and sexual innuendo. Sexual pictures, posters, or graffiti can create a hostile work environment and are not appropriate in the workplace. Using your computer to convey sexual messages, as well as sexually suggestive e-mail or voice mail, violates this policy. Application This policy applies to men and women; to same and opposite gender relationships; to relationships between supervisors and subordinates; and to peer relationships. Our customers, vendors, consultants, and anyone else doing business on our premises must comply with this policy. This policy applies to all full-time, part-time, temporary, hourly, and seasonal employees and to student interns.

http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/bshSamplePolicy.html?area_id=51

oh I understand. I just view your stance on USian as hippocrit. That's all. You can do whatever you want with that. I can't force you to change nor would I want to.

But it's easier to see the needle in the eye of your neighbour than the 2x4 in your own eye.
( shrug ) You have every right to call me a hypocrite. But simply making a baseless allegation does not mean that what you say is true. I've been called far worse.

What, pray tell, is "the 2x4" in my eye? Do I really need to explain my last post to you again?

Here, copy this and give it to your employer:
http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/bshSamplePolicy.html?area_id=51

Well familiar with it, as we already showed it to them.

The lawyer we spoke to said that we would lose, because it would immediately hit the news that heterosexuals were complaining of harassment by homosexuals. And that we would be lambasted as paranoid assholes who really had an agenda to abuse homosexuals.

Regardless of what the law says.

Exactly the same is happening in the States; using this 'equality' guise, liberals are squeezing out Christianity from our education system and government, while replacing it with pro-Muslim, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual propaganda.

Christianity, or any other religion, has no place in public education or government. It's this little thing called the separation of church and state, and has nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness. "Anti-Christian propaganda," if such a thing even exists, also has no place in public education or government, for much the same reason. The state cannot prohibit or impede the free exercise of any religion (excepting only cases where portions of the free exercise of a given religion break existing laws, in which case those portions would be prohibited, e.g. if your religion mandated killing people). That's not "politically correct," that's just "constitutionally mandated." But, hey, only evil liberals care about the Constitution, right? :rolleyes:

liberals are squeezing out Christianity from our education system and government,

Heavens! What would the Founding Fathers say?

while replacing it with pro-Muslim, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual propaganda.

I would like to ask for proof but I would for to break your stride

Well familiar with it, as we already showed it to them.

The lawyer we spoke to said that we would lose, because it would immediately hit the news that heterosexuals were complaining of harassment by homosexuals. And that we would be lambasted as paranoid assholes who really had an agenda to abuse homosexuals.

Regardless of what the law says.

Why not go on strike?

Well familiar with it, as we already showed it to them.

The lawyer we spoke to said that we would lose, because it would immediately hit the news that heterosexuals were complaining of harassment by homosexuals. And that we would be lambasted as paranoid assholes who really had an agenda to abuse homosexuals.

Regardless of what the law says.
I would support your cause. I think most rational people would. Reverse discrimmination should not be an option.

It sounds like you work for a rather large company that is not very progressive.

You make it sound like their is a law that compels people to always use "approved language." There isn't. The aim of certain PC types is to make a word socially wrong to say.

And you've made it clear on plenty of occasions you don't want people to use "USian"
There are laws in many of the united states which establish civil and/or criminal penalties for what is called "hate speech." In addition, there are social penalties attached to what is called "hate speech," such as losing your job ( which some call "economic capital punishment" ).

Simply ranting against those who choose to call me a name ( "USian" for example ) does not in any way forbid them from using it. It doesn't hurt my feelings, but it does irritate the shit out of me. However, there is no right for me to not be irritated.

( shrug ) You have every right to call me a hypocrite. But simply making a baseless allegation does not mean that what you say is true. I've been called far worse.

What, pray tell, is "the 2x4" in my eye? Do I really need to explain my last post to you again?
Consider the following:
- you defend the right to use whatever term. You attack people when they say "that term should not be used".

- you attack people when they use the term USian to label you.

so, in short, you ask people to do as you say, not do as you do. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

Do I really need to explain my last two posts to you again?

Why not go on strike?

It's not common for white collar workers in the US to have unions or to strike. In a world where software developers can be replaced quickly, what chance do you think we would have?

It's not common for white collar workers in the US to have unions or to strike. In a world where software developers can be replaced quickly, what chance do you think we would have?
Thank god us networking people have lots of job security :)

I would support your cause. I think most rational people would. Reverse discrimmination should not be an option.

It sounds like you work for a rather large company that is not very progressive.

To read the brochures, we're extremely progressive.

The lawyer said that we would have to convince a majority of jurors in order to win a civil judgment. He said that was extremely unlikely, since we live in an area largely dominated by Democratic party supporters, who would view this as an attack on one of their constituencies.

Consider the following:
- you defend the right to use whatever term. You attack people when they say "that term should not be used".

- you attack people when they use the term USian to label you.

so, in short, you ask people to do as you say, not do as you do. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

Do I really need to explain my last two posts to you again?
Perhaps this will help:

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s) KEY

NOUN:
pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now kindly explain to me how anything I have professed is in fact something I do not possess.

There are laws in many of the united states which establish civil and/or criminal penalties for what is called "hate speech." In addition, there are social penalties attached to what is called "hate speech," such as losing your job ( which some call "economic capital punishment" ).

Only in certain contexts though surely?

I mean you can only loose you job for using "hate speech" if you us it in work right?

Exactly the same is happening in the States; using this 'equality' guise, liberals are squeezing out Christianity from our education system and government, while replacing it with pro-Muslim, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual propaganda.

I wasnt notified... example plz?

Perhaps this will help:

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s) KEY

NOUN:
pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now kindly explain to me how anything I have professed is in fact something I do not possess.
gladly!

You profess that people should not use what you view as an offensive term (USian) while you possess the belief that people should not call for certain terms to not be used (******, faggot, in short: what you call PC).

It's not common

So? You'll get a lot of notice then (just remember to put nice liberal slogan on the placards such as "No to hate speech" or "I'm a human being not a breeder."


for white collar workers in the US to have unions or to strike.

Then unionise. Or just go on strike. Having a union is hardly a prerequisite for striking.

In a world where software developers can be replaced quickly, what chance do you think we would have?

There is that. I doubt a pyrric victory would console you much. Unless you can find a code that says employers can't fire employees that have a legitinate dispute or something

Only in certain contexts though surely?

I mean you can only loose you job for using "hate speech" if you us it in work right?
I don't know how that's applied in practice. I would imagine that if someone is arrested for "hate speech," they would also lose their job if their employer had a policy which forbids "hate speech." But if an emplyee was simply overheard using "hate speech" outside of the work environment but without being charged with anything, then subsequently fired, I don't think that would stand up in court.

I wasnt notified... example plz?

Didn't you hear, the ACLU made the Texas Supreme Court remove the Ten Commandments and replace them with some choice Sura and to replace the statue of Jesus with Freddy Mercury?

Didn't you hear, the ACLU made the Texas Supreme Court remove the Ten Commandments and replace them with some choice Sura and to replace the statue of Jesus with Freddy Mercury?
Bah I thought Freddy was bi not gay :fluffle:

...[ you ] possess the belief that people should not call for certain terms to be used (******, faggot ...
Totally incorrect.

Texas has liberals???

OK I agree thats stupid, but pro-arab, pro-homo, or anti-christian propaganda is neither better nor worse than pro-christian propaganda

note: i am a good catholic :D

In many ways, political correctness has been used by the left to stifle terms and/or ideas that which they disagree. When you hear of PC you'll probably hear about inclusiveness and/or tolerance. Its very common.

In many ways, political correctness has been used by the left to stifle terms and/or ideas that which they disagree. When you hear of PC you'll probably hear about inclusiveness and/or tolerance. Its very common.
Personally I see it being used more by the right as some sort of straw man demon in which to blame things when people no longer find their racist or bigoted opinions appetizing

The gays make a habit of it at lunch in the cafeteria every day. Groups of them laughing at men and women sitting together (even though they are only co-workers and not spouses, etc.). I hear "fucking breeders" at least 10 times a day (all at lunch), and not always directed at me, but at other heterosexuals in the room.


I'm so, so sorry but I just can't help myself
*lmao*

Exactly the same is happening in the States; using this 'equality' guise, liberals are squeezing out Christianity from our education system and government, while replacing it with pro-Muslim, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual propaganda.

I'm almost tempted to see if I can go back to school...

Political Correctness to me is an immginary menace, it's the conservative boogieman. And seems to be very feared among tv producers and coporations. Why?

Nothing a liberal spouts to me about rascism makes a damn bit of sense. For example, someone got upset cause I called a Jew well, a Jew..

"What do you want? He IS a Jew!"
"Jew is a condantation of negativity. Like 'oh you're such a Jew!'"
"No, it's short for Jewish, but Jewish would be defining Judaism, I'm saying he's of Jew decent. So he's a fucking Jew."
"See?! 'He's a fucking Jew!'"
"...Who's the one here that's pro-Zion?"
"What does that have to do with--" "ANSWER THE QUESTION!" "*Sigh* you.. but I dont see--"
"mmhmm, and who's the one that freed the slaves?"
"Abe Linchon.." "WRONG! It was the Republican party.. and who's the one that has former American-nazi party members in thier ranks? The democrats! So don't tell me about rascism you pseudo-skinhead. I'll say Jew, ******, whop, or whatever the hell I want to cause it's a free country. And if you don't like it. Then you can kiss my black ass!"
"You tell him honky! ~My black Republican pal. : P"

lol, for liberals is all about what you say, not what you do, thier entire being is a blackhole of narscism and frustration where thier morales SHOULD be, but then they like to rant about what's appropiate and what is not..

Very rarely do I get called preadjudice or rascist or whatever, and when I do it's a last-ditch effort to win an argument, (which never works.) Civil liberties taking the good with the bad, if you can compare Bush to Hitler, then it should, nay, is in the American constitution that someone should be able to say sieg heil to Hitler. Mindyou, it's retarded, and if someone feels like kicking thier ass feel free to. But I refuse to acknowledge the liberals (who are nothing but democratic-fascists) as anything more then diabolical. As they know precisely what they're doing to gain the statist goverment they so want..

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_12.gif

No one would ask a homosexual who complained of being called "faggot" any further questions. They would help that person through whatever steps it would take to make the namecalling stop.

Why are you asking me any questions? Why is the petition ignored? Why is the HR VP allowed to say that a very generically written policy applies only to "aggrieved minorities"? Why does management agree?

I'm asking you questions because your argument doesn't make sense. I would ask the same questions of a homosexual person who claimed that it was the fault of political correctness that he was being called "faggot," I assure you. Blaming an overriding principle that being an offensive dickhead is bad for the fact that other people are offensive dickheads is illogical, as the application of that principle in your situation has meant only that you can't be an offensive dickhead in return. Blaming political correctness for the fact that, in some situations, minorities are still permitted to be un-PC is similar to blaming feminism for the fact that some women make stupid bigoted statements about men. Social change always carries social backlash from a few idiots ("Ha ha! I'm not being oppressed as much now, so I'll oppress you instead! Neener neener!"), which backlash needs to be targeted individually without blaming the larger change. I'm sorry that your management is being sluggish in so doing, but that's something to blame them for, not a social movement whose general principles are entirely in agreement with you.

That's what most of us call "political correctness". If it was just "correctness", then it would apply to everyone. But it is "political" - which means that certain groups are going to be protected first, and NOT others immediately.

I've amended your statement to make it more accurate. Social change is pretty much always a gradual process. Yes, people see it as more urgent to protect minorities from majorities than vice versa, for fairly obvious reasons. That doesn't mean that people who feel that way support discrimination against majorities. If you're admitted to the hospital with severe internal bleeding and a broken wrist, doctors will try to fix the internal bleeding first, but they do get to the broken wrist eventually. If homosexuals are frequently targets of deliberate verbal abuse, while heterosexuals only rarely are, people worry about the first more. As the word "faggot" becomes less acceptable, you'll find more people willing to consider "breeder" similarly offensive, just as doctors find time to set the broken wrist after they've patched up your innards sufficiently. In the meantime, you can bring about the day of "breeder" non-acceptance faster the more you do about it. Sure, maybe some people would consider that you were being assholes. I'm sure many people thought civil rights leaders were being assholes. I know a great many feminist leaders have been called all sorts of nasty names. It comes with the territory.

And, for what it's worth, I'm a registered Democrat (though I don't always agree with them), and have gone door-to-door in an attempt to convince people to vote against stupid anti-gay-marriage amendments, and I agree that offensive speech is offensive speech no matter who's doing the speaking. Make it entirely clear that your court case is not about "we hates dem stupid faggots" but rather "company rules should apply to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation," and I really don't think you'll have that many people crying "asshole." :)

Totally incorrect.
that's right, I omited a not in there.

let's try again:
gladly!

You profess that people should not use what you view as an offensive term (USian) while you possess the belief that people should not call for certain terms to not be used (******, faggot, in short: what you call PC).

Now, that is the last I shall say about this on this thread as I'm going offline.

Personally I see it being used more by the right as some sort of straw man demon in which to blame things when people no longer find their racist or bigoted opinions appetizing
That's cause you're an the left (I think). People on the right see it as a Lefty attempt to stifle their right to free speech, while people on the left see it as a straw man used by the right, while people in the middle are laughing at how stupid you all are because you guys haven't figured out that PC is our plot to destroy both groups.

Naturally, however I object to government legislating for what society has already rendered taboo.

That's just to catch the stragglers. Don't be alarmed.

...replace the statue of Jesus with Freddy Mercury?

Okay, that would be just be awesome. :p

That's cause you're an the left (I think). People on the right see it as a Lefty attempt to stifle their right to free speech, while people on the left see it as a straw man used by the right, while people in the middle are laughing at how stupid you all are because you guys haven't figured out that PC is our plot to destroy both groups.
I am actualy more central strait downward

This sounds like a news story, got a link?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/13/nwhite13.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2242179,00.html

http://www.burystedmundstoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=843&ArticleID=1454394

http://www.capc.co.uk/Cross%20Bencher%20-%20Sunday%20Express%20-%2016.04.06.gif

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=820002006

Just 5 that I remember of the top of my head. I'll post more as I remember them.

I am actualy more central strait downward

Dude, haven't you come to the meetings? Seriously, man, you should come to the meetings.

I never did blame TRT for not showing Winnie the Pooh, but it is an example of PCness.

No it's an example of people who are offended by something. They are less likely to watch it and so it would be a bad business decision to show it.

news flash: YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED! FIRST AMENDMENT, PEOPLE! YOU DON'T KILL SOMEONE'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH BECASE WHAT THEYRE SAYING HAPPENS TO OFFEND YOU! political correctness is an idea dreamed up by a bunch of thin-skinned wimps who cant take a verbal punch. or who think that making sure that everyone is double-bound so its never possible to do anything. remember: say races are different and youre racist, but say theyre the same and youre denying diversity. say terrorisms a threat and youre an insane reactionary, but say its not there and youre an unpatriotic bitch

PC IS A USELESS HEAP OF SHIT, like BOTTLE

Newsflash: Not everyone here is Americain:rolleyes:

(Sorry if that was sarcasm and I missed it)

I don't want you to refer to all black people as "african-americans." I just don't want you to call them "niggers" or any similarly offensive term.
Honest question: I've heard a black person get bitchy because someone called them black. I've also heard (well seen online) where a black person rolled there eyes when they were called africain-americain. What is the "polite" why do refer to the skin colour without offending anyone?

If you say people are different you're racist, if you show things that people have in common you're denying the diversity of different races. PC serves to stifle research for no good reason.

Nicely put. That's a very good point.

Honest question: I've heard a black person get bitchy because someone called them black. I've also heard (well seen online) where a black person rolled there eyes when they were called africain-americain. What is the "polite" why do refer to the skin colour without offending anyone?

Depends on the person. The glib answer is "people." But I've always been able to get away with black, but I suspect it isn't such a big issue over here. The media term for it seems to be "Afro-Carribeans," but that is rather clunky.

Winnie the Pooh is allowed on Turkish television. For some (how odd :rolleyes: ) almost no news channel bothered to correct this afterwards.

Winnie the Pooh is allowed on Turkish television. For some (how odd :rolleyes: ) almost no news channel bothered to correct this afterwards.

Well the article also said that it has been on other channels and can be easily bought commercially.

Well the article also said that it has been on other channels and can be easily bought commercially.
But this quote from the article
"TURKEY'S public television TRT, controlled by the Islamist-rooted government, has barred the popular Walt Disney cartoon Winnie the Pooh from air because it has a piglet as one of its main heroes, the Turkish press reported today."
is not true. They do mention that Cumhuriyet and Sabah are the sources but they haven't been able to confirm it
"TRT officials were not immediately available for comment."

TRT has not barred Winnie the Pooh.
http://www.kurdishinfo.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8000

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/13/nwhite13.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2242179,00.html

http://www.burystedmundstoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=843&ArticleID=1454394

http://www.capc.co.uk/Cross%20Bencher%20-%20Sunday%20Express%20-%2016.04.06.gif

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=820002006

Just 5 that I remember of the top of my head. I'll post more as I remember them.

You missed the one about the council that banned a pig shaped rubber in its office

To paraphrase some random guy I saw on TV:

The opponents of political correctness tend to be social conservatives or right-wing zealots trying to protect their percieved right to be racist, sexist or homophobic.
...and?

...and?

Indeed.

Surely if their opinions are quite so deplorable, their deficiencies ought to defeat them. If not, the censorship agitators are terrified of any sentiment other then "reverse racism".

that's right, I omited a not in there.

let's try again:
gladly!

You profess that people should not use what you view as an offensive term (USian) while you possess the belief that people should not call for certain terms to not be used (******, faggot, in short: what you call PC).

Now, that is the last I shall say about this on this thread as I'm going offline.
Definitely not true. Everyone has the right to say what they want to ( within the limits of the law ), including those who want to use the term "USians." I just don't happen to like it, and raise hell about it ... but I would never try to get a law passed prohibiting it.

Honest question: I've heard a black person get bitchy because someone called them black. I've also heard (well seen online) where a black person rolled there eyes when they were called africain-americain. What is the "polite" why do refer to the skin colour without offending anyone?
Actually, the best way to refer to anyone is by their name, or their title. Skin color is irrelevant.

Definitely not true. Everyone has the right to say what they want to ( within the limits of the law ), including those who want to use the term "USians." I just don't happen to like it, and raise hell about it ... but I would never try to get a law passed prohibiting it.

Eutrusca, would you agree with the following?

All people should try to be politically correct and considerate of others' feelings, because that is the right thing to do. Businesses/government organizations should be able to enforce political correctness within their workplaces if they so choose. The government should not be able to legally mandate political correctness in any way, with the possible semi-exception of criminalizing what could reasonably be considered "hate speech."

Yes/no? :)

Police Officer: What did the man look like who hit and ran?
Liberal: Well, I DID get a good look at him.. but.. I don't know his name or what he does or anything! >_<
Police Officer: Crap, now we have nothing to work with!
H4ck5: He was a tall blackman, very thin, and wore a red jersey.
Liberal: ...That's just wrong! Arrest this man for having balls and common sense!

Guess what? Skin color IS relevant.. it's just not relevant to social interaction.

Eutrusca, would you agree with the following?

All people should try to be politically correct and considerate of others' feelings, because that is the right thing to do. Businesses/government organizations should be able to enforce political correctness within their workplaces if they so choose. The government should not be able to legally mandate political correctness in any way, with the possible semi-exception of criminalizing what could reasonably be considered "hate speech."

Yes/no? :)
Yes, with a few corrections:

* People should be considerate of what others prefer, but there should be no pressure, legal or otherwise, to limit their right to free speech.

* Employers should be free to implement whatever policies they choose, but should make every effort to allow all employees the same degree of freedom of speech they have in public life.

* Speech of whatever sort should never be criminalized unless it presents a "clear and present danger" to loss of life or limb.

Police Officer: What did the man look like who hit and ran?
Liberal: Well, I DID get a good look at him.. but.. I don't know his name or what he does or anything! >_<
Police Officer: Crap, now we have nothing to work with!
H4ck5: He was a tall blackman, very thin, and wore a red jersey.
Liberal: ...That's just wrong! Arrest this man for having balls and common sense!

Guess what? Skin color IS relevant.. it's just not relevant to social interaction.

Find me a liberal who has actually argued that people should not mention skin color when describing criminal suspects to police officers, and you might have a point. In the meantime, this is just a silly little strawman.

It's political correctness when an English book urges you use "gender-inclusive" pronouns and noun, because only using the "default" gender (in most cases, masculine) is a way to demean others. Of course, there is no evidence to indicate that gender systems developed as a means of sexism, yet we have fucking English books telling us that it's grammatically incorrect to say fireman or simply use "he" to refer to indeterminate sex. Of course, we're also told that the alternative singular "they" is wrong... silly prescriptivists.

Yes, with a few corrections:

* People should be considerate of what others prefer, but there should be no pressure, legal or otherwise, to limit their right to free speech.

* Employers should be free to implement whatever policies they choose, but should make every effort to allow all employees the same degree of freedom of speech they have in public life.

* Speech of whatever sort should never be criminalized unless it presents a "clear and present danger" to loss of life or limb.

Gotcha. Your position seems more internally consistent here than it did in your previous comments, which suggests that much of the earlier debate may have been misunderstanding. It also seems more reasonable (to me, anyway), even if I don't entirely agree. :)

Wikipedia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Correctness)

Incidentally, it pissed me off at the pub last night.

It was a room entirely of white people, yet my mate was threatened with arrest by a labour campaigner when labelling a footballer a "******". Hardly matters if the social group considered likely to be offended are not present.

Did he use the word ****** in a racist context, or was it just to refer to somebody as an asshole? I personally dispise the word in any context, however, it doesn't bother me near as much if somebody uses the word in a non-racially related context, as opposed to labeling somebody because they're black. It doesn't really matter to me if black people are present, I was still raised to not like that word.

It's political correctness when an English book urges you use "gender-inclusive" pronouns and noun, because only using the "default" gender (in most cases, masculine) is a way to demean others. Of course, there is no evidence to indicate that gender systems developed as a means of sexism, yet we have fucking English books telling us that it's grammatically incorrect to say fireman or simply use "he" to refer to indeterminate sex. Of course, we're also told that the alternative singular "they" is wrong... silly prescriptivists.

Well, it does sound a little silly to talk about female "firemen," when we have the perfectly good word "firefighter" to describe everyone in that profession. It's not like it's particularly difficult to say "firefighter" instead of "fireman," not to mention that it's actually a more accurate description of the job. Generally, truly silly cases in which people have suggested "gender-neutral" language have been roundly rejected and mocked by pro-PC and anti-PC folks alike. Calling manholes "personholes" is manifestly silly. Calling a female "policeman" a "police officer" is not.

Oh, and many grammarians have no problem with using "he" for indeterminately-sexed persons...provided one uses "she" similarly as well. That seems reasonable to me. :)

(Of course, there's always the indeterminately-sexed pronoun I just used, which is pretty handy in its own right.) ;)

I believe Bottle is helping advance the field of science.

What do you do?


I inform horribly misinformed non-Americans (you) (note that the the two are not mutually inclusive, just in case I get heat for saying that) that equally misinformed people of unknown origin(bottle) are spewing ********.

if bottle or you think that PC-ness is a term thought up by people who want to say crude, ignorant offensive things and blame someone else for being unable, I submit to you this:

shortly after 9/11 i was attacked by several arab fellow students. :eek: under the circumstances, the administration elected to punish the arabs in question *not at all* and suspend me.:( youre saying that doesnt show a bit of PC thuggery? :headbang: :eek:

shortly after 9/11 i was attacked by several arab fellow students. :eek: under the circumstances, the administration elected to punish the arabs in question *not at all* and suspend me.:( youre saying that doesnt show a bit of PC thuggery? :headbang: :eek:

Personally, I'd say that shows that you haven't told us the entire situation, as I can't really imagine that the administrators stated that you were to be suspended for being attacked. I know of no college or university that has rules against being an innocent victim in its student handbooks, so presumably they had some other stated reason for suspending you.

Newsflash: Not everyone here is Americain:rolleyes:

[

Unnecessary, and it suggests that you assume I'm closed-minded and xenophobic just for being an American.

American ideals aside, not being offended isn't a human right. Being unable to say "negro", which was never a racist term, and whose use I abstain from because many idiots think it is, is a plenty destructive manifestation of PC in any country. "African-American" is an equally idiotic manifestation of PC.

To anyone who supports PC, I submit to you this: PC language instantly shows the person it's being used on that you're trying to avoid saying something offensive, and that's as bad as, or worse than, actually saying it. That said, WHAT PURPOSE CAN IT SERVE?!?!?!?!?

Personally, I'd say that shows that you haven't told us the entire situation, as I can't really imagine that the administrators stated that you were to be suspended for being attacked. I know of no college or university that has rules against being an innocent victim in its student handbooks, so presumably they had some other stated reason for suspending you.

Well you'd be partly right. They said I was going to be suspended for assaulting the arabs in question, i.e. I fought back and in the course of it injured them more than they injured me. But that doesnt mean that PC didnt have a role in the suspension.

To anyone who supports PC, I submit to you this: PC language instantly shows the person it's being used on that you're trying to avoid saying something offensive, and that's as bad as, or worse than, actually saying it. That said, WHAT PURPOSE CAN IT SERVE?!?!?!?!?

Saying "woman" and not "****" shows that I'm actively trying to avoid saying something offensive?

Saying "black person" and not "******" shows that I'm actively trying to avoid saying something offensive?

Saying "homosexual" and not "faggot" shows that I'm actively trying to avoid saying something offensive?

How?

I hate to break it to you, but those are all perfectly good examples of "PC language." All "PC language" really entails is not using terms which you have reason to believe people may find offensive.

ah, turkey, land of liberal pinko commie homos run amuk with pc police monitoring everything.

if you actually read the link, you would find that political correctness had nothing to do with the ban of winnie the pooh in turkey

Well you'd be partly right. They said I was going to be suspended for assaulting the arabs in question, i.e. I fought back and in the course of it injured them more than they injured me. But that doesnt mean that PC didnt have a role in the suspension.

Well, that at least makes the situation make somewhat more sense. Though I still obviously don't know the whole story, it does seem possible that it was more a question of "They look injured, you don't, and we have no way of knowing whether they actually attacked you before you attacked them, so we'll suspend one student instead of several since suspending lots of students looks bad for us," rather than "we'd better not suspend kids of certain ethnicities." (Or, heck, it might be something else altogether - I really don't know.)

Anyway, though, even if your analysis of the situation is spot-on, you seem to be making the mistake that another poster made earlier in this thread, i.e. blaming political correctness as a concept for the misapplication of "politically correct" principles. Basically, being politically correct mostly boils down to being courteous and non-discriminatory to others. When people are vehemently protesting political correctness in and of itself, it's hard not to conclude that they want to be discourteous and discriminatory to others. (This is very similar to the endless feminism debates I've seen on this forum and elsewhere. When one says "I hate feminism," he is saying "I hate the belief that people should be treated equally regardless of sex," which is a pretty darn sexist thing to say. When one says "I hate that some people who call themselves feminists say idiotic things about how all men suck," that is not a sexist thing to say. Likewise, "I hate the misapplication of purportedly PC principles" does not sound bigoted; "I hate political correctness" does.) :)

<Removed due to accidental Repost>

Saying "woman" and not "****" shows that I'm actively trying to avoid saying something offensive?

Saying "black person" and not "******" shows that I'm actively trying to avoid saying something offensive?

Saying "homosexual" and not "faggot" shows that I'm actively trying to avoid saying something offensive?

How?

I hate to break it to you, but those are all perfectly good examples of "PC language." All "PC language" really entails is not using terms which you have reason to believe people may find offensive.


THAT is basic politeness. PC language, when the phrase is used in the context i used it refers to saying "african american" instead of "black", "alternative religion" instead of "occultism" and "political prisoner" instead of "captured terrorist". politeness and PC language are different.

Well, that at least makes the situation make somewhat more sense. Though I still obviously don't know the whole story, it does seem possible that it was more a question of "They look injured, you don't, and we have no way of knowing whether they actually attacked you before you attacked them, so we'll suspend one student instead of several since suspending lots of students looks bad for us," rather than "we'd better not suspend kids of certain ethnicities." (Or, heck, it might be something else altogether - I really don't know.)

Anyway, though, even if your analysis of the situation is spot-on, you seem to be making the mistake that another poster made earlier in this thread, i.e. blaming political correctness as a concept for the misapplication of "politically correct" principles. Basically, being politically correct mostly boils down to being courteous and non-discriminatory to others. When people are vehemently protesting political correctness in and of itself, it's hard not to conclude that they want to be discourteous and discriminatory to others. (This is very similar to the endless feminism debates I've seen on this forum and elsewhere. When one says "I hate feminism," he is saying "I hate the belief that people should be treated equally regardless of sex," which is a pretty darn sexist thing to say. When one says "I hate that some people who call themselves feminists say idiotic things about how all men suck," that is not a sexist thing to say. Likewise, "I hate the misapplication of purportedly PC principles" does not sound bigoted; "I hate political correctness" does.) :)

The reasoning you're assuming was there serves to further degrade my faith in humanity at large.

My central problem with political correctness is that it seems overly concerned with terms and not attitudes. This is the result of a top down approach rather than an organic growth. Higher ups (not necessarily government, experts perhaps) dictate lists of terms that are "inoffensive", and people use them as a matter of prudence, rather than actual respect. This creates an artificiality that I'm sure can make some uncomfortable, but also can serve to mask real problems that should be confronted directly.

THAT is basic politeness. PC language, when the phrase is used in the context i used it refers to saying "african american" instead of "black", "alternative religion" instead of "occultism" and "political prisoner" instead of "captured terrorist"

"African-American," last I heard, is no longer in widespread use, since it was rather an awkward and inaccurate term. All of the black people I know personally refer to themselves as "black" and have no problem with me doing likewise. There may obviously be exceptions, but I've never met anyone who's actually found "black" an offensive term. If the black people I have met are the rule and not the exception, "black" is perfectly PC. Something doesn't have to sound silly to be PC; it simply has to be non-offensive. :)

I'm not personally familiar with the "alternative religion" versus "occultism" debate, if such debate exists, so I'll leave that for someone who knows better.

As for "political prisoner" versus "captured terrorist," that's generally more a case of plain old accuracy than political correctness. We do not call murder suspects "captured murderers;" we call them "murder suspects." Most of the prisoners in, say, Gitmo (which I suspect is what you're thinking of) are not "captured terrorists." They are, at worst, "captured suspected terrorists." Many aren't even that. Assuming you're American, we consider people to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; until such has taken place, calling an American citizen a "murderer" could be considered slander. Why on earth shouldn't we treat non-American citizens with the same basic respect and refuse to slander them?

Like I said before, "politically correct" is mostly just a longwinded and slightly silly way to say "polite and respectful of others." Some theoretically "politically correct" phrases are silly and are ignored, such as "vertically challenged," since no one (or at least no one I've ever encountered) finds "short" to be offensive in any way. Most are just ordinary, respectful things that you use every day. When you call someone "a black person" rather than "a darkie," you are being politically correct. When you call someone "mentally ill" rather than "fucking loonie-tunes," you are being politically correct. You just (I hope) don't notice, because you (I hope) don't want to use the non-PC term.

Like I said before, "politically correct" is mostly just a longwinded and slightly silly way to say "polite and respectful of others."

This is a strawman, as it has been mentioned that there is a difference between politeness and political correctness. Political correctness is often forced (as in unnatural, artificial) and seems to me to be awkward and very close to alienating the person it is meant to be inoffensive to.

The reasoning you're assuming was there serves to further degrade my faith in humanity at large.

Please don't misrepresent my position - I very clearly stated that I was not in a position to determine their reasoning, but that that seemed to be possible.

That said, you also shouldn't let it degrade your faith in humanity at large, but rather your faith in college administators, who frequently make decisions for extremely crappy reasons. The undergraduate college I attended abolished all on-campus health care facilities a few years ago, despite the fact that the nearest hospital is over thirty minutes away, largely because (this was their actual stated reasoning) they were worried someone might eventually accidentally die despite said medical facilities, and then they could get sued, whereas if they legally disclaim all responsibility for students' health in advance, it's not their fault. In other words, they were happy to increase the risk of student death, provided they decreased the risk of getting sued over it. Charming, no?